Talk:Pashtuns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Pashtun people)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Pashtun (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Pashtuns is part of WikiProject Pashtun, a project to maintain and expand Pashtun-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Afghanistan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Pashtuns is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Federally Administered Tribal Areas.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
 
WikiProject India / Uttar Pradesh (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Uttar Pradesh (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Central Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Pashtuns is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Version 0.5      (Rated B-Class)
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.
Former featured article Pashtuns is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2007.

Vandalism in the image section?[edit]

Why are Sharukh Khan, Madubala and Salim Khan included in the picture gallery? There is no proof that any of them are Pashtun or have ever spoken Pashto. I have also noticed a sense of predijuce by pakistani Pashtuns who tend to replace images of Afghan Pashtuns with Pakistani Pashtuns for their own dismay, why is there no action being taken here?

Akmal94 (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Akmal94

The image gallery has been tampered with AGAIN! 3 new pictures have been added while removing the old ones without permission, this is clearly vandalism on behalf of Pakistani Pashtuns and i feel like this mascarade will continue until they are satisfied. I urge wikipedia and its staff to take immediate measures against these anonymous users.Akmal94 (talk) 05:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

so sad this article is fully dominated by afghanis[edit]

muhammad nabi a cricketer, nobody even knows him outside Afghanistan is in the picture but no jan sher khan who is world known squash champion. no younis khan lol. but all stupid afghans are present who have done nothing except for their own self. This article needs to be revised on the basis of equality and remember pakistani pashtuns are far more than your afghanistan pashtuns. Rest in peace wikipedia and this article which is being manipulated by afghans for their own interests. i will continue replacing unknown afghans in the article until admins fix the equality principleSaladin1987 02:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

AND nobody knows who Younas Khan or Sher Khan is outside of Pakistan, all your doing is trying to compete with Afghan Pashtuns to see which countries can be displayed on the image area the most. Population doesn't change the fact that Afghan Pashtuns were and still are the most influential group of Pashtuns. Also, to add Mohammad Nabi is the captain of the Afghan cricket team and a fine cricketer as well. I would also cut down on the personal insults as it can get you reported.Akmal94 (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)


Dont be so naive mr akmal, every leader was born in pashtunhawa , ahmed shah abdali wad born here , sher shah was born here , lodhi was born here . All cricketers were born here shahid afridi, imran khan, younis khan etc and all squash champions were born here . Jan sher khan is best squash champion of te world . Lol at muhammad nabi who is not even known in peshwar. Only the ones who have remained influential have been the one who have been dominated by dari culture. If u remove anything i will surely report you. This article is full of your biased views . People in the world know pakistan for pashtuns and afghanistan dor dari hazra people . Nobody even knows pashtuns exist in afghanistan except americans . Pakistan has been the main countrt of pashtun as there are 40 million including ur ungratefull ones who lived in pak ate in pak and spk against pak. Thankyou

Your kidding right? This is exactly what i am talking about. You seem to be in some kind of inferiority complex to Afghan Pashtuns and along with your other Pakistani Pashtun brethren's who try to stem your jealousy on to Afghans. Just for the record, there was NO such thing as "Pakhtunkwha" or Pakistan 50 years ago therefore none of the aforementioned historical individuals can be considered "Pakistani" and none of the have been born in that region as you claim. Instead of speaking blather and having such a nationalistic frame of thought, i would advise you to ask anyone who know's who Pashtuns are what country they come from and the answer no doubt will be Afghanistan. Why? because unlike Pakistan where Pashtuns are a minority, Afghanistan has a majority Pashtun population while Pakistan is mostly Punjabi dominated and is seen closer to India culturally. Everybody from Indians to Arabs, or Americans like you put it see Pashtuns as Afghans since that is the name they have been historically been called by. Lastly, this page is NOT for you or anybody else to edit to spread propaganda, this article is meant to talk about Pashtuns as a people as a whole without pasty and nonsensical edits for your own lucrative agenda. Akmal94 (talk) 08:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

lol, u stay under delusions my frend, pashtunhawa has been used in abdalis poetry and sher sha suris, well both were born in pakistan side. there was no Afghanistan abt 200 years ago but land was there. similarly there was no pakistan but land was there, read history u will find ur ancestors hindus too under hindu shahi dynasty, but u think ur afghan pashtuns were muslims before islam came, lol sindh was buddist, everybody else was a hindu, u watch bollywood movies more than we pakistani do, u beg to join india love india not we, thing is u cant change history as its a shame that u are a majority in afghanistan but dari is official language, while we are minority and rule pakistan throughout, karachi islamabad rawalpindi, quetta , peshawar main cities are under our business while u have to deal with dari as its official language used in courts, police etc

Ahmad Shah was born in Herat, not on the "pakistan side," nor was Sher Shah born in "Pakistan" either, he was born in India. Afghanistan has been a country since 1747 which makes it about 300 years old. Join India? LOL nobody in Afghanistan wants to "join" India, your just speaking out of your arse now. Afghanistan has 2 official languages, Pashto and Dari and Dari is used for business purposes just like you Paki Pathans use Urdu, not Pashto as the language for main communication in Pakistan. I would advise you and many other Pakistani Pashtuns to make Pashto the official language of Pakistan and in Pakhtunkhwa. In Pakistan, especially in Karachi, Pashtuns are ridiculed and as seen as "parasites" due to the fact that they are putting native karachites out of business, and Pathan jokes are prevalent. Back to the topic; DON'T change or make false edits or you will be dealt with an oh, please sign after your done posting, its part of wiki's rules. Akmal94 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-Pashto-speaking Pashtuns?[edit]

I like the present image gallery in the infobox - it is more properly arranged with respect to the years of birth (from 1486 for Sher Shah Suri up to 1997 for Malala Yousafzai) than the previous gallery this article had. However, non-Pashto-speaking should be removed from it, there are four of them currently there: Ayub Khan Tareen, Salim Khan, Shah Rukh Khan, and Imran Khan. Khestwol (talk) 08:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better to add Pashto-speaking or Pashtunized Pashtuns. Mar4d (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Rahman Baba and Khushal Khan should also be removed, they're pictures are not even free anyways.Akmal94 (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Khushal Khattak and Rahman Baba are 2 of the most famous early Pashtun writers. They can't be removed from there. Khestwol (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Now, to bring the total back to 24, 4 new entries must be made. The gallery seems short of females, and of media personalities. I suggest adding Jahangir Khan, Zallascht Sadat, Hamza Shinwari, and Naghma. Each of them has enough fame, is accepted as Pashtun, and is a native Pashto-speakers. Note: among them there are 2 famous persons coming from each side of the political border, for political neutrality. If any other user has a better suggestion, kindly discuss it here. Khestwol (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

please remove shahrukh khan who is a kashmiri whose blood cousin testified it, saif ali khan is pathan and that too half hindu, put jan sher khan, jahangir khan, naghma, rahim shah, zeb and hania, there is no younis khan, majid kh but muhammad nabi is there , Saladin1987 05:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Janghhair Khan is NOT Pashtun nor does he speak Pashto, i agree that Naghma should be added onto here, her husband is from Peshawar. Akmal94 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Who says that Zallascht Sadat is even a Pashtun? Both names "Zarlasht" and "Sadat" are commonly and widely used by Tajiks (or I should say non-Pashtuns). This article is not intended for Pakistani Pashtuns or Pakistani nationalists, the same goes for Afghans... it is for English readers around the world who don't care who is famous among Pashtuns and who isn't. The basic Wikipedia rule is to add in the box notable Pashtuns, whether you like them or not. For example, those that are recognized around the world. Rahman Baba was just a writer who is glorified in Peshawar. I'm also a writer, should my image go there too? No offense but the Pashtuns of Pakistan are inferior when it comes to Afghan Pashtuns and they need to accept this fact. They have no fame outside their tribal area and that's their problem. If I'm wrong name one famous Pakistani Pashtun. Even Bacha Khan is Indian and he was anti-Pakistan all his life. Today Pakistan is forcefully deporting Pashtuns from Pakistan in front of your eyes in cold winter, a land where they were born. [1], [2]. The non-Pashtun Pakistanis don't care, they treat all Pashtuns as terrorists and refugees, occupiers of their land and are driving them out of Pakistan. Yet, Pakistani Pashtuns don't even have a media person to show the world what is happening to them. They have absolutely no power or even voice in Pakistan. Yet, they come here pretending and faking it as if Pakistan is home of Pashtuns. Wake up stop living in delusion, Pakistani Pashtuns are uncomparable with Afghan Pashtuns. Entire Afghanistan is ruled by Pashtuns, they naturally deserve all the respect. Again, no offense intended but this is an educational site where we teach those who don't know anything.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

lol superior and refugees:), one thing is u need us we dont need u ..Saladin1987 14:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No offense intended but to me every Pakistani living outside Pakistan is a refugee. That's what a refugee means (homeless). I could understand why people such as Afghans, Iraqis, Syrians, etc, leave their country and it's due to wars imposed on them which is something beyond their control... but why do Pakistanis flee from their country in order to live in other people's countries?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

As an Afghan Pashtun, i think you are being WAY to hard on Pashtuns from the other side. Aslo. Zarlast is a pashto name, sadat is just a title. Both are used by Pashtuns and they are JUST names. Bacha Khan was not indian either, he is buried in Afghanistan. No offense but you are coming of with a bit of hatred. Akmal94 (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not coming here with hatred but information that many don't know. By the way, I don't give a shit who or what you are. Look up, you're the one who called them Pakis, that's the equivalent of shit heads. "Zarlasht" is a common Persian name. Pashtuns also use the name but as "Zarlashta", with an "a" in the end. "Sadat" is ethnicity in Afghanistan for people who claim to be of Arab origin. Bacha Khan was born as Indian in British India and he is known all over Pakistan as an anti-Pakistani. The reason he is buried in Afghanistan is because he wanted to be buried outside Pakistan.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I would down tone on the cussing as it its against community rules to be rude to others. Again you are WRONG. Zarlasht is a Pashto name, i don't know any tajik or persian with that name nor have i ever met one with that name and if you were Pashtun you would know that but obviosuly you are not but some troll who hates Pakistani Pashtuns. I've seen your past comments on this thread and your very harsh against them. Pashtun parts of Pakistan were handed over to the british after the afghan-anglo war ended and by then Pashtuns on that side were already Afghan. Again, It doesn't matter where bacha khan was buried since he is seen as an important past figure for Pashtuns on both sides of the durand line. Regardless your opinions and comments are completly invalid on Pashtun issues. Thanks for your concern though. Akmal94 (talk) 05:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You also never saw God but does that mean He doesn't exist? Instead of wasting time with nonsense, search and learn something important. Don't worry about who I am or how I feel about certain people, why did you first call them Pakis and now defending them?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:32, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about me but rather you and your problems with Pakistani Pashtuns. Maybe focusing on yourself first would be a better idea. Akmal94 (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It's about you because you came under this IP and asked "Why is Sharkukh Khan, Madubala and Salim khan in the picture gallery? There is no proof that either one of them is pashtun..." [3] [4] It's undisputable fact that all three of these were ethnic Pashtuns. This, and after reading the rest of the conversation between you and Saladin1987, it proves that you and him are not here to contribute but rather destroy articles in order to promote nationalism. This is not allowed in Wikipedia and it will lead to blockage.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm here to contribute to making this article better and protecting it from vandals like Saaladin but, all your good at is doing accusing me of vandalism and accusing me of nationalism. I can report you as well for false accusations and non-sensical edits. Also where is the proof that SRK, Salim Khan or Madubala are Pashtuns? A lot of Indians claim Pashtun ancestry to feel closer to Central Asia since they suffer from some kind inferiority complex. I noticed that images of Khushal Khan Khattak and Rahman Baba were removed which is sad since these figures were ACTUALLY Pashtun and not half breeds or claiming to be Pashtuns like your Indian Pathans.

For the record i can care less about saaladin, or even you. All i want is this article to be fair and unbiased. Akmal94 (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

madhubala or younis khan[edit]

this article is dominated by afghan pashtuns who want to show their superiority to pakistani pashtuns by adding indian hindi speaker pathans and afghan dari speaker pashtuns but are not ready to put pakistani pashtuns in the article. can we have a concensus on whether madhubala which is not sure that she was a pashtun or a pashto speaker should be added or younis khan who is a well known pakistani pashtun cricketer and speaks pashto should be added. Thankyou i would appreciate if someone can add imran khan too as shahrukh khan saif ali khan and zarine khan is there though their pashtun status is not clear Saladin1987 14:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Madhubala's article has references which confirms that she was Pashtun, a Pashto speaker of Yusufzai (Pashtun tribe). She clearly qualifies for the article's imagebox because: (1) she was the first female Pashtun actor in major films that are watched all over the world; (2) her popularity was recognized in the United States, where Wikipedia is based; (3) she was from a place that is now in Pakistan; (4) she is a female and the imagebox lacks Pashtun females. I would simply put Younis Khan in the Sports's section, he doesn't qualify in the article's imagebox. It makes the article look silly. Consider the fact that entire Afghanistan's cricket team is made up of Pashtuns.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

that is an article written by a person who considers shahrukh a pashtun too while shahrukh cousin claims to be hindkowan kashmiri, Well if you have any sourced book or any authentic source which states madhubala was a pashto speaker, i would appreciate if you could present it or else the column should be filled with some other pashtun. Afghanistan cricket team is all pashtun but are an associate members.Then pakistani cricket team has 5 pashtuns at the moment Shahid Afridi, Yasir shah, Sohail khan, younis khan. Lets be fair , you should add some more pakistani pashtunsSaladin1987 10:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

We only go by what reliable sources report, everything else is considered farts, this is a very strict rule. The main reason we don't need 2 Pakistani cricket players in the same box is because there are too many Pashtun cricket players. By law, if a Pakistani refugees gets to be born in India, he/she is still a Pakistani. Madhubala is considered a Pakistani by this defintion. Pakistan was born in 1947, a country that is 85% non-Pashtun and that's the reason we don't have many Pakistani Pashtuns in the box. The leaders in Pakistan are all non-Pashtuns. It would be better if we search for notable Pakistani Pashtuns who may be living in other countries, like in Europe, North America, Australia. They have to qualify though.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

lol still pakistani pashtuns are more than afghani pashtuns, this article is about pashtuns not afghan pashtuns. Better make an article for Afghan pashtuns. You havent even added imran khan etc anywhere but have added saif ali khan. lets reach a concensus through a third person not me and you. This time if you place madhubala withgout concensus, i will make sure that i will report you. Make concensus then apply madhubala or younis khan or jansher khan. When you talk about pashtuns or pathans in USA, UK, Pakistan its pakistani pashtuns. When you talk about afghans its mostly hazaras that they talk about. Saladin1987 07:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Saladin, i see your still going at it eh?

Please don't fool yourself, your not going to get some kind of retribution here with all this complaining and whining. Also nobody in the Americas or Europe thinks about Pashtuns when Pakistan is mentioned, you may want to awake from this "khob" you've been sleeping in for so long. Your 27 years old, don't you have better things to do in your life? Akmal94 (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

More Pakistani Pashtuns are to be added into the article[edit]

Pakistan has the most pashtun population. In this article they seem to be least in numbers. People like imran khan, ayub khan, Jan Sher Khan, Younis Khan etc are ignored but Zarine khan, Saif ali khan and shahrukh khan are added who claim to be pashtun but have no information on their pashtun tribe. I would appreciate if someone could atleast add 2 more pakistani pashtuns anywhere in the article. this is absolutely not fair with this article if the article stays like this. I would appreciate your helpSaladin1987 08:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

@Saladin1987: Would you like to back up every single fact of yours with some reliable sources? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 15:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

now the article looks fine to me as they have added more pakistani pashtuns. thankyou all. Saladin1987 09:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Salad, leave Salim Khan for the time being just so the imagebox is complete and until we find a Pakistani Pashtun's image like Raheem Shah for example. He is a popular figure in South Asia and very much associated with Pashtun people.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, currently there are only 2 persons there born inside the potical entity of Pakistan (Shahid Afridi and Malala). The infobox surely needs at least one more of them for neutrality, and we can perhaps remove 1 post-1947 Afghan national for neutrality. I think removing Karzai or Khalilzad (or both) will help solve this problem. Khestwol (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I am really tired of the editor Krazyhorse, he doesnt follow his policy of not adding non pashto speakers in infobox. he is continuing his policy of reverting my edits. Saleem khan is a non pashto speaker pashtun wannabe. According to salman his grandfather came from afghanistan but not even a single member of his family knows how to speak pashto and dari as proved by kadir khan who by blood is pashtun and speaks pashto proudly. This user krazyhorse has an agenda to promote Afghan and indian pashtuns but to ignore Pakistan Pashtuns especially people like ayub khan, imran khan, Raheem Shah, hamayun khan etc. I would appreciate if he can add 5 indian non pashto speaker pashtuns then we can surely add atleast 2 pashto speaking pakistani pashtuns too. This is a pashtun people article not afghan or indian people article. Saladin1987 21:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Mohammed Omar[edit]

Shouldn't the leader of the Taliban insurgency, a Pashtun of the Hotaki tribe, be represented among the infobox collage of Pashtun people? StanTheMan87 (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

First, his image is non-free (not allowed). Second, when there are many notable Pashtuns such as Salim Khan (famous Bollywood icon, who is also the father of Salman Khan, Sohail Khan and Arbaaz Khan), there's no reason to add a self-proclaimed leader of Taliban, a militant group specifically fighting with Pashtun government and killing every year 1,000s of Pashtun civilians. Not to mention there's still no clear evidence as to who or what he is. On the other hand, Salim Khan and his family made positive contributions, numerous times they proudly mentioned their Alakozai Pashtun tribe. About you, there's enough evidence for me to figure out that you're a Persian. No wonder why you keep visiting this article like a fly trying to ruin it. If you look at the edits from the date this article was first created until right now, only Persians and Punjabis (neighbors of Pashtuns) came along with sneaky ideas to defame Pashtuns. These Persian and Punjabi sockpuppets all act like Yosemite Sam, obviously they're the same hate-filled sock abusers.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Putting Mullah Omar in infobox here is same as putting Adolf Hitler in the infobox of Jews on the bases that Hitler was a Jew. [5]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  1. Image is allowed if it has purpose to be shown. There is no One Image, One article policy, contrary to your belief. Why do you think you can put more then one Fair Use Rationale template under Licensing?
  2. You cannot speak for the Pashtun people or on behalf of the Pashtun people. Don't you even dare. You claimed that Afghans are all 'corrupt' [6], and if you'd know your history, you'd know that Pashtuns are the true Afghans, as 'Afghan' was historically a demonym for 'Afghan' and vice-versa.
  3. It's not up to you to decide who is worthy enough to be represented and who isn't. Joseph Stalin is shown in the Georgians page, while Saddam Hussein is shown in the Iraqi page. The fact is that Mullah Omar isn't only the head of the Taliban insurgency, but the former de-facto Afghan head of state. The former head of the Afghan nation. A member of the Hotaki tribe of the Ghilzai tribal confederacy. These more then give him the eligibility to be shown in an article on Pashtuns.
  4. No, Mullah Omar never launched a program or a campaign to systematically destroy Pashtun culture or identity, therefore your comparison with Hitler and the Jews is completely wrong. To the contrary, the Taliban harnessed the code of honor known as Pashtunwali. Maybe you could say this in terms of the Taliban abolishing Bacha bazi under there rule, but I don't if that's a Pashtun custom or not.
  5. Civilian casualties are indiscriminate, the Pashtuns aren't the only one affected by either side. The inefficient Afghan government also has to bear responsibility for casualties inflicted in anti-Taliban operations. It's not as if a bullet fired from a Talib kills people but a bullet or rocket fired from an ANA soldier goes through Afghan civilians as if they are ghosts. Pashtun government? Are you kidding me? The government filled with a Tajik as CEO and controlling the Defense of Afghanistan? A Hazara as Vice President? An Uzbek as Vice President? There's probably more non-pashtuns, these are the only ones I know of. Hey, good on them for obtaining such high positions in Afghan society, but this is no Pashtun government. And many of those men such as Abdul Rashid Dostum and perhaps Bismillah Khan Mohammadi are former warlords with humans rights abuses to their name. Afghanistan is no more stable or safe today then before the U.S invaded in 2001. So please, just stop with the Pro-Western Imperialism is a good thing nonsense. StanTheMan87 (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • You forgot to mention Pashtun Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai, the President of Afghanistan. For your information, Abdullah Abdullah (CEO) is Pashtun. The rest you named are unimportant. So the Afghan government is and has always been a Pashtun-led government. This article is about Pashtun people (an ethnic group) who are mainly found in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well as in India, Iran, Arab countries, Europe, North America, Australia and so on. The article should cover all of that. Mullah Omar's true ethnic background is unverified. BBC writes that someone claims "he is from the Tomzi clan of the Hotak tribe." [7] We don't even know what is Tomzi clan. His article cannot even agree on his true date and place of birth. Where he is supposed to be born (southern Afghanistan) is made up of a multi-ethnic society. Suppose he was born in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP), it doesn't mean he has to be Pashtun because there are also many non-Pashtuns living in KP. Anyway, that image of Mullah Omar is going to be deleted sooner or later as it doesn't qualify for fair use.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Abdullah Abdullah is widely considered to be a Tajik [8],[9] despite being mixed. I'm not surprised you don't know what Tomzi clan is Krzyhorse22, becuase you know so very little about everything. You are no different to any whack conspiracy theorist who tries to deny anything that doesn't conform to the way you think. You don't believe the image shows Mullah Omar despite the sources: [10],[11],[12],[13] then I guess all these sources are just wrong becuase you, Wikipedia user Krzyhorse22, say so. You don't think Mullah Omar is a Pashtun despite the sources proving otherwise, [14],[15], [16], well I guess these sources are wrong becuase you, Wikipedia user Krzyhorse22, say so. You don't believe Mullah Omar even exists, ok well then, I guess all the evidence to the absolute contrary [17],[18],[19] is all incorrect becuase Wikipedia user Krzyhorse22 says so. You never show any sources proving to the contrary. You never prove your assertions. All you do is deflect the authenticity of these sources by adding half-ass excuses like this: [20],[21],[22]. Where are your sources Krzyhorse22? Oh and no, that image will stay and continue to stay on Wikipedia. StanTheMan87 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
"Pro-Western Imperialism is a good thing"? Let me say this while I exercise my freedom of speech that I disagree with many things the West is doing in the Middle East, like infesting a drone with secret spying equipments just so Iranians can capture it and then listen to what the Iranian intelligence say. American leadership views Iranian leadership as Daffy Duck.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Let me exercise my freedom of speech by acknowledging you're a joke on Wikipedia. I can't take you seriously. You're probably just some computer-program conjured up by a script kiddie to spread idiocy and troll on Wikipedia. Because, honestly, no human being could be as f*ck*** stupid as you. StanTheMan87 (talk) 16:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The infobox gallery should be a general representation of the ethnic group so as to help the readers to get a positive image and information about influencial personalities from among that group. It should not contain highly controversial or contentious characters, or those whose inclusion is not agreed upon.. Khestwol (talk) 17:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Krzyhorse22 trying to make it an article based on his own analysis and completely biased against pakistani pashtuns[edit]

I am really tired of the editor User:Krzyhorse22, he doesnt follow his policy of not adding non pashto speakers in infobox. he is continuing his policy of reverting my edits. Saleem khan is a non pashto speaker pashtun wannabe. According to salman his grandfather came from afghanistan but not even a single member of his family knows how to speak pashto or even dari as proved by kadir khan who by blood is pashtun and speaks pashto proudly. This user krazyhorse has an agenda to promote Afghan and indian pashtuns but to ignore Pakistan Pashtuns especially people like ayub khan, imran khan, Raheem Shah, hamayun khan etc. if he can add 5 indian non pashto speaker pashtuns then we can surely add atleast 2 pashto speaking pakistani pashtuns too. This is a pashtun people article not afghan or indian people article. I accepted the last edits of this user as he added imran khan in the article but this time he is adding saleem khan but ignoring the likes of Ayub khan , raheem shah, hamayun khan, jan sher khan(world squash champion), Maria toorpakai wazir(World squash champion). I would request you to plz make this article bias free. ThankyouSaladin1987 22:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

We go by what sources say, not what you say or think. Don't waste my time, go edit your Awan and Punjabi articles.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Learn how to speak first, you are an uneducated Afghan which is pretty common amongst u. Dont waste my time and take your racism in ur own country which is a heaven at the moment MA.Saladin1987 18:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hahaha, look at Yosemite Sam speak. It's a historical fact Afghans taught your ancestors how to read. Ghaznavids from Afghanistan brought to your ancestors in Hindustan the Persian language with instructions how to live like humans. The national language of Pakistan (Urdu) is the proof. In USA, Pakistanis took over the food truck business while Afghans are enrolled in the top universities. Since you live in isolated Australia, you wouldn't know that. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

image of salim khan or Ayub khan[edit]

this article is pretty biased against Pakistani Pashtuns. Although Pakistan has the largest pop still the representation of Pakistani Pashtuns is not reasonable. User Krazyhorse is a afghan nationalist who places self proclaimed pashtuns like saleem khan in infobox but removes men like ayub khan who is a well known pashtun of tareen tribe. The mistake of ayub khan is that he was Pakistani so he does not fit into the definition of Pashtun according to Afghan nationalist krazyhorse. He has been reverting my edits again and again and i have posted my situation in the talk page several times. But his behaviour has not changed. I wouldappreciate if this article could include Pashtuns according to their population and not according to personal favourites of Afghan nationalist or Pakistani nationalists. Infobox should be strictly kept for pashto speakers not the pashtun descent claimers. Saladin1987 18:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 is no Afghan or Pashtun, he's just some sad wannabee 'Afghanophile' who is trying to adopt an Afghan facade on Wikipedia, probably to satisfy a longing desire to call himself an Afghan or Pashtun without actually being one. This is why he chooses the internet to do this, as no one can prove to the contrary. However, no true Afghan would label Afghans as being 'corrupt' as Krzyhorse22 has done here: "Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much" - [23] StanTheMan87 (talk) 10:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
When something is so obvious it can be said it the way I said it. "Afghanistan consistently ranks at the bottom of Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index, along with Sudan, North Korea and Somalia. Corruption is so deeply woven into the social fabric of the country that it's almost accepted as part of everyday life." [24] There is no censorship here, we report things as they are.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Just because a person constantly edits articles pertaining to Gray wolf doesn't mean he is a wolf. No offense, but it's funny how people originating from Asia think. Sources clearly say that Salim Khan belongs to Alakozai Pashtuns, [25] I see no logical reason why this must be removed as Saladin often does. He is constantly pushing anti-Indian and anti-Afghan POVs everywhere and that is definately a quick blockable violation in Wikipedia. Not to mention edit-warring with everyone. I also suspect that he's abusing socks, from Australia. [26] [27] Whenever I have time I'll check to see this.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
There are 2 Bollywood actors there, Madhubala and Kader Khan. Hence a 3rd less famous one is not needed there. I think, Salim Khan should be mentioned in the body of the article though. Khestwol (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Kader Khan was born in Afghanistan, that makes him an Afghan. Plus, he is not as big as Salim Khan. We don't select our favorite person but we choose (as a standard) the one who ranks higher. You Pakistanis have to cool off with this anti-Indian policy. It gives you an ugly image. Also, where is your proof that Zallascht Sadat is Pashtun?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Krzyhorse22 you seem to have some problems with certain nationalities. But please do not edit-war with multiple users. Khestwol (talk) 06:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm obviously not edit-warring with anyone. Please stop accusing me. You are putting false information in articles. As an editor it is my job to verify the information and remove it if it cannot be verified. You are wrongly trying to make this as a cultural article, it is not.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Krzyhorse22, you are clearly edit-warring with me and other users in this article. Zallascht Sadat's image was added just to have a better ratio of females. Numerous tertiary sources seem to mention her as a Pashtun ([28], [29]). Though she can be replaced (with, for example, Shanzay Hayat or someone else). Khestwol (talk) 07:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Editing and improving this article is NOT edit-warring. Any person you add MUST be verifiable with reliable sources, you've been around for a long time so don't act stupid. I could understand if Naghma was some kind of an international star (e.g., Lady Gaga, Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, etc.) but she is hardly known by anyone other than Pashtuns. I've been repeating that this article is intended for international readers. The golden rule is that we put in the imagebox internationally recognized Pashtuns. Why can't you be on the same page with me? Why do you differ with me on such issues? Why can't you accept Salim Khan as a Pashtun? He and his children are international stars so it is preferable to add him instead of Pashto singers. Those people specifically go in Pashto music section. Suppose Salim was originally from Pakistan, you Pakistanis would definately (without doubt) kept him.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Krzyhorse22 Your constant bickering and edits proves your a troll. You have no sources for half the things you say and you expect all Wikipedians to accept your POV's. I mean i am an Afghan Pashtun and i have no problem with Pakistani Pashtuns being represented in the image box. I also failed to see why you removed Imran Khan who is no doubt a Pashtun and replaced him with Kader Khan who many people including Pashtuns don't know as being Pashtun. Naghma belongs on here because she is known well in the Pashtun community, that is the point here. I bet half the people who come across this page probably didn't even know who Pashtuns were before, so should we not have an article for Pashtuns? Your comments prove your not Pashtun let alone an Afghan.Akmal94 (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
@Akmal94: Why are you angrily replying to a discussion from April. Stop. Ogress smash! 22:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My reply is not to you, and i am not angry. Akmal94 (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 April 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved Mike Cline (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


PashtunsPashtun people@Krzyhorse22: Someone asked me to make this move, but it is likely to be disputed. Better get it discussed properly. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment, no, the standard is to use "Pashtuns" per WP:CONCISE and WP:ETHNICGROUP#Ethnic groups: In general, the common English-language term for an ethnic group should be used, whether in nounal or adjectival form. In many cases, the most concise title will be a plural demonym, e.g. Bretons or Swedes. Same is the case with Pashtuns, using the plural demonym "Pashtuns" is our best choice. And no, not all ethnic groups I listed are strictly connected to nationalities. "Koreans" for example can come from North or South Korea, "Russians" can originate from Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, etc, while "Tajiks" can originate from anywhere in Central Asia. These ethnic groups have transnational homelands. Same is the case with "Pashtuns". An ethnic "Pashtun" or a person of Pashtun decent can originate from any country within their transnational homeland. Khestwol (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, some of the articles you list are using the extension "people" or "peoples" in the title only to avoid a disambiguation. Iranian peoples for example is using this title only to clarify that it is an article about multiple ethnic groups, and not a single Iranian ethnic group. The article on "Tajiks" has been already moved as of now. The article on "Punjabi people" may be moved to "Punjabis" as well, per the standard Wikipedia policy of using concise and common names. Khestwol (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Plus, besides "Tajiks", other Iranian transnational ethnic groups using a plural demonym as title of their articles are Kurds (from Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc) and Ossetians (from Russia, Georgia, South Ossetia) etc, same like "Pashtuns". Ancient Iranian peoples such as Scythians and Medes are also using concise plural demonyms as titles, without the unnecessary extension of "people". Khestwol (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I have confronted you before on you forcing your illogical POVs (e.g., Greater Khorasan). You just renamed Tajiks; I listed only one that entailed "peoples" NOT some as you falsely stated. Tajiks are connected to Tajikistan (regardless where they may be found). They have a nation. The same goes for Koreans and all the others you named. Pashtun people are groups of people of various origins, the same like Persians and Punjabis. Britannica uses Pashtun / Pashto-speaking people [31] because it is the correct term but calling them "Pashtuns" is as stupid as saying "Sheeps" even if this may sound logical to you. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Please check the Ngram Results and other evidence supplied, all of which seems to support the title "Pashtuns". The "sheeps" comment is your personal, unsupported POV. Khestwol (talk) 12:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
That's what I've been telling you from the very beginning that calling Pashtun people "Pashtuns" is unsupported POV of yours. "Pashtun" means: (1) a person (2) who speaks Pashto language. They have never been called "Pashtuns".--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 I appreciate your motives here but I am wondering about the claim of usage. Pashtuns is certainly in common use as was demonstrated in the Ngrams. Search results also give similar indication as follows:

"pashtuns" AND ("Oxus" OR "Pashto" OR "Pashtunwali") gets "About 4,010 results" in books while
"pashtun people" AND ("Oxus" OR "Pashto" OR "Pashtunwali") gets "About 574 results" in books

Also the pashto version of the page ps:پښتانه transliterates to Psˌtanh. Can you cite a reference to say that Pashtuns is not respectful of similar please? Koreans are the collective members of that ethnic group.

I was notified of this page by Khestwol so, but for the fact that I visit WP:RM very regularly and take an interest in ethnic related topics, this was technically canvass. GregKaye 13:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pashtun: \\'arrior 786 (talk · contribs), Saadkhan12345 (talk · contribs), Zarak Khan (talk · contribs), Arshad Khan (talk · contribs), UsmanKhanShah (talk · contribs), Nasir swabi (talk · contribs), User:Asad U Khwaja, Sarankhel (talk · contribs), Spitfire202 (talk · contribs), Esaa Khan (talk · contribs), Afghana (talk · contribs), AryanaWattan (talk · contribs), reeshtya (talk · contribs), quaidian (talk · contribs), Zakksez (talk · contribs), Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk · contribs), Moarrikh (talk · contribs), Rafeyjadoon (talk · contribs), MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs), Shahzadapashtun (talk · contribs), Kamran4 (talk · contribs), Khestwol (talk · contribs), sahara4u (talk · contribs), Scythian Saka (talk · contribs), Khani100 (talk · contribs), Pohyal98 (talk · contribs), Akmal94 (talk · contribs)
GregKaye 14:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
First, the article Koreans begins with "The Korean people... are a historic people based in the Korean peninsula and Manchuria." Therefore, the title of that article must be consistent with the subject it covers. Just because someone changed it to Koreans doesn't prove anything. I have no idea what you're trying to prove with the two google links. We have to choose the proper name based on what experts say and Britannica is one of that. When it chooses "Pashtun" instead of "Pashtuns", it means that's the correct term.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Instead of randomly selecting people that have no connection to Pashtuns or their native land, simply try looking at neighboring people such as Persians. I never said we cannot use the term "Pashtuns", I'm saying we cannot name this article Pashtuns. The Persians page is the best example, the same should be done to "Pashtuns" page. Experts in USA, where Wikipedia is based, use "Pashtun" instead of Pashtuns. [32] [33]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Krzyhorse22 there's no convincing evidence for your claims that "Pashtuns" is less common in usage or that it does not refer to the ethnic group. We must here follow the guidelines at WP:ETHNICGROUP#Ethnic groups which, in combination with other evidences, clearly supports the usage of the plural demonym "Pashtuns" and that's all that matters. Like GregKaye wrote, the Pashto version of this article is also using the Pashto version of the plural demonym "Pashtuns" ps:پښتانه which is also advantageous for the current title. Khestwol (talk) 17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol I have no way of knowing whether the pashto ref. (ps:پښتانه) is singular or plural. All I know is that a second word such as people is not added. GregKaye 18:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
GregKaye, fluent speaker of Pashto here so no worries. پښتانه (transliterated as Pax̌tānə/Pakhtānə or Paṣ̌tānə/Pashtānə, depending on dialect) that the Pashto article is titled with is the plural demonym. (Its singular form is پښتون, transliterated as Pax̌tūn/Pakhtūn or Paṣ̌tūn/Pashtūn.) Khestwol (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Khestwol, your argument is misplaced. First, I never said "Pashtuns" does not refer to the ethnic group. Control your emotions, this is not the place for that. Second, Pashto language page of Wikipedia is unreliable. WP:ETHNICGROUP#Ethnic groups states "In cases where no plural demonym exists, or where that demonym is ambiguous, other forms can be used. As an example, the title Scottish people is used as opposed to the ambiguous Scots, which can refer to a language, and many other topics." (Emphasis added) This correctly applies here. The term "Pashtun" (to English-readers) refers to anyone who speaks Pashto language and many other topics, such as Pashtun people, Pashtun tribes, Pashtun culture, Pashtun dress, Pashtun cuisine and so on.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You have failed to provide evidence that "Pashtuns" refer to anything other than the ethnic group so it has to be used as title. Your comments regarding Pashtun (singular demonym) does not make sense either but are irrelevant to this move request you support, because the current title is located at "Pashtuns", not "Pashtun". Khestwol (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't fail, you just don't get it. Refer to Scots and Persians as example. That's how Pashtuns page should be. It's you v. Britannica, CIA, Library of Congress, and all the other experts and reliable sources. [34], [35], [36] Personally, other than trying to help Wikipedia's reputation, I don't give a rats ass about all this.
  • I have to remove the image of Zallascht Sadat because there is simply not a single reliable source that mentions her being Pashtun. In my comments (in the past) I said "Sadat" is a distinct ethnic group in Afghanistan that's not Pashtun. This is my proof. [37] They claim to be of Arab origin. Id. at the page before last, "Sayyid". Her last name "Sadat" is very much her ethnicity, most Afghans go by one name in their country and whenever they use a last name (especially in the West) they simply adopt their tribe or ethnicity for that, like Hamid Karzai for example who belongs to the Karzai clan of Pashtuns. Also, Naghma is not qualified in the imagebox of this article. Although she is a Pashtun singer and has Pashtun fans, she is not that notable internationally. It's appropriate that we present those who are more recognized for something more important than just singing in a local language. You get the point, this article is not a cultural article for Pashtuns. In fact, some info must be trimmed becaused there are main articles for all that.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Krzyhorse22, "Pashtuns" should stay in this title per Kurds, Ossetians, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Koreans, Russians, Chechens, ancient Scythians and Medes and other unambiguous+concise titles (5 of those I just mentioned are other Iranian peoples like Pashtuns) about ethnic groups, per guidelines on Wikipedia. Naghma can stay and so can Hamza Shinwari. You have been actively disrupting and trolling this article for too long now. Khestwol (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm trolling and disrupting? That's not good words to say to a fellow editor who is being nice to you. I don't decide what should be the proper name, experts decide and they follow rules. Also, get this one thing through your head. You do not own this article and my contributions speak for who or what I am. If you think I'm disrupting, report me. Hamza Shinwari does not qualify as a respresentation of 50 million Pashtun people, and neither does Naghma. I'm busy but when I get free time I'll have those unimportant people removed from the imagebox with support from admins. I'm tired of repeating, this is an encyclopedia article (for serious readers), not some special Pashtun cultural page for Pashtuns from Peshawar. You can make an article about Peshawari Pashtuns if you like.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose move per WP:ETHNICGROUP#Ethnic groups and this discussion, most ethnic group and nationality articles had their titles moved to the plural demonym. Scots is a disambiguation page because there is a language called Scots. Persians is a disambiguation page because the term is wide and can refer to ethnic Persians or Iranian peoples. There is no evidence that the plural 'Pashtuns' refers to anything other than Pashtun people. Hence, the title Pashtuns is appropriate and conventional. Mar4d (talk) 15:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above – The present title is the most concise, and the most compliant with Wikipedia guidelines and the article titles policy. RGloucester 16:42, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - What the opposers fail to understand is that "Pashtuns" is obviously concise but there are too many articles starting with "Pashtun" and this leads to a problem. We can't have all of these articles linked to Pashtun people. If a student is interested in reading about Pashtun culture, Pashtun dress or other Pashtun-related subject, he/she should not be forced into reading a long article about Pashtun people. The opposers may think what they proposed is a smart idea but in reality it is a bad idea, which only turns away or distract readers.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 20:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
There is already a page Pashtun (disambiguation). Khestwol (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
If you type "Pashtun" in the search box, it leads directly to Pashtun people. I don't know why you're so hard headed. You're idea is a bad idea. You carelessly make changes just to satisfy your self. Things don't work that way.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Pathan" is derogatory or not?[edit]

@Adjutor101 and Seendgay: There should be clear cut evidence that "Pathan" is very commonly used as derogatory term for Pashtuns to write it in lead. For example term "nigga" is clear cut derogatory for black people but that is not a case with "Pathan" for "Pashtuns". Thousands of people do have surname "Pathan" like Irfan Pathan, Yusuf Pathan. See search results for "Proud to be Pathan" on google [38]. There is also another article named Pathans of Punjab. Term "Pathan" is commonly used in public domain and news papers [39], [40]. We can't call "Pathan" as derogatory just because of Pathan joke, there is also Sardarji joke but still "Sardar" or "Sardarji" is not derogatory term instead it is a very honorable term. We call only those terms as derogatory which we can't use in public domain but term "Pathan" is very commonly used in public domain and news papers. So it is not derogatory and it should not be written in lead. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 18:19, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I thank User:Adjutor101 for his edits to Wikipedia, but in this case, agree with User:Human3015. The word "Pathan" is used as a synonym for the word "Pashtun" almost all of the time. I have never once heard that it was a derogatory term and many Pashtuns in India and Pakistan (outside Pakhtunkhwa) self-identify as "Pathan". I do not think that the edit belongs in the article at all as it would actually misinform readers. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 19:23, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Anupam for your comment. I can give many sources but I will give link of Official website of government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, a province in Pakistan. [41] They have used term "Pathan" synonymous with "Pashtuns". How can a government website can use "derogatory" term for its own people? We can't call it as derogatory term in any sense. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 19:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
The above mentioned Government website of Pashtun majority province Khyber Pakhtunkhwa have given an article about "People and tribes" in that region. In that article they have used term "Pathan" 19 times, term "Pukhtun" 2 times and term "Pashtuns" 0 times. So we can say that term "Pathan" is more commonly used for "Pashtuns", maybe because of relatively simple spelling and pronunciation. But it is surely not derogatory term. Any government in the world don't use derogatory terms for its people. See it again [42]. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 20:04, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
Dear @Anupam:, being an ethnic Pashtun myself the word is highly derogatory. The reason why it may not be so in India is because the Pashtuns and Indians have not come into contact on a large scale and perhaps even more after 1947. Also the reason you might see it on internet and blogs is because of lack of education. Perhaps 30 years ago you would hear the N-word being used like this also but later it grew out of vogue and politically incorrect. Similarly I provided an Academic Reference clearly stating that we Pashtuns find it derogatory. Hope Human3015 can respect this sentiment. Best wishes and regards Adjutor101 (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)\
@Adjutor101: We only have your opinion so far that "Pathan" is supposed to be derogatory. Is there a reliable source that says so? - Kautilya3 (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Page 955: https://books.google.com.pk/books?id=yXYKAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA955&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false. Which I cited as:Skutsch, Karlvolume= (2013). Enyclopedia of the World's Minorites. Routledge. p. 955. ISBN 1135193886. Retrieved 2014-08-22.  -- Adjutor101 (talk) 08:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Adjutor101:, have you read what I have written? have you read official website of government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa? [43]. You are Pashtun so it doesn't mean that you know everything about Pashtuns. You are from planet Earth so it doesn't mean that you know everything about Earth, or if you are from Pakistan so it doesn't mean that you know everything about Pakistan. And Wikipedia doesn't work on personal knowledge, it works on consensus of the community. It maybe your point of view that "Pathan" is a derogatory term. One book source doesn't matters. When government of Pashtuns repeatedly using word "Pathan" then it is surely not a derogatory term.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 11:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok, folks. A reliable source has been provided. We don't argue with reliable sources. End of the story. Here is a bit more detailed explanation if you are interested: [44]. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mar4d: This [45] is out of order. It is deletion of sourced content. You better self-revert. As for DUE etc, if a derogatory term is being mentioned it should be immediately mentioned that it is considered derogatory. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 There seems to be a problem here as Pathan is a common term. I'd like to see the exact quote from the source (which I cannot find) stating its derogatory use. And even if it is regarded as derogatory by some, the issue then is making the assumption that this is a widely held view, which it is not. In the Urdu language for example, the common use is usually Pathan over Pashtun. There are ethnic Pashtuns who use the term and don't feel offended. I think it may be better to have a WP:FOOTNOTE to explain this issue, instead of having it at the start, as it seems trivial, disrupts the flow of the article's WP:LEAD and is WP:UNDUE. Mar4d (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
The source (an encyclopedia) says "The Hindi rendering Pathans is today regarded as a derogatory term employed by Indians and European colonizers." As I said, this is good enough for me. If you are worried about the flow, please feel free to improve it. I would have done it myself if you didn't revert it at top speed, ignoring all the discussion that is going on here. - Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Well you can go ahead and add it, so long as we can agree it doesn't fit in the lead. Perhaps adding a footnote tag next to the term Pathan in the lead is better. And then explain in the footnote the use of the term. Mar4d (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, why you are sticking to only one book source? Book maybe written by some POV author and he/she may have some POV. Why you are ignoring my given sources. You should read official website of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. You should know about Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan. It is a Pashtun majority province, like Punjab of India is Sikh majority. Their government is officially recognizing them as "Pathans". [46]. Also above I have given some links of Pakistani news papers widely using term "Pathans". There is also a city named Pathankot. How a "derogatory" term can be used so widely that too in official sources? Some people may consider it as derogatory, but it is not widely recognized as derogatory. It does not deserve place in lead. You caN also see these New York Times news [47], [48]. There was also a Pathan Regiment in Pakistan army. So it is widely used non-derogatory term. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 16:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with both User:Human3015 and User:Mar4d--the term "Pathan" is not derogatory and many individuals of this ethnic group in both Pakistan and India refer to themselves as "Pathans", with some individuals of Pashtun ancestry, such as Irfan Pathan, even using it as a surname. I have never once heard the word being used in a derogatory fashion and even if it is, this must be <.00001%. By large, the word "Pathan" is a synonym of the word "Pashtun" both historically and currently. One random source that misinforms individuals compared to thousands of others that discuss its usage as a synonym for "Pashtun" does not have any place in this article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Anupam Human3015 Kautilya3 Okay, I think we have an understanding here that this is not significant to merit mention, at least in the lead. And it is probably too trivial to merit a footnote as well. Perhaps a better article to discuss this terminology issue would be Anti-Pashtun sentiment rather than this article. Mar4d (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you User:Mar4d--in order to add anything on Wikipedia about the word "Pathan" supposedly having a derogatory usage, I would need to see multiple sources that confirm that. So far, we only have one. The information should definitely be excluded from this article but if it is to be included in the Anti-Pashtun sentiment, then we need more sources than just one. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Oh, you guys! You live in your own POV worlds, don't you? Just do some checking like this [49]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is contesting that. It's just whether it is used or considered derogatory in general. For instance, referring to a Sikh as a Sardar can be taken as derogatory by some, and as an honorific by others [50]. It's all subjective. Most of the times, Pathan is used in a non-derogatory way. Sometimes it can be used in a derogatory way. That the latter is true in a minority of cases cannot be presented as fact for the term's use majority of the cases. Mar4d (talk) 05:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
* Khestwol Thoughts? Mar4d (talk) 05:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Nobody has said that "Pathan" is "meant" in derogatory way. It is said that Pusthtoons (Afghans) consider it derogatory. You are engaging in wilful misreading. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned that despite a good number of users here attesting to the fact that in the majority in cases, Pathan is simply used as a synonym of Pashtun, that the new edits have remained in the article. There are plenty famous people of this ethnic group that state "I am a Pathan", for example Zarine Khan and Shah Rukh Khan. Do you think that they're insulting themselves by proudly calling themselves Pathans? Having this new clause in the article really misinforms readers, not to mention that we have several articles that use this term primarily. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:18, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
No, "Pathan" is not considered derogatory by Pashtuns. It is just an exonym. The word has been commonly used. Even past Pashtun nationalist leaders like Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan are known to have used this term in their writing and speech. Khestwol (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, Khestwol, we need a lot more than your personal opinion to override the Encyclopedia Britannica. And, Anupam's argument makes no sense either. The fact that there are some people comfortable with being identified as "Pathan" doesn't disprove that there may be others who consider it derogatory. This is just POV-pushing as far as I am concerned. Please look at the sources found on Google Books [51], and explain what you think is wrong with them. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Feel free to add a note that there are notable people who have identified themselves as "Pathans." But that doesn't disprove the general statement, which has been reliably sourced. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3, well at least you are admitting it as a fact that some people are comfortable with being identified as "Pathans". The suggested addition to the lede makes a generalization that even you do not seem to agree with? The Encyclopedia Britannica is not a really reliable secondary source on the subject so it is not much trustable. What we can trust more is other sources, which unilaterally say that "Pathans" is an alternative ethnonym for the Pashtuns, and an exonym for them. Khestwol (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, you guys are the experts. I would expect that you would dig into the issue and find out why there are different feelings about it, rather than simply brushing it off. One thing for sure: You can't simply delete sourced content and wish that it doesn't exist. Get real. This is wikipedia. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
But that source is a bad one (also Encyclopedia Britannica is not reliable secondary source), it can't be added to the lede. Perhaps, though, we can add the clarification that "Pathan" (like "Afghan") is an exonym (more commonly used by Indo-Aryan groups to refer to the Pashtuns), and not normally used in the Pashto language. Khestwol (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Lets take RfC --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 05:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I have added the word "exonym" to lede and I think that gives an enough clarification that these two names were given by Indo-Aryan and Persian speaking outsiders i.e. not by pashtuns themselves. While few Pashtun do consider "Pathan" derogatory but most consider it normal and use it frequently when speaking in Urdu-Hindi, sometimes even Pashtuns use it in English as a self designation. Mentioning detail about "Pathan" or "Afghan" in the lede though is WP:UNDUE, perhaps it can be done in a section in the body of the article. For the lede it is even enough that we mention these terms there. Khestwol (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Now you are getting closer to the truth. In India and Pakistan, people have been calling them "Pathans" and the Pushtoons who migrated there have gotten used to it. But the Pusthoons that live in Afghanistan don't like it. It is wise to respect their feelings rather than to keep applying the inappropriate label and insisting that they are ok with it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the addition of the word exonym is a good solution for this issue in the article. Well done User:Khestwol. With regards, AnupamTalk 12:48, 6 June 2015 (UTC)