Talk:Dardic peoples

'''Read the Rajataringini the ancient epic of this area. No one can change the history of Aryavarta. Dards are an ancient original Aryan people. Who speak a Dardic language which originated from the proto-Aryan language from which Avestan and Sanskrit two twin languages evolved. You can not Semitize these people racially either by fraud.'''

What a joke. Dards are no people and neither are there any dardic languages, its just a fake identity. Zaffar.awan (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Dardic people.
Dardic is a language group and that is a loose one. Rather it is geographical categorization for those unrealted languages in the Northern Pakistan. How on earth has a person from north west of Pakistan has something to do with Brokpa people in India. Futhermore nobody knows the word Dardic and nobody identifies with Dardic. Imazharyes (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It is true that no one calls themselves Dard. A worse thing is classification of them as Indo-Aryans. They are of a very disputed origin and some of them claim to be descendants of Alexander the Great. If the Dardic page has to exist, it should not mention them as Indo-Aryans. Tariq Ahmed Bhat Kashmiri01 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

November 2019
Do not add original research. Read the policy properly, you cannot add made up content based on researches done on Kho people, Shina people and on different groups of Pakistan and write "Recent genetic studies identified the west Eurasian ancestral origin of Dardic people". Most sources doesn't even mention much about Dardic. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This sentence "However, no close genetic relationship of Shina was depicted with nearby residing Kho population group" which you took from the Shina article genetic source is only relevant to Shina. You cannot twist it by interchanging the word Shina with Dardic people like you did here. It is a blatant violation of original research. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

You mean if I just remove the line, "Recent genetic studies identified the west Eurasian ancestral origin of Dardic people" rest of this will be fine? Dardic is a linguistic term, not ethnicity and genetics prove this claim.


 * 2 lines :- "Recent genetic studies identified the west Eurasian ancestral origin of Dardic people.[8][9] However, no close genetic relationship was depicted among different Dardic speaking groups.[10]". Remove the whole section and move this :- "Dardic is not an ethnicity rather a linguistic term" to lead, but I cannot see any source here, only a google search. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the link looks dead. But this is working. https://books.google.com.pk/books/about/History_of_Northern_Areas_of_Pakistan.html?id=aPY8AAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y


 * Link the pages please. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I found it. page 43. Not fully visible though. Snippets are avoided in Wikipedia. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have added the linguistic part as discussed with attribution to the author. Thanks for the link. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

On a side note, the book is written by Dani, but this chapter is by Prof. Fussman
 * As you can see, this is the problem with using snippet views. I've corrected that. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Cheers :)

I see you've reverted my changes on the article about Burusho people saying both Pashtun and Burusho samples were analysed (Though the mentioning of Pashtuns there was unnecessary and people use such text for racist purposes, to display that they are racial superior). Here I'd added the research in which Kashmiri, Shina, and Khowar samples were analysed and you removed my edits. I don't understand why. Not to mention these three groups form the majority (so-called) Dardic population.


 * OK, I'll remove the mention of Pashtun from Burusho article, but the study, I'll keep as reference which supports the content that Burushos do not possess Greek admixture. It was added by me many years ago because of edit warriors who were POV pushing both Pashtun and Burusho in that article. As for this article, I've explained that combining multiple researches on different ethnic groups and making it look like it is from the whole Dardic group is "original research". Not to mention, good articles do not keep genetics for example see this featured article Taiwanese indigenous peoples. Articles like Russians, Germans, Bulgarians etc got the genetics part removed, with some moved to a separate article. Note: Do not add genetic research on Kashmiri, Punjabi, Sindhi articles because there were discussions and consensus against such inclusion few years ago. Racist people are dumb, they'll always conclude something stupid out of genetics. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)