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

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)