Talk:Pashtuns

Archives Talk:Pashtun/Archive 1 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 2 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 3 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 4 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 5 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 6 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 7 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 8 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 9 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 10 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 11 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 12 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 13 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 14 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 15

== Pashtuns are found in India === if Pashtuns of India cant speak Pashtu it not means that Pashtuns are not exist in Idia pupolar stars Salman Khan, Sharukh Khan, Irfan Pathan and Qadar Khan. According to Sharukh Khan Cuasin living in Peshawar that now Shahrukh Khan Star therefor he dnt like to meet us. There are hundrads of Pashtun families still known as a Khan family. some people use Khan while some Pashtuns. I have noticed that the article implies that they're are pashtun peoples living in india which is completely false.Khan of India will never forgive you for this claim, Pashtuns are not found in modern day india as this article states. This article is incorrectly using an old map, it fails to properly explain that the census figures that stated that pashtuns lived in india are from the era of the British empire, when Britain controlled most of South Asia from the borders of eastern Afghanistan, encoumpassing Pakistan, Burma, Bengladesh, india and Sri Lanka, the census refers to the traditional Pashtunkwa regions which are now exclusively located in and constitute the country of Pakistan from where they originated near the Sulaiman mountains as well as south & eastern Afghanistan. WIthin the Pashtun communities of Pakistan/Afghanistan, there is much concern for the number of fake Pashtuns/ or pathan claimants from india that look nothing like them, nor speak their language, nor have any cultural, ethnic similarities to them "you need study". They claim a pashtun heritage for the sole sake of improving their social position within society and often concoct make believe progenitors, a side effect of the rampant caste system prevailant in india. DNA analysis has proven that they are not Pashtun in any manner or form, and may have been converted by Pashtun rulers to Islam from hinduism, jainism and simply adopted the names of the converter, a common practice in india today. The very few genuine Pashtuns that did live in British India/Mogul india left en masse when the British departed from South Asia, and many of them are no longer Pashtun ethnically having intermarried over successive generations and lost their cultural, genetic, linguistic and even culinary traits. Also, the article states that there are many Afghan refugees living in india as defined by the UN, the majority of whom have now left india for Afghanistan, Pakistan, or settled aborad, furthermore, most of these refugees were Persian speaking members or affiliates of the Northern Alliance as that group was often financed and funded by india in the 90's and there were no significant Pashtun populations within these refugees who by and large settled in Pakistan and parts of Iran. Please make the article more factual and correct this erroneous entry. I am so sorry to read your comments because how you claim that Pashtuns are not found in India. you need to read some research books just claim is nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.161.16 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

---

---

The person above is correct about many people simply adopting a pashtun last name or 'khan' and claim that they are Pashtun. Many people who claim do not look Pashtun, which is basically eastern european or mediteranean look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.20.2 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the references no longer valid

Hi, I came across this article and I realized some of the references do not exist on the web anymore. In particular references starting with "http://www.zharov.com/dupree/" are gone. I was contemplating taking the references out but it looks like a user with the name "dupree" has been editing this article. Could he/she or anyone else update these references? --Ubardak (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Move subsection Putative ancestry to section History and origins

I think the subsection Putative ancestry fits better under section History and origins than under section Pashtuns defined where it is now. The material is more like that in the history section, while the definitions section should be kept more homogenious. What are the thoughts about this? -Pgan002 (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the putative ancestry section was somewhat controversial to begin with. There's nothing like it in most encyclopedias which will, at most, mention that Pashtuns have moved to other places and were absorbed into various populations as in India and Iran etc. It's also not meant to be historical so much as anthropological and somewhat of a tangent and thus seemed to go best in that section. Since we're talking about groups like the Hindkowans and Persian-speaking Pashtuns, these groups do show links to the Pashtuns, but there's no real history lesson there and their origins are explained in other articles. The history and origins section is a bit crowded as it is as well which could present a problem in terms of placement. Some things to consider. Cheers. Tombseye (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No more Ethnologue please

It is an evangelical site and lists highly unreliable data that is difficult to verify (if at all). This is a featured article so just adding anything and everything is not acceptable. Tombseye (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it for now until a consensus is reached. My understanding is that there were several conflicts in the past on various articles due to Ethnologue. Critics say that SIL does not abide by the consensus among other linguists. However, I agree with Anupam that Ethnologue is used widely on Wikipedia as source. This matter should probably be brought up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics (if it hasn't already). But for the time being I've removing the Ethnologue sources until a compromise is decided. We should probably start off by comparing Ethnologue to other sources and determine which numbers are fringe theories and which numbers reflect the mainstream of scholars. Khoikhoi 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue is a reliable source. Noor Aalam (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? And why aren't their figures found elsewhere in many cases? 161,000 Azeris in Armenia?! Did they take their own independent census? Is this the kind of sloppy work people want, that is speculative at best? Tombseye (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pashtun genes

what is the Pashtun genes ? Haplogroup F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.36.121 (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Farhad Darya is not Pashtun

He is Tajik/Pashtun mix according to Biographical Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa.

Source: "Nashir, Farhad (1962–)." Biographical Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Ed. Michael Fischbach. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale Group, 2008. 564-566. 2 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale.

“ "PERSONAL HISTORY Nasher was born on 22 September 1962 in a Kunduz, Gozargah, Kabul province of Afghanistan. His father was an ethnic Pashtun and his mother was a Tajik." ”

We can verfiy that Farhad Darya's father is Pashtun but his mother's tajik claim is false unless we can verify it in the same way as for his father. Pashtuns in Afghanistan usually marry their own kind, it is in the west that people marry any race. In very rare cases Pashtuns marry tajiks. So in such cases you gonna have to convince us by providing clear evidence, the stuff you showing is nothing but your usual bull shits. You kharkuss actually think you can fool us with that shit.--119.30.74.77 (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If you didn't get deported from America back to Pakistan for being a Taliban supporter, you would have access to a Philadelphia library's electronic resources and see for yourself that the Biographical Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa says he is half Tajik.

I never been to America yet and if I supported the Taliban that's because under their rule there was peace not just in Afghanistan but in the entire world. Why can't you just show your evidence here so we can verify if wheather or not Farhad Darya's mother is tajik as you claim. IF you can't do that then you're just talking shit as the Americans put it.--119.30.66.211 (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Then you lied about living in Philadelphia also just like you lie about everything. America will never let a Taliban supporter like you in. You will be stuck in Pakistan for the rest of your life. If you come here you will be sent straight to Guantanamo Bay. Pakistan is the only place where Taliban like you can hide like rats hiding in their holes. Farhad Darya is half Tajik and I already provided the source for it and now I made it bigger so you can see. If you still can't see it you must be blind in one eye just like Mullah Omar.

You have very limited information about me, most of it is just specelations. You (banned User:Beh-nam) don't live in America, your IP is registered to a place in Canada, meaning you're from Canada. I live in Islamabad and it's where all top government officials and elites of Pakistan live. It would be the last place for Taliban or the poor people to live. The false information you keep showing could be written like this also:

Source: "Nashir, Farhad (1962–)." Biographical Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Ed. Michael Fischbach. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale Group, 2008. 564-566. 2 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale.

“ "PERSONAL HISTORY Nasher was born on 22 September 1962 in a Kunduz, Gozargah, Kabul province of Afghanistan. His father was an ethnic Pashtun and his mother was a Punjabi." ”

So you see anyone can change the shit. I'm not blind, I have 2 beautiful green eyes and I can see 20/20.--119.30.66.211 (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Only you are dishonest enough to fake sources. You have been caught doing that many times. Many users on Wikipedia have access to those resources and you can ask them to verify it for you that it says he is half Tajik. You must be poor if you can't afford access to these electronic resources. Don't lie about being rich.

Kharkuss banned User:Beh-nam, I never faked anything and you'r just talking shit again as usual. It's your job to ask them to verify if for you. I never claimed to be rich, and if I'm poor because I have no access to the whatever electronic resources then you must also be poor like me because you also have no access to it. I'm doing a special research on you to see what makes people lie all the time.--119.30.71.201 (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I do have access to it, that's where I found this source. I have access to many electronic resources and I can find lots of sources easily. I am not poor like you.

I'm rich in knowledge and if I want to become rich (in money wise) nobody can stop me. I am happy with my life and I have no reasons to lie about things. For each lie you will serve 85,000 years in hell. You cannot hide anything from God, he sees everything you do and knows what your thinking about 24-7. He is aware of your evil thoughts of trying to mislead people.--119.30.71.201 (talk) 03:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"A Pathan looking man from northern Pakistan"?

The IP of banned user: NisarKand placed an image here and claimed the person in the picture is Pashtun. When his dishonest lie was exposed, he changed it to the image description to "A Pathan looking man from northern Pakistan". Now that he admits we don't know that the man is Pathan or not, the image should be removed.

You are the banned User:Beh-nam and you are not allowed to remove appropiate images, in fact you are a proven enemy of Pashtuns so you should not be allowed to even visit this page. Go away and stop vandalizing this and other Pashtun related pages. Let other editors decide if the image be removed or not. The IP you're refering to is used by me and it is also used by 160 million other people of Pakistan. Farsiwans like you have no shame at all, even when your evil actions are exposed you still come back to read this page and think of what other evil action to do next. You are just putting your self lower and lower the more you carry on with this here. Anyway, that image is clearly of a Pathan man and Pathan is not Pashtun but "Punjabi-Pashtun". I know the man personally and he lives in Abbottabad, I have his cell phone number. I'm aware that all this is useless here because I cannot verify his ethnicity this way. So that's why I decided to put a description as "A Pathan looking man from northern Pakistan". You (banned User:Beh-nam who is ashamed to sign his posts) placed many unverifiable images of people of Tajikistan in Tajiks article and claimed that they are ethnic Tajiks. That again proves that you are an evil-minded editor here in Wikipedia.--119.30.74.77 (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You are a proven lier and your claim that you know the man personally is another ridiculous lie of yours. Tajiks are the only Caucasoid ethnic group in Tajikistan (also Russians but they left). So any picture of a Caucasoid person in Tajikistan is a Tajik. With this picture of this man from northern Pakistan we don't know since there are many ethnic groups there including Kashmiris, Kalash, etc who are all Caucasoid and look similar to eachother.

You and unsourced POVs. You talk shit as usual. Tajikistan is made up of many ethnic groups and forget about that I don't care what you do with Tajiks article. You can add images of people of Scotland or England there if it makes you happy but you're not allowed to vandalize this Pashtun people article. If you really wanna know about the man's ethnicity you can easily contact Steve Evans and ask him to help you.--119.30.66.211 (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are many ethnicities in Tajikistan but Tajiks are the only Caucasoid ones. If Steve Evans knew the man's ethnicity for sure he would have put it in the description.

No, he doesn't place people's ethnicity under the images that he uploads to Flickr.--119.30.66.211 (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pathan refers to Pashtuns. What bullshit. Punjabi Pashtuns my ass. "Pathan" has always been used in Hindustani/Urdu/Hindi to refer to the Pashtuns of the Frontier whereas the Persians called them "Afghans". Please, give me a break. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk) 01:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Does Zalmay Khalilzad represent Pashtuns?

Zalmay Khalilzad is a Persianized Pashtun born in Mazar-e Sharif but his ancestry is Pashtun from Laghman. Zalmay Khalilzad has been a member of the Bush administration which has killed tens of thousands of Pashtuns. He also does not speak any Pashto and speaks in Persian or English. He is married with an American and has given American names to his children. This indicates that he does not care for Pashtuns or being Pashtun. So how can he be representative of Pashtuns?

It does not matter what Khalilzad do, think, whom his children or wife are or who he works for and or where he lives. He is an ethnic Pashtun and he does not need to be representative of Pashtuns in order for his image to be placed in the article for Pashtun people. As a matter of fact, he is a very patriotic Pashtun and he is the one organizing and lecturing all Pashtun leaders in Afghanistan, especially Hamid Karzai. Khalilzad is was born to ethnic Pashtun father and mother in Mazari Sharif in nothern Afghanistan. There is a large number of Pashtuns in Mazari Sharif and I can prove this with clear evidence. Khalilzad wants the United States to nuke Iran and the 80 million Persians living in Iran. Khalilzad did not kill a single Pashtun, he helped put them on the throne in Afghanistan, with the help of George W. Bush and his army. As many Pashtuns that died (may Allah bless their clean souls and grant them heaven), there were killed same number of non-Pashtuns as well. Khalilzad does speak Pashto, so do all Afghans even those who are not Pashtuns speak Pashto. You are an evil Shiite banned User:Beh-nam and you're number one enemy is Pashtuns because they are Sunni and you will do whatever in your power to come here everyday and try to vandalize Pashtun related articles by trying to make them look as bad. Your actions will be combated all the time until you stop.--119.30.74.77 (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yusuf Pashtun

We should add a picture of Yusuf Pashtun. We can be sure that he is 100% Pashtun because of his last name.

This looks better

This also looks better

If he was alone in the image or with other Pashtuns it would've been good but the white American man is not Pashtun for sure. Some readers will think both are Pashtuns.--119.30.71.201 (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

old man is not Pashtun but may be Panjabi

A typical Punjabi Pathan old man from north west British India in 1921.

probably around the region of modern day Pakistan as he does not look indian and indians dont dress or look like this.

User:Ravichandar84 (a Hindu from India) added this photo of an old man wearing torn clothes in this article probably because as usual on this wikipedia forum, indians are dilutional and think that they are the same as everyone else and want to show that they have the same culture, but when it comes time to owning up to their own culture, they deny it and start talking about how they are gurjura form central asia or brahmins of aryan decent..lol!!. First, the image lacks verifiable source of information on the old Indian man's ethnic background. Second, the image is placed in the wrong section because that section talks about ancient history of Pashto-speaking Pashtuns, not about 1921 India. The title of the image is "Old Pathan 1921", but there is no where mentioned who this old man is. We need to remove this image because I believe this Hindu editor (User:Ravichandar84) is trying to mock Pashtuns by pushing his anti-Pakistani POVs, and of course he will try to deny it. Him trying to add this photo to the info box clearly shows his intentions that he wanted the world to see Pashtuns as this old Indian man, or that Pashtuns are found in india citing pre-independent Pakistan records, when in fact there are NO PASHTUNS in INDIA...!!. [1] The reason he hates Pashtuns is (according to history) that Hindus in India have been ruled by Pashtuns or Afghans for nearly 1,000 years until British began to rule them in 1800s.--119.30.67.250 (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We can be certain that this is a photo of an ethnic Pashtun from southern Afghanistan because there is enough evidence if you see the source.

Why does it bother you everytime when I mention another editor's race or nationality? Indians hate Pakistanis and that's a fact, the uploader is expressing his/her thoughts to show that Pakistan is like the old man in the picture. In reality that picture is telling us that India is like that because it was shot in India and the old man considered himself Indian...I'm sure he died not ever even knowing what Pakistan is. You should control your anger because it is taking you somewhere else. The whole problem here is that we cannot verify the ethnicity of the old man in the old photo on the top. The uploader should follow commom logic that if he cannot be certain about someone's ethnic background in a photo then he/she should avoid giving the photo ethnic names or placing it in an article that is of an ethnic group. Do you agree with this? This new photo on the right is an example, we can be certain that he is ethnic Pashtun because the source provides enough information for us to determine that.--119.30.75.34 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I just realized this article's become a battleground over some pictures. In the past, when there was too much fuss made over a picture we just chose one(s) that had no such problems. No point in arguing over nothing. And it would be more relevant to put up newer pictures. Also, the man referred to as a "Pathan" or Hindkowan, how is that known exactly? Tombseye (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The footnote mentions "Afghan Pathans speak the Pashto language" which makes it pretty obvious that the person photographed is a "Pathan". This individual here seems to be bent upon injecting POV into articles. He feels that Pathans should be portrayed as "extremely fair-complexioned individuals" just as Europeans. Well, according to U.S. laws, the free use of any image published in the country after 1923 is prohibited. Hence, it would be highly difficult to introduce newer pictures into the article -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but I'm just not sure this is something to fight over since this article has lots of pictures of dark skinned Pashtuns anyway of a contemporary nature. Generally, US govt. affiliated pictures can be used to offset this problem of using contemporary pictures, but when I was writing much of this article, I made the pictures a low priority as the content matters more. Is there not a picture that you two can agree upon? Tombseye (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Ghilzai nomads in Afghanistan.jpg

These are Ghilzai Pashtuns during 1839-42. Most likely they lived like this for many 100s or may be even 1,000s of years.

These are Durrani Pashtuns in 1869, Sher Ali Khan sitting in the middle. This is the oldest clear camera photo we can get so far on Pashtun people.

The footnote is irrelevant to the old man's ethnicity, many journalists have made obvious errors when they try to write articles in magazines. We cannot go by that to determine his ethnic background. I agree to a certain extent that he may be Pashtun since the footnotes talks about them but at the same time he may not be because Punjabi Pathan who live in close proximity to Pashtuns and Punjabis, they also speak Pashto and often say they are ethnic Afghans. I explained earlier that I have friends from that group and I know their culture very well.

Anyway now, I don't care about light skinned or dark skinned, I want the article to look as professional as possible and also from a neutral view point. Whenever and whoever reads it and sees the images then they will appreciate the hard work done behind and I'm sure you guys want that too. User:Ravichandar84 is an Indian from India, and according to Indians the Pashtun people are recognized over there as Pathans. So when he edits here he puts things in it according to Indian ideas. We cannot follow that here in the EN Wikipedia because the correct term is Pashtun people. Pathan generally refers to Pashtuns who live outside their territory. Anyway, I think these new images should be added to the Pashtun people#History and origin section because they would go very well with the passage that mentions their possible origin. The first one is showing us how they may have lived for many 100s of years, possibly 1,000s of years. The images that are currently there look stupid and does not go with the passage as if they first appeared in 1878 or 1921. Also the current images have people in it that are not even Pashtuns, Pathans or Afghans, there are possibly Indians in it and even an Englishman. Again that is sloppy and unprofessional work so lets fix the photos with these new ones. Thanks--119.30.77.35 (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kandahar Lady of Ranks in 1839-42.

If it's possible that we can add this photo of a Kandahar lady on the right in the Pashtun people#Women section. I figured that section should also include Pashtun women from the far past.--119.30.77.35 (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We also need to add this photo group at the infobox.--119.30.76.43 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I like all of the pictures you've suggested and have no problem with the picture from Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} either. Since there might be ambiguity, as I too am familiar with the Hindkowans who do overlap and it becomes confusing to tell who is who, how about we use Ravi's picture in the Putative section? It would be appropriate and we can add your pictures as well. As for the picture of the Khyber Chiefs posed with the British officer, as far as I know they're Pashtuns. I've seen that picture in many reference books so I imagine it's probably accurate. I have no major attachment to it though and I like the pictures you have so that's no problem for me. So what do you say? Do we all have an understanding? Ravi's picture goes in the putative section, while you add your pictures in the rest of the article. Let me know so that we can resolve this AND I can fix some of the sloppy recent edits as well. Thanks. Tombseye (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and we need to ascertain why the man in the putative section right now is labelled a Hindkowan. Anyone know why this is the case. If he is a Hindkowan I have no problem with it, but how was this determined? Thanks.Tombseye (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well User:Tombseye, the picture I've added is significant in the sense that it is one of the rare pictures from the pre-independence period which depicts a Pathan wearing a skull-cap and not the traditional turban as Maynard Owen Williams himself mentions in the footnote. Besides, I don't think it would be nice if Wikipedia permits the OR of an editor who has been assuming bad faith from the very beginning indulging in racial abuse and slurs and WP:NPOV. - 15:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tombseye, the user has tagged the image regularly for deletion just because he doe3s'nt want it to remain here. Have a look at this - [2][3][4][5][6][7].

Firstly, he tagged the image for missing sources despite the fact that the sources were clearly mentioned; when I included the name of the article in the summary, he again tagged the image for deletion complaining of copyright violation; when the tag was removed by an administrator, he responded by including citation-needed tags; when his accusations were brushed aside as invalid and page protection applied on Pashtun people article, he responded by adding the image to an article on Punjabi Hindu for no valid reason at all; when this edit was reverted, he reacted by asking me to add the whole page from The National Geographic Magazine to verify the authenticity of my claim and not the image alone, but when I added a new version comprising the whole page, he has been claiming that Maynard Owen Williams is wrong and that the person in the photo is a Hindkowan, a marked shift from his earlier assertation that the man is a Punjabi Hindu. From all his deeds, we can clearly understand that the bottomline is that "he doesnt like the image" and wants it to be deleted on some pretext or the other.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the editor's earlier record in Wikipedia and the policies he had breached: WP:CIVIL ([8],[9],[10],[11],[12]), WP:3RR ([13][14]), Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (119.30.76.138,119.30.67.8,119.30.77.149,119.30.70.188,119.30.78.21) and obviously, WP:NPOV.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ravichandar84, you're only partially correct and that's the part about me not liking the photo of the very old man. The rest was legitimate actions that I took. The copyright to the old man's image is owned by National Geographic so I marked it as "copyvio" and the reason for that is that the author died in 1960s so it didn't qualify as PD-old. I didn't know that all pre-1923 images that are in the public domain in USA can be uploaded here. So now I know that they can. Some editors upload images with false licenses and I kindly asked you to provide a link or other way of verifying the true ethnicity of the old man because to me he fitted as Punjabi Pathan. It was just a misunderstanding because I thought you were bashing Pashtuns and there are few editors who are doing this everyday. Anyway, I like what User:Tombseye suggested, we can just put up all those images in the correct places and I have no problem with the old man's photo now since someone else also wants to add it to the article.--119.30.66.112 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so I understand what's going, and since User:119.30.66.112 agrees to the picture, how about we just put it in the putative section, since that's where the term 'Pathan' is introduced and would be a good fit. The other pictures he proposes can also be added and we can move on. OK, if Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} is OK with the plan, then we should be able to move on. Thanks.Tombseye (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, go ahead. Anyway, I have serious protests to make about User:119.30.66.112's offensive behavior early on. A repetition of such behavior will have bad consequences -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 01:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ravichandar84, this is the talk page to discuss things relating to the Pashtun people article. If you have issues with a user over his/her's behaviour you should take it to administrator notice board. Several administrators were involved in your/mines incident and they didn't find my actions offensive, I was leaving message on their talk pages and they didn't warn me about any thing. [15], [16]--119.30.71.194 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:119.30.66.112 and all these IPs starting with 119 from Islamabad, Pakistan that are interested in Afghanistan related articles are actually the IP of the banned, dishonest, and racist user: NisarKand. A checkuser can confirm this.

The above unsigned message was posted by banned User:Beh-nam from Canada, who constantly comes here and to other Afghanistan articles to vandalise the pages. [17] He even removes images of well known Pashtuns. There are many people living in Islamabad and we all use the same DSL service so no we are not all NisarKand. According to NisarKand's last contributions, I don't see why he was banned, there is no explanation by admin, and there is no record of him being allowed to request for unblock. I find that very weird because all blocked editors are given a chance to request for an unblock. In this case the block of NisarKand is invalid and cannot be used as proof to block IP that he may have used in the past.--119.30.71.194 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not been banned from editing Wikipedia only because I chose not to highlight your activities. Do you want me to get you banned? It doesn't take much. User:EncMstr has rightly remarked that a ban wouldn't be possible as there is every chance that you would use multiple IPs. Besides, your disruptive behavior is the reason why my page was made semi-protected. All right then, shall I get to the bottom of this and report you to the administrators? -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ravichandar84, I have already explained to you that this talk page is only for topics relating to Pashtun people. If you have personal issues with another user please take it to administrator noticeboard. Stop making threats of banning me because I'm not violating the rules. I left only one (1) single message on your talk page and I have no idea why your talk page was semi-protected and I don't even care. You have problem with me because your a Hindu from India and I'm a Muslim from Pakistan, I'm not in the mood for that stuff and leave me alone. Now carry on and stop holding grudges against other editors here.--119.30.66.158 (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what, this pashtun picture montage is too biased towards Afghani personalities. There are not enough South Asian/Pakistani people on it. How about we replace two of those and instead put down people like Abdur Rab Nishtar or Shahid Afridi? Maybe Ghaffar Khan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.65.120 (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please update the template link {{Pashtun Nationalism}} at the end of the article to {{Pashtun nationalism}}. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, within the Infobox, please replace

|region3      = {{flagcountry|United Arab Emirates}}

with

|region3      = {{flag|UAE}}

to avoid wraparound; and please update the [[Pashtun Nationalism]] link in the See also section to Pashtun nationalism. Thanks again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done all. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Afghani photos only exept one

That would have been a great step if affix some other pashtuns of the region. Haider (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, strictly speaking Shahid Afridi is not a Pakhtun. His proper name is Syed Shahid Hussain Shah. His Grandfather and father have been known by this name which makes him an Arab by ancestory. His family have been a hamsaya clan of the Afridis for 3/4 generations. Also the term Hindkowans is not used for all Hindko speakers of NWFP but only for Kharays of Peshawar as they are universally not accepted as Pashtuns whereas the speakers of this language as well as Pushto mono speakers and Pushto/Hindko bilinguals are accepted as such in Hazara. User: Moarrikh, 20th August 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarrikh (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Shahid Afridi was born in Khyber agency. His parents were Afridi Pathans. He may have some distant Arab ancestry but that's irrelevant. Some Pashtuns may have Greek ancestry going way back, does that make them greek? No. What matters is his immediate ancestry, which is Pashtun. Seriously, the montage is biased toward Afghan rulers. How about some other Pashtun pics such as those of Ghaffar Khan, Abdur Rab Nishtar, Shahid Afridi and such? A mix of famous Afghan and Pakistani Pashtuns in the montage would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Women would be good, yes. --Enzuru 19:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pashtuns NOT the same as Pathans

If ones looks far back in history enough, you realize that PASHTUNS AND PATHANS ARE NOT THE SAME THING. A pathan is a person with origins in Afghanistan but Pashtuns are people who speak Pashto. You can be a Pathan and NOT speak Pashto. However, a Pashtun can be a Pathan. Its a common misconception but one that does not need to be spread.

So therefore, the first line where it claims that the two are the same should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlweLotus (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You should provide some reliable source mentioning this difference in meaning between Pashtun and Pathan. This would help a lot towards changing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pathans and Pashtuns ARE THE SAME THING. Pathan is the Hindustani corruption of "Pashtun". Throughout history, Indians have always used the word "Pathan" in their own language to refer to the people of Afghanistan. There are some of Pathan descent who call themselves Pathan due to their ancestry but do not speak Pashto but its their ancestry. But the term Pathan is still the legitimate Hindi and Urdu term for the Pashtun people. The term Pathan has a first and foremost meaning. It is the Indian-Pakistani word for the Pashtun people of Afghanistan-Pakistan, who speak Pashto.

recent vandalism

I seems that there is a banned user trying to push some sort of POV[18][19] and being reverted by several established editors. Can someone indicate the account of the banned user so I can make myself an idea of what's going on? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that they are User:NisarKand and User:Beh-nam --Enric Naval (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

پختون is not an accepted alternate spelling of پښتون

To an outsider of the پښتو language, the southern pronunciation may sound like پشتو (pashto) and the northern like پختو (pakhto). But neither پشتو nor پختو is considered a correct spelling in the پښتو language. Although, a person writing Farsi or Urdu may very well write it as پشتو as neither language has an equivalent to the Pashto/Pakhto letter "ښ".

Many years ago I was perplexed as to why my English teacher would not accept my pronunciation of Thursday. I likened the "th" to the Arabic letter "ت" and read it as "ترزډۍ" when in fact the correct pronunciation was more closely demonstrated by "ث" as in "ثرزډۍ". (Note: ث is also incorrectly pronounced by a majority of the non-Arab Muslims. Most cannot differentiate between ث and س and pronounce the sound of both with the English equivalent of "S".)

You are correct, this needs to be changed. --Enzuru 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Abdur Rab Nishtar?

Why is Nishtar not included among notable Pashtuns? Just because he helped found Pakistan? He was indeed a Pashtun of the Kakar tribe, not a Punjabi or Hindkowan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that its unpopular to talk about Pashtuns who supported the creation of Pakistan and more popular to talk about those who were pro-Congress turned pro separation.

If Abdul Rab Nishtar was a pashthun by language than he was much enough popular deserve to be here on main but if his ancestors had forgotten pashto language, it would be better to keep him far away of this article, dosnt matter if he took part in freedom efforts. Thanks! Haider (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Abdul Rab Nishtar WAS a native Pashto-speaker! What the hell are you talking about? He was a full-blooded authentic Pathan from the North West Frontier, not of mixed race or a man whose family had long been in residence in the North Indian plains. He was a prominent Pathan like it or not and must be included in the montage, alongside Ghaffar Khan, who also acknowledged him as a well-respected Pathan sardar. And "Pathan" is used in Hindustani to refer to Pashtuns from Afghanistan. Urdu-speaking people call themselves "Pathans", not as a new designation for their group but because their ancestors were Pathans from Afghanistan, as they call Pashtuns in the language of the Indians.

You should have signed first atleast I would come to know that to whome I am chatting to! Infact this is the page to persuade each other through healthy gentle debates but I don't know why your reply was so harsh, you could have made me well understand about pathan sardar, whereas I have never heard about "SARDARS" in pashtun society? Now let me tell you about term "Pathan", which had never been used or liked by pashtuns for themselves, while this term first used by Mughals and then Britishers for those who had migerated to india and had forgotten their language, culture and tradition, pathan of india would never be assimilate in Pashuns now, by the way if you are happy with "Pathan" then you will feel happy to be called "Sulemani" by Arabs, Khurasani by Iranis and Afghanis? What I was trying to express here that if Sardar sahab could have talked in Pashto then his photo is well deserved there on main, otherwise he didn't deserve to be called pashtun just on the basis of his ancestors. Thanks! Haider (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You have no proof for your assertions. It is well documented that term "Pathan" was used first and foremost by Indians to refer to the people of Afghanistan. It's not uncommon to here even many Pashtuns themselves calling themselves "Pathan" in an British Indian context (Ghaffar Khan and Wali Khan). Even today, Pakistani Pashtuns still sometimes call themselves "Pathan". As for Pashtun descendants in India, they just call themselves "Pathan" as that was their ancestry, from the "Pathans of Afghanistan". Throughout the colonial era, the term "Pathan" was used by the British to refer to the Afghan tribes. The terms original and constant use since its coinage has been that as an Indian term for "Pashtuns". Many of us don't use it. But many of us bilingual in both Pashto and the national language Urdu do use the term "Pathan" to communicate with desi speakers. And Ghaffar Khan did view Nishtar highly as a Pashtun leader. He was from the NWFP, that should be proof enough. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C05%5C27%5Cstory_27-5-2008_pg7_54 This article itself mentions that he was a Pashtun of NWFP.

Image edit conflict

Hi. I noticed that there is a debate as to which images should be used in the article. Would the concerned parties talk about it here so that we can work out an agreement? Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's just one user using multiple accounts and IPs to force changes into the article, and making personal attacks against other editors when reverted. Anyways, for reference, see the last change that he made[20]:

Keeps:

• Ahmad Shah Durrani
• Hamid Karzai
• Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan

Removes:

• Abdur Rahman Khan

Adds:

• Sher Shah Suri
• Sher Ali Khan
• Mohammed Nadir Khan
• Zalmay Khalilzad
• Aftab Ahmad Sherpao

I'm not sure of why he removes Abdur Rahman Khan, who appears to have been a notable ruler (I don't know much about afghan history). Maybe other editors can give opinion on the persons that he wants to add? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he will comment here and we can come to a peaceful agreement? SunDragon34 (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

His IP range has been blocked for 6 months for disruption and sockpuppeting, so, no, he can't comment here. On this talk page, all comments signed by an IP starting with "119.30" were done by him. He has been caught lying about sources on this same page, so I'd rather ask an editor on good standing to have a look at which of these persons are adequate for the infobox. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)