Talk:Khalaj people

"one of the closest languages to Old Turkic"

The fact that Khalaj preserves some archaic features does not mean that it is one of the closest modern languages to Old Turkic. This is like the case of Modern South Arabian which is not closer to Proto-Semitic in contrast to Standard Arabic, although it preserves several archaic features and Arabic does not. You also have to define Old Turkic; If you refer to the language of the Gokturks, that language is closest to the language of the Uyghurs, if one overlooks heavy Arabic and Persian influence (Which is by the way much stronger in Khalaj).حضرت محمود (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Kalaj doesn't mean stay hungry

"Kal aç" has two meanings. One is stay hungry (but there is a grammatical error in there, it should've been "aç kal" if it meant to say stay hungry). The other, and the true, meaning is stay and open. I can assure you that second one is true. I read it in Oghuz Khan legend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.189.4 (talk) 15:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

User:HarvardKing reverting my edits

Claiming "falsely reverted information", while he putted this, and says "They can be classified as Persian people as well, due to becoming largely Persianized in the mid 20th century and also identifying as such.", while the source does not mention anything like this, which is clearly giving a false information. Beshogur (talk) 11:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Mahmud al-Kashgari

@Beshogur: Seriously what is this?! WP:PRIMARY is a joke in your book?! I don't see any of your claims on Balasagun. Where are the reliable sources for your claim? How is a specific Sogdian city related to this case? However I accept that I should reverted part of your edit. I remove unsourced term. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I have already restored the correct part of your edit.[1] But the rest should be discussed here and you need to provide some reliable sources by some experts. --Wario-Man (talk) 04:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

How is that WP:Primary? That's just the quote of Kashgari, it may sound weird.. Beshogur (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

You can cite/quote Kashgari's works but it's better to provide modern expert interpretations of his works too. Let me ping @Kansas Bear:. He's more familiar with primary, secondary, and tertiary sources in history topics. Am I wrong in this case? --Wario-Man (talk) 13:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

I could not find anything about Suat Batur so I am unsure to their reliability. A. Gökdağ Bilgehan is an academic of Turkish literature. What would help is who published the Bilgehan source.

Since neither appears to be historians of this time period, it should be emphasised that these are opinion(s) of Mahmud al-Kashgari. Something like, "According to Mahmud al-Kashgari, an 11th-century Kara-Khanid scholar,.......

The other source mentioned by Beshogur, Exegisti Monumenta: Festschrift in Honour of Nicholas Sims-Williams, chapter: Turco-Sogdian features, Yutaka Yoshida, page 583, should mention these bilingual Sogdians occur during the time of the West Uighur Kingdom(per source). --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I was busy focused on reliability and what the source(s) state and not the connection to this particular article, LOL. As for the Yoshida source, unless there is a connection between Khalaj and Sogdian then the source can not be used. Which I am sure both of you realized already. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

islamansiklopedisi.org.tr

@Shakshak31: You should prove how that non-English website and its authors pass as reliable/acadmic/scholary source and experts. Or take it to WP:RSN. That's all. --Wario-Man (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Already posted the issue to WP:RSN. So don't restore your edit and wait for the response. --Wario-Man (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

TDV Islam Encyclopedia is made by academians. Author of Halaç (Khalaj) in TDV is Enver Konukçu. 46.154.145.111 (talk) 05:49, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

"... therefore originally Iranians."

@HistoryofIran:, @Kansas Bear:, I understand your points but, these "[12][13][14][15]" 4 sources doesn't seem to have any relation with Khalajs, pure about Hepthalites, but @Shakshak31: might have some point. Hepthalites article does mention about "Iranian,[42][43][44] or Altaic theories[45][46][47][48][49][50]" two origins thesis, so I think inclusion of these 3 sources might be not a good place to include here and "therefore .." is pure original research despite these sources. Beshogur (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The editor in question hardly edits in a neutral fashion and the deletion of 3.6K of references and quotes would require further explanation on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

AND, since said editor has been edit-warring this since 14 November 2020, a talk page discussion becomes even more relevant! --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear:, I know, you can take actions against that, but what do you think about my comment? Do you really think this needs an inclusion here? Beshogur (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• "I know, you can take actions against that.."

Empty comment. It will not be me taking action.

• "Do you really think this needs an inclusion here?"

You seemed to think this needed inclusion since it stated Turkic. Oddly, both paragraphs start exactly the same.

• "diff However, some historians, including 20th-century Josef Markwart and 10th-century al-Khwarizmi, consider the Khalaj to be remnants of the Hephthalite confederacy..."
• "diff However, some historians, including 20th-century Josef Markwart and 10th-century al-Khwarizmi, consider the Khalaj to be remnants of the Hephthalite confederacy..."

I am only interested in what the sources state. Which is why I said instead of edit-warring, start a discussion to show what the sources do or do not state.

FYI, usage of "ḴALAJ i. TRIBE" - Encyclopaedia Iranica, December 15, 2010, to reference Turkic tribe, is actually cherry-picking, since the source states, "The Ḵalaj/Khalaj are usually referred to as Turks, but Josef Marquart (pp. 251-54) claimed that they were remnants of the Hephthalite confederation, which would indicate that they were originally Indo-Iranian."

It would appear this article needs to have all its sources verified. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: I see. For that edit, it seems it's my mistake for not seeing that some user edited that in before. see this. Beshogur (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Also looking at this edit, Iranica doesn't mention about Khalajs calling themselves Persian. During summer, IIRC, I changed that text to that they were Persianized as the source state Gerhard Doerfer assumed a wide Persianization of this group, while it was reverted. Also don't know how this article for example "On the nationality of White Huns" has anything to do with Khalaj people. That's why I am thinking that inclusion of "Hepthalites were of .. origin" is wrong. I would agree if there was a scholarly consensus, but inclusion of "Iranian" or "Altaic" origins would be pointless here. Please remember the similar discussion on Ashina tribe. Beshogur (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

• "doesn't mention about Khalajs calling themselves Persian."

I never mentioned Persian in my entire post. *cough*strawman argument*cough* Nice way of ignoring what I said. Either accept the source has been cherry-picked or not. Either way, it will be removed where it has been cherry-picked.

• "That's why I am thinking that inclusion of "Hepthalites were of .. origin" is wrong."

Which is why all the sources need to be verified. This verification may bring about a re-write.

• "I would agree if there was a scholarly consensus, but inclusion of "Iranian" or "Altaic" origins would be pointless here."

Then this source, which states a possibility of Indo-Iranian should not be used to source this sentence, "The Khalaj are classified as a Turkic tribe", should it?

• "During summer, IIRC, I changed that text to that they were Persianized as the source state Gerhard Doerfer assumed a wide Persianization of this group, while it was reverted."

You do realize Persianized/Persianization is not an ethnicity, but a culture. And according to the source I posted it states, "... which would indicate that they were originally Indo-Iranian". Not sure how that equates to Persian. Besides, did you start a discussion after you were reverted?

So the end result of all this is that all the sources are going to be checked and verified, and instead of editors edit-warring their version and writing part of their edit summary in caps, they should find their way to the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: need your help again. Can you check the recent changes by HarvardKing as whole? Beshogur (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Sorry I missed this. I was super busy this weekend, granddaughter's birthday, driving 240 miles, and my girlfriend having a list of things to do.

All else fails, check the sources. Did any of HarvardKing's sources explicitly state Pashtun? --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: hello again. As I already told, that was just manipulating the sources. Of course Khalaj are not Pashtuns. As you can see from his edit, those other sources talked about Hepthalites Iranian origin hypothesis, not Khalaj. Beshogur (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Unverifiable sources

• Divanü Lügat-it – Türk, translation by Atalay Besim, TDK Press 523, Ankara, 1992, Volume III, page 415
• Divanü Lügat-it – Türk, translation by Atalay Besim, TDK Press 523, Ankara, 1992, Volume III, page 218
• Zuev, Yu. A. (2002) Early Türks: Sketches of history and ideology, Almaty. p. 144
• Hamadani, Rashid-al-Din (1952). "Джами ат-Таварих (Jami' al-tawarikh)". USSR Academy of Sciences. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

@HarvardKing and Shakshak31: You must stop edit warring. Further additions/reverts will result in a block regardless of whether WP:3RR was technically breached. When text is disputed, those wanting to add the text (or re-add it, if it was previously in the article) have the WP:BURDEN of justifying the inclusion (also see WP:ONUS). What source verifies the claim? How is it known that the source satisfies WP:RS? Is the claim WP:DUE (for example, what do other other sources say)? Those are the points that must be discussed at length on this talk page before further editing of contested material. I see others have been involved but they don't appear to reach the threshold where a block would follow further editing (editing is ok, but edit warring is definitely bad). If someone wants to add or remove text once after providing a reason on talk, that is fine by me. However, HarvardKing and Shakshak31 are on notice that further reverts will result in a sanction. I see mention of WP:RSN above. If anyone can provide an update, please do so, preferably in a more suitable section than this. Johnuniq (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Origin of the Hephthalites

User:HarvardKing If you look at the article of the Hephthalites (especially the characteristics part) you see there are 2 theories about their origin. I've said it many times but you keep adding that part again and accusing me of vandalism. --Shakshak31 (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

MLP050 (AKA Shakshak31) was a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Smokva26. --Wario-Man (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Origins

Why can't some editors on here admit they were Pashtuns? If the Khalaj are believed to remnants of the Scythians or Hepthalties then that would make them Indo-Iranian. All this new idea of them being Turkic is nothing more than Skepticism. Calling the second largest Pashtun tribal group as "Turks" is plain offensive and an insult to those who know their ancestry better than a few so called writers. Akmal94 (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

They aren't Pashtuns. Hephtalites origins are unknown and there are lot of theories. 46.154.145.111 (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Disrupting

@سورنا۸۱۱۸

You have been disrupting the page quite often, stating Ghilji and Khalaj are of different origin. And even stating they are Tajiks. Which is absolutely unacceptable, while you call the opinions of scholars "fake theory" in one of your edits summary. Please if you have any questions, or inquiries state her so we can discus. And stop the disruptive behavior. Afghan.Records (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I am confused

it's mean 35million pashtun are turk origin.? lol Realone23 (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Khalaj are only about 50 thousend. 46.154.145.111 (talk) 05:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)