Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindukush Kafir people

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There's a clear consensus here that this article is not currently appropriate. Furthermore, I'd point others to WP:RS#Extremist sources, which states "Organizations and individuals that are widely acknowledged as extremist, whether of a political, religious or anti-religious, racist, or other nature, should be used only as sources about themselves and their activities in articles about themselves, and even then with caution." As it's been sufficiently demonstrated that the primary source upon which this article was created is currently viewed as bigoted, such a source cannot be the foundation of what should be the scholarly treatment of an ethnic group. — Scientizzle 15:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hindukush Kafir people

To put it simply, this article is a synthesis original research piece of POV based on extremely out of date source material. As the article quite clearly states from the beginning, this article deals solely with the Afghani province of Nurestan prior to 1895. It was then called Kafirstan. Kafir is a racist, divisive term in Islamic cultures which literally means "ingrate," and the application of it to a supposed ethnic group is obviously POV. What's more, kafir people is not even an ethnic classification as the the article purports. It's usage within Islam simply means a non-Muslim. While this content is currently contested, the article's creator originally included descriptions of this grouping like,"Both the Kafirs and Afghans are brigands by instinct and both are careless of human life. Perhaps the Kafirs are the worst of the two in both respects, but a Afghan makes the account more than even by his added perfidy and cunning (Robertson)." Most of the passages like these are based on an 1896 book entitled The Kafirs of The Hindukush, by George Scott Robertson. Since no modern sources treat the subject of "Hindukush kafirs" as a separate ethnic group, the classification does not for all intents and purposes exist. Practically all the Google hits for this terminology are for Wikipedia and its mirrors. VanTucky ^Talk 23:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VanTucky, YOU ARE PURE AND SIMPLE AN IGNORAMUS

VanTucky Talk, it is not out of place to remind you that the Oxford University Press brought out newer edition of The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush (Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints) (Hardcover), Edition 1986. If the book (The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush), which is one of the main sources forming the basis for this article is outdated as alleged by you, then how come Oxford University Press should have published the book again in 1986? This clearly shows that the book is not outdated and still in wide use as a CLASSIC reference book on the people of Kafirstan (Nurestan) and the Guy who are asking for modification or deletion of the article on the plea that the Book by George Scott Robertson has become outdated now are simply ignorant of the reality and are politically motivated. The article is not POV and it does not violate NPOV policy since each and every part of the text has been supported with citations from acknowledged referential sources. So your argument is invalid and baseless. According to modern view, the word Kafir has , in all probability involved from Sanskrit Kapir which in turn involved from Sanskrit word Kapisa, which was the ancient name of the region called as Paropamisadae by the classical writers. Thus, the original form of the word Kafir was Kapir, the name of the people inhabiting the Kapisa Land. It did not have anything to do with Arabic Kufr. That usage is of later origin and was applied by the Moslem invaders for the people of this region as well as to all in Indina subcontinent since they followed religious practice different from Islam. Hope this will try to remove your ignorance, enlighten you about the historical backdrop of the word Kafir and thus help removing your misconceptions about the article TITLE: Hindukush Kafir (i.e Kapir) People. Sze cavalry01 00:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you begin by personally attacking me and clearly breeching WP:CIVIL, I will not merit your points with a response, except to say that reprinting an old work does not make it contemporary and relevant. VanTucky ^Talk 04:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONCE AGAIN: he contents of the Book “THE KAFIRS OF THE HINDUKUSH” by Sir George Scott Robertson are still very much relevant, valid and current. Howcome if the contents have become outdated and irrelevant should Oxford Univ Press bring out reprint of this CLASSIC book on great demand from its interested readerss/audience?. Sze cavalry01 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Speciate 07:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what can be confirmed in modern sources into Nuristani people, who are for all intents and purposes the same ethnic group today, only Islamicized. --Dhartung | Talk 07:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I would also like to add that this article is about the ethnic group known as the Kalash. And there is already the Wikipedia article, Kalash. Since Hindukush Kafir people contains text that's mostly copied from the dated 1896 Robertson book, there's no reason to keep its contents for a merge. Why keep its information when it holds heavy POV and comes from an outdated, unreliable source? The Robertson book employs obsolete scientific theories and, at times, drifts into the territory of scientific racism. Check out the section, "Kafir Characteristics" from the "Hindukush Kafir people" article. It contains, in my opinion, the most flagrant violations. The editor has included lines like, "The Kafirs love to fight. Their inter-tribal hatred, sometimes, goes to the limits of absurdity, thus entirely deadening their political foresight." Here are a few other lines for your reading (dis)pleasure: "The Kafirs are highly revengeful..."; "The Kafirs are remarkable for their cupidity. They can be easily bribed, can do anything for money..."; "Kafirs are extremely jealous of one another, no matter how they have intermarried. Kafir hates Kafir more than he hates Musulmans..." To me, this work speaks for itself: undoubtedly delete-worthy. ₪ ask123 {t} 14:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The references and quotes cited in this article are from classic references which have not so far been refuted by any modern/current authority. Hence they are still valid and true as they were when first written. The deletion is wanted by a guy or two merely on political grounds (Ask123 has been using multiple Wiki ID's to confuse the readers).

Each and every quote used in this article is taken from renowned authorities on this topic. Not a single modern writer has refuted these scholarly and very informative observations by these former investigators in this field like Sir M. Elphinstone, Sir George Scott Robertson, Thomas Hungerford Holdich, John Biddulph etc. All these authorities of the past can not be termed as prejudiced and baised because ASk123 says so.

Hence if the article is to be deleted, following things must be met:

1. The person who has initiated the deletion of this article or anybody else must present or quote, at least, one reference book/article from a well known authority who has refuted the observations of Sir George Scott Robertson, or other authorities as noted above.

2. Prove that the techniques/methods of investigations used by Sir George Scott Robertson in his classic book The Kafirs of the Hindukush" were obsolete scientific theories and MUST cite at least one knowledgeable authority who claims that the exploratory methods/techniques used by Robertson or for that matter by M. Elphinstone, Thomas Hungerford Holdich, John Biddulph are unscientific, outdated or otherwise questionable.

It is not out of place to remind the Wikipedia readers here that the Oxford University Press brought out newer edition of The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush (Oxford in Asia Historical Reprints) (Hardcover), Edition 1986. [1]. If the book (The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush) is outdated as alleged by Ask123, then how come Oxford University Press should have published the book again in 1986? This clearly shows that the book is not outdated and still in wide use as a CLASSIC reference book on the people of Kafirstan (Nurestan) and the Guy who are asking for modification or deletion of the article on the plea that the Book by George Scott Robertson has become outdated now are simply ignorant of the reality and are politically motivated.

Most of the material used/cited in this article has also been earlier also used in Encylopedia Britannica, Classic Encylopedia, and numerous later well known writers like Donald N. Wilber, William Kerr Fraser-Tytler and others. Many writers have termed The Kafirs of the Hindukush by George Scott Robertson as a CLASSIC WORK. The article is being killed by one guy who has created and used many different user's names in the Talk Page to get rid of two section: 1. Kafir Women (2) The Kafir Characterics as they now appear in this article. Essentially, it is ONE and the same guy and he has created several different ID to confuse the Wiki readers and is now trying to use the force of those different user ID's to have this article deleted. Impartial/detached readers of the Wikipedia are encouraged to participate, read the entire talk page impartially, take note of the authorities whose views have been quoted in the article and then come forward to defeat the political motive of one guy who does not like this article for personal reasons.

The artcle fairly and equitably talks both of the weaknesess as well as the strengths of the Kafir society and therefore is more balanced than the one appearing in Classic Encylopedia or even in the Encylopedia Britannica, which Encylopedias talk only of weaknesses of the Kafir character.

Sze cavalry01 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sze_cavalry01, DO NOT ATTACK ME PERSONALLY (especially not on this page, which is only for discussing the deletion of a particular article)! I have not edited either Hindukush Kafir people or Talk:Hindukush Kafir people with any accounts or IPs other than ask123. On the other hand, you, Sze_cavalry01, have repeatedly used IP 76.105.50.27 to make changes. If you check the edit history for Hindukush Kafir people, you will see this to be the case. If you have a charge against me, say it specifically. Tell everyone the account name or the IP address you "think" I've been using. I challenge you to give the specifics because there aren't any. And I do encourage everyone to view and compare the contributions made by Sze_cavalry01 (contributions) and IP 76.105.50.27 (contributions). You will find that they make changes in tandem, on the same articles and often with the same text in the edit summary. You see, Sze_cavalry01, the beauty of Wikipedia is that everything's documented. It makes it darn near impossible to falsely accuse someone! ₪ ask123 {t} 14:26, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Merge or Severely edit the obviously unacceptable terms used in this article were acceptable when the region was named and therefore should the names of the region, people, etc. should used at the very least for historical reference. However, what I seriously have a problem with is the characteristics paragraphs(?) of this page. Either they are quotes from another text and should be edited to reflect such, POV statements that should be deleted all together or just plagurism. I can't see much use for the language that is being used to describe the people in this manner. Otherwise, the article seems to site one book for the most part. Of course, there are many other issues with this article that can easily be fixed by hacking large chunks of POV paragraphs. The result may be a long-stub like article. --Blind Eagle^{talk~contribs} 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, definitely. To begin with, there is no such thing as "Hindukush Kafir people". This is an archaic ethnographic artifact based on religious bias and sheer ignorance of outsiders. Secondly, there are countless unencyclopedic and unscientific absurdities in the old account on which the text is based; I wonder how this stuff has remained on Wikipedia for so long. Now, here is the article with the right sort of information and which should be expanded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuristani_people. KelilanK 18:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Besides the mind-boggling NPOV issues, this article is basically a random collection of quotations from a single published source. From Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources:

Avoid including entire texts of treaties, press releases, speeches or lengthy quotations, etc. (emphasis mine)

Seeing as the source is over a century old and of questionable accuracy, and there are no other sources that verify the information, I think it is safe to say that this article is not of encyclopedic value. To those who claim that the article should be kept because of its "historical significance", consider adding it to Wikisource or creating a stand-alone article on George Scott Robertson and include a section dedicated to his book. But for the love of all that is holy, don't present the ramblings of an ethnocentric British soldier as verifiable fact. As it stands, this article reads like a textbook of "How Not To Do Anthropology".--Dstemmer 04:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.