Talk:Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Needs a better map

This article needs a better map of the NWFP. Here's hoping that someone can improve on the current one. 124.171.199.48 (talk) 09:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Map being used on Battagram District, Buner District, Chitral, Chitral District, Dir, Pakistan, Hangu District, Pakistan,

Haripur, Pakistan, Kohat District, Malakand District, Mardan, Nowshera, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Shangla District, and Swat District

is incorrect. It seems to me that either the editor lacks knowledge or is biased. Districts suchs as Karak, Tank, Shangla, Battagram, and Toor ghar, although more than 90% pashto speaking, are shown as hindko, Saraiki and Kohistani Speaking. Moreover, Mansehra is 35% pashto speaking and pashto is spoken in western sides of Dera Ismael Khan, Kohistan and Haripur districts as well but they are also shown as speaking a language other then pashto. Someone really neads to change that.

Also i have a more accurate map of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa i can email it to anyone who would want it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerkhan007 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

POV!

How is NWFP the most stable province in Pakistan? I don't know enough about the province to improve on this article myself, but someone who knows more about it definitely needs to clean it up and find sources. I'll do what I can in the future. (Working on wikinews article involving NWFP.) Theshibboleth 08:47, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I made most of the addition to the NWFP and I grew up in that province. I regard it as most stable because the plagues of terrorism,sectarianism and insurrection have not infected the NWFP as it had other Pakistani provinces like Sindh and the Punjab. Also governments change hands peacefully. The religious parties, the MMA which came to power in 2002, have also not been able to make any major changes to the social structure or life in the NWFP beacuse the society will not allow anyone to disrupt anything,whether through the gun or the ballot. I think that qualifies this province as the most stable in Pakistan. Dargay 14:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The last two sentence in this article's introduction need citations: "However the demand has since lost media coverage and therefore popular backing. Many have also called the demands racist and separatist in nature."Frappyjohn (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. My mother's village in Pakistan was taken over by Sunni militants while my father's brother has been killed by Shi'a militants in a different part of the province. If NWFP was so stable it wouldn't have been ruled by the Taliban for even a week. Regardless, all information without reliable sources should be deleted. --Afghana ^[talk] 20:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Major article clean-up, additions, and changes

The NWFP article was very disorganized and I decided to fix it. I kept most of the original information and added considerably more information and divided it up into logical sections and expanded the sections considerably. It was much needed in my opinion. Hopefully everyone is okay with the changes as I am open to suggestions. Tombseye 22:39, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I have spent an hour or two trying to improve this. The section on the British is so silly and POV that it requires a full rewrite which I am not sure I have the energy to attempt.--Persiflage1962 (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

New Discovery ancient Buddhist manuscripts

I added information regarding the latest archeological find of the history of the Buddhist culture and the discovery of the OLDEST Buddhist surviving literature, which is being deciphered now. The info was retrieved from the center for East Asian Studies, Stanford University -INNER ASIA/SILKROAD STUDY GROUP.
CHITRANI-12 Nov./05- 12.43 (GMT +1)

Changed infobox

One infobox per province is pointless, so I've replaced the Template:NWFP-infobox with a new generic one for all provinces. Green Giant 00:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Move to North-West Frontier Province

It seems a bit strange that this article is labelled "North-West Frontier Province, Pakistan". As far as I know, there is no other "North-West Frontier Province" and so we don't need to add the suffix Pakistan. Anyone oppose a move? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 22:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Doh, you beat me to it. I was just thinking that it is odd to have such a lengthy title when I can't honestly think of another "North-West Frontier Province" that might need disambiguating. It's a sensible move, so let's do it. Green Giant 01:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason not to move; the move does implicitly promise an increase of the section on the British, since the article is no longer distinguished from the hypothetical North-West Frontier Province, British India. Septentrionalis 22:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Support, --Philip Baird Shearer 11:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Support, Sounds like a good move to me as it's true that there is only one North-West Frontier Province. Tombseye 19:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, shouldn't we be doing the same for the FATA? —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 10:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that title for FATA is far too long and again there is no other FATA to disambiguate from.

Persian as a major language

Farsi is not a major language of NAWFP. It is only spoken as a first langauge by Afghan Tajik refugess and a few Badakhshani Tajiks who have been settled in Chitral for a few centuries.

No doubt Farsi has played a huge role in the region and is spoken and understood by many as a second language, but it no longer enjoys the same position that it used to in the past.

Actually, it is a major language as there are also Wakhi speakers and native Tajiks who appear to number in the hundreds of thousands in addition to the refugees. Tombseye 22:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to put in my two pence, there used to be some Qizilbash families in Peshawar City, whose native tongue was Persian. Also, the article fails to mention the Urmar/Barki language of Kanigurum in South Waziristan and Parachi around Kohat.

Actually there arent any "Farsi" speakers in NWFP, but there are many Persian speakers. Persian is widely used in parts of the NWFP, but more so in the Afghan/Central Asian dialects of Dari and Tajik rather than the Farsi dialect of Iran. We should include Persian as a prominent language and put Dari and Tajik in parentheses rather than "Farsi". Afghan Historian 18:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to have Tanawali tribe of Swat, Mardan and Hazara as a major Pashtun tribe as it is now widely accepted as such. Without going into the argument yet again it is important to see the various referencese.g. historical works by Tanawalis and non-Tanawalis alike. Great Pashtun authorities are agreed on this. 18:07, 2nd June 2007

Language

Why is Pashto showing as the first language on the list when Urdu is the official language? Surely by convention the official language should be first? Urdu is the official language *and* lingua franca, virtually all Pashto speakers would understand it, it is understood throughout the province, however the same cannot be said of Pashto. See www.nwfp.gov.pk - it is in Urdu not Pashto. I will amend language again, showing Urdu as official - this is factual :-) All the other languages are regional anyway - they are not some alien tongue.

194.176.201.29 01:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Because Pashto is the language of the majority. In fact, much of the population's Urdu capabilities are limited AND the other provinces all show their local languages first and there is NO convention as to why the most prevalent language, recognized as the main regional language cannot be listed first. The official language is relevant to country article of Pakistan, but this makes it seem as if the main language of the province is Urdu when it is actually Pashto. Urdu IS listed as 'national' as English is the official language and Pashto is the regional tongue. Their order in being listed does not come with any pre-set notions here. In addition, where is English on the list if we're going to go this route? I'm reverting unless there is something more credible than the NWFP website which is written so that everyone in the country can understand and not because it is the most prevalent language in the NWFP (which it is not). Tombseye 16:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for what appears to be a slighly bad tempered response, perhaps you should have a look at Wikipedia:Civility. Urdu is the official language not just of the federal government but throughout Pakistan - you have written "I'm reverting unless there is something more credible than the NWFP website" - what is more credible than the offical website? Not only that but Urdu is compulsory in schools, and is also taught in madrassas.

It is also the most heterogeneous province, unlike Punjab where the Punjabi language is in an overwhelming majority the NWFP is a little different. You say there is "NO convention" so why are you so admament to change it? You say "Pashto is the regional tongue" but it is not the only regional tongue, Hindko, Khowar and Persian are also regional tongues.

In fact even many Afghan refugees who settle in the NWFP have learnt the Urdu language

http://www.irinnews.org/InDepthMain.aspx?InDepthId=16&ReportId=62527&Country=Yes

What is not logical about the following dispay? - Is this not neutral point of view?

• Urdu (official)
• Pashto
• Hindko
• Khowar
• Persian

You have insisted on changing it to

• Pashto (regional)
• Urdu (national)
• Hindko
• Khowar
• Persian

Again let me reiterate Hindko, Khowar and Persian are regional languages. There are many Urdu newspapers published through the NWFP, even in heavily Pushtun areas - not to disparage Pashto, which is an historic language with an old literary tradition.

To summarise, the Urdu language is spoken throughout the province, many Pashtuns speak it very well as a second language, granted not every single may speak it but the majority can quite well.

In the areas where Pashtuns are not dominant, non-Pashtuns (overall) have a very limited understanding of Pashto - even Pashtuns who have moved eastwards accross the province may not be that good. Urdu has been the official language here since the days of British India, whatever the motives of the British - Urdu nowadays is understood and spoken and written by millions across the province.

194.176.201.29 23:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if my written response appears uncivil, although it was more blunt than uncivil or meant to be. I've been to the NWFP and although there is a hetergenous population it is still overwhelmingly Pashtun. I think the provinces should reflect the diversity of the country whereas the country article explains the official and national languages. That's the actual logic of hetergenous countries. Conversely, why are you insisting upon Urdu's place in the NWFP? What about Balochistan which is even more diverse? The 2nd largest group, the Hindkowans, more often than not speak and understand Pashto (and even identify themselves as part of the Pashtun community) so when we delve into much much smaller groups like the Khowar and people in the north, we're talking about very small percentages here. Urdu is still there as it is in all the provinces, but this article being about the NWFP, the emphasis should be upon its regional character and thus why I believe Pashto should be listed where it is. In fact, I would list all of the regional languages first as it is a given that Urdu is the national language anyway. As for in order to what is spoken the most frequently, you are surely not saying that Urdu is more common than Pashto because that was certainly not my experience. Urdu is the lingua franca and is the language of education yes, but that is also true in the Punjab where it even has a certain amount of status. Either way, I believe this article should be about a regional focus as why even write articles about provinces if the point is to convey a national perspective? Tombseye 05:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Urdu is mot truly a national language rather something imported from India by the Indian immigrants when they migrated from Hindustan and imported on the natives and the true sons of the soil. Mohammad Ali Jannah the leader of the Indian Muhajirs also tried to impose it on Bengalis in 1950s but they violently revolted against it. It is the same language as Hindi but written in Quranic script.

Moreover, this article is highly biased and seems to be written with the intention to downplay the importance of Pashtuns in NWFP.FatehM 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could claim this article is biased against Pashtuns, it says more about them, than any other ethnic group - (perhaps you dislike the inclusions of Greeks and Shahi in the ancient history section). However Pathans are not the only group - and in fact it is the other groups who are underrepresented. A couple of corrections Urdu is not written in the "Quranic script", it is written in a Pero-Arabic script and contains characters that would be unintelligible to Arabs (unless they had studied the script) - though Urdu and Hindi may be registers of the same language it also bears a close similarity to Hindko, Punjabi and other languages of Pakistan. It is not a language of immigrant. It is true though that the language was imposed on the Bengalis - this was only part of the reason they revolted though.

194.176.201.27 (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The language was brought by Hindustani Muhajirs, now settled in Karachi, and imposed on the native population. That is a fact you should not deny.

How was it "imposed" exactly?, it's been used far longer than you care to aknowledge, it was in use in the area even during Mughal rule, and also as a literary language, Hindi which is similar is spoken across just across the border .....

Fact About Linguistic Groups of NWFP

Pashtuns constitute 74% of the population of that province. This figure doesn't include Pashtuns from FATA who are very intimately tied to NWFP. Currently, the Pashto-speaking population of NWFP might have risen to more than 80% because of a higher population growth rate and settling down of tribal Pashtuns in the province in large numbers. The rest of the communities include Hindowans etc. The article is a deliberate attempt to make the dominent Pashtun character of the province controversial. In Punjab, there are Siraiki speakers nevertheless they are not mentioned in the article on Punjab.69.157.109.144 (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The factual accuracy of the article and its deliberate attempt to downplay the demographic significance of Pashtuns in the province can be gauged from its ridiculous claim that Hindko speakers are on-third(1/3rd) of the population of NWFP. The reality is, they (Hindko speakers) are less than 1/5th of the province's population ( only 18% according to 1998 Population Census). Pashtuns are 3/4th of the population(74% according to 1998 Population Census). See http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_mother_tongue.pdf for a proof of this this. This doesn't take into account the fact that very large number of Pashtuns from FATA have settled in NWFP and they are doing so in even greater numbers.FatehM (talk) 05:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Also see: http://focusonfrontier.com/description/view.asp?id=28 FatehM (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The PDF you indicated doesn't actually say Hindko but it can be deduced that with barely 20% of the NWFP population speaking "other languages", that Hindko cannot be greater than 20%. The Ethnologue entry suggests a population of about 3 million in 1993, mainly in the Hazara division. Green Giant (talk) 14:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ethnologue is a highly ubreliable source as far as demographies are concerned. And 1998 census listed Hindo to be spoken by 18% of the inhabitants, which roughly makes it 1/5th of the population.FatehM (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The Map being used on Battagram District, Buner District, Chitral, Chitral District, Dir, Pakistan, Hangu District, Pakistan,Haripur, Pakistan, Kohat District, Malakand District, Mardan, Nowshera, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Shangle District and Swat District is incorrect. It seems to me that either the editor lacks knowledge or is biased. Districts suchs as Karak, Tank, Shangla, Battagram, and Toor ghar, although more than 90% pashto speaking, are shown as hindko, Saraiki and Kohistani Speaking. Moreover, Mansehra is 35% pashto speaking and pashto is spoken in western sides of Dera Ismael Khan, Kohistan and Haripur districts as well but they are also shown as speaking a language other then pashto. Someone really neads to change that.

Also i have a more accurate map of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa i can email it to anyone who would want it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerkhan007 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Pakhtunkhwa is now the official name

The Government of Pakistan has finally decided to officially give the name Pakhtunkhwa to NWFP. See Pakistan news or goverment sites for more details.--119.30.72.110 (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Little Awghanzai, the name of Pakhtunwa will get changed into Afghania or Islampour. Why are you fabricating lies? Little Pashtun dog!--217.23.233.7 (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Kharkuss tajik, that will not happen. The name "Pakhtunkhwa" will soon be revealed.--119.30.76.175 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It's NOT YET the new name. It's part of a constitutional reform package which has yet to be passed by parliament, so wait until it comes into effect. —Nightstallion 11:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your absolutley right and nobody in Pakistan is against the name change.--119.30.76.138 (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This change will not happen because NWFP is not just Pakhtun. There are many ethnic groups in NWFP and calling it Pakhtunkhwa is racist and unjust to the many non-Pashtuns of NWFP, for example the Kalash and Tajiks. Also, this region has never been known as Pakhtunkhwa. It is a newly invented name for the region by Pakhtun nationalists.

I have again reverted the article, a) because it was in bad faith, my edits were not vandalism b) it reported a proposed name change as if it will happen "probably before the end of 2008". c) As can be seen from above, the name change would be a little controversial Pahari Sahib 19:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not allowed to remove well sourced content from the article because you may not like it. You keep adding that there are 3 million Afghan refugees in NWFP. That is false because the Government of Pakistan said in February 2007 that in the entire Pakistan there are about 2 million Afghanistan's citizens. See this ---> NADRA Has Registered 2.15 Million Afghan Refugees Not all of those live in NWFP. And last year over 300,000 of the 2 million went back to Afghanistan, so the number now is even less than 2 million. The Pashtuns are the second largest ethnic group in Pakistan, after Punjabis, and they have enough power within the government of Pakistan to give their native region the name "Pakhtunkhwa". There are no native Tajiks in NWFP, only some Afghan refugee Tajiks live there and whom will be forced out back to northern Afghanistan before December 2009, the overal majority of NWFP are Pakhtuns. The person who wrote the above message and forgot to sign is the banned User:Beh-nam, he is a Shiite Tajik from Afghanistan now living in Canada. He doesn't know anything about Pakistan's politics and is talking nonsense. The name change is among the first thing that has to be done, which is part of the constitutional package.--119.30.69.250 (talk) 16:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually anyone can wikipedia, so what message are your referring to, and why should this exclude Shiites and/or Tajiks? I have again reverted. Pahari Sahib 21:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Having checked out your edits a little, it appears that it is not just me who has notice that your edits are misleading Pahari Sahib 21:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And you have several records for being blocked because you were engaged in edit-warring. Others may say I am a killer but that doesn't make it true. So stop that nonsese please, this is a place to discuss topics relating to the article. It is not a place to write about other editors.--119.30.77.149 (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The above comments are simply not true, several records? - what on earth are you talking about. I agree incidentally that this is not the place to write about other editors - but we can point out if an editor is being disruptive or mislead. Pahari Sahib 09:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Here it shows you've been blocked for edit-wars. Stop being ignorant by reverting my edits. There are no 3 million Afghan refugees in NWFP and I've explained that to you already. The intro should start with where NWFP is located and then explain about the ethnic stuff. Persian is not spoken by Pakistani citizens but by some Afghan refugees and those refugees are not included in Pakistan's population. You keep removing well sourced contents and that is vandalism, I'll keep reverting your vandalism until you stop.--119.30.71.31 (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear anon, I must confess I find what you have written rather amusing - please don't misconstrue facts, for you benefit I will spell out what the second "block" says "blocked "Pahari Sahib (Talk | contribs)" (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 1 second ‎ (User was reverting sockpuppet of banned User:Hkelkar, previous block was not justified)" It was just a one second block purely to note I was blocked in error. As it happens the admin who blocked me originally did apologise, it was two other users were warring. My edits were more along the lines of discussing and reverting. Anyway all this happened almost five months ago, I have been editing wikipedia since 12 Jan 2007 and made over 13,000 edits and your above comments have no basis in this discussion. Anyway, back to talking about this article, please don't accuse me of being ignorant, your latest edit removed a Pakistan government source with respect to the languages spoken - as well as details from the UNHCR. You should also assume good faith - you might find people more receptive to your arguments if you do so. Pahari Sahib 07:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

If you keep vandalizing this page then I will get you blocked. You are putting POVs and removing well sourced content and that will get you blocked.--119.30.78.218 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your latest edit has again removed a government source, if as your edit claims there are not 3 million Afghan refugees - then why not cite it correctly before making large changes to the article. Who are you anyway, and what are your dealings with Beh-nam? Pahari Sahib 09:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this edit has answered my above question. Pahari Sahib 04:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed as Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/12-consensus+reached+on+renaming+nwfp--bi-02 --SaadSaeed (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Images

Shortly I will go to NWFP and take some nice pictures to put in this article. There are many many nice beautiful places in NWFP.--119.30.77.149 (talk) 01:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Dispute over languages, style and number of refugees

Can someone please take a look at the continual reverts to this article, the issues here are, the languages spoken in the province, how to cite the proposed name change of the province and the number of refugees. Pahari Sahib 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Pahari Sahib keeps reverting my edits, which is information from Encyclopedia Britannica on Pakistan. I kept removing the false 3 million Afghan refugees claim because there are no 3 million Afghan refugess in NWFP according to Pakistan's Federal Government and UNHCR, but Pahari keeps reverting and inserting that bogus information back in. I am aware that there are about 2 million Afghan refugees in entire Pakistan and they live in Sind, Balochistan, NWFP, Lahore, Islamabad, etc. See NADRA Has Registered 2.15 Million Afghan Refugees in February 2007 Since that date and now, about 400,000 more Afghans left Pakistan for Afghanistan so there are now less than 2 million in Pakistan. See latest UNHCR reports in the Afghan refugees article for more details. There is no information on the exact number of Afghan refugees in NWFP alone so lets not put any number until there is one available. I am against people putting obvious false information in articles and I will revert their edits until they learn that lying is bad. ALso, Persian language is spoken by some of the Afghan refugees (Tajiks and others), it is not a language spoken by native people of NWFP, but I kept it anyway to avoid edit-war.--119.30.76.79 (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not actually cited from www.nadra.gov.pk, the Britannica references is for Pakistan as a whole. The UNHCR ref which you have removed is for "Afghan refugees and their descendants in the province". I amended the figure for the NWFP in this edit in line with the source. You say you kept the Persian language "to avoid edit-war" but you removed a Pakistan government source which lists Persian as one of the languages spoken in the province. Pahari Sahib 00:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the number of refugees in Pakistan, try looking at this story from UNHCR (30th April 2008). I might add that the NADRA site that you have been referring to (but have not used) says "The registration process started on 15th October 2006 and ended on 15th February 2007. Registered Afghan refugees could be repatriated to their motherland after April 16, 2007." - it's a little out of date. Pahari Sahib 00:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

North West Frontier not really on plateau

I've looked at the rather dubious source for NWFP's geographic location and double checked with National Geographic references. I don't really see North West Frontier Province as being on a plateau. It's a mountain - valley province at the end point of the Eurasian plate, where it meets the Indian plate. It sits at the end of a range of mountains stretching from central Afghanistan to the western banks of the Indus river. The Iranian plateau sits more in southwest Pakistan, in Baluchistan. I'm going to bring a more credible geographic source defining NWFP's geographic location, if that's all right with everybody Afghan Historian (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC) The article uses Pakhtun and Pashtun seemingly interchangably. Would it not be a good idea to settle on just oner version. I realise this is small beer compared to the all out warfare going on generally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.169.162.100 (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Smallest province

I disagree with this edit, as I noted here smallest here is not indicative of status - but just the geographic area it covers - see Rhode Island for a comparison (the smallest US State). I added a government ref as well saying the same thing.

The article on Punjab says it is Pakistan's most populous province and the article on Balochistan says it is the largest province. Population and size of the provinces are more noteworthy than how hilly it is. There isn't a citation for it being mountainous though. Pahari Sahib 14:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

We can mention both bits of information, as long as the mountainous part can be cited. --Afghana ^[talk] 06:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As a compromise how about mentioning neither 'smallest' (which is only of secondary importance) nor 'most mountainous' (which isn't important at all) in the opening sentence. Midnight Madness (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling disagreement

I have asked Mohammad Shah to explain his latest edit. His edit summary says "Pashto is an accent of Pakhto, it is neither "the" language or another language. Only correct what you know please and not for the sake of it"

First of all Wikipedia has an article on Pashto language, Pakhto language is a redirect to it. Secondly Pashtun was changed to Pakhtun, Wikipedia tends to use the former spelling, there is an article called Pashtun people, both Pakhtun people and Pakhtun redirect to it. Also Peshawar was changed to Pekhawar, I have now created the later as a redirect to the former - this is the standard spelling employed by the government of Pakistan, by the international media and by Wikipedia.

Again the uncited line has been added to the lead section "although there are moves to formalise Pakhtunkhwa" - where is the proof for this? I am looking forward to an update here. Pahari Sahib 14:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now asked for a 3rd opinion sought on this subject. Pahari Sahib 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now removed the the request for a third opinion as this is not a dispute between two editors - but someone going against consensus and trying to take ownership of the article. Pahari Sahib 13:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

New name for NWFP

It looks like they agreed on a new name for NWFP, "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa". [1], [2]. (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC))

The amendment has not been approved by the Senate yet!—--Certified Expert (talk) 09:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Just wanna say that the Senate just approved the re-naming, with 80 members for and 12 againt, so it's officially now called Pakhtunkhwa.[3]--PosePetal (talk) 10:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is official now. [4] (Ketabtoon (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

Requested move (first attempt)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus for move. Vegaswikian (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

North-West Frontier Province → Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — It would appear that the name of the NWFP has been changed constitutionally. There have been two undiscussed attempts to rename the article (executed as copy/paste jobs, which forced me to revert them), so I now file this request in order to get a proper discussion. The precise spelling of the new name may also be up for discussion, with "Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa" being an alternative. Favonian (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hold no rename has yet taken place. The discussion is still at the committee level and has yet to be formally approved.[5] This is certainly a case of WP:CRYSTAL, at least at the moment.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hold - I don't think it is official yet. And, once it is official, we should spell it the way it is spelled by the government and other sources. Ketabtoon (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Important notification: THE NAME HAS NOT BEEN OFFICIALLY CHANGED YET! Until this occurs, we must stick with the current name, "North-West Frontier Province", no matter how much it offends some people. Until the constitution officially declares NWFP to be Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa or Afghania or whatever, NWFP remains! Period Afghan Historian (talk) 03:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, let's hold our horses. The Washington Post is not the defining body for this purpose. There is only one place where the name of this province can be changed (i.e. the parliament of Pakistan) and until this happens it is just hearsay. Green Giant (talk) 23:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The name already changed to Khyber-Pakhtunkhaw, here is a reliable source to prove it. Wikipedia rules are to follow what reliable sources say, not go by POVs of editors.[6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.2.255 (talk) 03:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The Wikipedia rules apply to editors with named accounts and to anonymous IP's equally. The link you provided does indeed mention the new name, but waving a newspaper at us will not have the desired effect in ths case. Whaat we want to see is an official announcement e.g. in the Pakistan Gazette, or maybe at [pakistan.gov.pk] or perhaps clear evidence that the constitution has been changed. Until then hold your horses. Green Giant (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hold A little bit too hasty see here, official government websites still refer to it as NWFP (nwfp.gov.pk included), the name hasn't been officially changed yet. Even if the name is changed however, the "North-West Frontier Province" is a very widely known name for the area.

The English Wikipedia has many articles where it is uses the common English name for an area rather than the local or native name, for example there is an article on "Germany" rather than "Deutschland" and "Vienna" and "Prague" rather than "Wien" and "Praha", "Armenia" and "Georgia" rather than "Hayastan" and "Sakartvelo", "Albania" instead of "Shqipëria" and "Munich" instead of "München". In all these cases the English names for these areas are so well known that it is used in place of the native names. Pahari Sahib 20:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Except that in this case, we would go with the national variant of English: in other words, Pakistani English. The examples you quote are where the national variant of English uses, for example, Germany rather than Deutschland. Conversely, the use of Bern, rather than Berne, in English language articles published in Switzerland was a key factor in the page title being changed on Wikipedia. My understanding is that a parliamentary committee has recommended that the change from NWFP should take place, but it has yet to be formally agreed by the full legislature. There seems little doubt that when it does, the new name will be accepted in the English speaking world, which will likely follow the practice within Pakistan's English language press. However, until then we need to wait a little longer. After all, it is conceivable that the proposed change might be abandoned at the last minute, or defeated in the legislature, however unlikely that may seem. Just be patient a little while longer. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I did say hold rather oppose. Pahari Sahib 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I wasn't having a go at you. I think we are actually in agreement on this! Skinsmoke (talk) 16:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Hold on for a little longer - today we have a small reason to justify our hesitation in renaming. Apparently the people of Hazara are not happy with the renaming, so it may well be delayed a bit more. Green Giant (talk) 14:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

North-West Frontier Province → Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa — Relisted Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this source added to the article, the name change is now official. Another editor has already changed the name inside the article, and I propose to carry out the renaming of the article proper. One copy/paste maverick has already tried to do it the improper way. Favonian (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree: Since it is approved by the Senate, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is now official. However, we are not sure if it is written as "Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa" with the dash or just "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa". (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

The newspaper article uses a hyphen, but it would be good to have some confirmation. Favonian (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hold. The discussion above still applies; let us see if Pakistani English (much less the whole community of English-speakers) adopts the name. This should be determinable soon. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

STRONG Agree the official name change has been passed (unanimously). It is not up to us here in wikipedia to wait for media affirmation. the official status has gone through. SeeBombay, Calcutta, Madras.

The name as pertaining to the actual bill should be what we move it to. Lihaas (talk) 03:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree: The name, according to many sources, has been approved by the Senate. Mar4d (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It's legal; if we want, we can wait until the president has signed it, but as he intends to, that doesn't really matter. —Nightstallion 15:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree now that it's the law. —Nightstallion 16:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not in my jurisdiction, nor in that of most of the English-speaking world. And not here on en.wp. Knepflerle (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - what concerns us, per WP:NCGN, is the "widely accepted English name" of the place. NWFP is dominant on Google and totally so on Google Books. Official name is relevant but only up to a point; see Burma. Once "Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa" can be shown to be the widely accepted English name for the province, then by all means move. But that has yet to happen. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It is already used in the media and once it is fully official, all Pakistani news agencies will be using Khyber Pakhtunkhwa instead of NWFP. Either ways, this is a different case and it is in no way similar to Germany or Burma. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's case is similar to Mumbai and Kolkata. Once the president signs the bill, the article should re-named. (Ketabtoon (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC))

When it becomes common use, then we'll change the article. There is absolutely no need to get into pre-emptive moves; the other cities were moved once common use in English was established. The global use of English and our reflection of it is not beholden to anybody's signature. Just because naming is "official" in one place doesn't even mean it will become common use in that place, never mind in the rest of the world outside their jurisdiction. Knepflerle (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Strongly oppose - Biruitorul has it absolutely correct. Knepflerle (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

The provincial government itself isn't in a hurry. Might as well see how usage evolves over the coming weeks and months. Joshdboz (talk) 01:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Agree. The President has signed the 18h Amendment into law and the new name "Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa" has now become a legal reality. Here is a source: http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/03-president-zardari-signs-18th-amendment-bill-ss-07 Poloplayers (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. As noted by Biruitorul "what concerns us, per WP:NCGN, is the "widely accepted English name" of the place.", if you look at the official government site (still located at NWFP.gov.pk), it refers to the province as the "North-West Frontier Province" throughout. Of course this could change in the future, but as it stands "North-West Frontier Province" is still the widely accepted English name and is used on official government websites. Pahari Sahib 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - It takes some time to change the name everywhere. It can't be done in a single day. The bill was signed on 19th and here are the updated news from the province.

• CriEnglish - "...in Pakistan's northwestern province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, formerly known as North West Frontier Province."
• CBS News - "...in a police station in the Kohat region of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, a province earlier known as the NWFP, early on Sunday."
• International, The News - "Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain, strongly..."
• Daily Times - "The other protest was limited to the Hazara region of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa,"
• The Express Tribune - "Afghan investors have also commissioned Pashto filmmakers based in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to make telefilms that can be sold via DVD."
• Samaa Tv - "The government of Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa has announced three day mourning"
• Xinhua News - "...in Pakistan's northwestern province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, formerly known as North West Frontier Province."

As you can see, it already is an accepted English name. CBS is a Canadian news agency and even they are using Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. I added Xinhua News, a well known Chinese news agency, to the list as well. (Ketabtoon (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC))

• Support What concerns us is not use in the English speaking world in general, but use in reliable Pakistani English sources. Our conventions on national varieties of English come into play in this case. There is evidence provided by Ketabtoon that the new name has already been accepted by those sources (and by at least one international source). I see no reason for further delay. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

However, we do need to confirm whether the hyphen is in the name, or not. Skinsmoke (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Even though most of the print and electronic media are using the hyphen, apparently, there is no hyphen in the 18th Amendment Bill, nor in the amended Constitution. Just checked both documents. Poloplayers (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support I voted to hold in the previous discussion and there appears to be more than enough data to justify the move at this point. With the name change now official and being used in international media, it appears to be an appropriate move. The WP:NCGN concept of using the most common English name is normally used to resolve conflict when multiple names, normally with historical or national links (ex: Gdańsk vs. Danzig) and that does not appear to be the case here. My only concern is whether to use the hyphen; news reports have been inconsistent in this matter. --Labattblueboy (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"The WP:NCGN concept of using the most common English name is normally used to resolve conflict when multiple names" - what you call the NCGN concept is actually the cornerstone of all our naming policy - see WP:AT. It's not a tie-breaker, it's the deal-maker. Knepflerle (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty certain guideline 1 favours the official name in this instance; "The modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used." The modern context has since changed because of the official name change. North-West Frontier Province is now a historical name, not the modern one. Common name does not automatically trump official name, particularly when dealing with places where the common name might be more prevalent in reliable sources than the official one. Of course North-West Frontier Province will be more common at this point, the change happened very recently. This seems like a more than appropriate use of official name.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding is a result of your selective, piecemeal quoting which takes the words out of their context. The sentence you quote is directly preceded by

"When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it... If the place does not exist anymore... the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used" (my bolding).

Ignoring the crucial first part is why you have got the whole process utterly back-to-front. When read as a whole, the policy is crystal-clear that we only go to official names when no there is no widely-accepted commonly-used name. Knepflerle (talk) 23:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

As I stated earlier, the modern context has since changed because the old name is now a historical one, not the modern one. The additional wording doesn't change the fact of the matter. Besides, we are already seeing Khyber Pakhtunkhwa replace North-West Frontier Province in the press. So I am not seeing the 'North-West Frontier Province' option holding strictly on a common name basis. When evaluating only news in the last week (as of 11:48pm EDT 25 April) you get 277 hits for 'Khyber Pakhtunkhwa'[7] and 319 hits for 'North-West Frontier Province'[8]. Its interesting that you bring up the piecemeal quoting, you conveniently forgot to include "This [The title] often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always".--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"This [The title] often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always": the fact you think that such an explicitly equivocal statement backs your personal interpretation of automatically using a local name says it all, really. Knepflerle (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Very Strong Oppose - For this rename, we absolutely must consult what the federal and provincial governments use. It will take some time for the provincial government to move from "nwfp.gov.pk" but that website quite clearly states that the name is "Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa" and it does not appear to use any other spelling. Equally, the Information Ministry of Pakistan uses "Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa" repeatedly. I accept that all of the sources cited earlier in the debate are good, but they are not official sources. They have at least two variant spellings and even the official news agency, the Associated Press of Pakistan, reports several spellings - "Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa (used by Zahid Khan, the spokesman of the governing Awami National Party), "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Khyber Pukhtoonkhwah (used by no less than President Zardari himself), and Khyber-Pukhtoonkhwa and Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa (used in a related article). I believe these can be put down to examples of personal preference on the part of web-mistresses/masters, so I support "Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa" exactly as the official sources spell it. Green Giant (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. The spelling officially is "Khyber Pakthunkhwa". Your opinion doesn't matter nor that of journalists who are using the wrong spelling in their reports. On what basis are you claiming that President Zardari used the spelling "Pakhtoonkhwah"? Did he write it down? You are basing this on an APP report written by a journalist who reported what Zardari said orally. The spelling belongs to the journalist, not Zardari. More importantly, the spelling is there in the 18th Constitutional Amendment Bill and in the recently published Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as amended by the 18th Amendment. Also it is silly to wait for websites to update. Government websites are notoriously late in being updated. The law has been passed, the notification has been issued and the amendment is in force. The name has been changed legally and constitutionally to "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa". Accept and learn to live with the new reality. Poloplayers (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - What about Khyber Pakhtunkhwa? That is the official spelling according to the Provincial Assembly of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's site. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

Comment - Poloplayers, pay attention to what I actually wrote. Yes APP reported something Zardari said but my point was that even the news agency used several spellings across different articles. Ketabtoon I agree that the provincial website has a banner which uses that spelling but it also still uses NWFP on the rest of its content especially the copyright banner at the bottom which still reads "© 2010 Provincial Assembly of NWFP". Even the provincial government calls the legislature, the Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa Provincial Assembly. The president of Pakistan on this page and this page, the information ministry and the provincial government all use Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa so why is that not a credible option in this debate? Green Giant (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Debate" for what? We are not discussing the theory of evolution here, which is debatable. We are discussing a legal fact. The name of NWFP has been changed by the Parliament of Pakistan through the 18th Amendment Act, 2010. If the name change arises out of the 18th Amendment Act, then we have to seek recourse to the 18th Amendment Act to verify the spelling of the new name. It is simple as that. We have to stick to the "legal" spelling, which is contained in the 18th Amendment Act, which was passed by Parliament, which is the competent authority that determines provincial names and their spellings. I have it in PDF. If anyone wants it, I can email it. The 18th Amendment also changed the spellings of Balochistan and Sindh. They were spelt "Baluchistan" and "Sind" in the Constitution until now and the 18th Amendment has changed them to "Balochistan" and "Sindh" respectively. Please note that Provincial Governments and Provincial Assemblies do not have the authority to change the name or spelling of provinces. So it doesn't matter what they are using, they are NOT the competent authority. The competent authority is Parliament. By the way, the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Assembly is using the spelling "Pakthunkwa", which you can see on their website.

Below is the verbatim quotation from Clause 3 of the Constitution (18th Amendment) Act, 2010:

"3. Amendment of Article 1 of the Constitution. - In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as the Constitution, in Article 1, in clause (2), in paragraph (a), for the word "Baluchistan" the word "Balochistan", for the words "North West Frontier Province" the words "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa", and for the words "Sind" the word "Sindh", shall be substituted."

As you can see from the above, Parliament is showing a sensitivity towards and being very specific about spellings of provincial names. Otherwise, it would not have bothered to change the spellings of "Baluchistan" and "Sindh" to "Balochistan" and "Sindh" respectively (the latter were being widely used in any case). So the Parliament is basically saying "we are the Parliament, we are the competent authority and we decide what the spellings of provincial names are going to be". Please note that the Consitutional Reforms Committee comprised of all political parties and Parliament passed the 18th Amendment unanimously (with the spelling "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa". Who are we to debate otherwise? The 18th Amendment goes on to substitute the old names and spellings with the new ones wherever they occur in the Constitution. Vis-a-vis NWFP, wherever the name "North West Frontier Province" occurs, the 18th Amendment bill changes it to "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" (exact spelling used in the 18th Amendment Bill without the hyphen). Poloplayers (talk) 08:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have some bad news for you Poloplayers. WE at Wikipedia are NOT subject to the laws of Pakistan. We use debate and discussion anytime there is a controversial decision to be made. If the matter was as crystal-clear as you make out ("we are the Parliament, etc"), then we wouldn't have any objections to the proposed move. The National Assembly link you provide below is not working at the moment, so in the spirit of fairness, I have found a copy of the text at the place you should have been looking at -> pak.gov.pk. Let me be absolutely clear on this - I have never doubted that the amendment itself uses "Pakhtunkhwa"; what I have doubted is the spelling that will be used by various sources and ultimately by Wikipedia. As you yourself pointed out, the constitution of Pakistan until recently contained the spellings "Baluchistan" and "Sind" but those are not the spellings we use for the articles on the modern provinces of Balochistan and Sindh. In the same manner we could have an article at Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa even if the constitution says Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.

I'm not saying Wikipedia is subject to the laws of Pakistan, but it cannot ignore the official and legal name of a province and go into a state of collective denial. Just because a lot of people refer to New York as the "Big Apple" doesn't mean Wikipedia adopts that name for New York. Poloplayers (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Leaving aside the provincial government and assembly and allowing for Parliament to make decisions on official names, why does the president's own website at president.gov.pk repeatedly use the term Pukhtoonkhwa? Are we to assume that the president and his web team have made a simple mistake?

Yes. Poloplayers (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Why does the federal government website at pak.gov.pk use Pukhtoonkhwa when describing the provinces of Pakistan and the provincial governors? Should we assume that this too is a simple spelling error?

Yes. Obviously. Why are two official bodies within the same government using two different spelling. Obviously one of them is making a mistake because both can't be right.

• The point I am trying to get you to see is that there is no single accepted spelling for the new name of the province at the moment, because even if the 18th amendment uses "Pakhtunkhwa", it seems the highest authority in the land (i.e. the president) uses a different spelling. We should not rush into this name change just because it has been passed into law. That sort of rapid reaction is fine on wikinews but not on wikipedia. Green Giant (talk) 10:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

FYI, the "highest authority in the land" is NOT the President. The President is a mere constitutional figurehead, more so after the 18th Amendment. Secondly, the President himself signed the 18th Amendment into law with the spelling "Pakhtunkhwa". Poloplayers (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Oh for heaven's sake, can everyone get a grip here. Can we agree that a change from North-West Frontier Province is appropriate? If so, we then need to decide the spelling of the KP version we move to. I'm not usually an advocate of Google hits, but they do help to determine useage between two forms when all other things are equal. So, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa comes up with 99,200 hits and Khyber Pakhtoonkhwah gets just 802 hits. That is a pretty conclusive result! Google is no use at all in determining whether there is a hyphen in the name, but I would suggest we leave it out. However, if anyone wants to argue the point, I'd rather Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa than see the page remain where it is. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

"Can we agree that a change from North-West Frontier Province is appropriate?" - no, we can't. That this is the most-common name has not been established, and this is the deciding factor per our naming policy, not governmental edict. The few instances of use given above don't even establish common use, nevermind preference over the existing title - only time will tell for that. Knepflerle (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The page should be moved to "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" - leave the hyphen out. Poloplayers (talk) 09:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support a move to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa without a hyphen, for the sake of resolving deadlock, but I note that another editor has already moved the page without this discussion being closed. Green Giant (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Since discussion has not yet been closed, I have reverted the page move. Favonian (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting - there is no consensus for any move as yet. Knepflerle (talk) 14:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I understand some of you have agreed on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and it actually is the correct spelling Source. (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

• Fantastic, that is all I was asking for - an official announcement to clear up the spelling. Now I see no reason to not move the article to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Green Giant (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• How about (1) the lack of consensus in this discussion for a move, (2) the lack of evidence that this name is more commonly in English than the current title and thus (3) the complete lack of policy support for this move? Those are three very clear and pertinent reasons not to move the article. Knepflerle (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparantely you are the only person at this stage opposing the move for whatever reason there is. So, there is a concensus among majority of the members. (Ketabtoon (talk) 17:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Sorry Knepflerle, I should have worded that more carefully; my only concern was the spelling variation and since there is an official announcement now, I have no further objections to moving to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. However, there are still concerns voiced by other editors that need to be addressed. Green Giant (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Apparantely you are the only person at this stage opposing the move for whatever reason there is. So, there is a concensus among majority of the members." - this is an obvious falsehood, as anyone who reads the above can check for themselves:

• Pmanderson: "Hold: let us see if Pakistani English (much less the whole community of English-speakers) adopts the name"
• Biruitorul: "Oppose - what concerns us, per WP:NCGN, is the "widely accepted English name" of the place... Once "Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa" can be shown to be the widely accepted English name for the province, then by all means move. But that has yet to happen."
• Pahari Sahib: "Oppose.... as it stands "North-West Frontier Province" is still the widely accepted English name and is used on official government websites."
• Joshdboz: "The provincial government itself isn't in a hurry. Might as well see how usage evolves over the coming weeks and months"
• Knepflerle: "Strongly oppose: When it becomes common use, then we'll change the article."

I am not alone, and the objection is based in policy and is valid. There is no consensus for this move. Knepflerle (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

At this moment you are all by yourself in here. Pmanderson & Joshdboz disappeared after their first comments. While Pahari Sahib and Biruitorul left the discussion after they saw English news sources (Pakistani national and international) using the name. Even I opposed the move at the beginning 1) because it was not official at the time 2) spelling of the second part of the name "Pakhtunkhwa" was not very clear, and so did Labattblueboy, Green Giant and so on. On the other hand Favonian, Labattblueboy, Lihaas, Poloplayers, Skinsmoke, Mar4d, Nightstallion, Green Giant & Ketabtoon agrees with the move.

Completely untrue. You seriously misunderstand how discussion works here on Wikipedia. You are not deemed to have "left" the discussion if you do not comment for a certain length of time - arguments are not won by attrition and exhaustion. Just because editors don't return over and over again to repeat their arguments doesn't mean that they are not counted - especially when the arguments they made are valid and based in our naming policy. Conversely, repeating the same argument about the constitution of Pakistan (which counts for next-to-nothing in our naming policy) doesn't make it any more valid. Knepflerle (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate what Knepflerle said: I made my comment and I continue to stand by it. Pretty much every book and academic article on the subject uses NFWP (which makes sense, since they were published prior to 2010). Copious news sources also use NFWP. True, K-P has begun to creep into the media, but current usage remains predominantly NFWP. That may change, but it hasn't so far. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no good reason not to change the name of the article at this stage. We have access to the updated version of the constitution which shows the correct spelling for the second part of the name - Pakhtunkhwa. And it has been proven that the English media (both national and international) are widely using the new name. Actually, almost all of the news agencies are using the new name. Some members raised fingers at government web sites, and we just saw that even those websites changed the name. I request the admins to change the topics name to "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa". (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

Seriously, what exactly are we waiting for? Government websites are using the name, the media is using the name, CIA World Factbook changed the name to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa - Check the government section, NGOs (Human Security Report Project - Pakistan Conflict Monitor) is using the new name, so what else are we waiting for? It is no more about WP's policy or a valid objection, it is about only one member who for some UNKNOWN reasons don't want the name change. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC))

"it is about only one member": a clear and blatant falsehood.

"who for some UNKNOWN reasons don't want the name change": three reasons, numbered for convenience in this edit

"It is no more about WP's policy": on Wikipedia, we work by Wikipedia policy, not the edict of the Pakistani governement. That is the fundamental issue. Knepflerle (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Knepferle has asked me to look in again. I see relatively little evidence of a change of usage, and much inconsistency, even among editors, on the spelling of the new name. What we want to change an article title is the situation now the case for Beijing or Mumbai, where an article about an event in Mumbai says "In Mumbai, on Tuesday,...". Nobody now writes "In Bombay, which has had its name changed to Mumbai".

That's the mark that the common understanding has changed. If it is going to change it will be quick - but that means quick in historical time, not a day or two. We should hold until such evidence accumulates; again I think it will, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And that is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless Pakistan takes an unexpected political turn (not exactly unprecedented) I have little doubt that this will likely become standard usage eventually. But it's not right now, and it's no service to our readers to make an article harder to find by changing to a lesser known, albeit official, English-language title. All in good time. Joshdboz (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose the move for the same reasons given by PMAnderson, Biruitorul, Knepflerle et al. above. Let's wait at least a couple of months to gauge if English usage (the core criterion of our policy on article titles & our naming conventions for geographic names) changes. - Best, Ev (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

This should put an end to the "debate" on the spelling of "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa"

Link to the "Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010" as notified in the Official Gazette of Pakistan from the Official Website of the National Assembly of Pakistan:

[9]

Please start with Clause 3 and go through entire legislation and you will see what the official and legal spelling are. Note also the table in Article 16(3). If this doesn't convince some of you guys, I don't know what will. Poloplayers (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In support of the name change

If this is not enough, then what is? I will be adding more sources to the list until the name is changed.

Local News Sources

- The Nation - AAJ TV - Daily Times - World Tribune Pakistan - One Pakistan - Sana News - The Express Tribune - Associated Press of Pakistan - Pakistan Observer - Pakistan Tribune - Pakistan Patriot - Regional Times

International News Sources

- BBC - Khaleej Times - Deutsche Welle - The Australian - New Kerala - The Tribune - India - Xinhua News Agency - China - Earth Times - People's Daily - China - The Peninsula - Qatar - Bernama - Malaysia - News Times - South Africa - Eurasia Review - The Hindu

Government of Pakistan sources

- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's official website - Khyber Pakhtunkhwa's Provincial Assembly - Ministry of Information and Broadcasting -

Other Credible Sources

- Cia World Factbook - Pakistan, Geography section - Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamabad - Human Security Report Project - Pakistan Conflict Monitor

History sections

if theres a main article to the history of the province why is there so much detail over here. the point of spin-off articles is to decrease this. I think a couple of paragraphs in synopsis here more than suffice. The details are easily appopriate for the spinoff page.Lihaas (talk) 03:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is a frequent occurrence. Editors want to edit the "cooler" main article rather than the subarticle. It takes the effort of other editors to maintain proper balance and move content to the subarticles as needed. I'll put some headers in the articles to encourage this. See WP:SUMMARY for more info and get to work on it if you have time. — AjaxSmack 14:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the data into the history article. I have done my best for the first try, but it is very difficult to get the data into the right order. Op47 (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Britanica re-named the article

It is unbelievable that Britanica re-names its article, CIA World Factbook updates their article to the new name, international news sources uses the new name but here at Wikipedia we are waiting for no reason. (Ketabtoon (talk) 18:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC))

That's the difference between an "encyclo-pedia" and a "wiki-pedia". Britanica is not in a state of denial and understands that "usage" alone is not the criterion for determining whether a piece of information should be disseminated or not. The job of an encyclopedia is not to play to the gallery of public opinion (or the opinion of a handful of its users) but to disseminate up-to-date and accurate factual information regarding a topic. Wikipedia policy needs to change. Poloplayers (talk) 09:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to change a policy that serves the vast majority of editors, the vast majority of readers and the vast majority of articles perfectly well the vast majority of the time, feel free to go to WT:AT with some very strong arguments. Knepflerle (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Britannica and the CIA factbook only recently changed this, the government website itself has only just been amended. The arguments against the move were mainly wait and see how things develop. And especially since the name change was controversial and upsetting to some - it is best to be cautious. There is no need for Wiki to jump the gun, just wait for the fuss to settle down and see how the usage is reflected. Pahari Sahib 20:19, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The information on the renaming is being disseminated. See the first line of the article and third paragraph - it takes up most of the lead.

The title is kept so that the highest possible proportion of English speakers can find the article, then the lead informs them about the recent change in Pakistani law. Changing the article to a name that fewer English-speaking people will find is a great way of hindering the dissemination of the information. Knepflerle (talk) 16:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should peruse WP:REDIRECT. English speakers can find the article no matter what they type just as they do with Calcutta, Bashkiria, Orange Free State, &c. — AjaxSmack 02:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

A sentence in the Social Issues section is rather misleading: it implies that opposition to the name change of the province comes from 'Non-Pashtun Hazara regions'. This is incorrect because the majority of Hazara's population belong to various Pashtun tribes e.g. Yusufzai, Swati, Tanaoli, Jadun, Tahirkhelis etc. Even the Mashwanis and the Sayyids of Kaghan list themselves as Pashtuns despite being of Saadat origins. That a minority among these tribes speak Hindko does not imply a change of ethnicity. Although the section does reflect reality in that the region has been nefariously influenced by Punjab based politicians particularly the two factions of Pakistan Muslim League namely the Nawaz and Quaid leagues. Their internecine warfare in Punjab has over-spilled into Hazara and the Chaudry brothers of Quaid League have smelled an opening for their mischief against their nemesis the Sharif brothers who dropped their opposition and supported the name change. There should be an attempt to change this. {{User]} Moarrikh 12 May 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarrikh (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa - third attempt

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. WP:UCN says that "common sense can be applied – if an organization changes its name, it is reasonable to consider the usage since the change." This province is not exactly an organization, but the same idea should apply. We have had evidence here that since the name change, most media, even outside Pakistan, have been using Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; thus, the title of this article should be changed. Ucucha 18:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

---

North-West Frontier Province → Khyber Pakhtunkhwa — It is May 17 now, so by now there should be no more dispute over the name change as it has been adopted by common usage. First, see all the references on the official website of the NWFP govt website have been changed to "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa":

• http://nwfp.gov.pk/nwfpgov/aboutus/index.php

Second see this article in Dawn newspaper affirming the official name change:

• http://www.dawn.com.pk/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/07-senate-begins-voting-on-18th-amendment-ha-02

Also note that BBC, CNN, AFP and countless other international agencies have adopted the name change:

• http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8646721.stm
• http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/05/10/pakistan.airport.arrest/?hpt=T2
• http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jqfRkdjGvrzlrtA3R2MrnaMmJ-fw

In addition, ALL of the English-language Pakistani press uses Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and has stopped using NWFP. Seriously, there can be no two opinions on this matter any more. Barastert (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• • The only materials of relevance here are the three international reports, and of those CNN is precisely in the state of transition which means we should not move the article yet, because the new name is not yet widely understood; Agence France-Presse, a less than optimal source for English usage, also waffles, although less markedly.
  • The compliance of the free Pakistani press to the democratic mandates of their government is, if material at all, a reason for us not to follow suit. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Those three articles were just a small sample of international reports. If we look at what is being published NOW, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa trumps NWFP. If you are not convinced here are some more international reports:
      • Christian Science Monitor
      • Time magazine
      • Reuters
      • the Long War Journal
      • Voice of America
      • The Telegraph
      • The Financial Times. Do you need more? --Barastert (talk) 17:30, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Examples of usage are not evidence of predominant usage. Note the word "predominant". You must demonstrate that the new official name is used more than the old official name. Knepflerle (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
          • Yes, but how else do you propose I prove its predominance? I have shown you that pretty much every major English-language media outlet and Encyclopedia Britannica is now using Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The onus is now on YOU to prove that this is untrue and that NWFP is still being used more by reliable English language resources currently. So far no one has given any evidence to challenge the claim that Khyber Pakhtunkhwa is not the predominant term today. --Barastert (talk) 22:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Half of these are still at the "KP, formerly NWFP" stage. When the media gets over that, as they surely will, then we should move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
        • That's not really logical PMAnderson. Because other sources are using KP, formerly NWFP, we should use NWFP, now renamed KP? Have you really thought this one out? Skinsmoke (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Support: It's official. The name has changed. But there needs to be a section explaining the history behind the name change. Here's a source for that: From NWFP to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa David Straub (talk) 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Try Names of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa for some of the details. — AjaxSmack 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"It's official" is not a valid argument in our naming policy; usage is the decisive factor, not edict. Please take the time to read the previous discussion for a completely exhaustive discussion why. Knepflerle (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at its usage in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn (newspaper. There's 810 instances of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in that newspaper alone! Click here for google results. If it has become the norm in Pakistani publications, then that's enough proof of "usage." Regardless of how this vote turns out, there needs to be an addition to this article, or maybe even a new article, concerning the history of the movement to change the name to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.David Straub (talk) 02:12, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

You're not telling us anything new. We already know the new name is sometimes used by some people, and that's all your link shows. What you were asked to show is that the new name is used more often than the old name, in general English language usage. Knepflerle (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: still no evidence of predominant use. Evidence of some use is not sufficient; you must demonstrate that the new official name is used more than the old official name. Knepflerle (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The usage change is overwhelming. See my comments below. In the face of this, I ask that you provide basis for the assertion that there is "no evidence of predominant use". — AjaxSmack 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Not yet adopted internationally, despite lots of coverage these days. This may change of course. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Quite a bit of evidence of widespread international adoption presented in the nomination and above. More importantly, WP:ENGVAR gives special weight to Pakistani usage where the change has been overwhelming. In the face of this, I ask that you provide basis for the assertion that KP is "not yet adopted internationally". — AjaxSmack 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it matter if it's used "internationally"? If that was the case, we would still have Burma rather than Myanmar. I agree with AjaxSmack (nice moniker!) that usage in Pakistan carries more weight than usage outside of Pakistan. If we waited for the rest of the world to stop using NWFP, we might continue arguing about this until the 22nd century. 15:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. We are intended for an international anglophone readership. (And we do use Burma, as clicking on that link would have shown you; we are neither presentists nor subject to the whim of every tyrant who would like to upgrade his people and move them forward into the yawning heights of some imaginary future.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support I withheld support previously for the reasons given by other opponents of the move. However, as demonstrated by the sources listed above, there is already broad and deep usage of the new name both within and outside of Pakistan. WP:ENGVAR asks that Pakistani English usage be considered foremost (cf. Balochistan vs. Baluchistan) and here is a crude result of Google hits of the two names in Pakistani domains in the last month:
  • KP 45,100 results
  • NWFP 452 results
• Similar results ratios hold for Pakistani news outlets. Sources outside of the country from the US CIA to Britannica to most UK and US media outlets use Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Here is a crude sampling provided by Google News with no restriction on domain name or country:
  • KP 496 results
  • NWFP 118 reults
• This is not some amorphous historical region but a specific administrative entity and such overwhelming current endorsement of the name change suffices to warrant a name change. — AjaxSmack 20:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Thanks for being the first person to actually take the time to do what was required, rather than continue repeating the same irrelevancies.
  • I notice that repeating those searches for "NWFP" paints a rather different picture; this abbreviated form appears to still in extremely common usage. Knepflerle (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • • But NWFP is not the current or proposed name of the article it is only evidence if you support a move to NWFP (abbreviated form) as the article title. Anyway, news sources favor Khyber Pakhtunkhwa over NWFP too according to User:Barastert below. — AjaxSmack 02:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think that using google's "past month" option is a good indicator when you are using it across the web generally. As you can see, many of the sites picked up are "classified ads" using the old categorizations, or similar things. These are sites that are not good indicators of the current usage in English. As an alternative, I propose using the "News" search on google which will only search from news and media outlets which are good indicators of current English language usage. Here it becomes obvious:
      • KP - 521 results
      • NWFP - 216 results
    • The difference becomes even more stark if we look at the results in just the past week:
      • KP - 459 results
      • NWFP - 41 results
    • User:AjaxSmack also makes a very important point that this is not a contested historical geographical name but an administrative territory. --Barastert (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support This is getting silly now. In determining the title we are interested in what is the common use in English prose in Pakistan (as national variations of English comes into play). That appears to be overwhelmingly in favour of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa since the name change was formally promulgated. In case there is any further doubt, here are some examples:-

But it will be the ANP which will rightly claim the credit for undertaking what was until recently considered an impossible task of correcting a historical wrong and giving an identity to the people of “Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.” from Dawn : 1 April 2010 : From NWFP to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Information Minister Mian Iftikhar Hussain Thursday condemned the target killing in the port city, saying, the responsibility rested with the Sindh government, particularly, the chief minister and the governor. from The International News : 21 May 2010 : Iftikhar Blames Sindh Govt for Karachi Killings

As of 15 April, 300,468 individuals or 42 924 families are living with host communities in Hangu (15187 families,106 309 individuals) Peshawar(1910 families,13370 individuals) and Kohat(25827 families,180789 individuals) Districts, displaced from Orakzai and Kurram Agency, of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province formally known as North West Frontier Province (NWFP). from World Health Organization : Pakistan Crisis in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Health Cluster Bulletin Number 4 - 20 March - 12 April 2010

The Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government and members of the provincial assembly from Hazara decided on Wednesday to debate the proposed Hazara province and formation of the Abasin division in the next assembly session. from Daily Times : 29 April 2010 : Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly to Discuss Proposed Hazara Province

May 1: Seven persons including three Taliban (TTP) militants were killed and 16 people, including seven SFs, were injured in a suicide blast and a retaliatory clash between SFs and Taliban (TTP) at a commercial plaza in Mingora city of Swat in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. from South Asia Terrorism Portal : Suicide Attacks in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

“A foreign journalist once rightly termed this situation the ‘Hug of Death’”, said Malik Naveed, police chief of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. He said police routinely face down terrorists to spare civilian casualties. from Central Asia Online ; 22 April 2010 : Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Police Put Lives on Line in War on Terror

Advisor to Prime Minister for Information Technology, Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa has said Information Technology facilities will be provided to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa equal to the other provinces of the country. from Pakistan Defence : 7 April 2010 : IT Park to be Set Up in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Says Khosa

Skinsmoke (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support: The new name has been set by officials of the former NWFP and thus the name change is official and should also be changed here on Wikipedia. EasternAryan (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • This hasn't become a valid argument since the last time it was put forth; see WP:Official names, and the pages it summarizes. To be even briefer: we don't do official names, no matter how many governments [or how many Aryans] are officially behind them. English is spoken here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Okay, the "official name" argument is not valid. But will you agree that "predominant use" has been established based on the Google News results provided above? --Barastert (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Not yet; but it's well on the way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Please justify your position. Explain why you think predominant use has not been established. Thanks --Barastert (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
          • I already have justified my position; fortunately, I am not required to convince a stalwart advocate like yourself, merely to decide for myself, and present the reasons which have made up my mind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
            • Crikey! Don't take it so personally! I was simply asking so that there could be some mutual understanding of what the problems are! You're not required to justify your position to me, but it would be nice, and in the interests of wikipedia, if you did.--Barastert (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
              • As I said, when the predominant use in English in general is Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, without hedging or apology, then we should move. Extracts from one Pakistani newspaper do not demonstrate that; neither does evidence of "KP, formerly NWFP". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Clash between Urdu-speakers and Pashtuns in Karachi

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/editorial/19-karachi-killings-150-hh-08

http://www.rferl.org/content/Killings_In_Largest_Pakistani_City_Target_Ethnic_Pashtuns/2049502.html

EasternAryan (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Renaming discussion

Prezbo (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

History section

From 1901-2010 the place was known as the North-West Frontier Province. It is anachronistic and bizarre to refer to British governors of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or whatever - it looks like someone just did a search and replace to change all mentions of NWFP to KP. I have changed back references to the province in the period when it was known as NWFP to refer to it by its proper name at the time. john k (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

educational institutes in khyber pakhtunkhwa

please add "edwardes college peshawar. in the list

webside:www.edwardes.edu.pk

educational institutes in khyber pakhtunkhwa

please add "edwardes college peshawar. in the list

website:www.edwardes.edu.pk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.3.229 (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Too much images

Section {{sectionlink|Khyber Pakhtunkhwa]] has four images basically showing mountains, only one with a feature mentioned in the text. These are the other ones:

Makra Peak

Mountains

View of Siran Valley in Mansehra District (2006)

It might be possible, that these are of value, but I doubt it. I would rather add a image of the Khyber Pass. Or a pair of images giving the mentioned mountain-hill-contrast (Are there really mere hills?). -- Tomdo08 (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could someone, please, explain (ideally, but not necessarily, using IPA) how "Khyber Pakhtunkhwa" is pronounced? Is this a transcription from Pashto or from Urdu? I understand that in Pashto the kh can be pronounced either as /x/ or as /š/ (i.e. sh), but normally I would expect to see the transcription Khaybar for Dari or (imprecisely) for Pashto, and the transcription Kebar (with an -e- like in the English word let, set etc., plus the e is long here) for Pashto. Therefore I guess that Khyber is supposed to be the Urdu word and is supposed to be pronounced Kheeb..[whatever] (with an -ee- like in the English word meet). Am I wrong?...And of course the Pashto and Urdu pronunciation of the second word - "Pakhtunkhwa" is also missing in the article. Qaywsx541 (talk) 23:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you are wrong, the pronunciation of y in Khyber is same as pronunciation ay or ey , same like you mentioned for dari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.51.200.28 (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Language education in the province

"The provincial government is planning to introduce Hindko-medium education in Peshawar, Nowshera, Kohat, Haripur, Abbottabad and Mansehra districts."

I added this to the demographics section for now, but shouldn't this probably be part of the education section? Perhaps some more paragraphs should be written regarding language education. Does anyone have any sources on what the language of instruction in the province has been historically? saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 10:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I was born in Oghi at the foothills of Tur GHar (Kala Dhaka)and the language of instruction was in Pushto - I can still read Pushto - despite many people being bilingual. Urdu was not taught till later primary years to prepare for secondary schooling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.9.41.55 (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

References

The 1947 referendum

I came to this article looking for information about the 1947 referendum. The section about the referendum was very unclear to people (like me!) who are unfamiliar with this area. Why did half of eligible voters not vote on something as monumental as which country they would belong to? It was a glaring unanswered question. I did more reading, then made a couple of IMO very minor insertions to add clarity. (1) I inserted a line about the lack of an option for independence, to add clarity about why there was a boycott. This was reverted, even though it is obvious from the cited polling information that there was no option for independence. So, I read more and managed to find some better references about the referendum. I added those. (2) Beginning a sentence by talking about the actions of people who have not been introduced in the article is confusing to people who are unfamiliar with the area. I changed "Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan and his Khudai Khidmatgars chose to boycott the polls along with other nationalistic or pro-India Pashtuns." to "Many Pashtuns, led by Khan ..., chose to boycot the polls." This was reverted due to "POV". What POV have I inserted? Ajobin (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@1 You were not reverted completely. Only the source you cited was removed with the the edit summary "Not a reliable source" which is pretty much self explanatory. Yes it is obvious from the cited polling information that there was no option for independence, similarly it is also obvious that there was no option to join Afghanistan, neither Iran nor China. But we have to write what the source says.

@2 I am sorry I don't understand how your change/edit brought any clarity for the reason you mention but anyhow the edit you made was POV because of the attribution of the word "Many" before the "Pashtuns" that quantifies it. Those who boycotted were in large numbers but still a minority so to attribute it with such a word is not neutral way of expression. -- SMS ^Talk 20:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

@(1), I never disputed your removing my first source on the polling options. I did do the work of finding better sources. @(2), Do you seriously think that "many" is a biased word for describing the number of eligible Pashtun voters who boycotted the referendum? Have you seen the numbers? 'Many' is an understatement. Approximately 1/2 of eligible Pashtun voters did not vote -- over 380,000 people. How is that not many? The way it is written right now it sounds like a boycott by one guy plus his (non-violent) political action group and a few supporters. Do you think that is more neutral?

In which case, actual numbers will be most neutral. The most neutral solution is to avoid words entirely, and make a chart showing the total population, eligible voters, and the voter turnout, in actual numbers, % of actual voters, % of eligible voters, and % of the total population (or just adult population, if known).

These are the facts (which I had to go to the trouble figure out and find reliable sources for): In 1947, the population was ~3.5 million. Of these, only 572,798 people were considered eligible to vote. In the 1947 referendum, 289,244 votes were cast in favour of Pakistan, 2874 in favour of India, and 280,680 eligible voters did not vote. pdfbook blog article book

I had been trying to be polite and not to intrude too much into this article. But if saying that "Many" Pashtuns boycotted the polls is too controversial, then numbers are the most factual alternative. They are certainly very relevant. -- Ajobin (talk) 01:03, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, listing the result and polling participation figures is a must I think. -- SMS ^Talk 06:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I will try to make a chart.

IP edits and removal of content, is possibly vandalism

Hello 66.215.89.221: Please stop removing content for no reason, adding dubious content, or removing native languages of the province (Kalami, Torwali, Shina, Saraiki, Gujari, Maiya, Bateri, Kalkoti, Chilisso, Gowro, Kalasha-mondr, Palula, Dameli, Gawar-Bati, Yidgha, Burushaski, Kyrgyz, Wakhi) from the info box. Khestwol (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Khestwol: The IP editor did a tremendous job, greatly improving the article. Infobox should only list significant facts (languages). Why don't you choose to respect WP:PRESERVE? Regards, kashmiri ^TALK 09:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Languages

i have removed the section of languages I think we need some reliable reference, after that we'll re-add it.--Jasimkhanum10 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

And we should also discuss about the following two maps which are looking controversal:

• File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.jpg
• File:Map of languages of Khyber Pakhtun khwa.jpg

--Jasimkhanum10 (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Its not mine. Its pre dispute. why you not understanding as per Wikipedia policy in case of dispute long standing pre dispute version is kept. You disputed it so use talk page to get concensus for removal of content disputed by you.

Present your views on disputed areas of map to reach some concensus. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal biasness shown by Cyphoidbomb

I had a talk page disscussion over article balouchistan Pakistan where my position was oposite from User Cyphoidbomb. All ended with a concensus. After that for another article Baluchistan I am here on DRN against User Cyphoidbomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Balochistan.23Recent_changes, but with out being relevant to another article's (Khyber Paktunkhwa) dispute (between me and User Jasimkhanum 10 on maintaning pre dispute version of article), Cyphoidbomb started persanol revenge game. 1. He misrepresented me on ANI read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=675320060&oldid=675310006 2. He deleted pre dispute version of Khyber Pakhtunkha and took Jasimkhanum 10 side and voilated WP principle that in case of dispute a pre dispute version will be maintaned. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This user (Zmaghndstakun) is a vandal, who is working on anti-Pashtun propaganda, every time gushing in wrong stuff to Pashtun, Baloch and Saraiki articles and trying to enforce a punjabi outlook in them. while also using different names like maria0333, rashidzaman & Zmaghndstakun. So,I inform u, to stop ur vandalism, otherwise shame on ur actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.33.41.239 (talk • contribs)

Please provide behavioral evidence of this, or do not make these accusations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A completely absurd accusation. I haven't taken any side, I've restored the article to a version that didn't include unsourced, contested content. Good luck with your manufactured revenge accusations. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)