Talk:Punjabi people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Punjabi people article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
More information about this article...


Archived discussions

Contents

[edit] Religion

How can anyone state the majority of Punjabi's are Sikhs when you look at the population of the Punjab in Pakistan compared to that of the Punjab in India?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_%28Pakistan%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_%28India%29


79,429,701 in Pakistan compared to 24,289,296 in India.

Not to mention all the Punjabis in other Indian provinces (Delhi, Haryana, etc.) which are mostly Hindu. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 04:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Complete Re-think

I think we need to completely change this page. Ive realised that calling Punjabis a race is like calling Californians a race, they are not a single coherent ethnic group like han chinese of persian, they are a whole load of different tribes all united by a common langauge, religeon, and region and perhaps culture; one only needs to look at Category:Punjabi_tribes to see that punjabis are not a race but a collection of tribes. the example ive chosen is bad, california is not an historical region like punjab (it can hardly claim to have a history for that matter) but ive honestly not found anyother historical region on earth where so many ethnic groups exist side by side and where one isnt a majority. for that reason punjabis if anything should be a social group rather than a racial one.

now many of you *might* be saying "yes, but they all look the same" or something, but i think i can prove to you if punjabi *were* an racial group it would be the most heterogeneous/varied. the **average** punjabi is probably fairer than the average indian, however unlike the Han Chinese punjabi features, if they were a racial group, would vary from. Jalander in the Indian Punjab in parts the people tend to have features and genes more simalar to a Southern Indian.

Mongoloid e.g. [1], [Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan] to:

South Indian e.g. [2], [3], [4] to

North West Indian/Arab/Average-ish e.g. [5],[6], [7] to

White e.g. [8], [9], [10], [11]

i think this also changes with geography, with the north and west being more "white", the central areas being "average", and south east being "dravidian".

Anyway what i suggest is to change this page from being a racial group page to a linguistic and cultural group. becuase if you were to take punjabis as a race, what would the creteria? how does one define punjabi?

Is Amir Khan a Janjua first or a Punjabi first?

Is Iftikhar Khan a Minhas first or a Punjabi first?

Is Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi a Jat first or a Punjabi first?

Regardez the more controvertial ones come

(Ive argued this one before, but lost :() Is Imran Khan a Pahstun Niazi first or a Punjabi first?

Is Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan an Afghan first or a Punjabi first?

et ceteraaar, et ceteraaar.

Point recap:

1)Punjabi is more of a cultural and linguistic group rather than racial group

2)Punjabis show a wide range of physical features ranging from east asian to close to nordic.

3)If in changed circumstances punjabis WERE an ethnic group, how would one go about defining what constitutes someone to be called Punjabi? Aarandir 11:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

thanks for the name change, how about making a disambiguation page if one searches for just "punjabi" becuase right now it goes straigh to the punjabi language. Aarandir 10:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I presume, most people that look for 'Punjabi' are looking for the language. There is a disambiguation page already available from the Punjabi language page. You will need to get an admin to put it as the main Punjabi page. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punjabis in Britian

theres got to be at least a million 500,000 pakistani punjabis (unless u count mirpuris as kashmiris even though thier mother toung is punjabi) 500,000 indian sikhs Aarandir 20:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC) im sure there have to be definatly around a million perhaps even more punjabis in the UK. unless as i said before u dont take the 700,000 pakistanis (who are mostly mirpuris) to be kashmiris.

I was unable to find any statistics that showed the exact number in the UK, so I put in what was 'officially' rendered and given in various websites and left speculation at the door. If you have a referenced figure, then by all means add it. Some 70% of Pakistani-British people are of Punjabi decent. Also, it might help to keep this fair in that if people identify themselves as one group, then it's probably more accurate to go with that perspective as we aren't in a position to decide with which group people should and should identify themselves with. Tombseye 20:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

ok, but leave it at 1,000,000 even though its probably more. number of sikhs 301,000 [12]. Ive got a number on pakistanis in england and wales but scotland doesnt want to reveal her secrets on ethnic origin [13] the number of pakistanis in england and wales is 823,048... of which im assuming 750,000 are punjabis... also this is on a complete tangent but im surprised to hear the chinese are infact the fasting growing ethnic group in england! [14] anyway there you go are the numbers. soo its 750,000 +301,000 1,051,000 punjabis in the UK! Aarandir 23:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There are also Punjabi's in Britian who are Hindu as well, not sure of the exact number, but the main Hindu communities in England are largely Punjabi or Gujurati, to a lesser extent Tamil. Since the number of Hindus in England are 558,342, I'd place the number of Punjabi's at least a third of that, around 150 000. −Parihav 06:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Cleanup

I've just done a quick cleanup and added reference tags. I've currently removed the Salwar Kameez image because as far as I'm aware, men don't wear the Salwar Kameez? I've seen men wear a Kurta Pyjama but not a Salwar Kameez.

Pakistani punjabis as well as other pakistani ethnical groups wear Shalwar Kameez and also they call it Shalwar Kameez. (Son of the soil of Gujranwala Pakistan)


Also, I've noticed that much of the census information doesn't really match with the figures listed (for example, Punjabi speakers in India). Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 01:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No... trust me... men do wear shalwar kameez! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarandir (talk • contribs)
Hello, I travelled to the country about 2 years ago and I saw the shalwar everywhere. Some variation of the other dress type you refer to seems common in some parts of rural Sindh. I assumed the people in the picture were Muslim given the child's headcap as well. As to keeping the picture or not, I have no idea where it's from etc., but I think this page could use a lot more pictures and the more the better. Tombseye 20:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes the men in that picture were definately Muslim. My understanding of Indian Punjab at least is that women wear the Salwar Kameez. The men's version has always been known as a Kurta Pyjama?
I definately think pictures of more Punjabis are needed. The Salwar Kameez is definately worn by virtually all Punjabi women (either side of the border).
On a side-point, what are we using to define separate languages? Are we treating Hindki, Multani (Seraiki) and Dogri as different languages - i.e. not dialects of Punjabi? Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw the men wearing the same as well as western clothing. I imagine in rural areas the kurta is worn as in Sind, but the cities appear to reflect the Shalwar or western clothing and since the shalwar is the national dress I imagine it's quite common. As for the languages, well, I was thinking that the dialects issue is debateable. I recently edited the Catalan people page and I've been to Spain myself and never realized that the Valencians do not consider themselves Catalan and point to their differences in language, however slight to a foreigner such as myself. Catalan and Valencian are mutually intelligible, but are slightly different and include greater historical interaction between Valencian and Castillian. Now as I understand it, Siraiki for example is a mixture of Punjabi and Sindhi and thus by most counts a different language, while Hindko also is considered a different language. In keeping with most other peoples pages, I was thinking we go with a specific language that people identify the group with and not overlapping groups who probably should get their own pages at some point. Of course mentioning this issue is perfectly reasonable, but delegating them to dialectical status may either offend those said peoples OR simply not reflect the common academic division of the languages, however similar they might be. Tombseye 20:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the language debate

All of the languages listed are considered closely related to Punjabi, but are considered by their speakers and by linguists as possibly different languages. Punjabi in this case in this article should reflect not just the provinces, but the people who identify themselves as Punjabis. If these are say either Siraikis etc., then they aren't technically Punjabis, but a separate group. Multani is simply linked to the Siraiki page and thus the problem. Keeping it in the related section is also in keeping with other similar peoples pages as, for example, on the Catalan people page, Valencian is rendered as related and not a dialect of Catalan even though it's mutually intelligible. The same applies here. Tombseye 23:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meaning of Punjab

Punj and Aab are Persian and not Punjabi word. The word for five in Punjabi is Paanch and the word for water is Paani. If you mix the two, you don't get Punjab, but Paanchpaani. ~~

Paanch is Hindi for 5, in Punjabi it is Punj. And a river is not called Paani. Doaba refers to an area between two rivers ( Sutlej and Beas) in Indian Punjab. So Aba refers to not water but land between rivers. It can be derived from persian as could the Punj, but five is not Paanch in Punjabi. Haphar 11:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


To call Ab referring to land in addition to water is simply shear ignorance and it shows to me that sikhs still use persian words but they do not know their exact meaning. Doaba is just a term that is used to refer to the land between the two rivers. Ab is a pure persian word meanig water. Any land anywhere in the word that lies between two rivers can be called doaba. For example in pakistan the land between Chenab and ravi river is called RACHNA Doab and so on. Sikhs use words of persian and arabic but unfortunately they do not know their exact meaning. Shame on all sikhs.

Also shame on all Punjabi Pakistanis who are abandoning their language in favor of Urdu. At least Sikhs are proud of their language.

[edit] List of Punjabi people

I think this is best moved on to List of prominent Punjabis. This could spiral out of control if left here! Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 12:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsubstantiated Claims

Ultimately, two later religions largely supplanted both of these earlier faiths, Islam in the west (mainly in modern Pakistan) and Sikhism in the east (while Hinduism remains prominent for many Indian Punjabis, there has been a significant linguistic shift by Hindu Punjabis towards the usage of Hindi).

How can such baseless claims be made without providing an iota of evidence?Where is the demographic evidence to back up this comment? Whis is the linguistic shift - some people have converted this encyclopaedia to a tool of demagoguery. People switch languages as they move from one language area to another. The slant above indicates that Sikhs speak Punjabi in Delhi, Haryana and other Hindiphone areas whereas Hindus speak Hindi even in Punjabi-speaking areas of Punjab state. If we are in the process of documenting linguistic shifts, it would be prudent to look at the real shift happening in Pakistan where people have dumped their mother tongue for Islamic language of Urdu. I'm removing the above metioned lines from the article. Besides, these shifts have already been documented in Punjabis of India/Pakistan sub-section, so these lines are anyway redundant.

I wrote that section. The evidence is in the infobox. The majority of Punjabis are in Pakistan and combined with the Sikhs outnumber those of other religions. In addition, the census data was consulted regarding a mother tongue and those who answered with Punjabi listed. And if you look at the Pakistan census, while many Punjabis are using Urdu more and more, they still claim Punjabi as their mother tongue (44%). Now if you have information to the contrary then by all means present it. Tombseye 20:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tombseye,

Is infobox the text area on the right side of the article page, which lists the number of Punjabi speakers around the world (Regions with Significant Populations). If so, it has only linguistic affiliation data, which can't be used for making sweeping statements on religious affiliations of Punjabi-speakers. If you are subtracting the number of Sikhs from the number of Punjabi speakers to arrive at Hindu Punjabis, this is incorrect. Your assumption that all Sikhs list Punjabi as mother-tongue would require proof.

61.17.163.234 19:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Stuck on History ??

It seems personal opinions and not any irrefutable data form the basis of the statement "while Hinduism remains prominent for many Indian Punjabis, there has been a significant linguistic shift by Hindu Punjabis towards the usage of Hindi"

It is indeed true that a few decades back, "SOME" Punjabi Hindus (of which many were freshly uprooted from Pakistan) did feel intimidated so to say by the growing influence of Amritsar in the affairs of Punjab, and hence in this light presented Hindi as an alternative to Punjabi for Punjabi Hindus.. But those were a few people ... and hopefully these people and all their ideas have much become a part of History .. Let us leave these speculative statements in a Discussion of History of Modern Punjab.. and not in this article

All bull shits made about pakistani people of punjab region giving up punjabi and adopting urdu as religious language. Then this is totally false. Urdu is not religious language for muslims of pakistan only ARABI is religious language. We use Urdu for the spirit of Pakistanism. I have never met a single pakistani from punjab region who would identify himself as punjabi rather than pakistani. We people of pakistani Punjab do not consider ourselves as one racial or ethnic group and hence there is no popularity of punjabism in pakistan. This bull shit is only for the sikh cowards.

It is Pakistani Punjabis who are cowards since they can't even stand up for their own language. They are wagging their tails behind Arabs who have totally different culture and language. Study some Sikh history and then you will find who is coward.

When have the Sikhs been cowards?76.112.20.78 (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)pakistani

[edit] Several cleanups

"Further studies show the diversity of the regions inhabited by the Punjabis with extreme Western Punjabis, living in close proximity to Afghanistan, such as the Punjabi Pathans genetically clustering with West Asian populations due to a high degree of admixture and also corresponding to a general genetic variation between populations east of the Indus from those west and north of the river valley.[13]"

The above para should be modified as it refers to peoples inhabiting areas close to regions such as Afghanistan or Baluchistan as Punjabis. The people such as Punjabi Pathans donot refer to themselvesas Punjabi nor consider their langauge to be Punjabi. Secondly,


"Lastly, it has been surmised through the analysis of the Romany language as well as genetic studies that many of the Roma people's ancestors (popularly known as Gypsies a term that is seen as perjorative) originated in the Pothohar region of what is today northern Pakistan as the Roma language shows strong similarities with Pothohari, itself a dialect of the Punjabi language."

How substantiated is this claim? As far as I know thier is ambuguity about Romani origins with theories associsating with various groups such as Jats, Rajputs, and even other peoples of west Asia). Their region of origin is also discussed to be from somewhere from the northern subcontinent again it has been theorized to be Sind, Punjab, Rajasthan etc. thankyou,

omerlivesOmerlives 13:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There have even been linkages to the Labana nomadic tribes, of which there are some "Sikh" Labana's in Indian Punjab. Haphar 11:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistakes in the HISTORY section

The history part starts off by saying that the Punjab region was invaded by indo-aryans and other groups of people...It goes on to say that these groups help formed the punjabi culture....But that doesnt make any sense because a "Punjabi" is some that is AN INDO-ARYAN...In other words being Punjabi is not a race...or a seperate group of people...They belong to the Aryan people....Their blood is Aryan....A Punjabi is someone that speaks Punjabi or comes from the state of Punjab...I mean its like saying...A person from the state of California is a Californian right? But their race is not Californian is it?....No...Same as Punjabi...NOw i understand that in India its a bit different...I understand that Punjabi can be sort of a sub-culture...But that is today.....But our blood is still ARYAN.....ANd the 2nd part that was a mistake is were it says that Punjab became a gateway to south Asia...Please....First of all when Muslim invaders came, and the greeks came it wasnt Punjab that was the gate way....It was the Hindu Khush or the silk road...Im punjabi for the record but this article is way to complicated....U guys are making it sound like a PUnjabi is this race or something ARYAN818 08:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reply: If you actually read what has been found in the genetic studies of Punjabi peoples you would find out that Punjabis belong to the same stock as the various other peoples of the subcontinent. The only slight variation being is that there is a marjinly higher degree of some West Asian admixture in the Punjabi population compared to the rest of the Indians. In conclusion, there is no such "Aryan" race or identity of Punjabis. Punjabis are Indians, genetically speaking.

Aryan or Iranic stock is what peoples like the Persians belong to. Not Punjabis or other Indian peoples. Modern persian speakers of Iran have been genetically proved to be genetic brothers of afro-asiatic speakers to their west. The people inhabiting pakistani punjab are very high in R1a1 aryan genes. Also persians look like arabs to their west where as the people with R1a1 inhabit mainly eastern europe like russia , ukrain poland etc. An Aryan looked like a ukrainian and not like a perisan speaking afro asiatic.

[edit] That picture is not of Punjabis

The picture that is in the "Punjabis in Pakistan" are not of Punjabis. They are more likely either Pashtuns or Balochis. The boy is definately a Pashtun. I can tell the difference with great ease. So that picture needs to be removed or replaced.

I just checked the source and indeed this picture is not of Punjabis. Its actually of Pashtuns which this source has confused for Punjabis. This picture will be removed since it is incorrect. Pashtuns and Punjabis are two different ethnic groups.

[edit] Number of Punjabi's is too low, since Mother Tongue does not equal number of Punjabi's

There are few problems when you use the number of people that speak Punjabi, to state the population of the Punjabi people as a whole, rather than use statistics based on ethnic origin. First of all, in Pakistan, Urdu is the offical language. Therefore some people who are Punjabi, yet have to learn to speak Urdu and may consider it their mother tongue. Therefore these people are not being accounted for if you use the number of speakers of Punjabi alone. Also these numbers are almost nine years old and need to be updated with more recent stats.

In a similar fashion, in India many Hindu Punjabi's and to a lesser extent some Sikh Punjabis, do not speak Punjabi as their mother tongue, since they have moved to Hindi speaking cities and lived there for two or more generations. Also, the state of Haryana which was apart of Punjab until the 1960's, was created because although the people are Punjabi ethnically, they are formed a Hindi speaking majority state and the Punjabi speakers wanted to protect the language. Therefore you are excluding these Punjabi's as well. Furthermore, Muslim Punjabi's in India may also report Urdu as their mother tongue as oppossed to punjabi, especially if they live outside of Punjab in cities that mainly speak Urdu amongst the local Muslim community. Lastly, the figure is from 1991, that is over 16 years ago, we surely need some more recent figures from the 2001 census.

This same argument can be used in Canada as well. Many children of Punjabi immigrants from either Pakistan or India are not able to speak Punjabi fluently, and instead converse in English. So when you report the number of Punjabi's in Canada they are being under reported. For example in Canada, the Sikh population, all of whom are of Punjabi origin, stands at 240 000, (check the Indo Canadian page). If you account for the number of Hindu Punjabis from India, and Muslim and Christian Punjabis from Pakistan, the number far overshoots the current number based on mother tongue alone. - Parihav 06:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Term 'Munda Punjabi'

Is it correct that 'Munda Punjabi' stands for non-Sikh Punjabi's (i.e. not wearing the Five Ks? Wiki-uk 12:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


no it just means punjabi guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.108.12.138 (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punjabi culture in western world

"Due to the values and heritage of the Punjabi Culture, the Punjabi people have become one of the most successful and wealthiest sections of society in the west, this is in addition to on average being the wealthiest in Pakistan and India."

Jingoistic nonsense that manages to go off-topic from its own section title. The socio-economic success of Punjabi immigrants in Western nations is not an aspect of Punjabi CULTURE nor is the claim sourced or even precise. The only sourced part of the section was the completely and utterly irrelevant socio-economic data on Punjabis in INDIA. Ever consider the fact that groups consisting largely of new economic immigrants would do comparatively well to indigenous or long-term ethnic groups, because it's the ambitious, hard-working individuals who emigrate? Section removed, as it had absolutely nothing to say about Punjabi CULTURE apart from ascribing magical powers of wealth-creation through positive stereotyping to it. Unigolyn 10:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Language

The language section here speaks complete nonsense. The standard dialect of Punjabi on both sides of the border is the same - Maajhi. Lahindi begins far West of Lahore and is prevalent around Multan. And Lahindi is by no means a 'purer' dialect of Punjabi. None of this section is cited. 128.86.146.48 10:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image of old Hindustani man

Old Pathan from India in 1921, typical looking Punjabi Pathan.
Old Pathan from India in 1921, typical looking Punjabi Pathan.

Why is this image of an old Punjabi Pathan man being removed? He is obviously a Punjabi, look at his dark features and his face is typical Punjabi face. Please do not remove this image before a consesus.--119.30.67.250 (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please stop this misleading editing. The image is clearly labeled Pathan from an article titled "Through The Heart of Hindustan: A Teeming Highway Extending for Fifteen Hundred Miles, from the Khyber Pass to Calcutta". Obviously this does not refer to India as the specific modern conception but to an older less specific and much larger concept of the term "Hindustan". Rmhermen (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm an expert on this region, and I'm not misleading editing. Hindustan (meaning land of the Hindus) has always been the other name of India. The title "Old Pathan 1921" was given to the file by the uploader, usually an uploader can give any name to a file and it doesn't mean it's accurate or it be used as evidence. There is no such evidence to indicate where exactly this photo was shot. It could have been shot at a place in what is now Pakistan or in what is now India. The word "Pathan" refers to "Punjabi Pathan", which is a group of people who practice Punjabi culture. See Hindkowans Putting this photo in this article is not misleading. You sound like you probably don't know about the different ethnic groups of South Asia. I'm an expert on the people of this reagion and that is a Punjabi-speaking man.--119.30.77.149 (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are an expert on this region, then what are your credentials? - How can you tell from the photo that this man is a Punjabi speaker. As for the meaning of Hindustan, try taking a look at Hindustan#Etymology. Prior to 1947 the word Hindustan was also applied to what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh, including areas largely inhabited by Pathans, for instance Peshawar, Khyber Pass etc. Oh and on the subject of the "dark features" of the above picture have a look at this photo of "Afghan chiefs" - would you say they were Punjabi too? Pahari Sahib 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
You are repeating junk that I have already explained. I already stated that Hindustan means "land of the Hindus" and it covered present-day Pakistan and India. "Hindu" is a geographical term, it has always refered to anyone who is native of Hindustan. Before 1947, all those who lived in prsent-day Pakistan were called "Hindus" by outsiders, even Muslims were called Hindus. If you go to Arab countries, they still call Pakistani people "Hindus" due to their similar Indian features. Of course Hindustan included some of the Pathan areas of what is now Pakistan (as of about 1850 and onward), but you are uneducated because I said there is no proof that the photo of the old Indian man was taken in Pathan area. Perhaps it was taken in Lahore or elsewhere. The given file name by the uploader is not proof, that's his POV. About the image you mentioned of Afghans, read the description that I put so you can understand and trust me a little that I'm an expert on the people of the region. Starting from the left, the 2nd and 3rd (standing) in that photo on the right are Punjabis for sure. Next time try to make sense with your argument instead of talking nonsense.--119.30.77.149 (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a brief reply, Hindu is not a geographic term, I am aware of the other meaning of the word (i.e. "Indian") and the etymology of the word Hindustan. The file name is not the pov of the uploader, but based on what the photographer said - why would he have a pov regarding the ethnicity of the subject? As for the second picture, Captain Tucker aside, who is of what ethnicity. And finally try not to be so insulting in your replies, it reflects badly on you. Pahari Sahib 00:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Read Hindu.--119.30.70.188 (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time to answer to 119.30.67.250's crappy accusations. Anonymous user from Pakistan, you've indulged in every possible act prohibited as per WP:NOT: WP:CIVIL ([15],[16],[17],[18],[19]), WP:3RR ([20][21]), Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (119.30.76.138,119.30.67.8,119.30.77.149,119.30.70.188,119.30.78.21) and obviously, WP:NPOV. Consider it as sheer good fortune that you have not yet been blocked.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not violating the rules of Wikipedia and I have my rights to keep myself anonymous online. Please control your hate or anger and try to focus on the subject we're discussing here, which is the unverifiable ethnicity of the old man in the photo that you uploaded at the very top of this section. Don't worry about who I really am. We need to verify something on the old man, can you upload the same photo but showing the text of the National Geographic Magazine. Similar as how you uploaded the photo on the right here or the other ones you have uploaded which show historical text. People who lose debate starts changing subject and starts talking about the challenger, that's what you're doing here now.--119.30.75.148 (talk) 16:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
A new version has been introduced as you wanted me to. Now shall we take a decision about you regarding your breach of Wikipedia's policies. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 16:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
These are Pashtun people (or Pathans) in 1869.
These are Pashtun people (or Pathans) in 1869.
Thanks for doing that, now I see that he may be Pashto-speaking Pathan but it's still not 100% clear because the term "Pathan" also applies to Hindko-speaking Hindkowans who live in NWFP (where the old Pathan's photo may have been shot). I know alot about these Hindko-speaking Pathans, they are 50% Punjabi and 50% Pashtun. Their native language "Hindko" is much closer to Punjabi language than Pashto. If you hear it you think you're hearing someone speaking Punjabi and I have heard them speak because I have several Hindko-speaking friends. Anyway, I think to remove this mistrust on the old man's true ethnicity you can just replace his photo in the Pashtun people article with this new one on the right because the people in this photo are proven to be Pathans, with no doubt. This new photo is also much older than the old man's, which I considered it to be biased as well.--119.30.67.70 (talk) 22:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
These are Pashtun people (Pathans) during 1839-42.
These are Pashtun people (Pathans) during 1839-42.
If you want even older photo of Pathans then this may be even better, to be used in Pashtun people article in the section that talks about ancient history or origin of the name Afghan.--119.30.67.70 (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)