This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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."
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)[reply]
"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."
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)[reply]
@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.
@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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]