Talk:Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

1 Cut from article
2 cleanup tag rationale
3 Reason for Controversial template
4 Reason for POV Check
5 Reason for total dispute
6 Deletion
7 More links

[edit] Cut from article

I cut the following uncited and (to my mind) mildly anti-semitic remark from the article. If someone has a citation on some reputable scholar claiming this as evidence, I will reluctantly agree to its inclusion.

Another piece of evidence that link Pathans to a source of possible Israelite ancestry is that Pathans are also very-well known for their usury on the Indian subcontinent, like Jews were in Europe. "Pathan moneylenders," despite Islam's disapproval of riba, exist in various Indian cities.

-- Jmabel | Talk 04:28, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

That's interesting info. I think you should just modify it. For example: Another piece of evidence that points to a possible Israelite ancestry is the fact that "Pathan moneylenders," despite Islam's disapproval of riba, exist in various Indian cities. SamEV 12:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cleanup tag rationale

The article needs to be split up into sections, and ordered more betterly [sic]... also, some things need to be wikilinked that aren't and some things that are needn't be. Even the name of the article needs some serious reconsideration (who, seriously, is going to search for an article with such a name?)... I could go on and on, regarding why I slapped the cleanup tag on there, but any even mildly-experienced editor can see almost immediately what the glaring problems are with this article's non-conformance to WP style... I'd have put in the work to clean it up myself (and may end up doing so yet), but right now I don't have time to. I just didn't want it to slip through the cracks... Tom e r ^TALK 06:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Mostly agree. I think the name is fine, many articles don't have very searchable names. People find them via links and categories. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Mostly agree...although as for how people searching for articles find them, it's not through categories (as useful as they are for experienced wikipedians, the majority of occasional users, from my own discussions with a number of them, aren't even aware of the categorization scheme...this is an oversight of editors more familiar with WP. I would instead encourage the creation of appropriate redirects, by which people actually searching for information will be more readily able to find articles with such ridiculously long titles. Tom e r^TALK 07:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reason for Controversial template

The idea that the Pasthuns are decendants of the Isrealis is a very radical and controverisal thesis! The very existence of the Lost Tribes of Israel is quite controversial in itself! The article only mentions the other POV in the first paragraph. Karmak

[edit] Reason for POV Check

Everything except for the first two paragraphs of this are article is NPOV information supporting the radical claim that the Pashtuns are decendants of Isrealis. The POV that the Pashtuns are not Isrealis is only mentioned in the first paragraph!

This page has not been edited recently, so I requested a check. Karmak

Do remember: this is an article about the theory, not an endorsement of it. As far as I can tell, what is here is well cited; I haven't reviewed it lately, but I seem to remember opinions in the article being properly attributed. Citable criticism of the theory would be entirely appropriate additions. I agree that that the theory seems unlikely, but it is certainly worth recording that many Pashtuns believe it (and many early anthropologists thought they were right). My main concern is to keep this over here in a separate article, so that the article Pashtun is not overwhelmed by what strikes me as little more than a legend. - Jmabel | Talk 02:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is very poorly cited. It is full of broken links, and I would expect a much long bibliography for such a controversial claim as this.

All articles about anything, theory or not, must conform to wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view. This article should spend just as much or more time explaining why this theory could be wrong as it does explaining why this theory could be correct. The rhetorical style is also quite POV. Wikipedia is not a place for people to write opinion articles!Karmak

[edit] Reason for total dispute

I changed the first two paragraphs to make them NPOV but I don't even know if this article should be here because this has already be addresed enough in the Pashtun article!

This theory is pure myth and all the stuff in this article about how this theory is correct is completely POV and factually inaccurate!

This theory is also based on the The Lost Tribes of Isreal theory which is a very controversial theory in itself! Karmak

[edit] Deletion

The article is a bit of a mess to be sure, but deletion is probably not the right way to go. This describes a theory, just like flat earth. Consider adding a bit more of the opposing view instead. If you still disagree, and what to have this article delete, you can put it up on WP:AFD. 192.75.48.150 16:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This view and the opposing view are both in the Pashtun article already.

This theory is very different from the flat earth theory, because many people have heard of the flat earth theory! Have you ever heard of this theory before? I didn't think so! This page is one long POV arguement for a fringe theory.

According to Wikipedia policy, it is okay to put information about a fringe theory as long as there isn't a disproportional amount of space dedicated to it, compared with theories that are more accepted.

This is a theory about the origin of the Pashtuns. The only place I know of in wikipedia that talks about theories of Pashtun origin is the Pashtun article. But this article is longer than the entire section on the origin of the Pashtuns in the Pashtun article. This theory is covered in that section, along with other theories, and the article does a good job. This page gives too much space to a mostly unknown and totally false theory, and it is completly POV!

Karmak

In fact, yes, I had heard of this before. The article discusses the oral traditions of a large ethnic group. I don't see why it should not have its own article. If the article is biased right now, this is something that can be fixed. (Your latest edit seems to have made it even less balanced) 72.137.20.109 16:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

wow, this article is a total mess and a nightmare to find sources for. most of the theory is in the mind of the various scholars like Elyahu Avichail, it would be a nightmare trying to source everything, it doesnt mean its a flat earth theory though. will try and make a start soon. FrummerThanThou 21:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article doesn't need to be deleted. It represents a valid historical theory, it just needs extensive checking of spelling and grammar errors. This article needs major clean up. Manic Hispanic 05:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)