Talk:Burusho people

Let us upgrade

For the year 2006-07, let us concentrate on upgrading the contents as decided: Wales to upgrade quality of Wiki. Thanks. --Bhadani 03:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I meant please expand the contents. --Bhadani 14:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Claim of Longevity

Is there any independent verification of the claim of "longevity" among the Hunza? Given their location, it seems unlikely that there are any accurate records of births and deaths. In any event, it seems rather disingenuous to accept such a claim at face value without sourcing any research on the subject. Michael Hopcroft 03:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur and have removed it from the article. There is, as far as I can tell, no independent confirmation of a longer lifespan in the Hunza people, and the idea of one seems to have been propagated by certain individuals involved in selling alternative 'medicines' based on properties of their environment. -Interested2 20:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sajjad Hyder

hey gentelman , this is sajjad hyder from Ganish Village of Hunza Valley, The claim of Longevity in Hunzais correct and I can refer you a book and a documented movie about Long Life: in Hunza which is written and made by some British Doctors in late 60s.

But now I agree for what you said: we can hardly find a person who lives over 90 years: because of sudden deaths in current era, specialy young people ages between 25-50 within the last couople of years rasing drasticly,

Infact I am planing of making a documentary about the threats of Longevity in Hunza, if you have any further information please send it to me. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjadhunzai (talk • contribs) 17:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible origin of Hunza people

The Burusho or Hunzakuts (Hunza people) are claiming that they are descendants of the soldiers from the army of Alexander the Great from Macedonia, which inhabited these regions during Alexander's campaign through Asia. Hunza people do not have any asian characteristics and their appearance is very similar to the current inhabitants of the Balkans. The sun and the lion are one of their identity symbols. These few facts that connect the Hunza people to the Antient Macedonians. Ilija Casule holder of Ph.D. in linguistics and an Associate Professor at the Macquarie University in Australia has done a lot of research in the Burushaski language. He has proven the genetic affiliation to the Ancient Macedonian language (Indo-European). Also there are many word that are the same with the current Macedonian language —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.djinevski (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hunza language is not Indo-European like áncient macedonian'and also DNA tests disprove any nonsensical "links" between Greeks/Macedonians and Hunza. I even provided a link —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.116.222 (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

PS-appearance to another people like Balkans means nothing. it's genetics that counts.-99.225.116.222 (talk) 06:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment

I have put some refereneces about the origin of the Hunza. The Prince MIR said himselv thet they are Macedonians, so there are two texts about their visit in Macedonia and there is one video. Do not remove it. Regards!--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply knew this would happen since I first read they were coming to the Republic. Please, provide reliable sources for their origin and do not speculate with the term Ancient Macedonian. --Laveol ^T 08:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thet republic is MACEDONIA. The Prince itself said thet! Reliable enough.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm a certified descendant of Alexander the Great (from Egypt) and I'll be removing it. 3rdAlcove (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm, too. I claim it - end of discussion. Seriously, provide reliable sources - anyone can claim such nonsense. --Laveol ^T 13:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

He is prince, not some guys from EAST or SOUTH. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, it's a guy from the far far east, then. Again, seriously, have you got any reliable sources? As I said anyone can claim he's the prince of Ancient California, but does this mean anything to the rest of the world? I wrote an article from a scientist from RoM and even he finds this artificial worshipping laughable. --Laveol ^T 14:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have improved the article a litle, with more reliable sources and without political, nationalistic or propagandistic elements! Jingby (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to Jingiby for improving the section. Still, you've got to wonder: is every other tribe in South Asia "descended from Alexander the Great's armies"? I suppose these references can stay since they're explicitly called "legends". 3rdAlcove (talk) 16:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You cannot unrderstand obviously! Read something else besides the Wiki articles!--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If thet tribe is meaningless, then why so called government of Greece has opened Greek cultural centre there? Do not say stupid things please! You shoud know more about thet!--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, please, tell us, what exactly we don't understand. We asked for reliable sources - you haven't provided any. How could we understand? And what do you want us to understand? --Laveol ^T 17:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

>I gave you sourced where he says thet he is Macedonian and it is very well know thet he is a Prince. It is very simple to be understood. I dont see any problems in understanding this. If you wqant to ask him personally, thet come in Macedonia and ask the Prince and the Princess. I do not know what to say further!--MacedonianBoy (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand Laveol: wiki doesn't care about their opinion. Jingiby made the right corrections and renamed all possible connections to Legend with a short genetics sentence about actual "possible genetic links". That's a fair treatment, don't you think? 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning about possible discretionary sanctions under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to the Balkans if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Final decision. — This is a general warning applicable to all editors of this article; please do not remove it from this talk page.  Sandstein  07:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK, WP:FRINGE, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTABLE nonsense

The stuff about the Hunza "Prince" visiting RoM is WP:COATRACK and WP:FRINGE nonsense. The whole thing was just a silly publicity stunt by the Gruevski government, and is total WP:COATRACK when inserted in this article. If you must insert it into wikipedia, it would belong to an article on the Gruevski government, and even then it would probably violate WP:RECENT and WP:NOTABLE. Wikipedia works on reliable sources, and only reliable sources. Consequently, it is irrelevant whether "The Prince" thinks he is descended from the ancient Macedonians. The only thing that matter is whether academic, scholarly sources think that they are. To my knowledge, there is not a single serious scholar out there who supports this view. The stuff about the Burusho language being related to Macedonian Slavic is also patent nonsense, as Burusho is not even an Indo-European language, let alone a Slavic one. If you can so much as find a single, serious scholar who does, please provide the in-line citation and feel free to include it in the article. Broken (and hence unverifiable) links to the Financial Times about unnamed professors in Australia will not do. Only scholarly, academic sources are acceptable, with in-line citations provided. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

REMOVAL OF SOURCED MATERIAL

Dear Tsourkpk and other editors,

First of all, I still can't understand why you don't understand the point. But since I see you are editors from Greece and Bulgaria, it's clear like a day that you do NOT want to understand the point. Although I think this is unnecessary and ineffective, I am going to explain you step by step:

1. Burushaski language - The article states that Burushaski is a language isolate which can be said it's true since at least until 12 years ago no scholar had classified the language, BUT Mr. Ilija Chasule, a linguist and professor at Macquarie University, Australia has spent the last 12 years in exploring the language and made several scientific publications proving that the language could be classified as Indo-European and claimed to have recognised similarities with ancient Balkan languages and also presented a list of many Burushaski words ahich are completely the same as the Macedonian words for the same objects and are mainly used only by ethnic Macedonian and not by other Slavic people. Mr. Chashule's explanation was that maybe these words originate from the old Balkan languages or maybe even from the language of the Ancient Macedonians. This theory is logical due to the fact that these words are really used only in the Republic of Macedonia and not in other Slavic countries. I am aware that being a Greek or Bulgarian citizen, these facts sound sad or funny to you, but I must admit they sounded funny to me, too til I watched a TV program showing books comparing the words and even the commentator comparing the words with the local people in far Pakistan. I have provided you with reliable sources of the scientific researches of Mr. Chashule published in reliable and recognised Asian scientific publications. Since I knew you would comment Mr. Chashule's origin, I have also added a reference to critics made by an independent scientist. As I said many, many times, I don't claim that the language is really Indo-European etc. otherwise I would write that. The statement that the Burushaski is a language isolate remains, but Wikipedia users have the right to know that some reliable and scientific researches have been made which claimed to have proved the contrary and of course I have souced it very well according to Wikipedia standards. Removing of the sourced material is NOT allowed.

2. Burusho people origins - I have never written these people are descendants of Alexander the Great, of Ancient Macedonians or ethnic Macedonians. What I wrote is what these people only claim and state and sourced their statements. For example, residents of Nikola Gruevski's grandfather's village state he was Greek, Krste Misirkov stated he was Bulgarian in his diary etc. These statements are written in their articles and sourced. They don't state someone was Greek or Bulgarian, but only state the claims of somebody. The same goes here. This article is about a people living in Pakistan and it's a stub! All additional information on these people are welcome! And the feelings of these people, especially of their leaders are more than relevant, important, you can even say interesting or funny, but they are a fact. Once again, read what I say: "their claims are a fact" NOT "their Macedonian origin is a fact" and it is sourced with reliable sources which only transfer their statements. Their removing is also NOT allowed.

3. Princess and Prince's visit to the Republic of Macedonia - The information on their visit is connected to the previous statement. Most of their claims were said during their visit to the country and this visit which was official and covered even by foreign (including Greek) media is very important for these people and their feeling and are especially welcome here. Their visit and short statements are also sourced with independent and reliable sources. Their removing is also NOT allowed.

I hope you understand the concept now. Be aware that all the statements and sources are in accordance with Wikipedia rules and if you continue to brake it, I will be forced to ask an independent administrator to solve this problem in a Wikipedia and not a Balkan way and to punish the violators. Thank you for your understanding! Dimitar2007 (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The hypothesis of Aromanian Chashule is mentioned in the Article about the Burshuashki language along with other different hypothesisses. Britannica is enough here. Regards! Jingby (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1 Please provide the name, issue, and page number of the "reliable and recognised Asian scientific publications". An in-line citation is also necessary in order for the material to be verifiable. In order for material to qualify as sourced, it must be verifiable, not just because some editor claims it is sourced. So far as I can tell, your claim is not verifiable, therefore it does not qualify as sourced. The first source you provide makes no mention of Slavic Macedonian, the second is from a dubious "Central Asiatic Journal", and the third is a review, but not the article itself. Please also be aware that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources".

2&3 Since you're so into rules, please look into WP:COATRACK, WP:RECENT, and WP:NOTABLE. All three apply here. The section you have inserted is total WP:COATRACK, as it is solely intended to push the fringe theory that somehow Slavic Macedonians are descended from the ancient Macedonians.

Lastly, instead of threatening editors ("I will be forced...to punish the violators"), please be aware that material that is not verifiable cannot be inserted in an article until the discussion is resolved, and not the other way around. The burden of proof is on you, to prove that your sources are reliable and verifiable, so until such time as you do so, I have no choice but to revert. --Tsourkpk (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear editors,

Please, listen to me, I mean, read carefully what I say:

I do NOT claim these people are Macedonians nor I claim the research of the linguist really proves that their language is related to Paleo-Balkan languages or the modern Macedonian (Slavic) language. I claim that these people claim what they claim and I also claim that a scientist claims what he claims. Is this so extraordinary? I shouldn't have even inserted the scientific publications as sources, an independent newspaper would be enough here! Because look at the sentence carefully:

The Burusho language Burushaski is an isolated language isolate, i.e. not related to any known language, although THERE HAVE BEEN MADE MANY RESEARCHES AND STUDIES, one of the most important made by an Australian linguist, who CLAIMED to have recognised the language as an Indo-European language and showed the existence of many common words with the Macedonian language, which are not used in other Balkan or European Slavic languages

The only thing I have to prove here is that such a research has really been made and that such a person really claimed that. A reliable source for this is only an independent newspaper article as it is simply news which could be really positive for Wikipedia readers as they will be informed of the development of the exploration of this language and some of the readers who are linguists may in future contribute to this research and maybe approve or deny the claims of Mr. Chashule and other linguists. BUT IF I WROTE:

The Burusho language Burushaski WAS CONSIDERED an isolated language isolate, i.e. not related to any known language UNTIL AN AUSTRALIAN LINGUIST PROVED IT TO BE INDO-EUROPEAN AND RELATED TO MODERN MACEDONIAN LANGUAGE

THEN the situation would be different and impossible to prove by someone who is not a linguist. The situation with the current text is clear and does not need any investigation processes.

I have spent more than an hour reading all the details of WP:COATRACK, WP:RECENT and WP:NOTABLE and did not find an issue here. Let us look once again at the text:

However, Burusho people still CLAIM they are Macedonian descendants and also CLAIM connection to ethnic Macedonians from the Republic of Macedonia. In July 2008, Prince Ghazanfar Ali Khan and his wife Princess Rani Atiqa MADE AN OFFICIAL VISIT to the Republic of Macedonia, SAYING they are in their fatherland after 23 centuries and DESCRIBING the local cultural customs as very similar to theirs.

These people can claim they are the first people who came from Mars. It's their right to claim whatever they want no matter how funny it sounds to someone. The claims of Hunza people are serious and important for the readers. Readers have the right to know what they say. Readers can also look at the scientific records of their origin and made their own conclusion. The only things I have to prove here is that these people really claim such things, that the prince with his wife really made an official visit to the Republic of Macedonia and that they really said and described something. This is easy as all of their statement can still be found in many local and international (including Greek) newspapers. For example, Mr. Karamanlis said he was Macedonian, that is published on Wikipedia and there is no need to prove whether he is really Macedonian or from Macedonia, only to prove that he indeed said something like that. BUT IF I WROTE:

Burusho people ARE Macedonian descendants and CONNECTED to ethnic Macedonians from the Republic of Macedonia.

THEN I would have to spend the rest of my life on proving something which, in my opinion, cannot be proved or denied.

Lastly, I'm very sorry if I sounded like I wanted to threaten you. I would never threaten anyone, especially not you, my Greek and Bulgarian brothers (note that my great grandmother was born in Greece and one of my grandfathers lives in Pleven, Bulgaria). I just wanted to say that if you don't want to understand the logical connection (which I think now is clear) between the statements and the sources, i would be forced to invite someone to solve it and punish someone if he acts like he doesn't understand anything.

Once again, thank you for your understanding! Dimitar2007 (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Have we reached a consensus?

I agree with the current version of the article proposed by Jingiby, but however made very small corrections which I think made the article even more neutral and also corrected some of the sources. As of the language, I made a clear distinction between the claims and the researches made and inserted the scientific publications which could be useful for Wikipedia readers and as of the connection with ethnic Macedonians, I just entered a half sentence making it clear that these people weren't politically forced to establish a connection to ethnic Macedonians, but that their Prince and Princess wished that as they claimed at least 10 times many types of connection with the people of the Republic of Macedonia, which (the claims and statements) is sourced. That was also a perfect opportunity to mention that Burusho people have a prince and a princess and to write their names, which is more than relevant and welcome on an article which is a stub. Thank you for your understanding! Dimitar2007 (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Mitre, I think this second variant is more acceptable! Regards! Jingby (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Jingby, thank you for your efforts to improve the article and especially its neutrality. But I had to make small corrections and I think that the newest version is the most appropriate.

There is nothing unneutral and in this case it is even important to state that Burusho leaders claim a connection to ethnic Macedonians and that this was the main reason for visiting Macedonia. Stating it at least ten times in different places around Macedonia which is sourced makes it even obligatory to mention it. Once again, it's only a statement not a scientific claim and it's very important.

As of the language, we must divide the two researches as they are not connected and the results are different (so we cannot say "along with") and as of the first research by Chashule it must state "ancient Balkan languages (most notably ...) as his research was on all ancient Balkan languages and not only on these two. Otherwise the whole statement about the langauge researches would be wrong.

I think that this version is the best as it firstly give short and precise information on the language characteristics and researches and secondly gives neutral information on the claims of Hunza leaders which were crucial for such political move to occur in 2008. It may sound funny to someone, but that's the reality, these people said that.

Best regards, Dime (not Mitre, as it is used for older people in Macedonia, which I know is not the case in Bulgaria ;-)) Dimitar2007 (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

In Bulgaria we use Mitko for young people, sometimes Mitre! Jingby (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate source

The stuff about the "prince" and his visit to FYROM is not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. This individual is not an ethnographer or any other type of scholar, and his views on the subject are colorful at best, and utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia works with reliable, academic sources only. This is classic misuse of sources, and trying to pass off an unreliable source as a reliable one. As a result, I am removing the relevant from the article till such a time that reliable sources are used. --Tsourkpk (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It may mean nothing historically, but it may be relevant sociologically. I don't know how widespread this idea is among the Burusho. No more than among the Pashtuns, I would think. And it may simply have been politics. But as a social phenomenon, it may be relevant to the article on the people, even if it's not relevant to the article on the language (proto-Balkan BS). And by mentioning it along with the genetic data that shows it's not true, we address the issue of nationalists trying to claim this connection as valid. kwami (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

please do not remove rebiable sources

The myth that Hunza are 'related' to macedonians was not known until 12 years ago when macedonian visitors to the Hunza valley created it and the source provided explains it all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.116.222 (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You're the one adding unsourced opinions. If you have a reference for this, by all means add it. But claims that people are biased need evidence, not just your say-so. kwami (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I take that back. Sorry for my haste—we've had lots of nonsense written about this. Your sources are as good as the ones used for the other side. Maybe we can come up with a wording that more closely reflects the sources. kwami (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Legend?

I looked at the links. i cant seem to spot it. It's best this section of "legend" is specificly refferenced by adding a quote so everyone can see. Because until now i cant seem to find it. I really want to sort out this mess as soon as possible. Everybody's input is welcomed. I really think biased nationalistic propaganda is the last thing an encyclopedia needs.-99.225.116.222 (talk) 22:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

"Burusho legend claims that they descend ..." No need to quote it. It's just a summary of other sources anyway. kwami (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, a FT quote in case we put this back in: "The visit provides affirmation of our ties to the former Macedonia of Alexander the Great. Approval from these people confirms that the legacy of ancient Macedonia belongs to the Republic of Macedonia, not just to Greece."

POV deletions

Dimitar2007 is repeatedly deleting the negative comments from our source, blatantly putting a nationalist spin on this article, so I'll just delete the entire section. kwami (talk) 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kwami,

I really don't understand you. Do you see what you revert at all?

The FT quote that you give here has nothing to do with the edit I made. Even more, my edit on several words in the section has nothing to do with the neutrality of the section. What I deleted was a little misinformation saying that "opposition leaders and media ridiculed the visit and later appearances war canceled" which is totaly untrue and funny as their visit and later appearances were a top news and a deal for cooperation with the government was made. For all of these events I have other references, but no need to include them as we don't write anything about their later appearances.

I can't understand what the problem is. I wonder if you really see what the edits are about and what you revert. Dimitar2007 (talk) 00:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you cherry-picking the stuff you want to support your POV. We have two references from the Financial Times. I paraphrased material from the entire article. You then delete the stuff you don't like, even though it's as well sourced as the stuff you do like. Since I'm involved with this article, I won't block you myself, but I'm asking to have you blocked for edit warring. kwami (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Kwami,

I've already informed an administrator (the one that blocked me) about the case and asked him to review it as you don't seem to want to cooperate. I was all the time telling you "the grass is green", but you insist all the time saying "No, the sky is blue". Maybe you contribute too too much to Wikipedia and sometimes forget what you do or what you say or as a frequent contributor don't like critics and don't admit mistakes. That's actually your problem and it will be good to remain yours only and not of wikipedia. As of our problem here, the sentence I editied was:

'Though they were at first greeted by the prime minister and heads of the church, opposition leaders and local newspapers ridiculed the visit, and later appearances were canceled'

This is almost completely untrue.

1. I have never heard of an opposition leader ridiculing the visit nor I found something about it in the sources

2. Where did you read that local newspapers ridiculed the visit. God, they praised their visit ! I provided sources for that, too. Show me any citation saying that at least one Macedonian newspaper ridiculed the visit.

3. and the funniest thing 'their later appearances were canceled' Where the hell did it come from??? I provided sources not only proving the opposite, but also reporting enormously about their 'later appearances' The simple fact that there are sources about their later appearances proves that 'there were plenty of later appearances' If there weren't, why would we talk about this at all. Think logically!

And, as of the organizer, yes, a journalist was involved in the organisation but the formal organizer was the Macedonian Institute for Strategic Research (which I sourced). How stupid it sounds in an encyclopedic article "a journalist organized..." :)

All in all, I wonder if you really see what you revert. Reverting (not just editing) so fast makes me feel this. What is most stupid here is that we argue about something that none of the sides (Greek or Macedonian) argue. Greeks don't say the newspapers ridiculed the event or that the later appearances were canceled or who organized the visit. It's a fact they recognize. Instead of improving you worsen the situation.

So, if you wish to solve the problem, cooperate and be constructive. Don't tell me "I'm right" or "Read the sources yourself". Show me, prove me your claims are true. I've already shown you where you're 100% not right Dimitar2007 (talk) 01:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My reverts were not a critique of everything you wrote. I have no problem with you adding additional sourced statements, assuming of course they're reliable sources (I'm not making an accusation there: I haven't looked at them) and provided we're observing WP:Weight. (This is an article about the Burusho, not the Macedonian political scene.) My problem was in your deletions; in restoring them, your new stuff got deleted, as I'm not going to do your editing for you.

Here's the passage in question, cut & pasted:

But Mr Gruevski’s critics have dismissed the Hunza visit as shallow populism and after ridicule in local newspapers, the youth and sport agency cancelled the princely couple’s planned appearance in Skopje’s main square last night.[1]

It's right in the middle of the article. Perhaps the papers you read contained nothing but praise, but our source is the Financial Times. kwami (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, since you're engaged here at Talk, I just reverted the protection level. kwami (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my, my ...

So far, I haven't met so ridiculous person...

As of WP:Weight it is you that started all the problems. For months there was no problem at all with this article. There was only one sentence about the Hunza claims and visit and nobody reverted it. Since you came, not only the problems have started, but they also seem to be growing!

As of the opposition leaders, I don't know where FT found that someone from the opposition parties ridiculed the visit. But, knowing the Macedonian opposition, like every opposition, tries to undervalue whatever done by the government. However, no official statement has so far taken place from opposition officials.

As of the local newspapers, I've already proved that local newspapers not only didn't ridiculed the visit, but they praised it. It is about the local newspapers we talk, not FT.

As of their later appearances, I'm not sure about that appearance in Skopje, but how can you claim that all later appearances were canceled, when even FT mentions only one! What about the plenty of other appearances that took place in other places (Ohrid, Galichnik, Prilep, Bitola ...) and were covered by the media (not ridiculed). I also provided sources for that in English.

I feel like explaining things to a young kid who seems to be hardly understanding.

So, having all in mind (weight, opposition, newspapers and later appearances), I agree with the edit made by Cukiger. We should mention only the government and opposition stands to give a balance to the sentence and exclde the 'the newspapers' and 'the later appearances' which seem to be controversial to you (although well sourced and not controversial to anyone else).

Thanks if you understand. Dimitar2007 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Dimitar, please stop with your Macedono - Pakistanian Identity complex, this is sadly. Jingby (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. This is pathetic. If a visit is worth mentioning, a visit canceled due to opposition is worth mentioning. I'm not the one who expanded this from one sentence, but if you were happy about that, I suggest we return to one sentence.

Anyway, since you haven't given any rational reason for your edits, apart from the belief that anyone who disagrees with you is ridiculous and childish (and the "most" ridiculous person you've ever met at that—you must meet a lot of "most" ridiculous people!), I've restored the more balanced version, but corrected of the error you pointed out. But as I said before, and it looks like you might agree, I'd be just as happy to delete the whole silly thing. kwami (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Your absurdity seems to be endless. When Mr. Clinton visited Macedonia in 1999 several appearances were canceled. Does it according to you mean that Clinton didn't visit Macedonia or that mentioning his canceled appearances are as worth mentioning as his visit???

If we mention the one 'later appearance' that was canceled, we would have to mention all the other appearances that took place whose number is huge. So, as I've arleady said, the best version is the one of Cukiger, only mentioning the government and opposition stands, nothing else. Dimitar2007 (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you learn basic social skills. Start with WP:No personal attacks. kwami (talk) 21:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

removed section

Three Macedonian editors now refuse to report both sides of the Financial Times article, that the Macedonian government rolled out the red carpet for the Hunza visit, and that the opposition dismissed the visit as populism, and some local papers ridiculed it. User:Cukiger deleted the latter, saying "not true, i've been in macedonia at that time. We can have both or neither, but not just the side you like".

It's not our job to decide what is true. See WP:Truth. It's our job to be balanced in our coverage. How Cukiger can believe that deleting one out of two POVs results in balance, while including both POVs results in just one, is frankly beyond my comprehension. Since he said "We can have both or neither", but refuses to accept both, I've decided on neither, and have deleted the section and pasted it below. As previous editors have said on this talk page, this fringe idea is a matter of Macedonian politics and is nearly irrelevant to the Burusho. At the time I had defended its inclusion as being of social interest, but I cannot defend it if people refuse to accept balanced coverage per our sources. kwami (talk) 22:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hunza and Macedonia

Burusho legend maintains that they descend from the village of Baltir, which had been founded by a soldier left behind from the army of Alexander the Great—a legend common to much of Afghanistan and northern Pakistan. In 1996 an ex-patriate Macedonian linguist attempted to demonstrate a link between Burushaski and the Macedonian language, and told the Hunza about the modern state of Macedonia. His proposed linguistic connection has not been accepted by other linguists, and genetic evidence only supports a Balkan genetic component in the Afghan Pashtun, not the Burusho. Nonetheless, in 2008 the Republic of Macedonia organized a visit by Hunza Prince Ghazanfar Ali Khan and Princess Rani Atiqa as descendants of the Alexandran army. They were greeted by the prime minister and heads of the church, but the opposition dismissed the visit as populism. This political support of a connection with the Hunza parallels Greek relations with the neighboring Kalash people of Pakistan, who also claim Alexandran ancestry. The issue may thus have more to do with nationalism and the Macedonia naming dispute than with the Burusho themselves. Although any Balkan connection would appear to be spurious, ... [moved to intro]

[end of section]

Kwami, you change your stands from edit to edit.

First, you claimed all later appearances were cancelled, then you agreed that actually only one was cancelled. OK. So, mentioning one appearance cancelled is absurd, as then to be balanced we'll have to mention about 10-20 other that took place in many cities. So, per balance and weight we'd better not mention anything about it.

First, you claimed all local newspapers ridiculed the visit, now you say "some". I proved that all of them (especially the biggest) not only didn't ridicule but praised it. In this case and again per weight we'd better not include that.

What you ask all the time is balance. Yes, we now have it. Mentioning the opposition leaders made by Cukiger and mentioning the government stands briefly. And it's enough. balanced, sourced, per wp:weight and without controversial content.

I'm reverting that version which is the most acceptable. Thank you for you understanding!

P.S. No one agreed on deletion. You've probably misunderstood Cukiger or acted like vandal. We'd better stop here with that version. Dimitar2007 (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I may have made some mistakes in wording or interpretation, but you're not correcting my mistakes, you're deleting the contrasting POV. The point is simple: Our FT source does not say that the opposition accused the govt. of trying to score political points, but that they dismissed the entire visit. There's a substantial difference between scoring points off of a legitimate event, and organizing an illegitimate event—the opposition is alleging the latter. As for the cancellation, that appears to have been due to opposition criticism, not just a scheduling problem. You appear to be pushing the govt. line, and that is not our job. Since the FT reports the two sides of the debate, and we are using the FT as a source, we also need to report the two sides of the debate. Maybe we can come to some mutual understanding here on this talk page, so we're not engaged in a pointless revert war? This material can only be included if it's balanced, as it is WP:fringe and it could easily be argued that it should not appear in the article at all.

I would also appreciate it if you did not take our argument here to other articles like Guangzhou dialect. I cleaned up that article somewhat, and what you reverted to is not only bad English, but an inappropriate use of the English word "Cantonese", which Newzebras does not understand since he appears to be translating from Cantonese. If I were to move Republic of Macedonia to Republic of Skopje, replaced all instances of "Macedonia" with "Skopje Macedonia", and contrasted it with the "real" Macedonia, wouldn't you object that was inappropriate? (I agree with you on your dispute at the Macedonia dab page, BTW.) That's what you're doing with Guangzhou dialect, and I would appreciate it if you would revert yourself. kwami (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

If you so much want to solve this problem, why do you only revert to your version instead of proposing solutions. It's so easy as we all agree that only the government and opposition stands should be mentioned shortly. Let's write this: 'They were welcomed by the prime minister and other government officials, while the opposition disregarded the visit.' and that's it.

As of the organizer, I provided a reliable source that the Macedonian Institute for strategic research was the main organizer along with the journalist. You mustn't have reverted that, too. Both should be mentioned and the source added. Dimitar2007 (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I revert to my version because you delete sourced info to create a biased article. If you want to add the MISR as organizer, fine. However, the opposition didn't "disregard" the visit, they claimed it was a populist ploy. I think it's important to show that not everyone accepted it as legitimate even within Macedonia.

(I deleted the word 'journalist' because it really doesn't matter who organized it, and no-one will know who the MISR are anyway, not unless you have a Wikipedia article to link them to.) kwami (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dimitar, since you are refusing to allow both sides of the story, per your deletion just now of the opposition dismissal of the visit, it is clear to me that you are not interested in improving Wikipedia, but only in pushing your agenda. Other editors have long complained that this topic is both fringe (pseudoscience) and not relevant to the article, and for the most part I agree. I was willing to humor this as a bit of cultural trivia as long as you were willing to be balanced, but since you are not, I will not allow the Macedonian nonsense in the article. I'm sorry if Greece is being moronic about recognizing your country, but that really is irrelevant here. kwami (talk) 13:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I didn't delete the other side. It remains. I just deleted the controversial statement that the newspapers ridiculed the visit which I sourced it was not true and the ridiculous adding of that appearance cancelled. As I said, plenty of other appearances happened and were praised by all newspapers but since this is controversial to you, I agree to delete everything about the newspapers and that one and all the later appearances, but I also agree to enter the opposition criticizing the event. It's balanced and I don't see any problems now. Dimitar2007 (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

From my POV, the opposition side was gutted. How can you say it's "controversial", when it's almost a direct quote from our source? What is your source that it's controversial? (No, I don't mean just sources covering the visit: we have two POVs here.) Presumably we could say "opposition newspapers", but the point remains. It appears that the sports & youth agency canceled an appearance in the main square because of the opposition: after ridicule in local newspapers, the youth and sport agency cancelled the princely couple’s planned appearance in Skopje’s main square. I assume that the agency is part of the govt? If so, it would be significant that they responded that way to the opposition. I agree that we really don't need a list of papers which supported it and which ridiculed it, or a list of appearances, but if appearances were canceled because of the ridicule, that says something important about the perception of the visit in Macedonia. kwami (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

So far I haven't found a single, I repeat a single newspaper ridiculing the visit and provided sources that the main newspapers (including free and opposition newspapers) praised the visit. FT is not so reliable source for this to take it for granted. If you so much insist to include something about 'the newspapers', than I will include plenty of other sources about the many other newspapers prasing the visit calling the Hunza visitors Macedonians in their fatherland. But that's too much! So , as I said 100 times, let's leave it!

As of the cancelled event, I haven't found any prove it really happened. But if you insist putting it here mentioning the the government did something because of the opposition, than I'll include a sourced text about an opposition mayor welcoming the guests in one of the towns of their visit which will then prove that not all oppositioners agreed with the 'opposition leaders'. That's too much, too, we must leave it.

The sentence as it is now is the best and balanced. Actually the balance is already achieved stating the Greek relations with Kalash. Should I now search for opposition on that relations inside Greece to be that balanced, too???

Seriously, let's stop here. The current version is a good compromise. Dimitar2007 (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking it was pretty close to go too, but wanted your actual reasons for repeatedly reverting. I thought perhaps you had just read two papers that happened to support the visit. If you've really reviewed a lot of the coverage, then I have no problem removing that bit.

Restored. I've tried completely unprotecting, in the hopes that this is good enough for the anon. IPs out there too. kwami (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Section needs renaming

Instead of mentioning Macedonia and giving readers a flase impression of a macedonian 'connection' they should revert the title to origins of the Hunza and also re-insert the genetic composision that mentiones Hunza have similar genes to the rest of the population(s) in the Pakistan region. Because you know there are many theories about the burusho and their language such as the dene caucasian theory that links them to the people of the caucasious. You know Georgians, Chechens. However genetics seem to show they are as Pakistani as Sindhis or Punjabis or others which ofcourse should also be mentioned. -99.225.114.240 (talk) 02:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd make that a separate section. There isn't any serious claim that the Burusho are descendants of Macedonia. That's a political issue, not a biological one. kwami (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

DNA data

The added reference do not provide data about the presence of J-M12(M102) or E-M78 lineages as a subsequent diffusion of people from the southern Balkans by the Burusho people. Please, point the text you have used to show as your conclusion. Thank you. Jingby (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

HUNZA-HUNGARIAN ties

I post some interesting source on Hunzakuts being related to Hungarians. Would any one kindly help me on this please.West Bank Boy (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

It's called pseudoscience, and it has no place in an encyclopedia. You could just as well say that the people of Hunan and Huntington Beach are related to Hungarians because those names start with "hun" too. kwami (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon but what's makes you claim it's a pseudoscience? And your claim about Hunan and Hunting Beach related to Hungarians comment is wrong. Those people of Hunza are decendent of asiatic Huns, look at those people and see if they look Pakistani at all, you can see they are whites. And they speak similar words which is similar to Hungarian, they practice their tradition that is similar to Hungarian culture. As far as i know the "white Huns" use to occupied that area and their people settled there. Have you read that website about Hunzakuts? If you havent but claiming it a pseudoscience then your totally wrong. It's not pseudoscience at all.West Bank Boy (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Revert blanking by anonymous user

I reverted an edit by an anonymous user identified as vandalism. He deleted a whole sentence including the source, in “The Hunza and Macedonia” section, considering DNA research on Hunza people and their actual relation with the Sinte Romani Gypsies and not with the ethnic Macedonian citizens of the Republic of Macedonia. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I just looked at the Wells 2005 paper, and I don't think the information is worth reporting (or at least, not the way it is):

1) The bootstrap values and lengths of the internal branches in the figure 2 of the paper are rather low, so the relationships are not very well supported.

2) If I'm correct, there are no other populations from Pakistan in the study. Chances are that Hunza Y chromosome haplotype frequencies would be more similar to other populations from Pakistan than to Romani.

It is true, however, that the tree contains both Hunza and Macedonians, and that Hunza do not seem particularly related to Macedonians on this tree.

--130.192.50.83 (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A while later but I think I removed the same thing here [2]. The specific detail is already mentioned earlier in the article. I don't see any need to repeat it here, basically a form of WP:Syn, as the source from 2001 almost definitely doesn't address an event in 2008. If people are interested in the actual genetic relationship between the Burusho people and other people, they would likely read the relevent section. The Macedonia section already mentions it's been criticised as pseudoscience etc. I would note as it stands, our article doesn't actually mention any claimed relation between the Macedonian people and the Burusho people, rather it says the Macedonians welcomed them as descendents of the Alexandrian army. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Language

Do they also know Urdu and/or English apart of their native Burushaski and nearby spoken Khowar? 85.250.220.3 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Burusho people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121105133544/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-15474302.html to http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-15474302.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burusho people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161010213116/http://hunza.co/category/humans-of-hunza to http://hunza.co/category/humans-of-hunza

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Areas with significant population

Exactly what percentage of population makes it a significant proportion? The source clearly says that in the past there were only 350 Hunza people living in J&K and all those descent from one family. Why is it necessary to mention them as inhabitants of India when there is not even latest statistics about their number?