Talk:List of Hazara tribes

tanoli is not trib of hazara
there is no relation between the Hazara tribe of Afghanistan and the Tanolis of the Hazara region in Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adilkhantanoli (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually this is not strictly true. The Tanolis of Hazara region og Pakhtunkhwa are divided into many groups: the people of Tanawal who were alreaday in that area before the arrival of Tanaolies from across the Indus River i.e. Mahaban Mountains. These people came to be called Tanoli purely because they are resident in the areas later to be known as Tanawal - the origin of these people is mixed i.e. Awans, Abbassis, Gujjars etc. Second come the ruling tribe and those who came with them being a collection of tribes and clans originating in Turkic, Mughals, Afghans and Hazaras from Ghazni and regions contigous to it.It must be remembered that along with Swatis the Tanaolies crossed the Indus and unseated the ruling elite of Karlugh Turks, a Turkic/Hazara people. Some of these people stayed and were Pashtunised and are now within the fold of Pashtun tribal structure. Those people who identify themselves with Tanoli surname, in Hazara as well as in Karachi, are in fact not part of Tanaoli background but of original Hindki people without link to thje great Tanaoli tribes who are Afghans and resident in Hazara, Ghazni, northeastern Iran etc. and known as Tani, Taniwal, Tanavoli, Daulatzais etc. Moarrikh (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The list is wrong, that is what i think. How can it be that Hazaras are descendants and comprise of EVERY clan of the Turks and Mongols? Logic defies this. The Turks of Afghanistan remain as Turks in the form of Uzbek, Moghol, etc, and do not consider themselves Hazara. How can the Hazara constitute of such tribes like the Keraites and Tatars who never came to this region? And speaking of Karluks, they went to India with the armies of Babur, or mixed with the local Pashtuns and were forgotten by history (as it goes in my family history).Grape khan (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Hazara tribes. 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/20110326023345/http://boozers.fortunecity.com/jerusalem/47/History/history.html to http://boozers.fortunecity.com/jerusalem/47/History/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131122040846/http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/665/1/443.htm to http://eprints.hec.gov.pk/665/1/443.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110326023345/http://boozers.fortunecity.com/jerusalem/47/History/history.html to http://boozers.fortunecity.com/jerusalem/47/History/history.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:38, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Mongolic and Turkic ethnic components
Removing sources is against the WP:RS, WP:CONS & WP: WAR rules. According WP:RSPRIMARY, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere". "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". No need to change Mongolian origin to Turkic. According to the prominent turkologist Balkis Karmysheva "there are no special studies, reasonable statements, giving grounds to dispute the Mongolian origin of the Barlas" (in original: "нет ни специальных исследований, ни более обоснованного высказывания, дающих основание оспаривать монгольское происхождение барласов"). According to the orientalist Ilya Petrushevsky, the term Turks in Persian sources has not so much ethnic as social and everyday character. The Turks in Persian sources can mean both Mongol-speaking and even Tibetan cattle-breeding tribes. According to him: "It can be argued, with a high degree of probability, that the barlas were Mongol-speaking, and not Türkic-speaking" (in original: "Можно утверждать, с большой долей вероятности, относительно ряда племен — татар, кераитов, найманов, джалаиров, сулдузов, барласов, меркитов, ойратов, — что в XIII в. они были монголоязычны, а не тюркоязычны") .--KoizumiBS (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * M.A.H.T.P, I suggest discussing all the changes on the talk page. I also ask you to use only reliable secondary sources (see WP:RSPRIMARY) and provide accurate quotes to avoid the edit wars.--KoizumiBS (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

complete
Is it complete list?--Kaiyr (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of information
Basharatdihinda please don't start an edit war and follow the rules described in WP:NPV and WP:CONS. The information you remove has links to sources. Removing text without explanation is a gross violation of the rules. If you continue to delete information without a reasoned explanation, I will be forced to contact the administrators.--KoizumiBS (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hamkar 99, deleting text with sources is destructive editing. Please read the rules WP:NPV, WP:CONS. Citations added to sources. All sources are available online. Please don't start an edit war.--KoizumiBS (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Genetic
No complete genetic research has been performed on all Hazaras and their tribes.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sources are available on the Internet. Some of them you can find here. Please do not write your personal opinions, rely only on reliable sources during the discussion.--KoizumiBS (talk) 19:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But no genetic research has been done on all Hazara people and their tribes. And all the Hazara tribes are not of the same origin.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just quoting sources, reliable sources.--KoizumiBS (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So the information is poor and needs to be edited and deleted.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is your personal opinion, not based on sources.--KoizumiBS (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not my personal opinion. We should not accuse each other of this being your personal opinion. I said this based on the content of the article.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We have no right to draw our own conclusions. Check out with the rules in WP:OR, WP:RS.--KoizumiBS (talk) 20:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is my own conclusion. This is not a reason to accuse each other instead of answering.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, this is a violation of the rules. See rules from WP:OR: "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves". "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". Unlike you, I cite data from sources that are reliable and academic. And in the future, I also intend to use only such sources.--KoizumiBS (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * But your editing did not reach a general consensus. This is just your claim. I do not know what kind of sources you are referring to.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 22:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I write not what I want, but what is written in sources. Sources are listed in the article.--KoizumiBS (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You did not answer my questions to reach a consensus.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My answer is simple - adding data from reliable sources is not a violation of the rules. But removing them is a violation.--KoizumiBS (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I add information only from reliable sources. For example Sabitov - population geneticist, PhD.--KoizumiBS (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * We do not have to include any information in Wikipedia articles. There must be a general consensus.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I cannot accept that you remove information from reliable sources. However, I do not mind if you supplement the article with new information based on academic and reliable sources.--KoizumiBS (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I added an exact source, I hope you agree.--Hamkar 99 (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I cannot agree to the deletion of information from reliable sources. Such changes are in violation of the rules prescribed in WP:NPV.--KoizumiBS (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Hamkar 99, please explain why you consider my edits are incorrect and pan-Mongolian. I consider your accusations are unfounded. And the accusation of pan-Mongolism is generally a violation of the WP:CIV. Look at what sources and what authors I refer to. Sabitov and Zhabagin - population geneticists, PhD, both from Kazakhstan. Hassan Poladi - author of Hazara descent. Temirkhanov - Soviet scientist. Please note that I did not add Mongolian authors. All the authors I have added are neutral and objective.--KoizumiBS (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hazara tribes
I removed the section about the racial origin of the Hazaras, because this is just a list of the Hazara tribes, not research on their racial roots. The ethnic origin of the Hazara people consists of several relatives. That's why it's better to remind the list of Hazara tribes here. Jasoorth (talk) 18:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)