Talk:Pashtun people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pashtun people article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Featured article star Pashtun people is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2007.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] ATTENTION!!! There are 2 Pashtun articles. Pashtuns and Pashtun people

There are 2 Pashtun articles. Pashtuns and Pashtun people

I don't know how this happened, but this needs to be fixed immediatly or it will cause major problems! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Behnam) 07:10, 22 October 2006.

Thanks, I've fixed it now. —Khoikhoi 18:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much. But, Sorry for asking, but just to be sure, did you add the changes from the Pashtuns article to the Pashtun people article. Because I remember a few people made some changes to the Pashtuns article. --Behnam 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The only changes were this (which was also made here), this, and this (which was also made here as well). Khoikhoi 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Great! Nice work. Thank you. Issue solved. Behnam 07:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WHERE IS SQUASH? PASHTUNS RULED THE WOLRD IN THIS SPORT

[edit] IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please place removed/replaced images here.

Whenever an image is replaced/removed, please place it here in case it is needed again in the future. Also, we should always have a section open for this. So when this is archived, please make a new section for this purpose. Thank you.

Removed images


Ahmad Shah Durrani



Mirwais Ahmadzai

Dillip Kumar


Fardeen Khan


Shah Rukh Khan


Ahmad Shah Durrani

Pashtun vendor displaying a silk rug from Afghanistan

Behnam 05:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WHO IS RUNNING THIS ARTICLE?

Why are there Hindustani actors on this article? Why aren't their Pakhtun celeberteis why these Bollywood "Pathans" are on the Pashtun page? What do they have to do with us? Who is Sharukh Khan Fardeen Khan Chengez Khan ? They are Pashtun based on WHAT? Who is running this article now Parsiwans and Indians? Take this garbage off and put some real Pashtuns like Bacha Khan Achkazai Ghani Khan Shinwari Baba Khyal Mohammad Sardar Ali Nashenas real Pakhtuns take these fake Hindustanis OUT!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sync2k5 (talk • contribs) 08:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC).

I am Pashtun from Kandahar, Afghanistan, and I am the one who added Indian celebrities to Pashtuns article because they are Pashtuns by blood. This is not about who you like or who you don't like. It's about who is Pashtun and who isn't. You may add all the Pashtuns of the world but you must not delete people who you might not like. Sharukh Khan, Salman Khan, Amir Khan, Fardeen Khan, Feroz Khan and many other Khans are all Pashtuns from their father's side. In fact, they are all "Afghans", which is the name their ancestors called themselves. If my son is born in USA...does that make him no longer Pashtun? will my son be considered a white American? The fact is that everyone who knows those Indian movie actors also know that they are Afghans. Pashtuns, Pathans, Afghans are all the same people, it depends what name you call yourself.

The word or name "Afghanistan" appeared in the memoirs of Emperor Babur, Dated: 1525 A.D. "...In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor and Gebrek. To the south is Afghanistān. There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni. ..." [1]

That explains that in the past (at least in 1500s and onwards) Pashtuns were called "Afghans"...the area in which Pashtuns lived was called "Afghanistan" and the language they spoke was called "Afghani". User:NisarKand November 5, 2006

Blood is irrelevent to the matters of Pashtuns. There is no evidence that Pashtun decent from one single common ancestor. If you were to believe the lingage of Qais, then according to that Sajra Durranis, and all other Afghan tribes are Afghans while the hill tribes are of Pakhtun stock. The Karlanris can not be linked with the rest of Qais sons, therefore the Karlanris are the original Pakhtuns while the later, sons of prince Afghana are Jews or bani-Israeli. Bring me the Sajra-i-Afghan and I can prove it to you. It is in the articles of the Afghan Chronicles that Karlnaris are adopted, hence are not of the same stock. ----The reason why I am bring this up is to you prove to you from your own sources that Pakhtuns can not be labeled just by blood. By blood they can be from any forefather. Pakhtuns or ethnic Afghans are distinguished by their cultural treats. Dilip Kumar, Sharukh Khan, Amir Khan, Fardeen Khan, Salman Khan practice the lifestyle of Hindustanis, therefore they are Hindustanis and not Pashtuns,Pathans, or Afghans. If your son is born in America, and he speaks the language of the white man, he lives according to the standards of the white man, and he is provide to be A WHITE MAN, then he is a white man. Pakhtun/Afghan are an ethno-linguist group, they are not a RACE, RACE is a falwed concept. It's not about liking or dislinking, its about facts. All Hindustani "Pathans" don't speak, practice, or live by Pakhto or Pakhtunwali. They do not recongize Afghanyat, hence they are of Hindustani origins. I have met Dilip Kumar and there is nothing Afghan/Pakhtun about him, nor does he cares. Sharukh Khan, Saif Ali Khan, Amir Khan, Ferdan Khan and all these other Khans are not proven Pathan/Afghans/Pakhtuns neither by blood, language, heritage, or culture. It is you who like them to be Afghans and Pakhtuns because they have the name KHAN. Sharukh Khan is a Hindkowal, so is Dilip Kumar, the father of Saif Ali Khan is a Nawab some claim to be Moghul, Ferdan Khan father might speak KOCHAAA and LOYE SHAY in hindi movies but that doesn't make him an Afghan or Pakhtun. I suggest you look up ETHNICITY before you asscoiate Bollywood stars with a qoom that has nothing to do with them. They might share our genetics, but they do not represent us or have a common goal with us. They are HINDUSTANI. If there are those who are Pakistani, then they are PAKISTANI, and if there are those who are AFGHANISTANI, then they are AFGHANISTANI. These people are repsetives of these nations, not of the ethnicity Afghan or Pakhtun. However if you want them up there fine but how come not a single real Pakhtun celebrity or someone like Bacha Khan is not up there? Why these servants of other nations are being flaunted on a page about Pashtuns who can't even speak or pronounce PAKHTUN OR PAKHTO without coughing??? Sync2k5 04:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with NisarKand. I even took the liberty to provide reference to prove that Shah Rukh Khan and Dilip Kumar (Yusuf Khan) are Pashtuns. Please read the following Sync2k5: Shah Rukh, Dilip Kumar invited to Pakistan and Dr. S. Amjad Hussain. According to another reference, Pushtan, Southern of India, there are 11,703,000 Pashtuns in India, 776,000 of them speaking Pashto and Hindko. Including images of Pashtuns from the three major countries (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India) where they are found gives Pashtuns from these areas representation in the article. Thanks for sharing your knowledge NisarKand. It is very much appreciated. I hope this helps. --AnupamTalk 18:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the creator of this discussion. There should be pictures of people who are important to Pashtun identity. I don't see the importance of Bollywood actors to Pashtun identity, unless their movies have something to do with Pashtun identity or they promote Pashtun identity. I don't know much about these actors, but they should have something to do with Pashtun identity/language/culture. Parsiwan 05:37, 6

November 2006 (UTC)

I am totally confused with User:Sync2k5's statements...not making any sense to me. I assume what User:Sync2k5 is trying to say is that Pashtuns living in Pakistan should no longer be considered Pashtuns because they adopted a new country, new language (Urdu) and new way of life (Pakistani lifestyle). Well, I am not going to argue over these issues...have it his or her's way. I strongly believe that Pashtuns are recognized by their blood and not by their language or lifestyle. We can't refuse someone's ethnic background simply because they adopted a new language or new way of lifestyle.

I am Pashtun and I don't think I need to listen to or read from NON-pashtuns what they say or write about us. Because most NON-pashtuns are totally clueless about Pashtuns. As you can see this other person by the name of User:Tajik-afghan|Parsiwan, who is obviously NON-pashtun, stateting that he doesn't see importance of Bollywood actors. First of all...being a Bollywood actor is a profession or a job title...not a lifestyle. We all know that movies are unreal and fake, especially Bollywood movies. It's a form of entertainment for others. And even if we were to some how include or use the Bollywood movie lifestyle with Pashtun lifestyle...it's pretty much the same, except for the language and religion, although in many Bollywood movies Islam does exist. You have to be Pashtun and someone who watched lots of Bollywood movies to know this. Question: How many Pashtuns could there be in the world who don't watch or enjoy Bollywood movies? or who don't know about Sharukh Khan and others?

If we decide and say Sharukh Khan and others are not Pashtuns and they don't belong in Pashtun article...then in which Ethnic groups will they be included? will Hindus write about Sharukh Khan being a Hindu by Ethnics in their article? I don't think they will, because they will determine and say he is not Hindu by Ethnics...therfore, doesn't belong in their Hindu article. I just want to make it clear and easy for everyone....anyone who's parents were Pashtuns should be included in this article, especially their father's side and regardless of where on earth they live, what work they do or what language they now speak. We need to focus on all types of Pashtuns and explain about them. I also want to add image of Mirwais Ahmadzai, who was born in France to an Afghan father and an Italian mother. This makes him Ethnically Pashtun and I'm sure he thinks the same way, although his heritage is of Pashtun and Italian both. In America...the Americans usually call themselves Irish-Americans, Afro-Americans, Scottish-Americans, English-Americans, Italian-Americans, Greek-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Afghan-Americans and etc., even if their ancestors settled in USA 100s of years ago and intermarried with other different Ethnic groups...they still represent or use their true heritage by placing it before the word "American". This practice is very common in America.

Now we go to Pakistan...if an Afghan is born in Pakistan, they are still citizen and native of Afghanistan...that's Pakistan's law we are dealing with. So let's assume Sharukh Khan's father was Afghan refugee but Sharukh was born in Pakistan and now his son was also born in Pakistan later...that would mean Sharukh Khan's father, Sharukh Khan and his son are all Afghans, even if they were to speak 100% Urdu and live the Pakistani lifestyle. You see you all the confusion?

Besides all this argument...there are nearly 2 billion people in the world who watch Bollywood movies and know the actors as Pashtuns, Pathans or Afghans...and it's going to be very difficult to convince these 2 billion people to say or claim Sharukh Khan and others are not Pashtuns, Pathans or Afghans. User:NisarKand November 7, 2006

You dont understand because you are ignorant to the fact that Pashtuns are not only a race but also an ethno-linguist group. Those people who might have the Pashtun genetic makeup but speak different languages are loyal to those cultures, languages, and hertiages of which they currently are. They do not represent the Pashtun culture, soceity, heritage or language. These people are advocates of their birth nations and MOTHER TONGUES that could be Urdu, Hindi, Farsi etc. By blood we are all connected, what defines us as ethnicity is our cultural differences, our heritages. This is why a Pashtun is one that does Pashto. Agha Pakhtun da che Pakhto kre! Che sook Pakhto nashwahal agha Pakhtun sengy sho? Your logic is stupid! Black Americans do not relate to Africa, they don't bother with Blacks of Africa nor do they care about their problems, nor do they care about their culture, nor do they care about their heritage, speak their languages or practice their religion. They are Black of who can trace their roots to Africa but thats it. There is nothing African about them but their skin color. They are not ethnic Africans. The same applies to all Americans whos ancestors might have come and settled from different parts of the world but today they are Americans and their primary concern is America. When the accomplish something, it will be an accomplishment of America, not of Germany, Ireland, England, or Africa. The same way these non-Pashto speaking Pathans, when they accomplish something the credit goes to their birth nations, their mother tongues, and the community the represent. Your argument that we can't convince people that these people are non-Pashtuns is also absurd. Truth, facts can not scumb to the ignorance of the massses. Also Hinduism is a religion not an ethnic group, so get your own confusion fixed first. Hinduism can be practice by any ethnic group. To say that Hindus of any background will not acccept Sharukh Khan as their own is redicolous and laughible. First of all Sharukh Khan is not the one druming the drum of Afghanyat, Pashtunyat. It is the illiterate and ignorant people amongst Pashtuns and Afghans who are bent upon making him one. Show me one article where Sharukh Khan as declared his love for Pashto, Afghanyat, or in fact Islam? He is very much loved by Hindustanis and Indians. His wife is Hindu/Sikh, his children follow the faith for their mother, his traditions are screwed up to begin with. THERE IS NOTHING AFGHAN, PASHTUN, ABOUT THESE PEOPLE! Just becuse some people wish them to be their AFGHAN idols, doesn't really make them to be. Remove these pathetic pictures of fake icons! Put real Pakhtuns up there. Where is the original author of this article..what happend to mr. tomsday something...???? Sync2k5 08:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I was not refering to Hindu religion but to "Hindustani" as you claimed Shah Rukh Khan to be. If you was smart enough then you would've quickly understood what I was trying to saying. You are angry because Shah Rukh Khan would never even think about visiting Pakistan. Hahahahahahaha, and perhaps he doesn't like Pakistan's people. But I'm 100% sure he would visit Afghanistan if he finds it safe. Look at Dr. Zakir Naik a very popular Islamic scholar from India, he also proudly says that he is Hindustani. However, that does not mean is is not Muslim. I think one day Shah Rukh Khan will get on TV and tell the world he is Pashtun, who's ancestors were Afghans and that he is part of them. This will make the Pakis happy. ----Pashtun
In Pakistan, ethnic Pushtuns, who also speak Pashtu language are considered Pushtuns. There are many Pushtun tribes that have settled in different parts of South Asia over generations and have adopted the local languages and culture and thus have became part of that ethnic group. By some estimates nearly 25% of Urdu speaking people are ethnic Pushtuns that have adopted Urdu language and intermarried with other Muslim over the centuries. Nearly 45 million people in United States claiming German ancestory although they are now part of English speaking Americans. They are also not considered Germans since they don't speak German. The people who don't speak Pashtun and claiming to have Pashtun ancestory cannot be classified as Pashtuns. I think that the Pashtun are ethnic Pushtuns who also speak Pashtu language and may include their first generation children. If they and their parents don't speak Pushtun then they are longer ethnic Pashtun though they can claim Pastun ancestry.
Siddiqui 12:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
(1) In Pakistan, ethnic Pushtuns, who also speak Pashtu language are considered Pushtuns. Due! like what else can they be considered as, other than Pashtuns? (2) There are many Pushtun tribes that have settled in different parts of South Asia over generations and have adopted the local languages and culture and thus have became part of that ethnic group. Part of that ethnic group? What ethnic group you're talking about? (3) Nearly 45 million people in United States claiming German ancestory although they are now part of English speaking Americans. These people who claim German heritage in USA are not claiming German citizenships or being from Germany...they are simply saying that their ancestors came to USA from Germany and that they are Germans by heritage (4) They are also not considered Germans since they don't speak German. Who are you to say that they are not considered Germans? and so what if they don't speak German language. There are many people from Asia and other places living in Germany and they all speak German language now...are these people Germans by ethnics because they speak German language? (5) The people who don't speak Pashtun and claiming to have Pashtun ancestory cannot be classified as Pashtuns. I think that the Pashtun are ethnic Pushtuns who also speak Pashtu language and may include their first generation children. If they and their parents don't speak Pushtun then they are longer ethnic Pashtun though they can claim Pastun ancestry. Siddiqui, you are getting confused between Pashto language and Ethnic Pashtuns. Anyone can learn to speak Pashto...that alone does not qualify anyone to be Pashtun. In fact, that means nothing. We Pashtuns believe that "ONLY THROUGH BLOOD" (family background) a person is recognized as Pashtun. User:NisarKand November 7, 2006
Thats news to me. Pashtuns only care about "BLOOD" when it comes to local khels, tabars, and tarbooran. Pashtuns in fact don't care much about the tribe next door who might decent from another forefather. BLOOD amongst Pashtuns only matter when it comes to loyalty, they don't care if one is the son of Ahmed Shah Abdali or Khushal Khan Khattak, if his loyalty is somewhere else he is not accepted as a Pashtun even if he shares the same blood as them. So you are mistaken here. There is a reason why there is so much rivaily between different Pashtun clans. If blood was a big and universal matter then how come it these tribes are easily pitched against each other? Now tell me this, which Pashtun will allow his daughter to be married to a fully BLOOD born Pashtun but is an atheist? Jew, or Christan? Will they allow this BLOOD Pashtun who actually might fallow Hindu religion to marry within their BLOOD? NO, unless you want to end up dead, give it a try. There might be some flexibilty amongstt those who are not in touch with Pakhtunwali and Pakhtunyat, but those who are the core of Pakhto, Pakhtunyat don't only care for blood but many other factors including language, way of life, religion, and loyalty also plays in their interest. AND THATS HOW YOU DEFINE ETHNICTY! Blood linage is just one part of it, other factors come to play as well! HECK even singers musicains who are BLOOD PASHTUNS are not considered PASHTUN because of their profession, they are DAMAAN! and are looked down upon. So how can these filmi actors be accepted as PASHTUNS?Sync2k5 08:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Pashtuns are all Sunni Muslims, so things like seeing daughter marrying a Hindu or Athiest Pashtun is the last thing to think of. In America, I've seen Pashtun girls married Kafirs (infidels)...now what would be the difference between a Pashtun Kafir or other regular Kafirs? --NisarKand 18:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
If we were to classify Pushtun "ONLY THROUGH BLOOD" (family background) then there are 20 million people that are able to claim Pashtun ancestory. There are many Pashtun tribes that have settled in different parts of South Asia during Muslim rule and most of them now speak Urdu. By some estimates 20 million Urdu speakers can be considered Pashtun by this defination. Then I should also claim to be ethnic Pashtun ancestory through Yusufzai Rohilla.
Siddiqui 16:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know about Shah Rukh Khan, but I do know this. It is a documented fact that Dilip Kumar is a Pashtun, not only by blood, but by birth, language and upbringing. He was born to Pashto-speaking Pashtun parents in Peshawar NWFP, northern British India prior to Partition. He grew up there till he moved to Bombay for his father's job. He still is a practicing Muslim, has familial links to Pashtuns in Pakistan and is recognized as a celebrity in Pakistan, like one of their own. In fact, his brother is a famous TV actor in Pakistan. Therefore, he is a Pashtun celebrity who must stay on this page. Besides, his real name is Muhammad Yusuf Khan. Dilip Kumar is his screenname. And, he still is a practicing Muslim. Afghan Historian 18:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Dilip Kumar doesn't speak Pashto, he is a Hindkowal. Even so, why should we honor him as a Pashtun when for money and fame he denied his own heritage by changing his name from Muhammad Yusuf Khan to Dilip Kumar. He is not a practicing Muslim, these people dont have religion, nationality or anything. They go with the flow. It is an insult to the Pashtun heritage by putting this character on the same page where great honorible who have sacrficed everything, blood, money, life comforts for Pashtun and Pashto cause yet their picture is not here nor is there a mention of them here but this fake Pathan who adopted a Hindu name, Hindustani identity, by which he is commonly known and only a select few know him as Muhammad Yusuf is honored! Pathetic! This is about facts and research, not someones Bollywood love affair and romance. You like Bollywood heros, go to Bollywood page. Leave Pashtun page for Pashtuns. Sync2k5 08:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think people in the world care about 100% Pashtuns, 50% Pashtuns, 10% Pashtuns or false Pashtuns. The fact is that people in the world just want to learn the basics about Pashtuns, regardless if they are from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Europe, USA or from mars. There are many NON-Pashtuns living inside Afghanistan, who can speak better Pashto language than the average Pashtuns can. What do you call these people? nopes! They are not Pashtuns. They openly say they are Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks or others. If you people want to have editing war over who is Pashtun and who is not, then leave me out of it because it's stupid. As a Pashtun, I am proud of Shah Rukh Khan, Fardeen Khan, Mirwais Ahmadzai and all the rest that gave Pashtuns a good name in the world, regardless what country they reside in. I don't think we will be able to go meet these people and ask them about what religion they really practice inside their home and stuff. That's very silly. Since these people allow the media to write about them as Pashtuns, Pathans or Afghans, then that's what they are. Pashtun

What you think is irrelevent to the topic and factual research. People do care, and people need to be given information as accurate as possible. If someone is researching Pashtuns then let us introduce them to the real Pashtuns, real faces, not some used to be, could be, and we want them to be because they made a song for modanna or dance with miss world. Plus I have never came across a Tajik, Hazarajat, Uzbek from Afghanistan that could speak better Pashto then a Pashtun, however I have come across Pashtuns of Afghanistan who speak better Dari/Farsi then Farsiwans. Even the Afghan title is deluted now since Afghan is not just a ethnicty but nationality which means that anyone born in Afghanistan can call themselves an Afghan. The same is the issue with Pathans, anyone who was not dark featured and was from the North of Hindustan whether if the person was tajik,turkic,hazarajat,arab decent,persian,baloch, was considered a "PATHAN" by indians and still are because they dont know the difference. The question here is not about liking or war over edits but over acadmic research. Sync2k5 16:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If you never came across a NON-Pashtun that speaks better Pashto than the average Pashtuns, then you never been to Afghanistan. The "Afghan" title always included Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and others that were born inside Afghanistan. Well, at least since 1747 that is. I consider all Afghans as brothers, sisters, and people from one nationality, regardless of their backgrounds. Afghans born in Pakistan are not Pakistanis but still Afghan citizens or Afghan nationals. That's the big difference between Afghans and Pakis. The last thing Afghans want to be called is a Paki. The word "Pathan" is used ONLY by Urdu speakers in Pakistan and people in India, refering to ANYONE who is Pashtun. Afghans don't recognize Pathan or Pathans. So Pathan is only a Pakistani and Indian thing. I am Pashtun from Kandahar and all Urdu speaking Pakis call me Pathan when I meet them. Sometimes they also call me "Khan Saab". ----Pashtun

[edit] This article has quickly devolved into a mess since I nominated it for FA status

First and foremost the people who would like to add to the article need to put in references of a CREDIBLE nature and look closely at other encylopedias. That means that Hindowans are a somewhat distinct group, but closely related just like the Tajiks are to the Persians with their own articles. In addition, the excessive pictures of Bollywood actors is silly. One is plenty with mention of others and not a biography as their articles should explain their background. Also, the mention of marital races is very racist and just a British POV of colonial times. Again pointless to write in the intro. This article needs to focus on the CORE Pashtuns who speak Pashto (and those who are bilingual in Hindko do overlap and are acceptable in that regard) and needs to correspond to most other sources. The Pathans of India are diverse and, in many cases, may be related very closely, but are as different as the Parsis are from the Persians. This article, by including sub-groups has become a mess and needs to return to a more academic footing. And it's not surprising that it's under FA review for the aforementioned reasons. I don't have time to be a watchdog for this article, but I believe I have some credibility as I'm the guy who wrote the article that became Featured article in the first place. I think we need to take a look at how other academic articles are written and do more to keep it stream-lined and written well. For the people for whom English is a 2nd language, the additions made need to be better written and have sources and not opinions etc. Thanks. Tombseye 22:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the History on Attan needs to be moved to another article. It's speculative and not sourced. What is the point of discussing these little details in a GENERAL article on the Pashtun ethnic group? It now looks like a mess frankly. Tombseye 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mashwanis: help needed

Would someone working on this article please have a look at this edit to the much more neglected article Mashwanis? It looks like it is well-intentioned and has content, but it is written in such poor English that as a non-expert on the topic I don't dare even presume I understand it well enough to copy edit it. - Jmabel | Talk 05:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hindkowans and other matters

Pashtuns are defined in nearly every reference book as speakers of Pashto. Now I realize some groups are bilingual and that is a consideation, but the Hindkowans are also a group unto themselves as distinct as Tajiks are from Persians. They are a peripheral group. Also, I have not seen any references that describe any Yusufzai tribes as being Hindko speakers (though some may know it) and the entire section is not sourced and is written badly. And I suggest the History of Attan be moved to Khattak dance and/or Music of Afghanistan because it seems to discuss a specific issue that has little to do with the general article. Also, will people stop adding massive biographies about Bollywood actors. That's what their personal articles are for. This article is a general one about the Pashtuns. Thanks. Tombseye 23:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved the Attan dance section to the Khattak dance article where it belongs. In addition, the section on Hindko speakers needs to be either sourced or removed soon. At any rate, this article can simply mention that there are bilingual speakers and leave it at that (as there are bilingual Dari speakers in Afghanistan). Also, I shortened the long bio on Meena Kamal as she deserves her own article, rather than a paragraph devoted to her in a general article. Tombseye 05:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And Shah Rukh Khan is a Hindkowan and thus is technically outside the parameters of this article. We need only mention the bilingual groups as they live in Pashtunistan and maintain some academic order here. Tombseye 05:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide to me the source that says Shah Rukh Khan is Hindkowan. I want to read it Pashtun Nov. 21, 2006

Hello Tombseye. I decided to replace the image of Feroz Khan with that of Dilip Kumar. I did this because Dilip Kumar is of pure Pashtun ethnic origin as opposed to Feroz Khan whose mother is Iranian. I also felt that the image would be less contentious because of Feroz Khan's comment in Pakistan. Please let me know how you feel about this change. Also, I noticed that you moved the section on Hindko from the Anthropology and linguistics section to the Putative ancestry section. From my understanding, many Pashtuns who reside in Pakhtunkhwa speak Hindko or are bilingual, speaking both Pashto and Hindko. However, I can see why you moved the section on Seraki as it is not a dominant language used by the Pashtuns. Thanks for the time and energy you put forth in this article. With regards, AnupamTalk 07:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello Anupam, I did indeed move Hindko and the reasons are that, at some point, the Hindkowans deserve an article of their own. The terminology is confusing to people as the word 'Pathan' is applied to everyone from Afghanistan to claimants in India. My own 'take' is from academic views and academics view those who strictly speak Hindko as a distinct group (Tajiks speak Persian and yet have their own article for example). For this same reason, I believe the Pashtuns who speak Dari are also sometimes an overlapping group and sometimes not. In both cases the Pashto speakers and Tajiks/Hindkowans lived in close and mixed quarters. The bilingual issues is more complicated as indications are that the Hindkowans are increasingly switching to the larger Pashto due to intermarriage I would imagine as well, while Dari remains prominent although Pashtun birthrates in Afghanistan are quite high. Siraiki's situation is even more removed in this regard even though it borders the Pashtun regions. As for the Dilip Kumar situation, I am ok with that. Cheers. Tombseye 15:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the "pre-1947 India" stat, as it isnt relevant and it completely underestimates the actual population at the time, which actually subsumed the real Pashtun population of NWFP and Balochistan in NW India, (now Pakistan). Afghan Historian 06:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have readded the deleted referenced information about Dr. Zakir Hussain. He was born in British India in 1897, before many Pashtuns, and Muslims in general, left for Pakistan. Several sources support my claims on his ethnicity: Please see IndianMuslims.info: Zakir Hussain 1897-1969: President of India, India Press: Dr. Zakir Husain (1897-1969), Glorious India: Dr. Zakir Hussain, etc. In India and some parts of Pakistan, Pashtuns are known as Pathans. This is one reason why most of these Indian articles refer to him as a Pathan, the local name for the ethnic group. This article should not concern people from specific countries, but people of an ethnic group -- that is what the article is about. As a result, I have redded the sentence about him in The Modern Era section where presidents are discussed. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
In addition, I have readded the information about the reloaction of Pashtun Jews. I have also readded the link to the History of India in the History and origins section. Notice, it does not direct to the History of the Republic of India, but to an article which also discusses the histories of present-day Pakistan and Afghanistan. Thanks, AnupamTalk 18:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Zakir Hussain wasn't an ethnic Pashtun as he is not a Pashto speaker and none of the links make the claim that he does. He's an Indian Pathan and although many are related to Pashtuns, he's not within the scope of this article which is about Pashto-speaking Pashtuns. Also, the usage of Pathan ALSO denotes local people regardless of whether they are Pashto-speakers or not. Until we have some evidence that he speaks Pashto he can't be part of the article. I've studied the Pashtuns quite a bit within an academic context and the Indian connection is mostly a legacy of Islamic invasions and the British era during which parts of Afghanistan were annexed to British India. We are focused here upon the Pashtunistan area and Pashto-speakers. The vast majority of Pathans in India have putative ancestry and are thus not Pashtun as per the parameters of this article. Tombseye 19:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tanoli Pashtun dispute

Hi guys, sorry to return with this issue, but there is a strong dispute with a Tanoli user that they are an ACCEPTED Pashtun tribe by ALL pashtuns. I have only ever read contrary info re this, in that although in cultural practice they are similar but their origin is not accepted to be of Pashtun at all and they are most likely of Indian descent. He hasn't provided any proof at all and is adamant that they are very much accepted as an elite Pashtun people by all other Pashtuns. Although I do believe that Tanolis are very much ethnically mixed to be from a singular background anymore. But can anyone here provide any light on;

  • Are they accepted as Pashtuns by yourselves?
  • Have they always been so?
  • Have you heard contrary to them?
  • What do you know of them? Even basic info would suffice.

Many thanks to all users, lots of info here to learn from :-)--Raja 11:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

They are a mixed group it seems. Some are Hindko speakers and are thus Hindkowans, a group of mixed Pashtun and Punjabi origin, while others speak Pashto and would thus not be considered quite as 'mixed', but culturally there is an affiliation with the Pashtuns obviously. This is a recurring issue as the Encyclopedia Britannica looks at Hindkowans as a mixed or transitional group, which some people find disagreeable, BUT the language issue can't be ignored as Pashtuns generally speak Pashto, an Iranian language, while the Hindkowans (who aren't bilingual) speak an Indic tongue, Hindko. As for 'acceptance', generally if they can speak Pashto in addition and practice Pashtunwali (or Pakhto), they are 'accepted' as far as I know, but there might be some disagreement. Ultimately, it should be our job to present the facts with reputable sources. Tombseye 21:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


Thats an interesting point Tombseye re the language point. There are certainly Hindko speakers in this group. This adamant user is trying to allege that the Yousafzai origin of the Tanolis is well known and accepted by all neighbouring tribes and that they have no Indic origin at all, contrary to documented proof that this acceptance is nil and other Pashtuns do not recognise them as amongst them. It would be ideal to see some proof or any other opinions regarding the Yousafzai origin issue. Thanks for your help so far Tombseye --Raja 15:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: I don't think that picture is relevant to Pashtun ancestry.)

Shah rukh Khans parents are both pathans so thats why it is relavent. even shah rukh Khan himself said in a TV interview. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.247.228.91 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Afghanistan is nation of Pashtuns

Please do not try to put Pakistan above Afghanistan, as Afghanistan is the headquarters of all Pashtuns, regardless if the number of Pashtuns is lower than Pakistan. The Afghan Pashtuns are 100% real and authentic Pashtuns, as the Pakis are not. Most Paki Pashtuns speak mainly Urdu as their official language. Rahim Shah sings 5% in Pashto, while more than 95% in Punjabi, so he is not popular than Farhad Darya. Darya sings 50% in Pashto and 50% in other languages. Also, do not remove sourced images because that violates the rules.--NisarKand 07:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] PAKISTAN IS THE NATURAL HOME OF PASHTUNS

Do not make hate related changes to the article. I have noticed your racist attitude towards Pakistani Pashtuns because of the current situation in your country. But, Pakistan is the natural home of the Pashtuns since it homes some 28 million Pashtuns and 3 million Afghan refugees who do not want to return to Afghaniland. Pashtuns in Afghaniland are mixed with Dari-speakers (Tajik, Hazara, and Usbeks) like Farhad Darya and thus have lost there Pashtuness. I was kind enough in leaving his picture there since you guys have no other singers. Also, I have updated the article based on the current world events. Thus, do not reverse my edits blindly.--Napoleon12 10:10 am, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan better be the natural home to the Pashtuns.--NisarKand 18:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
You came out of no where and blindly removed all my edits, which are sourced by CIA, Encyclopaedia Britannica and other well known Encyclopaedia, Dupree and others...and advicing me not to revert your nonsene? Baluchistan, N.W.F.P., F.A.T.A. are not permanently territories of Pakistan, and that's where most Pashtuns live. Pakistan is a nation of Punjabis not Pashtuns. I'm sure the Punjabis feel that way. About the current situation in my country? Seeing my country being rebuilt by USA and Europe suppose to be bad? I think we are happier than ever before. As a result of Pakis making fun of poor Afghan refugees living in their country, on October 8, 2005 Allah (Almighty God) Punished Pakistan with a massive earthquake, which killed 150,000 Pakis and turned into refugees another 3 million Pakis. Now that's bad situation, don't you think? This is not about hate or racism, it's about reality. Pakis always assume that every Afghan online must be living in Pakistan as if Pakistan is the only other country, besides USA and Europe, to have internet in their country. Now lets leave this issue...my edits are well sourced and I suggest you try not to delete or remove them. Afghanistan means the "Land of Afghans"...and Afghan means Pashtun....check -----> Origins of the name Afghan. By percentage, Afghanistan has the highest percentage of Pashtuns. At the same time, Pakistan is the 6th most populous Hindu nation (Hinduism by country).--NisarKand 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Stop living in this dream world and wake up. Today, France is reducing the number of soldiers from Afghanistan as reported by BBC. Nato will soon follow and leave the Americans in a mess just like in Iraq. God forbid.......Pakistan will have a bigger refugee problem than before. Anyway, we should discuss the article in a polite constructive manner benefitting both parties. --Napoleon12 11:35 am, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The United States and Europe is not leaving Afghanistan anytime soon. Especially not until they help Afghanistan's government take half of Pakistan back. That means all Pashtun Pakis will become Afghans again, the same way their dads or grandads were. If you really are Paki, which I doubt, you should realize that every day airplanes full of Pakis are deported from USA and the west. Pakis are illegally flocking to the west. At least the Afghans living in Pakistan as refugees are there legally by approved United Nations agreements. There are only 2.4 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan as of now (according to the latest census of Pakistan and United Nations' UNHCR reports) and Afghans are going back to their lovely country every year by the hundred thousands. Afghans love their country so much and they don't want to be refugees in other countries, especially not in a poor country like Pakistan. Don't worry about Afghans going back to Pakistan as refugees in the future, that is not going to happen. They left their country because of a very big powerful country (USSR) that invaded it. Again, just 2 minutes of earthquake created the same number of Paki refugees in Pakistan as it took 10 years of Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. At least Afghans ruled your Pakistan nation in the past, and that is respect for the Afghan people.--NisarKand 18:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Take your hate messages some where else. I can understand why the truth hurts so much for you COWARD Afghans living in Europe or America. If you love Afghanistan SOOOO MUCH, come back and live there, LOL. --Napoleon12 1:57 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Afghanistan is now a commonwealth of the United States, so it doesn't matter if we live in USA or in Afghanistan. Afghans are known world-wide as the bravest people on earth. Why would only you call them cowards? And you are not a Paki but a Kizilbash Tajik or Parsiban. You are the same user as User:Tajik, Parsiban and several others...coming here to disturb and create problems between Pashtuns of Pakistan and Pashtuns of Afghanistan. We Pashtuns always consider our Ethnic before our nationality...as other Pashtuns and they all will agree.--NisarKand 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Napeleon12, I can see why you would put Pakistan at the top, however your reasoning for it is very ridicules. And you should change the name of this discussion. This is an encyclopedia, not internet forum. Both of you should remember that. I will put more thought about this, but for now I will leave Pakistan at the top. Meanwhile please read this Afghan. Behnam 05:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Parsiban, don't waste your time here on this nonsense of yours...I work for the US government as I explained to you before and I have special computer that can track down any online user. You are the same person as User:Napolean12. Sucker!...if you want, I can reveal everything here with your first time coming here to Wikipedia in January 2006. Hahahaha --NisarKand 09:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
STOP THIS FIGHTING!!! You are both Muslims brothers; you should treat eachother with respect & courtesy! The theory of Afghanistan being the home of Pashtuns is obsolete because, the NWFP provincial government has voted with majority in renaming the province to “Afghania”. This will influence the Pashtuns living in Afghanistan to tilt and become more Pro-Pakistani. Eventually, it will lead to the absorption of southern Afghan provinces by Pakistan due to economic and stability reasons. But, that is my opinion and not someone else’s.--Napoleon12 5:16 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The reason they are naming the NWFP province to Afgania is to clearly give signal to Pakistan's government that NWFP is a province of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has a much better chance to get rich fast and have a much better security. You must always remember that Afghanistan was in major war since late 1970s, which could not focus on stabalizing the country during those wars. But now the country is seeing the brighter side, it is being rebuilt and security is improving very rapidly, dispite the fact that some people claiming to be Taliban and blowing their selves up. USA wants to use the country as a major military center. It feels safer in a country with less population compare to those with high population. There are 87 American and NATO built military bases so far in Afghanistan...plenty more are going to be built in the future. The American military command center for Asia will be in Afghanistan. As the one for the middle east is in Qatar. Next time when you see or hear the name Afghanistan, think of it as America because America controls the country. Besides that...even if America and NATO nations were not involved in Afghanistan, Iran will step in. If you read Afghanistan's history, this is the reason why the country cannot be conquered by any foreigners. When one tries to take possesion of it..the other side steps in and helps. Now lets see...Iran's economy is 6 times higher than Pakistan's....not to mention that Iran has the 3rd largest oil reserves, including lots of natural gas. In weapons, Iran has much advanced weapons than Pakistan's. If both Afghanistan and Iran get together, they can easily take possesion of entire Pakistan in less than one month. India will also step in and take it's portion of Pakistan's land. During that time, I doubt it if USA or other western countries would try to help Pakistan, a nation that has land disuptes with both neighbors and having a population of 165 million people (most live below the poverty line).--NisarKand 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Keep dreaming like always, LOL!!! Isn't that what your leader Dauod Mohammad Khan tried to do? B/c of your obsession with the Durand Line, it lead to the direct invasion of Afghanistan and the deaths of millions of innocent Afghans. GREAT JOB!!! I APPLAUSE!!! BRAVO!!! You Afghans will never learn from your mistakes, LOL!!! I will close this useless debate with a proverb, HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF!!! LOL!!!--Napoleon12 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
We are not obsessed with the Durrand Line, in fact, I hope a permanent border is made there so that we Afghans can finally live in peace in our country. We don't profit from the Durrand Line in anyway...only the border theives, drugs, weapons and illegal merchandise smugglers do on both sides of the Durrand Line. If the border is sealed, Pakistan will become more isolated...by us not allowing any Pakistani trade to pass into my country. Also, we will shut down the Kabul River on Pakistan so that it slowly dies from thirst...LOL. We, on the other hand, have access to Iran's sea port (due to water sharing treaties)...India right now building a new highway from Iran's southern seaport directly to Kanadahar in Afghanistan...which is much suitable, faster and reliable than Pakistan's seaports. Our airports are also improving for air trade. We are becoming less dependent on Pakistan. But Pakistan, without Afghanistan, cannot get electricity from Tajikistan or do other trades on land. Iran just told Pakistan yesterday that it will not provide natural gas. If Afghan government decides and say no pipeline will be allowed on its soil to Pakistan...then slowly Pakistan will become an energy-less country because its own gas is about to run out in 7 more years. Only option left for Pakistan would be to buy from Qatar or other Arab countries, which will cost them arms and legs. I sugges you try to learn what's going on first before you discuss issues like these here.--NisarKand 13:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
About the deaths of the approximately 600,000 to 2 million innocent Afghans defending their country from Communism...that's not something to be ashamed...it's something to be proud of. Communism was the biggest monster on earth for a very long time and we Afghans put an end to it by also sacrificing some of our people while at it. If you look at world war 2...about 60 million people sacrificed their lives to end Nazism and all those that died while saving the world from evil regimes like those in the past will always be remembered and praised. That's pride ma man...something you Pakis don't know about.--NisarKand 14:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. The tone and language of much of the preceding few sections is not polite or made in good faith, and is not appropriate in Wikipedia. Moreover, racists (and I am specifically referring to White Supremacists) who only see people as not one of us can and will use any internal disputes amongst peoples other than theirs to spread their own lies and propaganda. So, be careful when you show disrespect to your neighbour, because strangers may take your words and twist them for their own ends. I would also point out that "Paki" is considered a derogatory diminutive when used in the United Kingdom (although not often in the rest of the English speaking nations). It is possible to discuss, and even strongly disagree, on Wikipedia without resorting to cultural and/or nationalistic slights. LessHeard vanU 20:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Please feel free to remove this comment should it be felt not be of any help in this situation.

[edit] Don’t confuse Balochis with Pashtuns

The Baloch people do not consider themselves as ethnic Pashtuns. Baloch tribal leaders are currently conducting an insurgency against outsiders such as Pashtuns, Afghan refugees and Punjabis who are flocking to the province because of an economic boom. The Nationalistic Balochis leaders fear a demographic shift against the native people of the province. --Napoleon12 11:58 am, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me one single report about Baloch fighting with Pashtuns? Baloch are anti-Punjabis and anti-all other non-Pashtuns (Hazaras, Tajiks, Iranians, and etc.) BUT NEVER PASHTUNS as they are both friends since ages. You keep talking outta your back, with your own POVs User:Tajik...hahahahaha.--NisarKand 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Pashtuns living in Balochistan have migrated their and are not considered Balochi by the native population. But, Balochistan does consists of small pockets of Pashtun communities particularly the Quetta. --Napoleon12 1:10 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Why are you all worrying about other ethnics if you're not even one? Balochistan is always home to Pashtuns and they go back and forth all the time with no restrictions at all or no fear of any type. If you are non-Pashtun or non-Baloch, try going to Balochistan by road and see what happens to you there. Hahahahaha....Baloch people go to southern Afghanistan freely also because we allow them. Don't worry about Baloch and Pashtuns, as they are both friends and they always will be.--NisarKand 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
THAT'S THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD. There is a full scale insurgency against outsiders. READ THE NEWS, RETARD! Since the 1970s there has been some small-scale violence. The area had been badly affected by fighting and instability in Afghanistan, with arms and refugees flooding the province. Small attacks have occurred against coal miners, oil prospectors, and energy infrastructure. Balochis have a seperate culture, language and not to mention province. Read Balochistan--Napoleon12 2:01 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
It's just a name of the province (Balochistan), as almost half the population of Balochistan is Pashtuns. Go do search online on the exact number of population of each ethnics in Balochistan and you will learn the truth. It's a waste of time here arguing that Pashtuns are only small pockets when in reality almost half of the population is Pashtuns. I don't have time to bring reports here so I suggest you do it on your own as I've done previosly. I am a very educated Pashtun, and you suckers are just here to explain your own thoughts and feelings. That does not do any good for you because things don't change with your thoughts.--NisarKand 09:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Soon the Taliban will step up the BOMBINGS in the interior of Afghanistan. Eventually, the Americans and Nato will have withdraw from the country and leave it in chaos. To them IRAQ is more important because of its oil reverses. The only solution will be to divide Afghanistan between its neighbors on ethnic grounds (Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan). In a few months or years most of the world’s Pashtuns will be bought under the leadership of NWFP (Afghania) with American GREEN LIGHT and Afghanistan will cease to exist by 2015. HE HE!!! . --Napoleon12 2:15 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a nice plan you have there, but everyone have their own plans. It's only a matter of who Allah (God almighty) chooses as the Kings to rule the region. America = Green Light? Afghanistan is a nation that nobody can conquer. Even the most strict or pure religious orthadox Islamic fundementalists (Taliban) nearly got whiped out on the very sacred soil of Afghanistan. It's believed by the locals that a handful of soil from Heaven is dropped on there. Prophet Mohammad's (PBUH) cloak and piece of hair are also in Afghanistan (Kandahar). The same cloak he wore while he went closer to Allah (God almighty). In 2001, Mulla Omar opened the box which contained the cloak and pulled it out in public, it was the same time period his Empire (Taliban) crumbled and destroyed, him removed from power to a running fugitive man. Afghanistan has many deep unbelievable things inside it, it's a very strange place. If you step inside Afghanistan with bad intentions, you won't make it out alive. But if you step inside with a good intention, you make it out good. If I was Afghanistan's neighbor, I would be always scared because it's always the poor people that come to invade the richer countries. For example, poverty modivates poor people to go take others under. In this case, if Afghans decide...they will invade Iran like how they did during Hotaki's times of 1722, and take all the riches from Iran to Afghanistan. Same thing with Pakistan or India, the poors will do anything to get your treasures ($$$$). But those who are not poor, are always cowards and afraid of thieves or people that will take their property. This means, Pakistan, Iran, India should always be afraid of Afghanistan because it's just a matter of time that Afghans decide to take your treasures. Don't worry much about the northern countries (Turkemistan Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), they are poor powerless and also very isolated...they don't want any trouble. The way you said about Afghanistan being vonurable at the moment, shows that you are not smart thinker.--NisarKand 20:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
What you have clearly stated above is your prerogative which is separate from what Pashtuns think in Pakistan. Only the Khuda and time will tell the future and not you or me.--Napoleon12 3:32 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
That again proves that you are User:Tajik because he or she always contradicts in his or hers statements....I mean look above what you stated early (up...before my post) you first explained "Soon the Taliban will step up the BOMBINGS in the interior of Afghanistan. Eventually, the Americans and Nato will have withdraw from the country and leave it in chaos"....and now you said..."only the Khuda and time will tell the future and not you or me".--NisarKand 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Now what does the Khuda suppose to mean? Hahahahahaha. That explains that you don't believe in Allah (God almighty)...I suspect that you are a communist. Hahahahaha--NisarKand 09:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


I agree with Napoleon12 here. I have said the same thing before, Baluchis are not Pashtun and do not consider themselves Pashtun. To say Baluchis are Pashtun is extremely incorrect and definatly a POV. There is no source that says Baluchis are Pashtuns. It is a ridicules thing to say in my opinion, unless you can find just one source that claims this. -- Behnam 04:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Tajik-afghan, who said that Baloch and Pashtuns were the same people? Are you drunk man? Maybe you are fighting your inner self by your own thoughts perhaps because nobody in this conversation claimed of Pashtuns and Baloch to be the same people.--NisarKand 09:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Balochis are not Pashtuns, end of story. Plus, I have considerable evidence to prove their heritage.--Napoleon12 5:18 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
What's funny is that both users, User:Tajik-afghan (Parsiwan) and User:Napoleon12, spelled the word Balochis for the Baloch people. This is not even the proper way to spell it. LOL... sucker! --NisarKand 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Farhad Darya

I am leaving Farhad Darya's picture on the article b/c he is an Afghan citizen and not mixed. Also, important to note is that Farhad Darya is not a pure Pashtun and is clearly mixed with Tajiks. --Napoleon12 12:18 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what you do? sooner or later all your vandalism will be restored one way or another. Records stay here permanently, so that old images may be restored in the future. If you come here to start trouble with others by removing their edits, you're just wasting your time here.--NisarKand 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
SAD!!! B/c I will combat vandalism according to the rules.--Napoleon12 2:08 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Farhad Darya, regardless of him being half Tajik, has contributed enormously to Pashto music/culture. He is one of the more prominent Pashto singers and so his picture is infact very relevant to that section. Behnam 05:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't twist things around....Farhad Darya's father is Pashtun and his mother maybe Tajik...that qualifies him to Pashtun. But does not qualify him as Tajik. Why you purposly hide the Pashtun part and only explain the Tajik part? Remember new born person carries the father's last name...not their mothers. A woman that marries a man attains the man's last name...not the other way around.--NisarKand 09:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Farhad Darya does not qualify to be a Pashtun or a Tajik b/c, he is mixed! Regardless, we must recognize his achievements towards Pashto music.--Napoleon12 5:21 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abdul Ahad Mohmand

I have agreed with NisarKand to post the picture of Abdul Ahad Mohmmand as a source of Pashtun pride..--Napoleon12 2:41 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC

If you want you may go ahead and remove or delete the entire article on Pashtun people...like we give a $h!t about it. Man we Pashtuns don't want people to know about us...cause we lik it that way...hahahahahahahaha you sucker!.--NisarKand 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
NisarKand, I suggest you be a little polite and show respect with some courtesy.--Napoleon12 5:23 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Nisar should behave like a perfect contributor. Haider 13:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Get lost! nobody can be perfect. Only Allah (God almighty) is perfect. --NisarKand 11:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Roger! I am lost. I think you must be using "Kand" for Kandhar at the end of Nisar if I am not wrong? Haider 21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are the first one to recognize this. The way you spelled Kandhar means you're from India.--NisarKand 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to my dear Almighty Allah I am not from India, that way I would be calling "PATHAN" rather than Pashtun. I think you like indian Pathan who have lost their culture, language and land, that's why you are thrusting Indian Pathans as Pashtuns like your great Dilip Kumar? Take care Nisar Qandhari! Haider 13:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics mistakes

I looked at some of the demographics figures and they do not make any sense. The figures denote non-Pashto-speakers in India and Bangladesh (I've only found references to a small refugee group of between 40 and 60,000 living in India and nothing for Bangladesh) as the reference claims that they speak Urdu. Ethnologue, at least, claims to count only language demographic figures. These inflated numbers seem out of place and are another reason why this article has declined in quality since I nominated it for Featured Article status. We need to keep in mind that we cannot simply insert whatever we feel like and must take not of professional encyclopedias and how they approach this and other topics. Regardless, the demographics information will have to be changed.Tombseye 06:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye, thanks for bringing this up. I'm not tto sure about the populations of Pashtuns in other countries but as for India, the currents source states 776,000 Pashto-speaking Pashtuns out of 11,703,000 total. Could you please give the source that discusses the refugees? I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I looked up these figures to verify them and found that the Joshua Project was quoting Ethnologue which does not make the claim that there are over 700,000 Pashto speakers in India and doesn't mention Bangladesh or Nepal (?!) at all. The figures for the UAE are also strange as I only found that there are 126,000 from Ethnologue. The Joshua Project seems very unreliable and lumps the Pashtuns with Pathans in India for some reason, which is beyond the scope of this article. I have in the past suggested that an article could be written about Pathans in India as well as a Hindkowan article so as to differentiate between Pashto-speaking Pashtuns and Pathans. At any rate, these figures seem very confusing and unreliable. The figures for India I found came from articles like this. The low end was 13,000 as of 2001 according to this article. Of these apparently a large percentage may not be Pashtuns as 8,500 or so are Sikhs and Hindus whose first language tends to be a Punjabi variant followed by their proficiency in local Dari and Pashto: refugees. I have found nothing on 700,000 Pashto-speakers in India, but lots on Urdu speaking Pathans. There is no historic Pashto-speaking region in India and as such most Pashtuns who went there were no doubt part of Islamic armies and thus lost their language long ago as they assimilated with local Muslims. There is no Indian census and nothing regarding Bangladesh either as Pashtuns living there seems as plausible as Burma or Indonesia as these areas are remote and not economically viable to move to and there is again no real historic Pashto-speaking presence. Much of the demographics section is thus going to have to be scaled down to more plausible figures as it is not easy to find numbers on Pashtuns in the US either (figures tend to include Tajiks who are the larger immigrant group in the US) or Britain etc. Fixing this article is full-time job that I'm not up to and I was disappointed to see it lose featured article status, but not surprised given the mess it became after I was done with it. Tombseye 07:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't know from where these figures came in!! Believe me Indian Pathans can just say "Khochey or Mara" of Pashto that's all, there should be another article for PATHANS of Idian and around. Haider 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made some minor changes in Sports section because the game is still being played in the western skirts of the Hazara division amgonst swatis and yousafzais. Haider 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. I have updated the information a bit, but will have to add more later. I know there are smaller groups of Pashtuns in Central Asia, Russia, etc. but can't find any reliable stats on their numbers. Nor is there any indication of a large Pashto-speaking group in India as of this time other than the Afghan refugees. If anyone has any other data it would be appreciated. Thanks. Tombseye 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Great work Tom. I have just removed Batagram from the putitive ancestory, while the above mentioned district is above 95% of Pashto speaking clans, covering some eastern slopes of the Black Mountain and Mountains of Allai. Haider 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Tombseye, I don't mean to be a stumbling block, but your sources of Pashto speakers in India only seems to consider refugees, not a native population. Before the partition of India, it wasn't uncommon for people to travel throughout the country and settle down in new places. In the past, the Rohilkhand region in India was ruled and populated by ethnic Pashtuns (who spoke Pashto). The source I provided (Pushtan, Southern of India) dealt with the entire Pashto-speaking population in India, not just refugees. Your reply would be appreciated. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know of the source. I'm actually the one who added references to the Joshua Project in this article and others before I realized its inconsistencies. As for Pashtuns travelling around, yes many do, but there is a strong distinction between Pashtuns who still speak Pashto and those who no longer do and were always outnumbered by local Muslim inhabitants in India with whom they intermarried. The Rohilkhand is just such an example and no doubt many Pathans there are their partial descendents (Pashtun males moved around moreso than entire families), but today speak Urdu not Pashto. This falls under putative ancestry. There is thus no large Pashto-speaking population, just a history of Pashtun settlement in parts of India, which predictably decreases the further away from Pashtunistan we get. What's more the Indian census has nothing on Pashto-speakers and nor does Ethnologue, which Joshua Project claims as one of its sources. In essence, we have no real evidence of Pashto speakers in India at all other than the refugees. Pashtuns do move around, but not in ways like that of other groups. I suspect that many of the people who moved to India during the British era were Hindkowans (since they are a cultural overlapping group between Pashtuns and Punjabis) as seems to be the case with many well known Pathans in India thus far. Pashtun males tend to move for work and then return to Pashtunistan in modern times so I'm not sure how large a Pashtun migration would have taken place during the short British occupation (we're talking 50 years at the most since the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war). Islamic ghazis on the other hand would have gained much through conquest and would probably see no reason to leave India historically and thus many Pashtun males no doubt remained and became part of the local population, but clearly lost their language as they mixed with the locals. The Joshua Project figures seem unreliable as they do not explain who these Pashto-speakers are and where they live for that matter. For example, 113,000 non-refugee Pashtuns live in Iranian Khorasan centered around Nishapur right next to Afghanistan (no doubt due to the close proximity of other Pashtuns in Herat etc.). The Pashtun population though has no continuity with Indian geography as the British moved into the areas populated by the Pashtuns late after separating it from Afghanistan and so mass movement appears unlikely. Thus, we have no evidence of a sizeable Pashto-speaking population in India, whereas we do have evidence of a Pashtun legacy amongst India's Muslim population. Again, for the purposes of this article, which I worked to make into a featured article and has since declined in quality and verifiability, Pathans can't be counted as Pashtuns as that is beyond the scope of this article and does not correspond to usage in Encyclopedias such as Britannica or Americana which do not note any sizeable Pashtun prescence in India. Tombseye 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
On another note, I'm thinking of starting a Hindkowan article and came across this information about Dilip Kumar. According to this link he is a Hindkowan so we can't include him in the article either unfortunately. Tombseye 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
This site also refers to him and Shah Rukh Khan as a Hindkowan. I would strongly support you in the creation of a Hindkowan article. Regarding the demographics section, I gave a range as you did with the Iranian Pashtun popoulation since we have various sources. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Anupam, your source says, "approximately 60,000 Afghans live in India". I couldn't find any reference to the word "Pashtun" or "Pathan" in the text...are you sure the article is about Pashtuns? Khoikhoi 06:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that's the problem. of those afghans we know that 9,500 or so are Afghan Sikhs and Hindus and who knows how many Tajiks and others. Regardless there aren't many reliable figures to quantify the Pashtuns in India really. Tombseye 06:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh and something else here. It appears Mohammad Yunus is from Abbottabad which is the only Hindko-majority district in the NWFP (94% apparently) and so this appears to follow the trend we've seen with Hindkowans moving about, while ethnic Pashtuns remain where they are. At any rate, we now have a problem with Mr. Yunus as he may not be an ethnic Pashtun but a Hindkowan. Well at the very least the Hindkowan article won't be lacking in notable people I guess. Tombseye 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I didn't provide the source - Tombseye did. Maybe the question should be directed towards him. At any rate, does the Joshua Project source which quotes 776,000 Pashto speaking Pashtuns meet WP:RS? If so than the range could encmpass 13,000-776,000. With regards, AnupamTalk 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, yes I did indeed provide that source and have since then realized that it is also an ambiguous figure. If we extract 9,500 Sikhs and Hindus and then figure that many of the remainder would also be Tajiks and others, we still are left with 13,000 to some larger number that can't be quantified at this time. The Joshua Project source turns out to be completely unreliable as it notes as one of ITS own sources as Ethnologue which has nothing on 776,000 Pashtuns in India, which is a large figure, and yet gives no indication as to where this figure comes from. That's why I took out the Joshua Project figures as they seem like arbitrary numbers rather than based upon census data of some sort. There is nothing on such a large Pashtun presence in India in any encyclopedia or articles I've read (and I've looked at plenty on the Pashtuns). At this time, I don't see how we can give a range other than the 13,000 until we have something more substantive. Tombseye 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Feroz Khan

Hey Tom! Is it fruitful to hang Feroz Khan as Pashtun actor while once we had some argued even on Imran Khan due to his language and you had prefered Shahid Afridi for his Pashto, nevertheless Imran Khan can chat in Pashto aswell. Should we accept Feroz Khan as Pashtun as mentioned under his photo? Take care! Haider 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about Feroz Khan to say myself. He's half Pashtun and I don't know if he can speak Pashto myself. I thought Shahid Afridi was the safest choice just because he is obviously Pashtun and there is no question about it. Overall, so long as there is a direct link I think inclusion of notable Pashtuns is ok regardless of where they are. Hope that answers your question. Tombseye 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Inclusion of Pashtun is ok, but Feroz Khan can't speak Pashto, what we were trying to concenterate only on Pashto speaking people would be consider Pashtuns and that is a fact aswell, nevertheless from anywhere around. Me myself had tried to chat with him in Pashto here in our country (now banned), "no sorry I cant speak Pashto", he replied! By just saying few words in their films like Yara,Mara or Khochey Qurban couldn't proove them Pashtuns. I don't think, even they would'nt consider themsleves as Pashtuns. Take care! Haider 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I personally am neutral on his inclusion, since he is directly descended from Pashtuns from his father's side without question whereas the other people who claim Pashtun ancestry tend to be from centuries ago which makes it more difficult to assess. We could vote on it, but I personally don't think it's important to keep him or remove him as the pictures of famous people is less important than pictures of regular Pashtuns as can be seen in most reference books. Take care. Tombseye 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I will not go for the voting on this issue, esp when I know you are neutral on it. I had also been in little contributing with you to make it a featured article, if you remember? And also don't forget, you had worked so hard to glorify this article, so if it is okay with you than it's alright! Take care Tomb. Haider 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol, sure no problem Haider. You were very helpful too. Feel free to set-up the voting on this picture whenever you wish to. Tombseye 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New picture for info-box

Elders are important people in the Pashtun society and often make important decisions in the community.
Elders are important people in the Pashtun society and often make important decisions in the community.
I added this picture at the top of the caption. It's a picture of typical everyday Pashtuns which is good and not a picture of celebrities (which is again a sign of nationalism). Most encyclopedias tend to show pictures of regular people so this picture makes sense in the article. Please people don't remove it without a good explanation. Cheers. Tombseye 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Those in the picture are not proven to be Pashtuns because they are from Kabul. The majority people in Kabul are Tajiks. Also, Tajiks and Pashtuns both wear turbans and they look very identical to one another. The best thing would be to place a picture of Pashtuns from a well known populated Pashtun cities such as Kandahar or Peshawar, where they make up the mojority. I will look around for better images of Pashtuns.--NisarKand 15:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How can we make this article a Featured article again?

I think here we should discuss what we can do to make this article a featured article again. Lets make a list. I will start. Behnam 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Remove the nationalism. Before one reason why this article was Featured was because this article had no nationalism in it and was totally neutral. Today, it reads more like a nationalistic neutral article. I am partly to blame for that, but I have now recognized it. I think that is one thing we could do to make this article featured again, remove nationalism and make it neutral again. Otherwise, I doubt it will ever become Featured again. Behnam 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I was the one who originally nominated to become a featured article and what I did was re-write it and add significantly to it with lots of suggestions etc. For one thing some sections have become too long and mired in unnecessary details (for example no need to explain something that is explained in a link to another article). I will work on this article some more and then nominate it to be a featured article again. I see no reason why it can't be done again as the content is mostly all still here. It's just been messed with and altered badly. I agree that nationalism should play no part here. Tombseye 02:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm just curious, who removed it from Featured status? Behnam 03:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pashtun people. Khoikhoi 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thank you Khoikhoi! Behnam 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. :-) Also see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pashtun people (the original nomination page). Khoikhoi 03:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok guys, I've been editing the page quite a bit to shorten it and create some clarity. There was lots of information that was redundant (stating over and over again that Karzai is Popalzai etc. is just not professional) or stating what can be read in other articles (biographies of people). I think we're very close to putting this article back into Featured status. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Ciao. Tombseye 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Nisarkand, I actually uploaded that picture of Abdul Ahad. You must have deleted it and uploaded your own or something, I don't know what happened there. But that wasn't my point. So nevermind. Behnam 09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam, do you have a problem with Abdul Ahad Mohmand? Why you keep removing his image from this article? You removed it from Afghanistan's article about a month back, which I didn't challenge you then, and now you want to remove it from here also. He is the first Pashtun to reach space but you want to hide this fact. I suggest you leave it alone because I will reinsert it everytime I come here. His image has nothing to do with nationalism but simply pride of all the Pashtuns. Chech Israel and see they also have the first Jewish person to go to space in 2002. Plus, I was the one who uploaded this image not you. --NisarKand 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I uploaded it before you did and I placed it in this article. But for some reason you uploaded your won and replaced mine. I'm not sure why. But thats not the point, so nevermind.

Image:Mohmand-large.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohmand-large.jpg Behnam 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I replaced yours because the name of your image did not have his full name plus I thought I had a larger sized image but it ended up being the same.--NisarKand 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nisarkand, why would I have a problem with this picture IF I WAS THE ONE WHO PLACED IT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Stop throwing around meaningless allegations. Check the date of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohmand-large.jpg and you'll see I uploaded that picture long before you did. And check the history of this article and you'll see that I placed it here long ago! And the reason I removed it from the Afghanistan article is because it had NOTHING to do with Culture section! And I told you that then! So do I have a problem with that picture? If yes as you suggest, then why would I upload and place it here in the first place? I already clearly express my reasoning above, but forget it. Behnam 09:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

User: Nisarkand, on several occations you have accused me of being "anti-Pashtun". I have already answered your allegation that I want to "hide" Mohmand being Pashtun. Now I also want to add that I was the one who also uploaded the Zalmay Khalizad picture and ALSO placed it HERE! Just check the history of this article. So now I'd appreciate if you stop throwing around these accusations whenever you disagree with someone. Behnam 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
And now that you showed the Israel article, I think it would be good if you put his picture back into the Afghanistan article. But we should first find an appropriate place to put it. Last time it was in the culture section and thats why I removed it. I think we should place it back now and make a spot for it. Behnam 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
You need to place your ethnic background behind you when editing articles of other ethnics. When you removed his image from Afghanistan's article I didn't challenge you because you were right that it didn't belong in the culture section. Anyway, if you want to remove an image it should be Rahim Shah's, as I know him very well and his culture changed in 2003 to Urdu or Punjabi. He is more famous among those crowds than Pashtuns...not many Pashtuns know him. He is Pashtun I fully agree but his work has nothing to do with Pashtuns. In fact, in one of his 2003 songs, he clearly says "I'm Pakhtun". That still does not mean anything. There are many new Pashtun singers in Pakistan and they are much well known to Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan than this Rahim Shah dude. About the Afghan article, I will later make a section for the image to be there.--NisarKand 10:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Nisarkand, here you are starting again with your baseless allegations. Did I not just prove to you that I uploaded and placed BOTH the Mohmand picture and the Khalilzad picture? And my ethnic backround? I am actually part Pashtun myself (my mother's mother), so considering that, you're allegation of me being anti-Pashtun is even more ridiculous. As for Rahim Shah, that is up to you if you want to remove him. You do you have a good point about him so I don't mind if he is removed at all. Behnam 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help me find the proper Liscensing for this Important pictre:

I had this picture uploaded on to the Demographics section, but it was removed because at the time I did not know much about licensing and I picked the wrong one. This image does not appear to be copyrighted at all. So there must be a way we can use it. Please help me pick the correct license so that we can use this image. --Behnam 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A good idea will be to make it yourself. I can make it for the article in a couple of days time. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You can also try adding {{reqmap}} to this talk page; not sure if it'll work though. Khoikhoi 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

But there is no copyright on this image (as far as I can see on that webpage), so there must be a way we can use it. Right? --Behnam 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Unknown copyright status is a good reason for speedy deletion. In this case, however, the contents of the website are © Moesgård Museum. deeptrivia (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for finding out the copyright. I kept looking but couldn't find it. So I guess we'll just have to make our own map, or find another one. Behnam 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
It's done. deeptrivia (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow, just wow! That is just such a great work of art! :-D It looks even way better than the original! I think you should get an award for that or some sort of recognition! Thanks alot deeptrivia, you are great! Behnam 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New map has problems

The new map seems to show Pakistan Kashmir in grey for some reason and not Indian Kashmir. It seems odd to even bring that up here, but why the grey for one and not the other and why bring it up at all? Just use the line of control which most encyclopedias do. Tombseye 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Will fix that soon. deeptrivia (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I appreciate it. Also, the Line of Control with China needs to be adjusted. Much obliged. Tombseye 18:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pashtuns are direct descendant from Scythians?

Pashtuns may have some descent from Scythians, but they certainly do not have direct descend from the Scythians. Pashtuns have various ancestries and yes Scythian is one of them, but they are not direct descendants of the Scythians, only some Pashtuns have Scythian ancestry. Because if Pashtuns are from southern/eastern Afghanisan and western Pakistan, and Scythians were from Central Asia, then direct descend is obviously wrong. We should correct that. Also why is there no info here on the possible Semitic ancestry, and also the obvious Indic admixture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.55.10 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Hmm, yes we could alter the Scythian link a bit, but I believe that link exists because of teh strong similarities between Scythian and Pashto (which shows similarities with Ossetic as well. As for the Semitic and Indic links they appear to be minor given the genetic tests that show a general (but by no means solid) genetic difference west of the Indus in-comparison to the Indian subcontinent. The Semitic link appears to be more mythological than real as well and is comparable to the Indic link you speak of. the Pashtuns are related to their immediate neighbors and to most of the Iranian peoples in a variety of ways. Thus, the rationale in the article. Tombseye 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There are also various other East Iranian peoples they descend from, including the Parthians, Bactrians, Sogdians, etc. who all have relative links to the Scythians anyway. Some of the Pashtun ancestry can be traced to the Hepthalites or so called White Huns, whom many now believe to be Iranian anyway. Afghan Historian 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Semitic ancestry is hogwash, though of course Pashtuns cluster with the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasoid type, but then again so do southern Europeans, Indians, Pakistanis, etc. There are groups such as the Hindkowans who have partial Indian ancestry due to mixing with Punjabis, but apart from them, (and even they arent considered full Pashtun), there is no Indic ancestry among the Pashtuns specifically. Afghan Historian 14:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This pashtun pseudo pride makes me laugh. As far as the genetic tests on pakistani population are concerned showed that the pashtuns/pakhtuns of pakistan are paternally(father side) are very closely related to their immediate neighbours in pakistan which include punjabi, balochi, sindis and kashmiris from the valley since all of them have not only high frequency of R1a1 Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup but also have uniform rates of R2 Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. R1a1 haplogroup rates for pashtuns were found 45% , for punjabis 50%, balochis 42% ,for sindis 49% and for kashmiris 58%. R1a1 haplogroup is spread also in high rates in India, Russia, Ukrain, Poland, and other slavic speaking countries whose languages are very closely related to ancient sanskrit. Thus R1a1 haplogroup can be associated with ancient indo-iranians (also known as Aryans in sanskrit and avestan texts) whose languages we are speaking today. The R2 haplogroup is specific to pakistani and indian populations and its small rates are also found in the caucacus countries between caspian and black sees.

[edit] Original Research

I can't help noticing that a lot of the discussion on this page is original research and unsourced. I hope that this is not true for the article, although I came here because of references to Shah Rukh Khan. WP:NOR may be of help. Ekantik talk 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Refs

This article should probably use the {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} templates for references. I'll try to update some of them. Khoikhoi 03:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yikes, I already started with that, but not using the templates you listed! Oh man. It takes forever as is. I was just making them consistent and similar to the Azeris, but man. Tombseye 08:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New images!

An Afghan woman of the Pashtun tribe in Kabul, Afghanistan. Photo by Senior Airman Bethann Hunt, USAF.

An Afghan family from the Pashtun tribe sits together in their home in Kabul, Afghanistan.

A young Afghan boy from the Pashtun tribe poses for a photograph near his home in Kabul, Afghanistan.

A close up of an Afghan girl from the Pashtun tribe in Kabul, Afghanistan.

Enjoy! Khoikhoi 07:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Very nice pictures indeed. But, beside the boy with the Pashtun traditional hat, how do you know their ethnicity is Pashtun? Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Tajiks of Afghanistan can often look the same. Especially since these pictures are from Kabul where Tajiks are the largest group and Pashtuns are a minority there (2nd largest group). If they were from a largely Pashtun area like Khowst or Kandahar then we could say they are most likely Pashtun anyway. But in this case, whats there to suggest that (besides the boy with the traditional Pashtun hat) they are Pashtuns? Is there by chance a description from the source? Behnam 07:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, for the first image click here, and scroll down to the bottom. For the others, click here, and then on the right bar enter the word "Pashtun" in the "Search Images" field. You'll see the three others there, all you have to do is click on them and they will pop-up, giving the description. Khoikhoi 15:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok I see, thanks. But from my personal experience, seeing thousands and thousands of faces, I highly doubt the two on the left are Pashtun. How did the US military determine their ethnicity? Did they actually ask them? Or did they just assume that these were Pashtuns? I personally think the latter was the case. In a place like Kabul you can't just guess people's ethnicity without asking, unless they were signature clothing (like that hat or those turbans). Especially with the family picture. But I guess since in Wiki its the rule where personal knowledge is not taken over a source, they cannot be removed, unless another reliable picture is found. Behnam 04:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, but the family look Pashtun to me. I saw lots of people like them in Peshawar and I knew a family that was very similar to them back in California (they were Afghan refugees and lived in Alameda and some of them still might be there). 5 brothers and 2 sisters. How do you tell faces apart in Afghanistan? Except for the Hazara (and even with them it varies) I'm not sure there are any huge differences between the various groups. Tombseye 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Typical Sindhi hat is on that boy. I don't know who else(Group) worn such caps in Kabul, or that must be some of his relatives in Sindh etc would have sent that traditional stuff. A Pashtun boy would looks more glorious in his own traditional dress rather than others esp when we have been buzy to find out some good images regarding Pashtuns. That boy is not a celebrity like Ghulam Ishaq Khan or others, easy to recognise whatever is on, but here boy is just a common passerby so how can we(a reader, newcomer, contributor etc) recognize him as Pashtun? Haider 21:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello Haider. The problem is that we are having copyright problem with the pictures. We can't use Ishaq Khan UNLESS you or someone else can find pictures that we can use without violating copyright laws. Also, you make a good point about the boy as he is wearing a Sindhi cap which is not common in Afghanistan and is not a typically Pashtun hat. I like the picture just because it's a typical Pashtun (which is good for an article like this), but I wanted a group picture at the top. I hope we can find one to use sometime. Tombseye 01:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually that hat is VERY common in Southern and Eastern parts of Afghanistan. Epsecially Kandahar, Khowst, and Helmand and those areas. Though it might originally be a Sindhi hat that Pashtuns of that region adopted somehow. Behnam 01:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And yeah Tombseye is right. They have really gotten strict on the image liscenses. They won't even accept Creative Commons Lisecence without permission for Comercial use. That's just ridiciouls. I had several really good images deleted because of that. They were CC2.0, but no Commercial use. And also you if you use CC images they have to allow Derivate Works also. So now its alot harder finding images. They have also gotten strict on fair use. Oh well, we'll have to live with it. Behnam 02:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tomb, if copyright (which is without any doubt a geniune one) is the case then I should keep myself buzy to find out right one aswell. I still can remember an image in which some Pashtun boys from Kohistan were on their way to school, desperate to see that one. Take care. Haider 09:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, if you guys or anyone can find pictures without copyright problems, by all means let me or Khoikhoi know. The Kohistani boys picture was good, but there was no ID as to whether they were Pashtuns or not, but they might have been. Tombseye 01:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you please show us which Kohistani picture you're talking about? Behnam 07:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Almost a year gone when an image of Pashtuns from Kohistan was there, the beauty of that image was Pashtun kids were going to school, otherwise they usually affixed even children with AK-47!! Tomb, what is the criteria to confirm wether they are pashtuns or not, certainly not military forces deployed? Manana and Take care. Haider 09:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Haider, is this the image you're talking about? Khoikhoi 09:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Khoikhoi, I couldn't find that one but great to see Pashtun children buying sweets at a shop(looks like), believe me that will work rather than that sindhi hat. Good work. Take care! Haider 10:03, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think there were copyright problems with that picture too AND the caption reads that they are Kohistani and Pashtun children and is not clear if they are simply Pashtun Kohistanis or Kohistani and Pashtun kids. If the copyright issues could be resolved I have no problem with a lot of pictures. I like the Pashtun boy we have at the top, but not in the place as a group picture would be better to signify the Pashtuns as a whole (as we used in Azeris. Tombseye 17:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Dear Tombseye, Copyright problems are much enough to prevent us to add that image, that's all. Haider 19:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there weren't any objections from anybody about removing the image of the (allegedly) Pashtun boy. The main issue was about the family. Did something change? Khoikhoi 01:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, I have asked for removing the image just for it's technical reason, for any pashtun celeb like Imran Khan etc, it's easy to be recognized nevertheless if they are wearing jeans or shalwar suit but how could we recongnized a boy, a common passerby with sindhi hat on him, for any wikipedians the first impression would go straight for a sindhi boy on Pashtun page. If we don't have any suitable image available right now due to copyright, we must wait for a while, it dosn't mean to affix unsuitable photos. I would appreciate you always for your hard work regarding images. Manana and Take care. Haider 09:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that boy doesn't even look very Pashtun. It's not 100% known if he is Pashtun, and regardless on Wikipedia we're supposed to put forward the best informative material out there and prevent misconceptions. Giving people the wrong impression on Pashtuns won't help anyone. The pictures with Ahmad Shah Durrani and other Pashtuns in the past were better.


That is NOT a Sindhi boy! There are no Sindhis in Afghanistan, and Kabul of all places. That hat is very commonly worn by Pashtun young boys, even older men wear them. If you are from Afghanistan you should know that. It is especially worn by Pashtun boys (and sometimes grown men) in Helmand and Kandahar. Behnam 15:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It's very important question, just tell me honestly, is that a traditional/cultural Pashtuns cap, despite if that worn esp by children? I have never seen any such cap in NWFP even FATA and PATA on pashtuns heads. Thanks. Haider 09:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you're right that it is not worn by Pakistani Pashtuns in NWFP. But in Helmand, Kandahar, and sometimes Quetta it is very common. Especially in Kandahar and Helmand, almost all young boys wear it and adults often wear it too. Just take a look at some casual videos or pictures from Kandahar and Helmand. The boy in this pictures is most likely a Hotaki Pashtun from Kandahar. How do I know that? I have a friend that looks just like him, except older. Behnam 15:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I didn't get my answer, which was very simple like, is that Pashtuns traditional/cultural cap or not? You know very well that what should we accepted as our cultural dress from toe to head (very famous). Kindly don't take caps from other non-pashtuns, while we have already a rich history regarding caps aswell. If pashtun Hotaki boy had his own cultural cap then that would have been a great "image" otherwise this is like a sindhi boy on pashtun page. Thanks. Haider 20:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
A freind of mine from Balochistan is from Achakzai tribe, usually he wore such caps but believe me, he has never accepted that "styled" cap as Pashtuns cap but just for the change of style thats all. Take care Haider 20:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'll delete the image as there appears to be some issue with its origins. Having personally been to Peshawar and other Pashtun areas I didn't see many locals wearing this cap, but saw plenty of Sindhis wearing them in Karachi so obviously it's peculiar to that area. Tombseye 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
This hat has its origins in Sindh, but is VERY commonly worn in Kandahar, Helman and sometimes Oruzgan. There are no Sindhis in Kabul. The boy is not Sindhi. He can only be Pashtun. Behnam 23:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand here. You objected to the family because it was misleading (I'm still not sure why), but don't think it's misleading for a boy to wear a Sindhi cap? Shouldn't we either use both pictures or neither since they are both ambiguous and from the same source? Tombseye 03:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

There must be more categories that apply to this article: can someone pls sort through categories and get necessary cats added? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Khoikhoi put all of the relevant categories in the Pashtun category thus eliminating the need to insert stuff into what was a burgeoning section. Tombseye 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC

I don't see the information with native spellings. It should not be removed from the article completely, although I strongly suggest it be removed from FAs for readability. However, other editors have made arguments for providing this information in Wikipedia articles, as it makes it easier for users who are not fluent in another language to search for the information in its native tongue, and generally enhances the ability of other editors to verify information. I don't think this goes against particular arguments for "Wikipedia is not for your convenience," as other encyclopedias do this in various ways. It simply shouldn't be done in a way that makes the introductory sentence unreadable. Can it be added to the top of the infobox, or somewhere else? Is it already somewhere else? KP Botany 03:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I've moved the native spellings down to the footnotes. Khoikhoi 07:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
That seems to handle the issue well, it's where folks looking for the information might seek it in the first place. KP Botany 02:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Iranian plateau

This reference is to "an informal online resource for summit-focused hikers, climbers, and mountain lovers" not a geological site, and as such is problematic when used as a reference to define a geological area, which is what the article on the Iranian plateau is about, as geologists define areas by their geological history. I did just change the Iranian plateau article, as it had many problems, starting with its opening sentence that "The Iranian plateau is a major geologic formation" as it is not a geological formation but rather techtonostrigraphic terranes, which are probably made up of geological formations or lithostratigraphic sections. Even the definition of the plateau given in the article doesn't agree with the image at peekbaggers, because the definition includes Tajikistan, while the map at peekbaggers does not. Peekbaggers's map might be found elsewhere on a geological site that includes the Main Zagros Thrust and Makran tranfer zone. I don't know, without extensive research, whether or not the Iranian plateau is today considered to be the region north of both of these or only the region north of the MZT, west of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has an extensive history of research in the geological sciences, so maybe there's an Iranian Wikipedia editor who can help with this--you might start by looking up Iranian plateau and Zagros thrust on the Iranian wikipedia to find some help. But, the peekbaggers' map cannot be used as a reference to define a geological region, when the site itself proclaims it is not intended as such. KP Botany 03:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I added two references, one from Britannica and one from the University of Texas that clarify the matter. Hope that helps. Tombseye 03:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images -- for what it's worth.

I asked my cousin, an ethnographer (she's Pashtun, and highly respected in all Afghan ethnic communities in the US and in Afghanistan, Germany and England), about the one image of the Pashtun family, she said, "yes, they are Pashtuns." I will ask her and other family about the other images, next time I go to dinner, printing out the photos--making sure they are looked at by a variety of Pashtuns and other Afghans. I don't agree with Wikipedia's general policy on images, as it is rather slack on original research--whether or not any of us can look at any pictures and say they are Pashtun. However, if an image is to be used from the Air Force pictures, it should be the most culturally relevant one, meaning, a picture of a Pashtun family. If there are reasons for using pictures of solitary Pashtuns rather than an image of a Pashtun family, please present them, as I would adore an excuse for 30 5 seconds of solitude the next time I spend a week or two with Pashtuns. KP Botany 19:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree a nice culturally one is deff appropriate. Lakers 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pathans partly descended from Greeks Proof

Some new Genetic studies have found Pathans are descended from Ancient Greeks Links-

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C02%5C09%5Cstory_9-2-2007_pg12_8

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=World_News&subsection=Pakistan+%26+Sub-Continent&month=February2007&file=World_News20070210221759.xml

Please add this to article

Shtup 17:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tanoli Pashtuns?

I know this issue has been discussed before, but does any one know if they are a branch of the Yusufzai? A Tanoli user claims to be Barlas Mughal and then a Pashtun the next day. I need to try and sort this mess out!--Alcides 12:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Tanolis do not belong to yousafzais tribal group, but it dosn't mean, that they are not Pashtun tribe, they have their language Pashto in the western outskirts of Hazara Division and Mardan, another singnificant point about them is strictness on Pashtunwali. Yes they are Pashtuns by their heritage, culture and traditions. Take care. Haider 21:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
We have already been discussing this issue for months and if you are interested to view those debates, you will be highly appreciated to visit Talk Pashtun Archives. Thanks. Haider 21:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Image

This image should replace the Abdurahman ugly looking black/white image. Ahmad Shah Durrani is the founder of Pashtun kingdom, making him the most important Pashtun. Abdurahman helped divide the Pashtuns, why is Abdurahman's image kept there and not Ahmad Shah's? Also, Pashtuns are all Muslims, so no need to add the word "mostly". Finally, in the sports section, Imran Khan's image makes the article look good. If his name is mentioned then there is nothing wrong by placing a small image of his, which is found in his article.

Ahmad Shah Durrani, ruler of the Durrani Empire, unified the Pashtun tribes and founded the modern state of Afghanistan in 1747.
Ahmad Shah Durrani, ruler of the Durrani Empire, unified the Pashtun tribes and founded the modern state of Afghanistan in 1747.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.134.132.117 (talk) 22:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I've added the image, looks nice. Lakers 01:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference to Pakistan administered Kashmir

The reference to Pakistan administered Kashmir is given as Azad Kashmir. For the information of all the editors, Azad Kashmir is a term given by Pakistan and Pakistan occupied Kashmir given by India. the world in general knows the area occupied by Kashmir as "Pakistan Administered Kashmir". Hence, I undoing the reverts done by another editor. Kindly keep the content neutral. the term "Azad Kashmir" is unknown and not recogised by the world outside Pakistan. (rams81 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Azad Kashmir and Pakistan-administered Kashmir are not the same things, however. According to the article, Pakistan-administered Kashmir includes not only Azad Kashmir, but also the Northern Areas, in addition to Raskam and the Shaksgam Valley. Khoikhoi 05:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But, the article anyway mentions Northern Areas. If this article is to serve any purpose for world oustide the South Asia, we need to mention the terms world is familiar with. I think you (Khoikhoi) a knowledgeble person w.r.t to the geography of the region. So, you may modify it such that it covers the regions appropriately (rams81 05:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Alright, I'll ask another user, Tombseye, to give his opinion on the matter. I figured that Azad Kashmir is better because it is the official term for the region. But I will look more into the matter, and get back to you. Regards, Khoikhoi 05:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I removed the reference of Northern Areas, since as said by you Northern Areas is part of Azad KAshmir / Pakistan administered Kashmir. So, the article now just states Pakistan Administered Kashmir. Regarding the offical status of name Azad Kashmir, it is recognised only in Pakistan. Anyway let us see the opinion of the user Tombseye(rams81 05:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Actually, reference books call the area the Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir so that's how we have to keep it. See here on Britannica. As far as I know the world just views the line of control as "recognized" while India and Pakistan make counter claims which aren't what we're dealing with here. Tombseye 00:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, note CIA factbook which simply refers to the areas. Otherwise, we have to re-write the Jammu and Kashmir article as Indian-administered Kashmir which is probably not what people want to see. Hope this clears things up. Tombseye 00:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Azad Kashmir is the official name of the region, which is the safest thing to use in the article. deeptrivia (talk) 01:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of Aryan ancestory?

U know I went to the history section and there is no mention how the ancestors of the Pashtuns are Aryan people...I mean it says that they were invaded by Aryans which is a joke because they are also of Aryan heritage....BEing Pashtun is not a race...Its an ethnic group...and most of the Ethnic groups (Balochis, Pashtuns, Punjabis, Sindhis, Kashmiris, Rajasthanis, etc etc all come from Aryan heritage. 71.119.248.15 00:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you cite Reliable sources we can gladly add information, cheers. Lakers 01:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have always been told that the Pashtuns are one of the non-Aryan races of the subcontinent. I have never heard them described as descendants of Aryans. Now, most of India was conquered by the Aryans but I doubt there conquests reached as far north as the Pashtun regions. Especially Afghanistan. But don't quote me on that last part. TaylorSAllen 01:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pashtuns aren't Indian, but part of the Iranian peoples and thus there is a distinction here. They are partial descendents of the Aryans though yes. Tombseye 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
But so many authors have been indicating many larger Pashtun tribes of Indian origin, anyways all of them were Aryans, if we take it as one theory of origin. Haider 22:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

The caption on one of the pictures reads "You're lying if you say you wouldn't hit it." I don't know how to revert it or else I would. RoyRedersn17 02:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It's already been reverted, and the vandal has been given a block. Don't know the length. And for the record, I sure hope he wasn't referring to me when he said what he said. Really I wonder how these kind of people think that their edits will stay up for longer than a few minutes, as most of them get reverted before then. --LuigiManiac 02:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
is there reaon for quoting vandalism verbatim on the talk page? It makes the offending content stay on wikipedia longer, if not indefinitely. I want to remove your above comments. --345Kai 19:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
So that the above does not look weird to anyone else, I quoted vandalism and after reading the comment directly above me, realized I shouldn't have quoted it. I took it out, so that the only remaining trace of it is in the page history. --LuigiManiac 20:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Research

13,000 is the figure of Afghan refugees in India; the actual number of people in India of Pashtun lineage goes much higher. Please correct the figure. --Marqus 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Xenu?

Xenu has something to do with the Pashtuns?

No, but what do this Pathans have to do with us? WHERE IS CHAKAKHAN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.243.218.198 (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Pashtun girl photo

Isn't that a copyrighted photo from the National Geographic? [2]

I'm not sure, but we may have to remove it. Please check it. ManosGR 04:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it - it was licensed only as fair use, that means it can only appear in the article about the magazine that publeshed it not in articles about the persons in the picture.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Figures may be wrong

The figures for the population of Pashtuns in various countries might be wrong. According to the source [3], it mentions Afghan refugees in India=13000, not Pashtuns in India = 13,000. Also Pathans in India were reknowned for being traders (the story of the Kabuliwala), and money-lenders in Mumbai. 05:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree.
  1. not all Afghans are Pasthuns. So, not all of those 13,000 Afghans are Pasthuns.
  2. to say that those refugess are the only Pasthun speakers in India beats common-sense.
  3. just 13,000 Pasthuns in India?! I need a better source for that!
--Incman|वार्ता 05:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
There aren't many Pashtuns in India. The main group are Pathans who claim Pashtun descent, which is a distinction here. They have to be Pashto speakers to be Pashtuns. Tombseye 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
They were Pashtuns, but now they have forgotten their language, culture and heritage, I don't think, pashtuns in india are more than mentioned figures. Thanks. Haider 21:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pretty Lady

Where is the image of the pretty lady in the article, the one which is on the Main Page?--Scheibenzahl 08:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have just inserted it in the section about the ethnic deifnition fo Pashtun instead of a non-licensed image of Sharbat Gula. Thanks for noticing. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 09:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image licensing

Before you add images to this article please read the guidelines for Fair Use. It specifically says that you cannot use a magazine cover in contexts related to the image on the cover but only in contexts dealing with the publicatio of the image. Please don't include any more magazine covers in the article unless a fair use rationale can be substantiated.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 13:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan (Badsha Khan)

Why is there no mention of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan the great non-violant leader of Khudai Khidmadgar? He is a Pashtun. "Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Pashto/Arabic: خان عبد الغفار خان) (b. at Hashtnagar in Utmanzai, Peshawar, North-West Frontier Province, British India, c. 1890; d. in Peshawar, NWFP, Pakistan, 20 January 1988) was a Pashtun (Afghan) political and spiritual leader known for his non-violent opposition to British Rule during the final years of the Imperial rule in the Indian sub-continent. He was a lifelong pacifist and a devout Muslim. He was known as Badshah Khan (sometimes written as Bacha Khan), the King of Chiefs, and Frontier Gandhi."

Becaus this is not a list of famous Pashtuns . his article can be found here: Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 14:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If this is the case then what Mr Hamid Karzai is doing there, nevertheless this is not the famous Pashtuns list! His article can be found here: Hamid Karzai. Haider 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Apparently an editor chose to include him as an example of a famous pashtun. I was merely implying that there is no reason that every famoues pashtun should be includd in the article. If you can see a way to include im in the article without disrupting its current flow please go ahead. If you see the necessityof including him then it is your own responasbility to do it.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Your first reply was not appropriate, but now I think it does make some sense that Mr Hamid Karzai has been choosen as famous pashtun, just for an example, otherwise Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan is far famous for his glorious credentials for pashtuns, as compare to Mr karzai. It would be more suitable to affix Khan Sahab image rather than some so-called famous. Thanks. Haider 21:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I can assure you that I meant no offense by any of my comments - but I can also say that not being a contributor to the article I knew who Karzai was and that he was a pashtun before reading the article. Badshah Khan I never heard of before you mentione him here. I do think that at least in the western part of the world more people have heard of Karzai than badshah Khan - this of course does not mean that he is more notable as a pashtun than Khan though. As I said - I canot put the material in the article since I don't know anything about it - you have the knwoledge and so the responsability of putting it in there.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If Badshah Khan is not famous to western world as compare to "Karzai" than khan sahab's image should have affixed much earlier, let the western world know about his credibilities and his efforts to unite the pashtuns, and, as I said earlier, his credentials were glorious for pashtuns and remind you, this is a Pashtun article, and a famous amongst pashtuns would make it more remarkable. Thanks. Haider 22:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/s/Talk%7EPashtun_people_9329.html"