Template talk:Pashtuns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


There are a few reasons one can cite for keeping the female image. First, it isn't excessively vertical like most Pashtun images: we can't have a template that tall with only that many links. Second, it is a piece of art, and shows a very cultured lady. Third, the color scheme of the template was designed around the image (in fact, I chose the color of the floor for the image). --Enzuru 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, you two should handle this more diplomatically, by using this discussion page. Second, using the previous image, the vertical size is too much, as I stated before. Third, while the male image shows Pashtun men long ago, the female image, though no longer contemporary, shows Pashtun women much more revealed as you would find them in urban areas. Hence it serves as a gateway between the past and the present. --Enzuru 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Lol, now someone has complained that the female image is a prostitute in Kandahar[1] Wait, on the other hand, it's probably a sock of User:Beh-nam, like User:Pakhtunking and User:PashtoonGhafar, I'm reverting him for now. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I honestly don't get what he's trying to achieve, though perhaps I can guess. --Enzuru 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
He seems to like replacing all female images with male images. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Ghilzai nomads in Afghanistan.jpg is better for the template about Pashtuns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The figures in the image are very small, and the colour scheme would be difficult to replicate in an aesthetic manner suitable for Wikipedia. This is part of the reason I redesigned the template on Pashtuns. --Afghana [talk] 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include, on the template, a link to Pashtunisation? This is a controversial topic; and including it is lending credit to bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on Pashtunization should answer any bias. --Afghana [talk] 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Girl picture[edit]

The picture of the girl has been edited to the point where it now looks cheap and artificial. Yosh 01:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosh (talkcontribs)

I agree. I think the image showing Pashto calligraphy is more appropriate than the girl's picture. Also, the edit by Azcolvin429 shows we have a consensus on removing the girl's image.[2] (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The image of the girl is nice and appropriate for an article that lacks females. When something that deals with people, it is better that we add an image of a person.-- (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Please don't edit against consensus. The comment by Yosh and edits by Azcolvin429 (in April 2011) and me shows there is a consensus to remove this particular girl's picture. Thanks. (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
You're removing the image against consensus. Azcolvin429 did not vote and neither did any consensus take place over that. The above comments say we must choose a pic and so far the girl's image is better than the non-English chicken scratches. This is the English version of Wikipedia and nobody understands those writings.-- (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Indo thinka template about perons should hae a perosn an dnot text. If it as generally on the region/provice thats fdiffernet.Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

The result was Keep the original image. The image shows years of consensus and this RFC shows nothing different (the same appears to demonstrated elsewhere on this talk page). It seems only a single dynamic IP was warring to remove it, and hasn't participated in this discussion to present any rationale for their change. Non-admin closure. Equazcion (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been a recent edit war over which image to use in this template. One image being calligraphy[3], the other, a picture of a young girl in native clothing[4]. Which would be the better image to use here? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


  • Keep girl's image - The girl's image has been there for many years, it is very unique because she is dressed in typical Pashtun clothes and there's no doubt that she is Pashtun, and that helps make the Pashtun articles stand out and look good. The colors of her clothes form Afghanistan's and Pakistan's flags, both these nations have large Pashtuns, so in that aspect it is neutral for both countries. Another point is that Pashtun articles lack images of females, people around the world want to see what Pashtun females look like and this image helps them understand that. The IP from Peshawar, Pakistan who keeps removing the image from the template seems that he's not happy with this because he thinks men look at the girl's image and begin to do dirty things. This is typical thinking in Peshawar, which is a city under full control of radical or extremist Muslims. Wikipedia is a place to learn and not for foolish things like that.-- (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    Making derogatory comments about people with whom you disagree is not a valid argument, and it should be ignored by whoever judges the consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
    You're not familiar. I know who the person behind that IP is and everyone in general know that Peshawar is that kind of a city. I suggest you put back the girl's image because 3 different people so far favored in keeping that image.-- (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    It doesn't matter who you claim to know - if you make personal attacks like this you could be blocked from editing and your opinion will be given less weight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    There is no personal attacks in my statement. This is the guy behind that IP who removed the image.-- (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Your wrong, Mckhan is in America. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep current image, of girl - since the current image has been up for years, that's evidently years of consensus—at least tacit consensus—and that counts in its favor; the burden of proof is on the challengers to show why the current image should change, and build a consensus for changes. So far, I see no reasons why from the challengers. (I was invited by the RFC bot to comment here via the bot's random selection, and come to the discussion fresh and neutral) —NickDupree (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I also thin keeping the girls image would be for the best. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep image as it fits in well with the template. Mar4d (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improvements, addition of links[edit]

As the previous image([5]) was so excessively vertical and occupied most of the template because it was too tall for such a small number of links, I changed it and added more links, and also increased the width by 50%. X02.163.91.xxx (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is to keep the image of the girl, as determined recently and immediately above this section. You do not get to decide to overturn consensus yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


Edit-warring over the image has been going on for far too long, and it has to stop, so I have protected the template. If anyone wants to make any changes to the template, discuss them here first and an admin will implement them for you if you have a consensus supporting you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Uncontroversial image[edit]

I'm adding more links which belong in this template and rearranging the template. I'm also adding an image to the top of the template and replacing the old one.
If any editor thinks it should be changed, please discuss it here. (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Those links are unnessary and some of those pages are unsourced POVs. The image u added is a controversial one. It is sending a misleading message because this is not how the 50 million Pashtuns live, it is how some village students studied back when Afghanistan didn't yet build indoor schools. Things have changed there since 2007. Plus, those children could include Tajiks which is a different ethnic group. It was made next to Gardez and that city has many Tajiks. [6] Plus, you added more cotroversial links. Pashtuns are all Sunni Muslims so there is no need to add Shias, the Turi is the only tribe which is Shia and their number does not even come near to 1% of the 50 million Pashtuns. There are Christian, Sikh and other non-Muslim Pashtuns but they are also very small. The loya jirga is Mongol origin which has been practiced by many ethnic groups throughout Asia, and most Pashtuns (especially in Pakistan where the majority live) do not use that. You added many unnessary links of pages which are unsourced and disputable. This template does not need all those page links, only main pages that directly and undisputable deal with Pashtuns should be linked. Thanks.--KunwaazTajik (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your speaking out of your arse Tajik boy.Akmal94 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

More representative image[edit]

File:Tribal and religious leaders in southern Afghanistan.jpg shows only Pashtun men. Wouldn't a more representative image be better? (e.g. File:Pashtuns.jpg) utcursch | talk 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)