Talk:Pashtuns

Archives Talk:Pashtun/Archive 1 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 2 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 3 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 4 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 5 Talk:Pashtun/Archive 6 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 7 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 8 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 9 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 10 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 11 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 12 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 13 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 14 Talk:Pashtun people/Archive 15

Ghaffar Khan was not Pakhtoon..Plz remove his picture!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.14.241 (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Imam Mahdi army

according to various scholers (Sheikh Imran Hosein and Dr. Israr Ahmad) and there interpreatation of the prophets (peace be upon him) hadith the main army of imam mahdi will be of the Pashtun people rising from afghanistan and pashtunistan and they will conquer every muslum territory untill they reach palistine.

Should this not be mentioned on this page as it is referring to pashtun people and is Prominant impoertance in islam and the muslim world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB5zv-Gow5k&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrMeZ8rbxts

There are no Pashtun in India

why does this article state that there are Pashtuns in india, this is completely false. I am from india and there are no pashtuns here. who is writing this nonsense!

Apparently some people think these large populations of Indian Muslims with partial Afghan ancestry (usually on the paternal side) should be enough to count them as ethnic Pashtuns in the sense that people from the Afghanistan/Pakistan belt are. This needs to be corrected Afghan Historian (talk) 03:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There are thousands of Pashtuns in India. Pashtuns are from Ancient India territory and are regarded as being from the soil. But due to Islamisation of Pashtuns over the years, modern Pashtuns refute any connection with India. See Sher Shah Suri biography, he was regarded as being from the soil compared to the Mughals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.203.186.167 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 5 April 2010

Pashto has Vedic borrowings?

The article states, without citation, that Pashto has borrowed words from Vedic Sanskrit. Is this not incorrect? Pashto has many borrowings from Sanskritic languages like Panjabi and Urdu, but that means that Pashto has borrowed terms from Urdu/Panjabi, and not directly from Vedic Sanskrit. Thats like saying that English borrowed the word "Consignment" directly from Latin, because it adopted the word from French, which in turn, was derived from Latin. Pashtuns would have had to had contact with speakers of Vedic Sanskrit (who died out over a thousand years ago) to borrow words from their language. Alternatively, we would have had to have been Hindus, and borrowed Sanskrit words from Hindu texts, but the problem is that we were never Hindu. How can Pashto have borrowed words from Vedic Sanskrit? I think that reference should be deleted, since it has no citation, and there is no logical way that Pashto, a modern language, could have borrowed terms from an ancient and dead language that was spoken before Pashto ever even took shape. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.116.221.239 (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Vedics are none-written vocals or lyrics whch has been carried out from person to another person orally. it has been the old Pashto folkloric religious songs and nasheeds. I has been made in sanscrits by indians of other maharajas. regarding the URDU language , i have to tell you urdu is not the old language than pashto. Pashto is more older and ancient language than Urdu or any other Eastern - Aryan language. also I have to mention that the informations about the Pashtuns are incorrect and falsified by the submitters based on the Iranian selfish researches. every research's claimes must be based on its specific refereneces and must not regard and mention as a concrete based on one references , this is a mainly issue of Afghans and their people it should be obviously shown by different home based references beside the outsiders's references. I as an Afghan will request you everyone who submitt the pictures to not combine the heroes with the traitors. also take care of the differences between the horse and donkey.. there has been submitted the wrong picture at the right group. I hope everyone preserve the none-profit and none-political ethics of this bigg encyclopedia . —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ibrahimkhel (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Shahrukh Khan is not a pasthun

He is a descendent of a clan of Rajputs who converted to Islam and he is not a Pathan or Pashtun or Afghan. Salman Khan is of Pathan descent but his mother is Indian Hindu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.254.135 (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Judging by his features alone, he doesn't resemble the Northern Indians or Pashtuns that are closely related to ethnic Iranians. He looks a bit more Dravidian than Indo-European/Aryan. But, I think according to the article, he claims his descent from his father's side? Maybe he inherited more traits from his South Asian side. Reliable references would need to be provided.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't listen to him explain that he's Afghan and his grand father being from Afghanistan. He further stated that he has Afghan blood in him. Listen and watch him explain all this. [1] I hope it cleared your doubts. When he says that he's Afghan he's not talking about being a Hazara, Uzbek, Turkmen, Tajik, Baloch, Aimak, and etc. All these are non-Pashtun citizens of Afghanistan.--AYousefzai (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Pashtuns are NOT found in India

I have noticed that the article implies that they're are pashtun peoples living in india which is completely false. Pashtuns are not found in modern day india as this article states. This article is incorrectly using an old map, it fails to properly explain that the census figures that stated that pashtuns lived in india are from the era of the British empire, when Britain controlled most of South Asia from the borders of eastern Afghanistan, encoumpassing Pakistan, Burma, Bengladesh, india and Sri Lanka, the census refers to the traditional Pashtunkwa regions which are now exclusively located in and constitute the country of Pakistan from where they originated near the Sulaiman mountains as well as south & eastern Afghanistan.

WIthin the Pashtun communities of Pakistan/Afghanistan, there is much concern for the number of fake Pashtuns/ or pathan claimants from india that look nothing like them, nor speak their language, nor have any cultural, ethnic similarities to them. They claim a pashtun heritage for the sole sake of improving their social position within society and often concoct make believe progenitors, a side effect of the rampant caste system prevailant in india. DNA analysis has proven that they are not Pashtun in any manner or form, and may have been converted by Pashtun rulers to Islam from hinduism, jainism and simply adopted the names of the converter, a common practice in india today. The very few genuine Pashtuns that did live in British India/Mogul india left en masse when the British departed from South Asia, and many of them are no longer Pashtun ethnically having intermarried over successive generations and lost their cultural, genetic, linguistic and even culinary traits. Also, the article states that there are many Afghan refugees living in india as defined by the UN, the majority of whom have now left india for Afghanistan, Pakistan, or settled aborad, furthermore, most of these refugees were Persian speaking members or affiliates of the Northern Alliance as that group was often financed and funded by india in the 90's and there were no significant Pashtun populations within these refugees who by and large settled in Pakistan and parts of Iran. Please make the article more factual and correct this erroneous entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.161.16 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.161.16 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

if Pashtuns of India cant speak Pashtu it not means that Pashtuns are not exist in Idia pupolar stars Salman Khan, Sharukh Khan, Irfan Pathan and Qadar Khan. According to Sharukh Khan Cuasin living in Peshawar that now Shahrukh Khan Star therefor he dnt like to meet us. There are hundrads of Pashtun families still known as a Khan family. some people use Khan while some Pashtuns.

Khan of India will never forgive you for this claim. You need study. I am so sorry to read your comments because how you claim that Pashtuns are not found in India. you need to read some research books just claim is nothing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.191.25 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 4 November 2008

The comment above was tweaked by me. The original comment can be seen here --Enric Naval (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Pashtuns in india.. even those khans you are talking about are fakes.. some may have hindokowan lineages like Shahrukh, but they are not Pashtuns. Furthermore, they look nothing like Pashtuns and are not recognized by the parent tribes. This sounds like another dilutional indian intent on distorting history. Indians are predominantly of Dravidian origin or some Dravidian admixture with perhaps the only exception being the 3% that are Panjabi Sikh who are of partial Scythian origin.. a completely different ethnic group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.220.86 (talk) 01:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

---

The person above is correct about many people simply adopting a pashtun last name or 'khan' and claim that they are Pashtun. Many people who claim do not look Pashtun, which is basically eastern european or mediteranean look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.158.20.2 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that there are descendants of pashtons on India[2] and the Britannica lists the Hindustani form on their Pashtun people[3] (there is no transcript because they only use the english form of the name on all articles). In this article, the sentence "There is also a sizeable community in India, that is of largely putative ancestry" has two sources [4][5]. Additionally, part of the Afridi (Pashtun) tribe lives at India.

Although I'm sure that there are many fake pashtuns, it appears that there are also a few authentic ones, and sources actually lists pashtun people in India, and wikipedia relies on what sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This article just lost whatever authenticity it had left, by claiming that there are Pashtuns in india. This is pure non-sense, Pashtun people are fully aware of these fake claimants from other parts of South Asia. Why this article wants to promote an innacurrate fact based on bogus references is nonsense and may be to promote nefarious designs of false pretenders and is distorting the facts on Pashtuns. And btw.. Afridi's inhabit the Khyber Pass region of Pakistan and are not found anywhere else. This article's is full of innacurrate statements and facts. Too bad! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.226.31 (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the above comment and firmly believe that descendants of all great Pashtuns are in India. Only the bravest went on to conquer and establish their own princely states in India and thus stayed there. Its true they dont speak Pashtu but the royal family of Afghanistan and other noble Pashtun families of Afghanistan also spoke in Persian not Pashtu. Pashtu was considered a language of the common people and Persian language of the elite. So if you want to declare the descendants of these great Pashtuns as not Pashtun, then you are only left with good for nothing naswar popping pashtuns talking in pashtu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.184.173 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Should be different article called Pathan

Pathan is a condecending title for Pashtuns/Pukhtuns. Pathan refers to fake claimaints. In Pakistan, the term is applied to people with the surname Khan who despite the last name, dont look pashtun, speak pashto or have any pashtun culture, but where merely converted by Pashtuns to Islam and simply adopted their last name; the vast majority of Pathans are mohajir urdu speakers and DNA analysis shows they are not really Pashtun. The term Pathan is used for this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 17:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Generally we have articles for these groups already, like Hindkowan. --Enzuru 20:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hindokowans are not the same thing as Pathans, this needs clarification as I think your confusing them, Hindokowans are a transitional group(b/w Panjabi/Pashtun) that inhabit the Hazara district of Pakistan(Abbottabad etc....) many of whom are bilingual in both Pashto and Hindko. they are not the same thing and are quite distinct. Pathans in contrast, dont speak Pashto at all.

To be honest, the term Pathan is controversial in itself. Can you get sources to see how other encyclopedias handled this issue? --♥pashtun ismailiyya 06:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't realy think this should happen since it's just stupid the "pathans' are fakes and no one should know of them. Who cares about them. They look like indians speak urdu and don;t know a word of pashtu. I dont think they should be called pathans because I heard pathan is another word for pashtun. They should be called pakistani's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.96.184 (talk) 02:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This whole discussion about "Pathan vs Pashtun" is frankly ridiculous. The term "Pathan" has always been used to refer to Afghans/Pashtuns. Its not a separate term referring to the Indian community of Afghan origin, though they're included under it in terms of "ancestry". Just because its not a term you like, doesn't mean it shouldn't be acknowledged. Many Pashtuns living in Pakistan use the term "Pathan" when speaking with other Pakistanis. Even great Pashtuns like Ghaffar Khan (who was no friend of the Urdu/Punjabi establishment in Pakistan) occasionally referred to themselves as "Pathans". I don't call myself Pathan per say, but its nevertheless important to put down all the terms used to refer to our people. Afghan Historian (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Some of the references no longer valid

Hi, I came across this article and I realized some of the references do not exist on the web anymore. In particular references starting with "http://www.zharov.com/dupree/" are gone. I was contemplating taking the references out but it looks like a user with the name "dupree" has been editing this article. Could he/she or anyone else update these references? --Ubardak (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Move subsection Putative ancestry to section History and origins

I think the subsection Putative ancestry fits better under section History and origins than under section Pashtuns defined where it is now. The material is more like that in the history section, while the definitions section should be kept more homogenious. What are the thoughts about this? -Pgan002 (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of the putative ancestry section was somewhat controversial to begin with. There's nothing like it in most encyclopedias which will, at most, mention that Pashtuns have moved to other places and were absorbed into various populations as in India and Iran etc. It's also not meant to be historical so much as anthropological and somewhat of a tangent and thus seemed to go best in that section. Since we're talking about groups like the Hindkowans and Persian-speaking Pashtuns, these groups do show links to the Pashtuns, but there's no real history lesson there and their origins are explained in other articles. The history and origins section is a bit crowded as it is as well which could present a problem in terms of placement. Some things to consider. Cheers. Tombseye (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No more Ethnologue please

It is an evangelical site and lists highly unreliable data that is difficult to verify (if at all). This is a featured article so just adding anything and everything is not acceptable. Tombseye (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it for now until a consensus is reached. My understanding is that there were several conflicts in the past on various articles due to Ethnologue. Critics say that SIL does not abide by the consensus among other linguists. However, I agree with Anupam that Ethnologue is used widely on Wikipedia as source. This matter should probably be brought up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics (if it hasn't already). But for the time being I've removing the Ethnologue sources until a compromise is decided. We should probably start off by comparing Ethnologue to other sources and determine which numbers are fringe theories and which numbers reflect the mainstream of scholars. Khoikhoi 20:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Ethnologue is a reliable source. Noor Aalam (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why? And why aren't their figures found elsewhere in many cases? 161,000 Azeris in Armenia?! Did they take their own independent census? Is this the kind of sloppy work people want, that is speculative at best? Tombseye (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't we say that, although Ethnologue is not an ideal source, they are usable until something better comes along? JoshNarins (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Pashtun genes

what is the Pashtun genes ? Haplogroup F —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.36.121 (talk) 05:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

If, out of Africa, the people who would end up in Europe stopped in Afghanistan for a while (didn't I read that?) then Europeans have the Afghan type, and Afghan's don't have a Mediterranean type. I can't recall the reference now, so I'll just leave a note here. JoshNarins (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... intresting. So what you mean to say is that the pashtuns are actually a Caucasian group living in central Asia/Persian middle east. that sound quite interesting... 20:10 March 26 , 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.96.184 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Is Farhad Darya a Pashtun?

He is Tajik/Pashtun according to Biographical Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa.

Source: "Nashir, Farhad (1962–)." Biographical Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East and North Africa. Ed. Michael Fischbach. Vol. 2. Detroit: Gale Group, 2008. 564-566. 2 vols. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Thomson Gale.

“ PERSONAL HISTORY Nasher was born on 22 September 1962 in a Kunduz, Gozargah, Kabul province of Afghanistan. His father was an ethnic Pashtun and his mother was a Tajik. ”

Yusuf Pashtun

We should add a picture of Yusuf Pashtun. We can be sure that he is 100% Pashtun because of his last name.

This looks better

This also looks better

If he was alone in the image or with other Pashtuns it would've been good but the white American man is not Pashtun for sure. Some readers will think both are Pashtuns.--119.30.71.201 (talk) 05:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

old man is not Pashtun but may be Panjabi

A typical Punjabi Pathan old man from north west British India in 1921.

probably around the region of modern day Pakistan as he does not look indian and indians dont dress or look like this.

User:Ravichandar84 (a Hindu from India) added this photo of an old man wearing torn clothes in this article probably because as usual on this wikipedia forum, indians are dilutional and think that they are the same as everyone else and want to show that they have the same culture, but when it comes time to owning up to their own culture, they deny it and start talking about how they are gurjura form central asia or brahmins of aryan decent..lol!!. First, the image lacks verifiable source of information on the old Indian man's ethnic background. Second, the image is placed in the wrong section because that section talks about ancient history of Pashto-speaking Pashtuns, not about 1921 India. The title of the image is "Old Pathan 1921", but there is no where mentioned who this old man is. We need to remove this image because I believe this Hindu editor (User:Ravichandar84) is trying to mock Pashtuns by pushing his anti-Pakistani POVs, and of course he will try to deny it. Him trying to add this photo to the info box clearly shows his intentions that he wanted the world to see Pashtuns as this old Indian man, or that Pashtuns are found in india citing pre-independent Pakistan records, when in fact there are NO PASHTUNS in INDIA...!!. [6] The reason he hates Pashtuns is (according to history) that Hindus in India have been ruled by Pashtuns or Afghans for nearly 1,000 years until British began to rule them in 1800s.--119.30.67.250 (talk) 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We can be certain that this is a photo of an ethnic Pashtun from southern Afghanistan because there is enough evidence if you see the source.

Why does it bother you everytime when I mention another editor's race or nationality? Indians hate Pakistanis and that's a fact, the uploader is expressing his/her thoughts to show that Pakistan is like the old man in the picture. In reality that picture is telling us that India is like that because it was shot in India and the old man considered himself Indian...I'm sure he died not ever even knowing what Pakistan is. You should control your anger because it is taking you somewhere else. The whole problem here is that we cannot verify the ethnicity of the old man in the old photo on the top. The uploader should follow commom logic that if he cannot be certain about someone's ethnic background in a photo then he/she should avoid giving the photo ethnic names or placing it in an article that is of an ethnic group. Do you agree with this? This new photo on the right is an example, we can be certain that he is ethnic Pashtun because the source provides enough information for us to determine that.--119.30.75.34 (talk) 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I just realized this article's become a battleground over some pictures. In the past, when there was too much fuss made over a picture we just chose one(s) that had no such problems. No point in arguing over nothing. And it would be more relevant to put up newer pictures. Also, the man referred to as a "Pathan" or Hindkowan, how is that known exactly? Tombseye (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The footnote mentions "Afghan Pathans speak the Pashto language" which makes it pretty obvious that the person photographed is a "Pathan". This individual here seems to be bent upon injecting POV into articles. He feels that Pathans should be portrayed as "extremely fair-complexioned individuals" just as Europeans. Well, according to U.S. laws, the free use of any image published in the country after 1923 is prohibited. Hence, it would be highly difficult to introduce newer pictures into the article -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 02:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but I'm just not sure this is something to fight over since this article has lots of pictures of dark skinned Pashtuns anyway of a contemporary nature. Generally, US govt. affiliated pictures can be used to offset this problem of using contemporary pictures, but when I was writing much of this article, I made the pictures a low priority as the content matters more. Is there not a picture that you two can agree upon? Tombseye (talk) 12:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

File:Ghilzai nomads in Afghanistan.jpg

These are Ghilzai Pashtuns during 1839-42. Most likely they lived like this for many 100s or may be even 1,000s of years.

These are Durrani Pashtuns in 1869, Sher Ali Khan sitting in the middle. This is the oldest clear camera photo we can get so far on Pashtun people.

The footnote is irrelevant to the old man's ethnicity, many journalists have made obvious errors when they try to write articles in magazines. We cannot go by that to determine his ethnic background. I agree to a certain extent that he may be Pashtun since the footnotes talks about them but at the same time he may not be because Punjabi Pathan who live in close proximity to Pashtuns and Punjabis, they also speak Pashto and often say they are ethnic Afghans. I explained earlier that I have friends from that group and I know their culture very well.

Anyway now, I don't care about light skinned or dark skinned, I want the article to look as professional as possible and also from a neutral view point. Whenever and whoever reads it and sees the images then they will appreciate the hard work done behind and I'm sure you guys want that too. User:Ravichandar84 is an Indian from India, and according to Indians the Pashtun people are recognized over there as Pathans. So when he edits here he puts things in it according to Indian ideas. We cannot follow that here in the EN Wikipedia because the correct term is Pashtun people. Pathan generally refers to Pashtuns who live outside their territory. Anyway, I think these new images should be added to the Pashtun people#History and origin section because they would go very well with the passage that mentions their possible origin. The first one is showing us how they may have lived for many 100s of years, possibly 1,000s of years. The images that are currently there look stupid and does not go with the passage as if they first appeared in 1878 or 1921. Also the current images have people in it that are not even Pashtuns, Pathans or Afghans, there are possibly Indians in it and even an Englishman. Again that is sloppy and unprofessional work so lets fix the photos with these new ones. Thanks--119.30.77.35 (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Kandahar Lady of Ranks in 1839-42.

If it's possible that we can add this photo of a Kandahar lady on the right in the Pashtun people#Women section. I figured that section should also include Pashtun women from the far past.--119.30.77.35 (talk) 04:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We also need to add this photo group at the infobox.--119.30.76.43 (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I like all of the pictures you've suggested and have no problem with the picture from Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} either. Since there might be ambiguity, as I too am familiar with the Hindkowans who do overlap and it becomes confusing to tell who is who, how about we use Ravi's picture in the Putative section? It would be appropriate and we can add your pictures as well. As for the picture of the Khyber Chiefs posed with the British officer, as far as I know they're Pashtuns. I've seen that picture in many reference books so I imagine it's probably accurate. I have no major attachment to it though and I like the pictures you have so that's no problem for me. So what do you say? Do we all have an understanding? Ravi's picture goes in the putative section, while you add your pictures in the rest of the article. Let me know so that we can resolve this AND I can fix some of the sloppy recent edits as well. Thanks. Tombseye (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and we need to ascertain why the man in the putative section right now is labelled a Hindkowan. Anyone know why this is the case. If he is a Hindkowan I have no problem with it, but how was this determined? Thanks.Tombseye (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Well User:Tombseye, the picture I've added is significant in the sense that it is one of the rare pictures from the pre-independence period which depicts a Pathan wearing a skull-cap and not the traditional turban as Maynard Owen Williams himself mentions in the footnote. Besides, I don't think it would be nice if Wikipedia permits the OR of an editor who has been assuming bad faith from the very beginning indulging in racial abuse and slurs and WP:NPOV. - 15:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tombseye, the user has tagged the image regularly for deletion just because he doe3s'nt want it to remain here. Have a look at this - [7][8][9][10][11][12].

Firstly, he tagged the image for missing sources despite the fact that the sources were clearly mentioned; when I included the name of the article in the summary, he again tagged the image for deletion complaining of copyright violation; when the tag was removed by an administrator, he responded by including citation-needed tags; when his accusations were brushed aside as invalid and page protection applied on Pashtun people article, he responded by adding the image to an article on Punjabi Hindu for no valid reason at all; when this edit was reverted, he reacted by asking me to add the whole page from The National Geographic Magazine to verify the authenticity of my claim and not the image alone, but when I added a new version comprising the whole page, he has been claiming that Maynard Owen Williams is wrong and that the person in the photo is a Hindkowan, a marked shift from his earlier assertation that the man is a Punjabi Hindu. From all his deeds, we can clearly understand that the bottomline is that "he doesnt like the image" and wants it to be deleted on some pretext or the other.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 16:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the editor's earlier record in Wikipedia and the policies he had breached: WP:CIVIL ([13],[14],[15],[16],[17]), WP:3RR ([18][19]), 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.-Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Ravichandar84, you're only partially correct and that's the part about me not liking the photo of the very old man. The rest was legitimate actions that I took. The copyright to the old man's image is owned by National Geographic so I marked it as "copyvio" and the reason for that is that the author died in 1960s so it didn't qualify as PD-old. I didn't know that all pre-1923 images that are in the public domain in USA can be uploaded here. So now I know that they can. Some editors upload images with false licenses and I kindly asked you to provide a link or other way of verifying the true ethnicity of the old man because to me he fitted as Punjabi Pathan. It was just a misunderstanding because I thought you were bashing Pashtuns and there are few editors who are doing this everyday. Anyway, I like what User:Tombseye suggested, we can just put up all those images in the correct places and I have no problem with the old man's photo now since someone else also wants to add it to the article.--119.30.66.112 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so I understand what's going, and since User:119.30.66.112 agrees to the picture, how about we just put it in the putative section, since that's where the term 'Pathan' is introduced and would be a good fit. The other pictures he proposes can also be added and we can move on. OK, if Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} is OK with the plan, then we should be able to move on. Thanks.Tombseye (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, go ahead. Anyway, I have serious protests to make about User:119.30.66.112's offensive behavior early on. A repetition of such behavior will have bad consequences -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 01:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ravichandar84, this is the talk page to discuss things relating to the Pashtun people article. If you have issues with a user over his/her's behaviour you should take it to administrator notice board. Several administrators were involved in your/mines incident and they didn't find my actions offensive, I was leaving message on their talk pages and they didn't warn me about any thing. [20], [21]--119.30.71.194 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:119.30.66.112 and all these IPs starting with 119 from Islamabad, Pakistan that are interested in Afghanistan related articles are actually the IP of the banned, dishonest, and racist user: NisarKand. A checkuser can confirm this.

The above unsigned message was posted by banned User:Beh-nam from Canada, who constantly comes here and to other Afghanistan articles to vandalise the pages. [22] He even removes images of well known Pashtuns. There are many people living in Islamabad and we all use the same DSL service so no we are not all NisarKand. According to NisarKand's last contributions, I don't see why he was banned, there is no explanation by admin, and there is no record of him being allowed to request for unblock. I find that very weird because all blocked editors are given a chance to request for an unblock. In this case the block of NisarKand is invalid and cannot be used as proof to block IP that he may have used in the past.--119.30.71.194 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not been banned from editing Wikipedia only because I chose not to highlight your activities. Do you want me to get you banned? It doesn't take much. User:EncMstr has rightly remarked that a ban wouldn't be possible as there is every chance that you would use multiple IPs. Besides, your disruptive behavior is the reason why my page was made semi-protected. All right then, shall I get to the bottom of this and report you to the administrators? -Ravichandar_{My coffee shop} 17:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Ravichandar84, I have already explained to you that this talk page is only for topics relating to Pashtun people. If you have personal issues with another user please take it to administrator noticeboard. Stop making threats of banning me because I'm not violating the rules. I left only one (1) single message on your talk page and I have no idea why your talk page was semi-protected and I don't even care. You have problem with me because your a Hindu from India and I'm a Muslim from Pakistan, I'm not in the mood for that stuff and leave me alone. Now carry on and stop holding grudges against other editors here.--119.30.66.158 (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You know what, this pashtun picture montage is too biased towards Afghani personalities. There are not enough South Asian/Pakistani people on it. How about we replace two of those and instead put down people like Abdur Rab Nishtar or Shahid Afridi? Maybe Ghaffar Khan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.65.120 (talk) 05:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Majority of Afghsnistan is Pashtun while In Pakistan there is only a region with pashtun's live. In this case the Afghani Pashtuns win... well ...They still should include NWFP PAshtuns... I mean it's not fair is it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhead333 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Please update the template link {{Pashtun Nationalism}} at the end of the article to {{Pashtun nationalism}}. Thanks. Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, within the Infobox, please replace

|region3      = {{flagcountry|United Arab Emirates}}

with

|region3      = {{flag|UAE}}

to avoid wraparound; and please update the [[Pashtun Nationalism]] link in the See also section to Pashtun nationalism. Thanks again. Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done all. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Afghani photos only exept one

That would have been a great step if affix some other pashtuns of the region. Haider (talk) 23:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, strictly speaking Shahid Afridi is not a Pakhtun. His proper name is Syed Shahid Hussain Shah. His Grandfather and father have been known by this name which makes him an Arab by ancestory. His family have been a hamsaya clan of the Afridis for 3/4 generations. Also the term Hindkowans is not used for all Hindko speakers of NWFP but only for Kharays of Peshawar as they are universally not accepted as Pashtuns whereas the speakers of this language as well as Pushto mono speakers and Pushto/Hindko bilinguals are accepted as such in Hazara. User: Moarrikh, 20th August 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moarrikh (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Shahid Afridi was born in Khyber agency. His parents were Afridi Pathans. He may have some distant Arab ancestry but that's irrelevant. Some Pashtuns may have Greek ancestry going way back, does that make them greek? No. What matters is his immediate ancestry, which is Pashtun. Seriously, the montage is biased toward Afghan rulers. How about some other Pashtun pics such as those of Ghaffar Khan, Abdur Rab Nishtar, Shahid Afridi and such? A mix of famous Afghan and Pakistani Pashtuns in the montage would be good. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk) 01:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Women would be good, yes. --Enzuru 19:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pashtuns NOT the same as Pathans

If ones looks far back in history enough, you realize that PASHTUNS AND PATHANS ARE NOT THE SAME THING. A pathan is a person with origins in Afghanistan but Pashtuns are people who speak Pashto. You can be a Pathan and NOT speak Pashto. However, a Pashtun can be a Pathan. Its a common misconception but one that does not need to be spread.

So therefore, the first line where it claims that the two are the same should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlweLotus (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You should provide some reliable source mentioning this difference in meaning between Pashtun and Pathan. This would help a lot towards changing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Pathans and Pashtuns ARE THE SAME THING. Pathan is the Hindustani corruption of "Pashtun". Throughout history, Indians have always used the word "Pathan" in their own language to refer to the people of Afghanistan. There are some of Pathan descent who call themselves Pathan due to their ancestry but do not speak Pashto but its their ancestry. But the term Pathan is still the legitimate Hindi and Urdu term for the Pashtun people. The term Pathan has a first and foremost meaning. It is the Indian-Pakistani word for the Pashtun people of Afghanistan-Pakistan, who speak Pashto.

recent vandalism

I seems that there is a banned user trying to push some sort of POV[23][24] and being reverted by several established editors. Can someone indicate the account of the banned user so I can make myself an idea of what's going on? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I see that they are User:NisarKand and User:Beh-nam --Enric Naval (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

پختون is not an accepted alternate spelling of پښتون

To an outsider of the پښتو language, the southern pronunciation may sound like پشتو (pashto) and the northern like پختو (pakhto). But neither پشتو nor پختو is considered a correct spelling in the پښتو language. Although, a person writing Farsi or Urdu may very well write it as پشتو as neither language has an equivalent to the Pashto/Pakhto letter "ښ".

Many years ago I was perplexed as to why my English teacher would not accept my pronunciation of Thursday. I likened the "th" to the Arabic letter "ت" and read it as "ترزډۍ" when in fact the correct pronunciation was more closely demonstrated by "ث" as in "ثرزډۍ". (Note: ث is also incorrectly pronounced by a majority of the non-Arab Muslims. Most cannot differentiate between ث and س and pronounce the sound of both with the English equivalent of "S".)

You are correct, this needs to be changed. --Enzuru 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the VOWELS in 'Pashtun' for English speakers

Can someone please, without going into the ∫/χ/kh business, explain how to pronounce the word 'Pashtun', at least approximately? Is it pu∫tun, pa∫tun, pa∫tan, pʊ∫tʊn or pa∫tʊn? ('u' is like in 'boot', 'ʊ' is like in 'book'.) Thanks!118.71.186.34 (talk) 14:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Abdur Rab Nishtar?

Why is Nishtar not included among notable Pashtuns? Just because he helped found Pakistan? He was indeed a Pashtun of the Kakar tribe, not a Punjabi or Hindkowan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk) 02:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that its unpopular to talk about Pashtuns who supported the creation of Pakistan and more popular to talk about those who were pro-Congress turned pro separation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 1 October 2008

If Abdul Rab Nishtar was a pashthun by language than he was much enough popular deserve to be here on main but if his ancestors had forgotten pashto language, it would be better to keep him far away of this article, dosnt matter if he took part in freedom efforts. Thanks! Haider (talk) 06:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Abdul Rab Nishtar WAS a native Pashto-speaker! What the hell are you talking about? He was a full-blooded authentic Pathan from the North West Frontier, not of mixed race or a man whose family had long been in residence in the North Indian plains. He was a prominent Pathan like it or not and must be included in the montage, alongside Ghaffar Khan, who also acknowledged him as a well-respected Pathan sardar. And "Pathan" is used in Hindustani to refer to Pashtuns from Afghanistan. Urdu-speaking people call themselves "Pathans", not as a new designation for their group but because their ancestors were Pathans from Afghanistan, as they call Pashtuns in the language of the Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk • contribs) 11 October 2008

You should have signed first atleast I would come to know that to whome I am chatting to! Infact this is the page to persuade each other through healthy gentle debates but I don't know why your reply was so harsh, you could have made me well understand about pathan sardar, whereas I have never heard about "SARDARS" in pashtun society? Now let me tell you about term "Pathan", which had never been used or liked by pashtuns for themselves, while this term first used by Mughals and then Britishers for those who had migerated to india and had forgotten their language, culture and tradition, pathan of india would never be assimilate in Pashuns now, by the way if you are happy with "Pathan" then you will feel happy to be called "Sulemani" by Arabs, Khurasani by Iranis and Afghanis? What I was trying to express here that if Sardar sahab could have talked in Pashto then his photo is well deserved there on main, otherwise he didn't deserve to be called pashtun just on the basis of his ancestors. Thanks! Haider (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You have no proof for your assertions. It is well documented that term "Pathan" was used first and foremost by Indians to refer to the people of Afghanistan. It's not uncommon to here even many Pashtuns themselves calling themselves "Pathan" in an British Indian context (Ghaffar Khan and Wali Khan). Even today, Pakistani Pashtuns still sometimes call themselves "Pathan". As for Pashtun descendants in India, they just call themselves "Pathan" as that was their ancestry, from the "Pathans of Afghanistan". Throughout the colonial era, the term "Pathan" was used by the British to refer to the Afghan tribes. The terms original and constant use since its coinage has been that as an Indian term for "Pashtuns". Many of us don't use it. But many of us bilingual in both Pashto and the national language Urdu do use the term "Pathan" to communicate with desi speakers. And Ghaffar Khan did view Nishtar highly as a Pashtun leader. He was from the NWFP, that should be proof enough. http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C05%5C27%5Cstory_27-5-2008_pg7_54

This article itself mentions that he was a Pashtun of NWFP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.246.184 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 29 October 2008

Ok got it all you meant to say that we have been calling pathans by indians and khurasanis by iranis and sulemains by arabs and afghanis by afghans for years? Kindly don't make Pashtuns a riddle or dictionary please! Haider (talk) 17:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As a Pakhtun, I have no reason to make them a riddle. You're overreacting. I'm being historical, you're being irrational. Calm down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Pashtuns have never liked the term "Pathan" for them for instance you mentioned yourself a pakhtun not pathan. Take care! 203.81.224.200 (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Image edit conflict

Hi. I noticed that there is a debate as to which images should be used in the article. Would the concerned parties talk about it here so that we can work out an agreement? Thanks. SunDragon34 (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's just one user using multiple accounts and IPs to force changes into the article, and making personal attacks against other editors when reverted. Anyways, for reference, see the last change that he made[25]:

Keeps:

• Ahmad Shah Durrani
• Hamid Karzai
• Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan

Removes:

• Abdur Rahman Khan

Adds:

• Sher Shah Suri
• Sher Ali Khan
• Mohammed Nadir Khan
• Zalmay Khalilzad
• Aftab Ahmad Sherpao

I'm not sure of why he removes Abdur Rahman Khan, who appears to have been a notable ruler (I don't know much about afghan history). Maybe other editors can give opinion on the persons that he wants to add? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps he will comment here and we can come to a peaceful agreement? SunDragon34 (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

His IP range has been blocked for 6 months for disruption and sockpuppeting, so, no, he can't comment here. On this talk page, all comments signed by an IP starting with "119.30" were done by him. He has been caught lying about sources on this same page, so I'd rather ask an editor on good standing to have a look at which of these persons are adequate for the infobox. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yuck

We really do need to fix those pictures though, why are ugly bearded men (I'm a direct descendant of Abdur Rahman Khan, but still) representing us? Women, we need women! --Enzuru 05:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thats what I been saying. There are Pashtun women, I am sure...That have to exist, right? The Scythian 07:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we are a myth. --Enzuru 04:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

LOL do you guys need my picture :p hehe Pashtun Women are not allowed to take pictures my Dad would kick my ass if he found my picture on wikipedia...the same to all other pashtun women...their Dad's or Brother's will kick their ass too :P hehe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhead333 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Some Jewish scholars claim that the Pathan tribe is NOT Pashtun, but the lost tribe of Dan.

They state that Pathan wear the hair curls (sideburns, etc) of traditional Jews, some have blue or green eyes (not typical of the area) and that they circumcise their newborn boys on the 8th day (Muslims apparently circumcise at age 13). They believe that they will be brought back to Israel, according to the Torah, when all 12 tribes are restored. Apparently, these people do NOT practice the Muslim faith, and if no one actually goes to investigate this, at least we will know the truth of this when the end times come. Catladys (talk) 06:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pathan is just a Paki-fied version of the word Pashtun. Muslims don't circumcise at the age of 13, they circumcise near birth. And some Pashtuns have coloured eyes, but not most. And pretty much all Pashtuns are Muslim. --Enzuru 07:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Curious choice of words here "Paki-fied", are you saying that only Pakistanis use the word "Pathan". That is incorrect it is not just used in Pakistan and some Pashtuns have this as a surname e.g. Irfan Pathan, Jadid Khan Pathan. Pahari Sahib 09:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Both people you linked to are from the Subcontinent. South Asians can be Pashtun, I didn't say they couldn't be. My own family had to flee to Pakistan because of the political situation. --Enzuru 09:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

This link is to a very interesting article explaining alot about Pashtun/Jews connection. http://www.momentmag.com/Exclusive/2007/2007-04/200704-Taliban.html --NewportPleasure (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well ...i beleive those are some lies. Pashtuns hate to be called jews or "yahoodis" I dont mind though since Im pashtun but most do. Well there not like Palestinians either. THey dont hate them much...but only the so called American Jews or something. I don't know really what they talk about it's quite confusing the way they think of politics. :p. Hmm... I really want to see a DNA test of a pashtun with a reference . These DNA tests which say pashtuns are Greeks or Jews don't have any reference I really want to see proof that its a true claim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhead333 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

They turned muslims even in Muhammads time. So that's no proof against Jewish descent. The Jewish descent theory has been mentioned by many scholars from over the globe, for at least a 100 years, based on observations, interviews with tribe elders etc. I have here a book with some 5 references on this matter:

• S.M. Imamuddin, The origin of Afgans, Islamic Culture, vol.23 pp.1
• Encyclopedia of Islam, Afghan, pp.216
• Henry Walter Bellew, The Races of Afghanistan, pp.23 (1949)
• Thomas Holdich, Afghan Claim, Nemunn Afghanistan, From Darius to Amanula, Pennel, The Tribes on our N.W.F., Asian Review 1910, vol.30 pp.88
• Caroe, The Pathans, Pennel
• Eliyahu Avichayil, Shivtei Yisrael (Hebrew) Debresser (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Sharbat Gula.png

The image File:Sharbat Gula.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The numbers given for the Pathans/Pashtuns in India are wrong..It must be high

The numbers given for Pathans/Pashtuns in India are not correct. Currently, it is some 11 thousand or more; that is wrong. These 11 thousand are those who still speak Pashto. But, what about those who are Pathans/Pashtuns and have lost their language?

There are millions of Pathans/Pashtuns in India who are culturally and ethnically Pathans/Pashtuns, but have lost their language Pashto and now speak Urdu.

We must do something for that and include them in the numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.16.126 (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Being Pashtun is an ethno-linguistic definition as stated in the article. To be considered Pashtun you must speak Pashto, adhere to Pashtunwali, and your father must be a Pashtun. Pathans, Hindkowans, and other non-speakers are separate groups, and are not Pashtun, whatever their ethnic backgrounds may be. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 05:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hehe! where did you get this definition? They are ethnically Pashtuns/Pathans and are of the same origin. They once spoke Pashto, but as their number was less and they would live in different areas, they lost their language and started the local language of their area.

What you are saying is complete ignorance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.16.126 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, what I am saying has been passed down by Pashtuns who speak Pashto for over one thousand years, and is stated clearly in this article. Did you even bother reading this article? If you do not speak Pashto, you may have Pashtun heritage, but you are not a Pashtun. A Pashtun speaks Pashto and adheres to Pashtunwali. If a Pashtun doesn't speak Pashto, they may satisfy a loose genetic definition of the word, but not the cultural one which is more important among Pashtuns. Do you really think Pashtuns in Afghanistan would accept an Indian who can't speak Pashto and has married a non-Muslim, as a Pashtun? No, they wouldn't. A few months ago, three Indian triplets, with skin dark as a central African, told me they were Pathan (an Urdu/Hindi word, not a Pashto word). Am I to believe that? I don't even care for skintone or looks, but they didn't adhere to Pashtunwali nor did they speak Pashto, even if they satisfied the definition that they had an unbroken paternal lineage, they failed the other two requirements. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 08:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I personly think that the Pathans in India are not PASHTUNS at all. THey don't follow the pashtunwali don't look like pashtuns , they look like typical indians...with the last name of Khan like most Bollywood actors. Anyone can claim to be of some place or person. But without proof the claim is false. I don't care about the skintones much but do they speak pashto? They call themselves "Pathans" and a Pashtun dislikes the name Pathan a lot. Pashtuns call themselves "pashtun" or "pakhtun" There are no real pashtuns in India. Except for the refugees...who arn't indian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhead333 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

"Pashtun" is the word used inside Afghanistan, "Pakhtun" is used in NWFP area of Pakistan and "Pathan" is used by the rest of the people....to refer to the tribal people (Pashtun people). "Afghan" is the historical name for these people. In India all Pashtuns are called Pathans. Pasthuns living inside Afghanistan are considered Pashtun, but those living outside their homeland are called "Pathans". This is how the British, when arrived to Pashtun territory in 1800s, understood this and we can't go by what Pashtuns feel about who should be considered theirs or not. The Pathan in India may have lost their roots but they still are connected to these tribal people through history. Do not try to separate people because they are known under different names in different parts of the world.

No Pashtun and Pukhtun are the same words Southern Afghanistan ueses PASHTTUN and NORTHERN AFGHANISTAN or Above south says the KH sound instead of SH in some words such as PAKHTU. That's clearly not true. Its the same pashtu with a different accent, pashtu differs from village to village —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.160.145 (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Number of Pashtun people in Canada

I rverted the edit changing the number from 1695 to 25-30 thousand. Not because I think that was incorrect. The logic mentioned by the editor in his edit summary was persuasive. Based on his logic I find myself compelled to think that the numbers may be too low for other coutries also. But this was pure original research. And that is not allowed. Apart from that, it is misleading not to apply the same reasoning to other countries as well. We should data as they appear in sources, and use them for all coutries equally. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Stats Canada, there were around 48,090 Afghans and 1,695 Pashtuns living in Canada during 2006. Now, you have to remember that Pashtuns make up 40% to 60% of the Afghan population - to be fair, lets make it 50%. If we divide 48,000 by half, we will get 24,000. If we add 24,00 and 1,695 we will get ~26,000. Which is still low because we are not counting all the Pashtuns from Pakistan.

PS: Stats Canada asks about your nationality, not ethnicity. I am pointing that out because I live here in Canada.

Those are vague stats given the actual number of Pashtun speakers in those countries you mentioned and you'd still have to measure all the other countries on the list the same way, like Debresser said. Also Stats Can does ask for your ethnicity; there were specific write in boxes for it in the 2006 census too. Pashtuns in Pakistan only make up about 15% of the population there anyway.Rodiggidy (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Rodiggidy

There are definitely way more Pashtuns in US or India compare to Canada. There are more Pashtuns in California + New Yor than there are in Canada. (Ketabtoon (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC))

NO way THere are DEFINATELY a lot of PAshtuns in Canada more then 2000 for sure. around 10 000 would be more correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.160.145 (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Brokpa woman's image

Someone added an image of a Brokpa woman into the women section and described her as Pashtun, but she is not from Pashtun ethnicity at all. Can we please remove that one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.206 (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Karzai image in infobox

split from above for readability --Enric Naval (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, There is no need to remove Hamid Karzai's image from the infobox because he is President of a nation and that alone makes him important for this article about Pashtun people. He is the only most recognized Pashtun man the world at the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.206 (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Karzai is an ethnic Pashtun and the current president of Pakistan Afghanistan. This sort of arguments

"He's an american puppet, a sell out, he's there on the blood of other afghans, he does not follow pashtunwalli hence he is not considered Pashtun"[26]

are not valid. Also, he's the only Pashtun politician on the infobox, so he shouldn't be removed unless someone can point out a better representative of Pashtun politicians. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

(Removed offensive comment)

Now it's been reverted again saying "This kind of arguement is valid. A Pashtun is a ethno/cultural defenition. Hence if you dont follow Pashtunwalli you are not considered Pashtun"[27]. If you look at Pashtun_people#Pashtuns_defined, you will see that there are several definitions, and the the ethnical one is the most accepted one. You are trying to exclude by using only the cultural definition. Also, this argument about Karzai not respecting Pashtunwali code is unsourced, and looking at this US military source it seems that this is a reference to Karzai not providing refuge to Taliban. So, no, this argument is not valid. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(removed offensive comment)

The ethical definition alone of a Pashtun is the most prominent view according to academics not the majority of Pashtun people who are predominately are a tribal people and follow the tribal code. So the most predominate view amongst Pashtuns is the ethical/cultural definition of who a Pashtun is. This is the reason why Pashtuns have been so successful in defending there sovereignty against invading occupying forces throughout there history (such as the Russians and British empire) not just because of there ethnicity but because of there strict tribal/muslim code too, this is what makes the Pashtun people a clan apart(All praises are to God) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.152.172 (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

As I asked Abidreh above, you have to provide WP:RS reliable sources for Karzai not being Pashtun because of not respecting Pashtunwali. Your personal opinion that he is not Pashtun is not enough because wikipedia is based in verifiable data. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A Pukhtoon/pakhtunwalli believes and acts in accordance with the principles of Islamic Law i.e. an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth and blood for blood. The tribesmen, like Muslims all over the world, have a deep faith in the Holy Quran. According to Islamic law it is forbidden for Muslims to ally with a foreign invading none Muslim armies over Muslims. (The Quran)

Another aspect of pashtunwali is to provide asylum (nanawatey) to people asking for it such as Bin Laden. The Pashtuns granted him asylum and refused to hand him over to the American authorities because they were not given any evidence for his 9/11 involvement. Hamid Karzai also disregarded this asylum of the Pashtunwalli code of conduct and supported and aided in the invasion by America

http://www.khyber.org/culture/pashtoonwalai/badal.shtml http://www.khyber.org/culture/pashtoonwalai/badragga.shtml http://www.khyber.org/culture/pashtoonwalai/nanawatey.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidreh (talk • contribs) 04:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked for a source about Karzai not being Pashtun because of not following Pashtunwali. Where is that source? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

From the evidence provided (backed up with the references) It is clear that Hamid Karzai does not follow Pashtunwalli!

It’s getting a bit stupid here now, Enric do you even need more explanation?? I gave you the rationale of what Pashtunwalli is, backed up with the references, and Hamid Karzais actions go totally against them (he supported the american war remember). So we can conclude that he does not follow Pashtunwalli hence he is not considered Pashtun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.152.172 (talk) 01:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Brother, while I do agree that Karzai is not a Pashtun because of his shameful breaking of Pashtunwali, for Wikipedia you need a source that specifically says this individual is not a Pashtun. See, by saying he has sided with Americans and simply showing a link that breaking Pashtunwali makes you no longer a Pashtun, you're breaking WP:SYNTH! Find a WP:reliable source saying he isn't Pashtun and we can take him out. As the Holy Qur'an asks, beyond the truth what is there but error? --Afghana ^[talk] 07:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Another reason why Hamid Karzai's pic should not be there is because he has been accused By Pashtuns that he is running a Puppet goverenment, hence he is not a notable ruler/prominent Pashtun.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1067687/Taliban-commander-rejects-talks-Afghanistans-puppet-government.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidreh (talk • contribs) 13:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

He is not accused by "Pashtuns", he is accused by Talibans (as I already said above), who represent only a small part of Pashtun people. They are also an extremist group that makes the most strict interpretations of laws, and they are also the ones most interested in getting Karzai out of the presidency of Pakistan Afghanistan by accusing him of being an "Afghan's puppet and slave President". And of course, this doesn't say anything about him being or not a "notable ruler/prominent Pashtun". --Enric Naval (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Taliban only make up 7,000 to 11,000 people. Pashtuns are 42 million. Who said Pashtuns must not make friends with America or with Americans? America has millions of Muslims and there are many 1,000s of American-Pashtuns living in America. Who said Pashtuns must side with Taliban? Pashtuns in Afghan National Army are being trained by United States Armed Forces. Abidreh is a [removed] Paki living in UK and telling us that Karzai is not Pashtun because Karzai is friends with America. Then you have the other [removed] people who agree with him. [removed] I think Hamid Karzai is a very wise man, using his wisdom he placed his lost nation back on the world map and fed his people. Anyway, this Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and we have to edit information in a universal way. We don't care how Pashtuns or others determine a person's ethnic background. We follow the rules of Wikipedia and those are very clear. Karzai is an ethnic Pashtun, he represents a nation, he is an elected President of that nation, he was nighted in UK, he received many top awards in other countries, he helped his people get back on their feet. The people who are dying in the current war includes not just Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras or other Afghans but also includes Americans and others.--Mullaji (talk) 18:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

(removed]

Karazi is not a Pashtun as he hast left Pashtunwalli, [removed]. Also Karzai is an american puppet and not a notable leader. This is the opinion held by the majorty of Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Also Karzai does not have the approval of the majority of the Pashtun people.

---

"The "puppet" Pashtun leader in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, does not have the approval of Pakistan and the majority of the rest of the Pashtun community straddling both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border."

---

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EG30Ag01.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidreh (talk • contribs) 12:35, 29 May 2009

I removed part of your comment, per WP:RPA removing personal attacks.

Karzai had a 83% approval in Pakistan Afghanistan in 2005, and this approval has been going down, until it has reached 52% in 2009.[28], The article you linked above is back from 2003, when his approval was highest, so it looks like it was wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Enric can you please refrence your sources, how can you say this article is wrong. And do NOT remove my personel attacks, when Mullaji is calling me a racist paki, Isnt this a personel attack. You dont own this site so dont try to act like youre in charge!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.152.172 (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Very sorry, I hadn't noticed that, I removed it too.

the source for those numbers is this. See a better source"[in 2009] 52% think President Karzai is doing a good or excellent job as against 63% last time and 83% in 2005."[29], from one of the pictures, 29% think that he makes a "fair" job, and 18% think that he is doing a "poor" job. Also [30][31]interview. As I said, the article you cited is from 2003 and it didn't give any specific numbers.

Also, I asked you if you knew of a Pashtun politican that was more recognizable or notable, to replace Karzai as the only politician in the infobox. Did you find any? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6PW3DV76wY&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidreh (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Aryan origin

Genuine data indicated that Pashtun people are members of the Aryan Race who converted to the great religion of Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.174 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Zulmai Khalilzai is former United States Ambassidor to UN.--Mullaji (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The majority of ethnic Pashtuns are related to the Aryan Iranians - they are in fact mostly an sub-Iranian tribe from what I have read. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

PASHTUN/PAKHTUN

Salam people, i was reading your descriptions and articles about pashtun people and realised not enough has been written or stated on this matter. So i decided to enlighten you with more information. I hope it will benefit all those who are interested in the Pashtun race. I dont have an account with Wikipedia as of yet but but i hope after reading my article you people will change the wiki page on Pashtun people. First and foremost i would like to say is that you people identify pashtun people with just Linguistics and pashtunwali and not their looks and culture. For example i know of many villages and areas in pakistan and afghanistan where the pashtun are clearly distinguished from other people just by their looks. My village and my people are white and are recognised as Pashtuns even before they start to speak Pashto, which is a shame because you havent put a picture of a single light light skinned or whie Pashtun. And yes when i say white i mean white without any intermingling or mixed marriages with tajik or uzbek or any other race. On the contrary their are more white skinned pashtun than uzbek,tajik,kalash and kashmiri. But the pashtun people out number these other races many times over and have gone deeper in to india during their conquests which is why you will also get darker skinned Pashtun. Dont get me wrong i am not racist or biased in any way. It was just a bit disappointing for me not to see any white Pashtun in the Wikipedia section. Our people are immediately recognised for being different than the punjab majority. We have blonde haired mothers and fathers with green,grey and blue eyes as well as brown. We are diverse which makes us stronger. Sometimes in the same family a white brother will have a tanned sister or brown brother. The Pashtun phenomenom however is such that a pashtun can be distinguished even if he/she is dark skinned. The Pashtun ancestors conquered the land hundreds of years ago they married into indians hence the darker skinned pashtun. There are pashtun decendants even in bangladesh. I have family tree and and evidence of my ancestors going back 7oo years at least of pure pashtun blood. Some accounts for even before that period. Evidence of our culture and race goes back thousand of years. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr Zakir Hussain Dilip Kumar, Raj Kapoor, Madhubala, Sharukh khan , Feroz khan ,salman khan, aamir khan, fardeen khan etc are all of Pashtun origin yet none of their pics are given in the wiki page, Regardless of them speaking or not Speaking pushto they can be distinguished from their looks and their repeated confirmation that they are of Afghan Pashtun Origin as Sharukh Khan has stated many times. The down fall of Pashtun is that when they get rich or marry someone from outside their race or get educated they tend to forget their true heritage and culture. Plus lack of education in Pashto writing is another key factor. Neverthe less if you want to focus on true 100% pure Pashtuns then i think you should cover all aspects of pashtun people who speak the language live by the pashtunwali and their looks which are the same yet so beautiful and diverse. A few months ago i was watching the news on GEO tv which was covering a Bomb Blast and death of Benazir Bhutto and the news presenter said the people saw a young male pashtun at the scene who ran away. How did they know he was pashtun? The eyewitnesses and news presenter said because he was "safed rang". (meaning white skinned) That young male didnt speak pashto nor did he say hes a follower of strict pashtunwali he was identified because of his colour or looks. Its time pashtun were proud of their looks language and colour and show it clearly to the world how diverse we are. If you dont have any pictures of white pashtuns then i have many of my families and village's which i will gladly put on wikipedia to avoid confusion. But pictures must be proper and not of women folk. It must show our race and different people in it, not rudeness. Theres plenty more information but i will leave it for next time inshALLAH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.212.241 (talk) 16:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You can find some white Pashtuns here. I also added brief information about Shahrukh Khan along with his picture, Khan has said in the latest youtube video that he has 'Afghan blood' and that his father's father was from Afghanistan.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mullaji (talk • contribs) 19:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

SStarey Mashey! Well first I would suggest you to take some deep look into archives that way you will be able to get some great information despite, you would know much but sometimes it is possible to miss some key intelligence. Bieng a learner I have been contributing knowledge for more than five years with Wikipedia and hope to continue inshaallah! As you apprised us that you are new to Wiki so "Pakhair Raghley" and enjoy your edits but for that you will have to first "Par me Ka - Mar me Ka", I hope you would have got my point. Was Qais Baba a pure white man with blue eyes and blond hair? And would you please let me know about that turk Prince who married Bibi Mato, I hope you know her? Pashtuns are great remarkable nation please don't make it Brad Pitt! Haider (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to Mullaji

Thank you for your help. I appreciate it, but you still haven't shown proper white Pashtuns. What i mean by "white" is white complexion with blonde, red and brown hair; green,grey,blue and brown eyes, but as some ignorant people put it, "european looks". But as you and i know very well Pahtun people dont have european looks on the contrary you can say that the europeans Have Pashtun looks, as our village elders used to say when a white journalist came to visit. You have done an excellant job never the less and i thank you from the bottom of my heart. But there is a big chunk of Pashtun people who still havent been addressed. I hope also that you will try to the best of your ability with this request as you have done previously. If not then just let me know here and i can give you all the photos you need. Thanks once again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.246.214 (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of verifiable content by Mullaji on 25th May

You deleted the following passage .

“ Al Beruni no doubt also alludes to them in the passage (loc. Cit .p 199 ) where he says that rebellious savage races , tribes of Hindus , or akin to them inhabit the mountains which form the frontier of India towards the west . ”

Reason you provide for deletion are
(rv; POV, biruni was refering to hindus of modern day eastern pakistan, the punjabis.)

I am providing the complete quote for the above reference which you deleted to provide the context .

“ Al Beruni mentions the Afghans once (ed Sachau, I 208)saying that in the western mountains of India live various tribes of Afghans who extend to the neighbourhood of the Sindh (ie Indus )valley .Thus in the eleventh century when the Afghans are first mentioned , they are found occupying the Sulaiman Mountains now occupied by their descendents , the very tribes which the advocates of the exclusive claims of the Durannis will not admit to be true Afghans . Al Beruni no doubt also alludes to them in the passage (loc. Cit .p 199 ) where he says that rebellious savage races , tribes of Hindus , or akin to them inhabit the mountains which form the frontier of India towards the west . ”

Next here is a quote from another reliable and verifiable secondary source that reinforces the above content .

“ The most explicit mentioning of the Afghans appears in Al- Baruni’s Tarikh al hind (eleventh century AD) Here it is said that various tribes of Afghans lived in the mountains in the west of India . Al Baruni adds that they were savage people and he describes them as Hindus ., ”

Your unilateral deletion is unjustified and unsubstantiated and sans prior discussion .

Please do not delete referenced content in this fashion as it constitutes a vandal edit .
. Intothefire (talk) 10:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not considered vandalism due to the fact that it is done in good faith that the information presented is wrong. However, deleting sources is wrong in almost all circumstances if the sources are reliable. I will have to ask User:Mullaji to address all concerns here instead of continuing to edit the article without any other consensus of other editors. Similiarly, conversations talking about spreading the awareness of "white" Pashtuns is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Ethnic phenotypes such as skin colour are of little concern for an encyclopedia. --Afghana ^[talk] 11:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read al-Biruni's work and Biruni is talking about Rajputs (today this race is Punjabis) [32], but what Intothefire is quoting is actually works of contemporary book writers. Intothefire is doing vandalism, his purpose is to leave racist comments made by book writers. This is not the place for this sort of stuff, here we are looking for genuine proof of record that uses the name Afghan and nothing else. Calling Muslims as Hindus or savages is very offensive and besides it is untrue. Pashtun people became Muslims in 7th century and al-Biruni lived about 400 years later. Pashtuns were never Hindus, but Punjabis were.--Mullaji (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Intothefire response 2

• User_talk:Afghana -Thanks for your response ...but the post about the white Afghans is not mine ....frankly I think its inane , you may consider asking the anonymous user .
  

• User talk:Mullaji: Lets focus on providing reliable sources to back our positions . I provided a few quotes earlier and will continue to provide more ....both respected Muslim as well as Western . I think Al beruni is a respected source as is Farishta . Further when you allude to any of these writers views please provide very precise citations with page nos .
  Please also inform how providing a referenced quote is vandalism as per wikipedia rules .
  

All Afghans had not converted to Islam even uptill the 11th century . There is ample record of Hindu and Buddhist Afghans from scores of sources .

Here is another quote from E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam

“ In 588 (1192) according to Farishta the army assembled by Muizz al din Muhammed b Sam consisted of Turks , Tadjiks and Afghans , and his opponent Pithorai (Prithoi Rai) assembled a force of Rajput and Afghan horsemen . Thus in this great war Mussulmans and Hindus Afghans are represented as fighting on both sides , which probably indicates that they were not yet completely converted to Islam ”

Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what your argument is about? You can't even convince yourself so how can you convince others? If you had convincing information about Afghans being Hindus or Buddhists then why can't you share that with us here? You'r latest quote is explaining something like this: Afghan National Army, which is made up of mostly Afghans is fighting with Taliban, who are also mostly Afghans. Afghan army and Taliban are all Muslims. What is your point man?--Mullaji (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Intothefire Response 3
Mullaji my point is simply that you deleted this referenced content 25th May , which should be restored in the article . Intothefire (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your point is clear, you want to add racist bias remarks into articles about people you probably don't like. ---"Al Beruni no doubt also alludes to them in the passage (loc. Cit .p 199 ) where he says that rebellious savage races , tribes of Hindus , or akin to them inhabit the mountains which form the frontier of India towards the west"--- That's the quoted view point of a very recent book writer. Besides, it is refering to the non-muslim group who were fighting with Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna and other Ghaznavids of Ghazni, Afghanistan. Majority of the Afghans were on the side of the Ghaznavids.--Mullaji (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You state several facts without any citations. This article is stating one fact with a citation, and you have no right to delete this citation unless you can prove it breaks WP:RS. This is extremely clear cut. I will be honest with you, I don't believe we Pashtuns ever had a Hindu majority. Zoroaster was born in contemporary Afghanistan and the Persians adopted his religion later, and we Pashtuns still practice various Jewish traditions, so I am inclined to think we were Zoroastrians and Jews. However, what matters is citations. Once again, overview WP:RS. --Afghana ^[talk] 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Intothefire Response 4

Mullaji :Your points are unsubstantiated .Instead of restricting debate to the topic you are attacking me

• The Afghans have an amazing Buddhist Hindu Zoroastrian Heritage which continues late into the 11th century .
• This assertion is based on historical records, archeological sites, artifacts, coins and other material
• The population of Ghazni itself which was Buddhist and Hindu was converted by Mahmud of Ghazna to Islam .

Let me provide you with another verifiable quote .

“ During the eighth and ninth centuries AD the eastern parts of modern Afghanistan were still in the hands of non-muslim rulers . The Muslims tended to regard them as Indians , although many of the local rulers were apparently of Hunnish or Turkic descent . Yet , the Muslims were right in so far as the non Muslim population of Eastern Afghanistan was , culturally , strongly linked to the Indian sub-continent . Most of them were either Buddhists or they worshipped Hindu deities . ”

I will continue to provide citations , and then we will incorporate them into the article .

Moreover it seems you may be using a sockpuppet viz : Massagetae , which if you are please dont .
Intothefire (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Intothefire response 5
Here s another verifiable reference substantiating the above from Al-Hind: Early medieval India and the expansion of Islam, 7th-11th centuries By André Wink

“ However that may be , the Hindu Shahi dynasty succeeded from about the third quarter of the ninth century to the first quarter of the eleventh century – when they were finally reduced by the Ghaznavids – the Zunbils and the Kabulshahs as the oocupants of the frontier of Al Hind . The struggles between the Hindu Shahis of Kabul /Gandhara and the Yamini Turks of Ghazana or Ghaznavids at first concerned supremacy over eastern Afghanistan but was then transferred eastwards to the Punjab ., ”

Hope these references on this talk page will make way for more concise information regarding these quotes and put an end to the deletiuons .
Intothefire (talk) 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Afganistan has always been multi-ethnic, with many different types of people. All of the Afghans were not Pashtuns or Muslims and your references are repeating something we already know. The name Afghan is used in literature as a citizen or native of today's modern nation-state Afghanistan. Just because the old rulers of the cities in the area were practicing some kind of religion doesn't mean the Pashtuns who lived very far away from cities (in the Suleiman Mountains) did the same. The Hindu Shahis were NON-Pashtuns, they only ruled cities and the citis were much smaller with walls around them in those days. Majority of Pashtuns lived tribal life in the Mountain regions where invaders had no interest to visit. Conquerers, explorers, invaders, travellers, etc., all travelled through the same major roads that they do today and they don't run in the Sulaiman Mountains. This is the interesting point that you have hard time figuring out because you don't know the region as I do. You look at a map and think that all the land in a specific country is straight land with roads everywhere. Most of Afghanistan (80%) is very high rugged mountains where it's very difficult to pass from one area to another. The Suleyman Mountains has been a forbidden place for the Non-Pashtuns... so it's highly unlikly that Buddhism, Hinduism, or Zorastrianism making its way to the Pashtuns.--119.73.9.53 (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Not a debate but a FACT!

I am amazed at some of your ignorance afghana haider and co who say its wrong to say "white" Afghans. You will be amazed to come to my village and land and see for your self, that people actually do identify pashtuns with skin colour most of the time rather than language. Im not saying that Pashtun People are all white. I started this topic to say that there are a significant amount of us Pashtuns who ARE White. Qais baba and Bibi Mato were genuine, but alot of Bibi Mato's life and story is a work of fiction because some historians also say that the Ghilzai and Lodhi can also be the offspring of Mokarram Shah. Remember him? He was a Pashtun prince from Ghor who married a persian noble man's daughter. What ever happened, its speculation. My argument is that pure white Afghans/ Pashtuns without any persian or mongol,turk,uzbek etc mixture exist amongst brown and yellow Pashtuns and its not a bad thing. The people in my village for example are not of ghilzai,durrani or lodhi origin. Even though they are 100% Pashtuns themselves. We are yusufzai and as i say we can trace back our ancestors several hundred years and yet you will find not a single mixture with another race , or tribe. We are white pashtuns and also brown Pashtuns but we are not ashamed to say who we are. All im saying is that the white pashtuns have been neglected and dont get a single mention when it comes to ethnic phenotype. Like tajiks who have mediterranean looks according to their wiki descriptions and i quote from the source.

Physically, most Tajiks resemble the Mediterranean-Caucasian stock.[25] The typical Tajik has dark hair and eyes, and medium to fair skin. Lighter hair and eye colors are a bit common and are found in western Afghanistan (e.g., Herat and Ghor) .

We Pashtuns also have a wide and diffenret types of phenotypes so why should we be ashamed to say it on Wikipedia? Thats all im asking. This is not an argument or fight. These are the facts. Wheter you like it or not. (Anonymous)

Well friend you should have signed first that way it would be easy to address you. According to you Pashtun is not a mixed race but do you think it is possible that progenitor of such a great nation would just be a single man? Pashtun is not just a Plarganey(family), its a huge race in millions which can only be came into being through Language, Culture Tradition etc. It is like Abasin (River Indus) which has been streaming for thousand of years bisecting Kohistan Hazara and Malakand division till all the way to the indian ocean, in its passage of thousands of miles we know that numerous rivulets and rivers fell into it, including big rivers like chenab, jehlum etc so will you call the Great River Indus a mixture of rivers or Just a pure river Indus? After falling into Indus all the rivers whether small or big would definitely lost their identities, I hope this will help you to be called a pure great Pashtun. One more thing that Afghan is not a proper term to be used for Pashtuns, why would we use an irrevelant word for Pashtuns because simply we speek Pashto and called Pashtuns. Khudai Pa amaan! Haider (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussions based and backed by references and citations will improve this article .

Intothefire (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

References

PASHTUN/PAKHTUN DEFINED PART 2

Haider my brother from another mother, you seem to have a problem with understanding what im saying. your arguing over my facts and turning my factual information into a debate. your argument is baseless because all im saying in my talk is that pashtuns have different and diverse phenotypes. And that the white pashtuns have been underrepresented. We have more white and mediterranean looking people than Tajiks/Hazara/Uzbek and Kalash put together,and what makes us unique is that we have brown and tanned looking too. But we dont mention it in our wikpedia page whilst the others do. Infact most of them are not blonde or blue eyed BUT as i said we have in my village and surrounding villages many Pashtun who are blonde with many who are black haired. Without any mixture, That is a fact i mentioned. We are not decended from farsi or persian what ever you want to call it. On the contrary they have been invaded numerous times by different people and have mixed ancestors, for example mongol turkik mixtured hazara or uzbeks. It doesnt make them any weaker or stronger or stupid, no. Its just fact. Even some Pashtun clans have been invaded long ago in Afghanistan its a fact. But i think its more accurate and factual to say that Pashtun people invaded and mixed with other races hence the different colours. Its a blessing and a complete race. I dont know why you came up with abaa sin(river Indus). Its completly irrelevant. Millions of people speak English as a first language, but not all are of english origin. In the uk there are many Asian people, Black people who speak english as their first language but that doesnt make them a true english. Perhaps British of Asian origin or African origin. Every race is unique like ALLAH says in the Quran 'AND WE SET YOU UP AS NATIONS AND TRIBES SO THAT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RECOGNISE EACH OTHER' (Quran 49:13) to the nearest meaning. If a punajabi man or (punajbabi speaking)says hes a pashtun just because hes great great granfather was pashtun that doesnt make him a pashtun, but of pashtun origin. Theres a difference. Sharukh,fardeen,salman and aamir khan all look pashtun due to their ancestry but that doesnt mean they are pashtun now. They dont represent Pashtun/muslim ideals,values etc. You see because its very easy to become beghairat but very hard or impossible to be a true Pashtun. If a punjabi,farsi or english man marry a Pashtun women that doesnt make him or his children pashtun. Similarly i have seen some pashtun men marrying a non pashtun women and then changes most of the time and loses he's NAR TUB as we say although still a pashtun. Regarding your argument about the term Afghan then look it up, Khushal Khan Khattak i hope you have heard of him. And yes we in the end do come from one man BABA ADAM AS in which i do agree with you. Remember this is not an argument but a fact that Pashtun people have whites as well as dark skin people, and all the better for our race. Pashtuns, can be defined from; their skin colour,their facial features,their language,their pashtunwali and habits. No need to hide it, just be proud. In the wider viewpoint you can add pashtun descendants who dont speak pashto, pashto speaking beghairat, and some mixed pashtun with other races, but ultimately a race is known for its purity and richness in its own culture and not of outside influence. I hope you have reached further enlightenment. Till the next time InshALLAH! ALLAH PA AMAN! (Mullaji i need a link to post my peoples pics to end some ignorant viewpoints here,thanks bro, salam) THIS TIME I WILL SIGN A.S.Khan Yusufzai more commonly known as (unsigned comment added by 86.169.246.214) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.40.238 (talk) 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Salamoona! I hope you are not an enigma to be understand simple Pashtun, what I am arguing is quite revelant because you are being involeved raising a ridiculous and unimportant issue regarding "White Pashtuns" and want it to be mentioned? I would give you a suggestion that why don't you better start an article on "White Pashtun" that way it would be so easy to mention white clans consist of blonds and blue eyed people affix some of your approved white photos also dosnt matter if they dont have any credentials. Britishers had also raised similar issues to distroy Pashtuns and still we have countless people to follow their paths by reading their books." Wai da cha kare akhpala - Nu gila makawa da bala ". Every person who speak Pashto as its mother tongue would be call Pashtun if a Pashtun speaks english dosn't make him English because he has already a language as his mother tongue! Now term "Afghan" if Khushhal Khan Khattak who was a great warrior and peot mentioned Afghan as Pashtuns dosn't mean we should follow him as to be true so it is your reference and would be a mistake to impose as true, thousand of years back Greek historian "Herodotus" had already mentioned "Pactyans" as Pashtuns while Afghan is not a historical name because Pashtun is beyond some few hundred years of hitory. I hope you are not the one from TEN LOST TRIBES? Akhpal Khayal lara. Haider (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WA ALAIKUM! to ignorant people

15:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)86.169.124.60 (talk)Walaikum. Its a shame that you have taken this small matter and turned it in to a discussion,argument and baseless unimportant issues. All i said was that the white pashtun was underrepresented and asked for someone with a wiki account to change and address the phenotype of our people. And also provide a photo. is that to much to ask? Khar bu sook pui ki. What do you mean about having no credentials? Brother we propbably have more credentials than you. You bring the river indus, and criticise me for using the word afghan? My talk isnt even based on those things yet you are arguing like a kid on these silly issues. Im saying pashtuns is an ethnically diverse race so please mention it. Yes we have brown but also white pashtun, so why shouldnt we use this in our pashtun page like other races do. And i even provided the tajik example. You like to specualte on greek philosophers but let me remind you that its just speculation. Not hard core evidence that the pactyans WERE pashtun. Dont get me wrong i also know that my race is an ancient race but i dont believe like you say that we are the offspring off a persian/irani/farsi (call it what ever you want) prince intermingling with Bibi Mato. But was that originally my talk? No. I started my talk about the white pashtun who have no mixture of any other race whatsoever in them so people can acknowledge that there are a wide range of phenotypes in our beautiful race. And it should be addressed. You follow herodotus? And say Khushal Khan was not necessarily true? Brother you need to come to my house and have some shna kawa with me and i will show you some facts. Chi da dimagh di lughundi sayee shi. The term Afghan is not exclusively Pashtun NOW, but was originally Used to identify The race and nation of Pashtuns under the immediate rule of Ahmad sha but theres some evidence that the pashtun used it way before. But i agree with you for sake of your petty argument that we are PASHTUN/PAKHTUN, but who started this argument in the first place? Did i say to you we should be called Afghans and not pashtun? Did i tell you that the river Indus doesnt have other rivers running through it? No. What was my talk about? You havent addressed my question yet but you try to mock me, but in the end you are mocking yourself. Lol. You love discussions on foolish matters then come, i invite you to my house in london we will talk and have some "ghwakha". And what english books are you referring to? Man you are paranoid. You are talking to a true Pashtun here not some english person! Some people speak english and have pashtu as a mother tongue as you mentioned. Then to distinguish if hes a true pashtun look at his actions and character. If he talks and walks like an englishman, is ungrateful, rude to his parents ,married to an english lady or has forgotten his pashtunwali then i think its safe to say hes not a true pashtun. So my friend dont judge a person too soon like you judge a book by its cover. ASSALAAM MAAGHLAIKUM. ASKY.—

Wrora Khapa nashe zaka che yao bul na differ kolo matlab jagara na da- tosey ta ma makh ke wailiyu che pur(convince)kaol wazan lari. Believe me I don't have any personal grudges but as far as these sensitive issues concern I would certainly raise my voice because you are trying to creat discrimination in between the different pashtun people, don't you think Pashtun is Pashtun wether white or brown, and it is more deplorable when you say that white pashtuns are pure without any mixture, how a real Pashtun would even think like this? OR most probably just want to thrust his views to make his white people special amongst Pashtuns! You live in London and live like a Pashtun in Hujras that's what you meant, but why are you looking so much inspired with their white color even you don't even consider Browns as genuine Pashtuns? If this is not an issue then there was no need to mention it on this page, you should have gone to Article page directly and affix your whites. A.S Khana this is a matter of concern and unavoidable. Remember Herodotus mentioned Pashtuns thousands of years back so as in "Righved" and in persian history "OSTA" also, so comparitively the term Afghan has the history of just few hundered years, Afghani, Sulemani, Khurasani and Pathani, see so many titles have been recieved so far for the last few hundred years! You won't find Pashtuns and their language pashto, all these blunders have intentionally been made by Mughals first and then Britishers to make differences in this great Nation. Take great care! Haider (talk) 20:52, 27 June 2009 (UT

This is just basically a stupid argument. Brother what he is trying to say that MAJORITY are not Dark in COLOR. FOr example in the CAUCASIAN race , the MAJORITY is White in appearence though you can still find a bit darker skin tones. Being white in NOT being a pure pashtun. Beasically this discussion has to end it's stupid and a waist of time

SALAM,

Salam brother Haider once again. You again have mistaken me my brother. I am not khapa with you, im just confused that you havent read my talk properly, and yet still full havent understood what i said! lol. Not once did i say that White Pashtuns are better than Brown Pashtuns. I just said that the white Pashtuns were not represented in the phenotype section, and most of the time a Pashtun can also be distinguished from hes looks even before hes opened his mouth. If you read closely what i said i mentioned that all of our beautiful colours should be mentioned and i quote once again from it: "Neverthe less if you want to focus on true 100% pure Pashtuns then i think you should cover all aspects of pashtun people who speak the language live by the pashtunwali and their looks which are the same yet so beautiful and diverse" And then again; "The people in my village for example are not of ghilzai,durrani or lodhi origin. Even though they are 100% Pashtuns themselves. We are yusufzai and as i say we can trace back our ancestors several hundred years and yet you will find not a single mixture with another race , or tribe. We are white pashtuns and also BROWN Pashtuns but we are not ashamed to say who we are" I apologise to you if i have hurt you,but i never once said that the whites are better than the browns or yellow or blacks etc. Maybe you percieved or read it wrong. My main aim and objective was to say that a Pashtun can be distinguished most of the time from the crowd without him or her having to speak pashto and just by their looks whether white or brown. And i quote again from my own statement: " We Pashtuns also have a wide and diffenret types of phenotypes so why should we be ashamed to say it on Wikipedia?" And last one for your sake "We have more white and mediterranean looking people than Tajiks/Hazara/Uzbek and Kalash put together,and what makes us unique is that we have brown and tanned looking too. But we dont mention it in our wikpedia page whilst the others do." Brother some where in there i lost you or you lost me, but my message was clear,it wasnt to hurt anyones feelings. As i said before a Pashtun is unique and MashALLAH looks unique and different regardless of hes skin colour. And last but not least i quote again from my own statement to bury this talk: "We are diverse which makes us stronger. Sometimes in the same family a white brother will have a tanned sister or brown brother. The Pashtun phenomenom however is such that a pashtun can be distinguished even if he/she is dark skinned." Brother i am not fighting or arguing or even differing lol, you are differing and seem to have a problem with my simple statements. However i hope your misundertsandings have gone now, the reason i didnt go and add to article page and add any pics or information is because i dont have a wiki account and i thought you people, since you have accounts will help me. But instead you start turning this into meaningless debate upon debate about other matters! It was my fault to come here and thought my fellow pashuns will look at my statement and act upon it. SWAAL YO ALLAH TA RAAGHALAY INSAAN TA NA. so i have learned my lesson,and in future inshALLAH will open my own wiki account or learn how to add information. On a final note i have 2 more quotes from wikipedia itself about your claims on herodotus and the rig veda: "The Greek historian Herodotus mentioned a people called Pactyans, living on the eastern frontier of the Persian Satrapy Arachosia as early as the 1st millennium BC,[25] but their connection to PASHTUNS REMAIN UNCLEAR." "the Rig-Veda mentions a tribe called the Pakthas[26] (in the region of Pakhat) inhabiting eastern Afghanistan and some academics have proposed a connection with modern Pashtuns, but this too remains SPECULATIVE." So while i too believe that our beautiful race is old and pure, i would like to be 100% certain or sure, in the end ALLAH has ilm and all we can do is speculate! SALAAM. ASK yusufzai23:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC) (more for next time inshALLAH)

You stated earlier incorrectly, "My argument is that pure white Afghans/ Pashtuns without any persian or mongol,turk,uzbek etc mixture exist amongst brown and yellow Pashtuns and its not a bad thing." From my knowledge, you are stating that brown Pashtuns are mixed and white Pashtuns are pure. This is untrue, because within a genetic population various genetic traits can and will exist without outside forces. At most, we will have a single paragraph stating that Pashtuns have a variety of physical traits, ranging from darker to lighter skin, from black hair to reddish hair. This is just like we have a single paragraph detailing that most Pashtuns are Hanafi but a minority are Twelver. In anthropology, there is no such thing as race, this is a discredited belief not supported by biology. An ethnic group doesn't refer to race, but rather refers to cultural heritage. --Afghana ^[talk] 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

PERSPECTIVE

White pashtuns, dark pashtuns, green, red, pink pashtuns what does this all matter, it is such a stupid and waste of time subject whoever brought up this topic must slap himself a couple of times to get the stupidness out of him. pashtuns are just diverse. Pashtun786 (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at it from that angle then you are wrong Afghana. I said and i even quoted repeatedly that a pure 100% white Pashtun brother or sister can have a Brown Pashtun brother and sister. Now just because i didnt mention 100% before the brown Pashtun brother or sister doesnt mean im saying their not 100% pashtun! And i meant from the same parents to further clarify and enlighten you since you are taking this too far now, but i didnt have to mention parents or 100% since i think you people are clever enough to work that out yourselves.Look at the lingo, next you might say i didnt mention the same parents then' but im saying it now so i meant a different thing then, no. "Sometimes in the same family a white brother will have a tanned sister or brown brother. The Pashtun phenomenom however is such that a pashtun can be distinguished even if he/she is dark skinned" (That doesnt mean that the mother of the above three kids went out and married a punjaby or black person and as a result had a brown baby the second time!) Thats what i said,and what i meant. Why didnt you quote that line from my statement then? or the next "We are yusufzai and as i say we can trace back our ancestors several hundred years and yet you will find not a single mixture with another race , or tribe. We are white pashtuns and also BROWN Pashtuns but we are not ashamed to say who we are" And to further clear you i will repeat it concisely i wrote "My argument is that pure white Afghans/ Pashtuns without any persian or mongol,turk,uzbek etc mixture exist amongst brown and yellow Pashtuns and its not a bad thing." Now i meant all of that but what i didnt mention is: "exist amongst PURE brown and yellow Pashtuns" I thought like i mentioned above you will know what i mean but clearly you people have read it wrong. The key words i used is "exist amongst". By that i didn't mean two very different races living together, but same blood, same family with different phenotypes living together from same ancestors. I thought you people are clever enough to understand english. I said it but you neglected to mention and i quote AGAIN: "We have blonde haired mothers and fathers with green,grey and blue eyes as well as brown. We are diverse which makes us stronger. Sometimes in the same family a white brother will have a tanned sister or brown brother. The Pashtun phenomenom however is such that a pashtun can be distinguished even if he/she is dark skinned" Brothers and Sisters, Chi sayi taraf ta guwre nu sam be dar ta khkari, khu/shu ka ghalat arakh/taraf ta guwre nu ghalat ba darta khkari. I ma impressesd by your worries and concerns but dont worry i am not a nazi pashtun hell bent on destroying dark or tanned people, no. As i said before my village and family have alot of people who are blonde and blue eyed as well as brown and brown eyed etc and we have to mention it. But i got my answer and jawab already, i thank you all for your limited help and feedback but i have found some consolation and satisfaction from the blonde wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blonde where it mentions, and i quote from the source; "In Afghanistan blonds are particularly found among the Pashtun and Nuristani people who have a blond hair frequency of one in three." Which is enough for me. Its a start and a way of showing our diversity, however it is a shame that it isnt mentioned on our own page where we can mention all of our beautiful colours and show how we can live side by side equally in a civilised manner, contrary to what some people say about us. Once again i would like to thank you and apologise for any inconveniance caused, i was just stating the facts and was hoping to get a good and understanding response. Next time read an article well and try to look at it from a good angle or perspective. And where on earth Afghana did you even come up with argument about anthropology? Did i say even once that we are a seperate group of humans all together? Are you mental? I dont know what you believe but i do know that we have one common ancestor as i mentioned to you people before and that ancestor is BABA ADAM. In the end we are all the same. But over time we have settled in different geographical locations and adopted different languages and manners. And some of us as a result have changed in appearance. But when did i even go that far as to say we are aliens or completely different human beings? In the United States of America, the term "ethnic" carries a much boarder meaning than how it is commonly used in some other countries. Ethnicity usually refers to collectives of related groups, having more to do with morphology, specifically skin color, rather than political boundaries. "The terms "Black" and "African American", while different, are both used as ethnic categories in the US." This quote is from the ethnic page on wikipedia. Now where does it look at the Black or African american man/womens culture? What does it look at? Skin colour doesnt it? Regardless of one speaking english some people still go for their skin colour whether you like it or not its a fact. But what on earth has that got to do with my statements? Did i say even once that our ethnic group refers specially to race (looks) and not to our cultural heritage? no. I said we can be distinguished from both our looks and pashtunwali etc. As it also says in the definition and meaning of ethnic origin which you will find by searching or looking up a book that: Ethnic identity is further marked by the recognition from others of a group's distinctiveness and the recognition of common cultural, linguistic, religious, behavioural or biological traits, real or presumed, as indicators of contrast to other groups. As i have mentioned for the upteenth time now. Dont be mislead again what makes us unique is because we have the best and most diverse race or tribes of people inshALLAH. But dont jump to conclusions and bring other arguments in to this. And dont pretend that ethnic group means only cultural heritage, either your being ignorant or just not well educated. No disrespect and salam may you have peace in and peace out. ASK YUSUFZAI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.127.148 (talk) 17:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrora, I think you should sign up and upload pictures from your village that can examplify Pashtuns. Don't waste time in useless discussions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.247.119 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like i have to wroor 119. Looks like i have to... Salam ~Ask~y~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.125.35 (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Brother , there is NO PURE PASHTUN anymore due to our geographics and around us and the invaders there is no pure pashtun left in Afghanistan and Pakistan rather all of afghanistan, such as TAJIKS , UZBEKS , HAZARAS are mixed. I think this is a useless discussion. Im white with red hair and green eyes but my brother is dark in skin and eyes. This is because our ancestors are of different backgrounds. Being a PAshtun you must Follow the Pashtunwali (code of honor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.160.145 (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

RV

I have reverted recent edits by User:Samdurrani, because his edits are not supported by the attached sources. Actually, it's falsification. Tajik (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Article status

I know this article was demoted from FA status, but isn't it still at GA status? I don't think an article loses GA status when it loses FA status. Otebig (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Tajik Culture; Getting on the internet and sucking Afghan/pashtun culture dry

Tajiks are ill willed people, they have no culture but to suck pashtun ancient history dry. You cultureless people would do anything to distort pashtun history. Go get a life rather than distorting ancient pashtun history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashtun786 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

LOL, wrora...your really mad arn't you. It's okay they are just jealous of our beautiful history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.224.106 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Not All These Figures Are Fully Pashtun

Contrary to what is being implied here Zahir Shah was not Pashtun as least culturo-linguistically. Famously he is not heard saying a single Pashto sentence during his 40 years kingdom or indeed afterwards. He was raised as Persian Speaker in effect became a Persianized or Tajikized Pashtun. There is not doubt however that he does belong to Pashtun ancestory.

Similary Zalmay Khalilzad has mixed Pashtun-Tajik ethnicity born from a Tajik Mother and Pashtun father in northern town of Mazar i Sharif. He again is brought up in a Persian speaking cultural medium hence no wonder his Pashto linguistic skills remained very basic often being critized by Pashtuns themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.56 (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but Zahir Shah, is still pashtun, from father's side. Many pashtun men marry , tajiks but there children are still referred to as pashtuns because in pashtunwali code, if your father is a pashtun you are one as well. By ethnicity he is. Also my family had close connections with his family, and yes he does speak proper pashto! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.224.106 (talk) 00:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

the older Pashto nasheeds are Vedic sounds

Vedics are none-written vocals or lyrics whch has been carried out from person to another person orally. it has been the old Pashto folkloric religious songs and nasheeds. I has been made in sanscrits by indians of other maharajas. regarding the URDU language , i have to tell you urdu is not the old language than pashto. Pashto is more older and ancient language than Urdu or any other Eastern - Aryan language. also I have to mention that the informations about the Pashtuns are incorrect and falsified by the submitters based on the Iranian selfish researches. every research's claimes must be based on its specific refereneces and must not regard and mention as a concrete based on one references , this is a mainly issue of Afghans and their people it should be obviously shown by different home based references beside the outsiders's references. I as an Afghan will request you everyone who submitt the pictures to not combine the heroes with the traitors. also take care of the differences between the horse and donkey.. there has been submitted the wrong picture at the right group. I hope everyone preserve the none-profit and none-political ethics of this bigg encyclopedia . —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ibrahimkhel (talk • contribs) 01:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by M.Ibrahimkhel (talk • contribs)

ASA, you should have mentoined that who are donkeys and who are horses hanging up there. I think it is possible that donkeys in your eyes could be horses in front of others? Anyways you raised a good point to filter donkeys and horses. Take care ! Haider (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Pashtuns of Afghanistan

If the article is going to use footnote 3 to reference the population of Afghan pashtuns, it needs to revise the figure of 14 million as the source (C.I.A. World Factbook) makes clear it's downsized the estimated population of Afghanistan to approx 28m of whom 42% are Pashtun. That would constitute 11,760,000 pashtuns in Afghanistan, not 14 million.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.233.97 (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. The total population of Afghanistan is given as 28,395,716, of which 42% is 11,926,201. Anyway, I rounded up to 12 million. -AtticusX (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sports Section

Please add Jahangeer Khan and Jan Sher Khan (The Champions) in the sports section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilam-hasilawa (talk • contribs) 16:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Ayub Khan

Ayub Khan was a Pashto speaking man of Tarin tribe from Haripur District of Rehana village not from Abottabad, correction needed. Thanks! Haider (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also majority Called Khan please also add

Pashtuns (Pashto: پښتون Paṣ̌tun, Pax̌tun, also rendered as Pushtuns, Pakhtuns, Pukhtuns), also called Pathans[10] (Urdu: پٹھان, Hindi: पठान Paṭhān) or ethnic Afghans, also majority called Khan

Haider i agree with you Ayub khan is my neighbor he belong to the Pathan tribe Tareen but Hindko speaking family non Pashto speaking Pashtun, Ayub Khan born Rehana village in Haripur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.65.199 (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Questionable Statement in Article

Salaam, I am writing here because of a statement given in the Putative ancestry section of the article. The section currently states "The Hindkowans speak Hindko language and are considered to have mixed Pashtun and local origins." This statement is buttressed by this reference. After thoroughly browsing through the reference, I do not find evidence to support the assertion. According to the scholarly reserach presented in the Hindkowan article, specifically mentioned in this section, it appears that the Hindkowan, like other Indo-Aryan groups, were originally of Hindu origin. Due to reference formatting present on this talk page already, I am unable to provide the references for this claim on this talk page; however, one can view the numerous references (13-20) here. Their language, Hindko is often considered a "dialect of Punjabi" (reference). I am wondering if anyone can provided any scholarly evidence for the sentence in question. I look forward to hearing your comments. خُدا حافِظ, Anupam^Talk 22:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

girl in women's section

that girl is not an accurate portrayal of pashtuns. While coloured eyes do happen, its not enough to represent the whole population —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afgnadeem (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Why mostly Afghans in the article

I am surprised that Pakhtoon's of Afghanistan are mostly mentioned in this article with pictures. The are a lot of accomplished and successful Pakhtoon's in Pakistan like Rehman Baba, Khushal Khan Khattak, Wali Khan, Abdul Ghani Khan, General Ali Kuli Khan Khattak, Sher Shah Suri, Mahmood Khan Achakzai, Ajmal Khattak etc.....

When talking about the Pakhtoon people everyone should be given equal representation. So more pictures of Pakistani Pakhtoons.

Ali Khan

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abidreh (talk • contribs) 01:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC) 

Falsifications by User:Ahmed shahi

Despite being reported to admins, and despite being taught by various other Wikipedians that his understanding of "reliable sources" is totally against Wikipedia rules, Ahmed shahi still continues to push for POV, falsify quotes, remove references to the most authoritative academic sources, and to propagate ethnocentric nonsense. By doing so, he is removing references to the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica ([33]) and he propagates his own POV which is contradicted by the works of modern scholars. Instead, he truly believes that the writings of Ferishta (a Persian writer of the Mughal era) is superior to the writings of modern experts. Although the Encyclopaedia Iranica states that "From a more limited, ethnological point of view, “Afḡān” is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan (and the non-Paṧtō-speaking ethnic groups generally) designate the Paṧtūn. The equation Afghans = Paṧtūn has been propagated all the more, both in and beyond Afghanistan, because the Paṧtūn tribal confederation is by far the most important in the country, numerically and politically.", he falsifies this statement by a) removing the reference to this academic source and by b) adding the word "historical" to the word, somehow trying to establish the factually wrong message that "Afghan" and "Pashtun" are no synonyms anymore. This is ethnocentric POV-pushing at its worst. Tajik (talk) 13:13, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are doing all these things that you accuse me of. You changed the total number of Pashtuns from 42 million to 40 million. [34]

Fershita is a 16th century writer and he recorded "Afghans" in his work, that is the proof that the Pashtuns were called Afghans then.

Afghan means Any inhabitant of Afghanistan [35] but before the 19th century it was used for Pashtun. [36] Persian speaking people in Afghanistan (Tajiks) are also Afghans today.

If you make one more false report about me or my actions on any talk page I'll have no choice but to report you to the Wikipedia admins and get you blocked.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Sharukh Khan

Where in that interview does he "proudly proclaim" that he is a Pashtun?! I guess that's a classical case of source-falsification ... Tajik (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I had clicked on the wrong link. Tajik (talk) 00:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

article tagged

As explained here on the talkpage of an admin, the current version of the article contains misleading information. The claim that Pashtuns were historically known as "Afghans" is wrong. In fact, the word "Afghan" is still synonymous with "Pashtun" in the Persian language and it is still used as an alternative name for them, especially inside Afghanistan. While the word "Afghan" had a different meaning in ancient times and was not related to Pashtuns, it became a heteronym for them in the Middle Ages and has not lost that meaning to this day. That's what all academic sources say.

User:Ahmed shahi had added the word historical to the article - although not supported by the attached sources - but did not remove the sources. That gave the wrong impression that his version is sourced, which is not the case. After explaining that to an admin (see above), I decided NOT to revert his version, but only to remove the sources and tag the article, since now - in Ahmed shahi's version - it is not supported by academic sources. In fact, as explained by User:Ahmed shahi in earlier messages, he does not even have access to the Encyclopaedia of Islam.

The sources that I have removed are:

• "Afghan" (with ref. to "Afghanistan: iv. Ethnography") by Ch. M. Kieffer, Encyclopaedia Iranica, Online Edition 2006.
• Morgenstierne, G. (1999). "AFGHĀN". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV.
• Pashtun, Encyclopædia Britannica, Online Edition.
• History of the Mohamedan Power in India by Muhammad Qāsim Hindū Šāh Astarābādī Firištah
• British Library - Afghanistan: Glossary

None of these sources support the claim that the meaning of "Afghan" has changed (the fact that it is also used as the name of the citizens of Afghanistan does not mean that it is not synonymous with "Pashtun" anymore; cf. "German", "Turk", "French", etc. which are all modern names for citizens of the respective country and names of specific ethno-linguistic groups at the same time). Tajik (talk) 20:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Pashtuns were historically known as Afghans and in the Indian subcontinent as Pathans.

• In this case the 2010 Online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica states:

“ Pashtun, also spelled Pushtun, or Pakhtun, Hindustani Pathan, Persian Afghan

Pashto-speaking people of southeastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan. They constitute the majority of the population of Afghanistan and bore the exclusive name of Afghan before that name came to denote any native of the present land area of Afghanistan.

”

• According to the British Library - Afghanistan: Glossary

“ afghans (1) An ethnic group... (2) Any inhabitant of Afghanistan (modern meaning, probably not earlier than 19th century). ”

• Let's now go in history to the 16th century, Muhammad Qāsim Hindū Šāh Astarābādī Firištah (1560-1620) states in his 16th century work:[37]

“ The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were ques­tioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, “Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and dis­turbances.” Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows! ”

• This information is supported by the 16th century Baburnama, in which Babur writes in 1525:[38]

“ ...Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans... To the south is Afghanistān. There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani... ”

It is clear that historically the Pashtuns was everywhere referred to as Afghans, there are many more references beside these two that I just mentioned here. However, since 1893 Pashtuns were divided by the Durand Line border in which majority of them became citizens of India (now Pakistan). According to Chapter One Article Four of the Constitution of Afghanistan the name Afghan shall apply only to the citizens of Afghanistan.

“ ... The nation of Afghanistan shall be comprised of Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkman, Baluch, Pachaie, Nuristani, Aymaq, Arab, Qirghiz, Qizilbash, Gujur, Brahwui and other tribes. The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan... [39] ”

This information is supported by the CIA World Factbook on Afghanistan [40] and a number of other sources. Although Pashtuns were historically known as Afghans but this is not the case since the late 19th century because the majority of them (around 28 millions) Pashtuns living in Pakistan today are Pakistanis, NOT AFGHANS. [41] It is a fact that "Afghan" is no longer used as an ethnicity, it is only a nationality for all the ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor User:Tajik disagrees with all this.[42] He is trying to make the introduction of this article say that all Pashtuns are (ethnic) Afghans and he uses some information found inside Encyclopedia Iranica, which states:[43]

“ AFGHAN (afḡān), in current political usage, any citizen of Afghanistan, whatever his ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliation. According to the 1977 constitution of the Republic of Afghanistan (1973-78), all Afghans are equal in rights and obligations before the law... From a more limited, ethnological point of view, "Afḡān" is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan (and the non-Paṧtō-speaking ethnic groups generally) designate the Paṧtūn... (by Ch. M. Kieffer, 1983) ”

As you can see this is the view or belief of some small number of Persians in Afghanistan and we cannot start a Wikipedia article based on their twisted view.Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• On the contrary, in a 2009 ABC/ARD research poll that was conducted in Afghanistan, 72% of the population (including Persian-speakers and the non-Paṧtō-speaking ethnic groups) labelled their identity as Afghan first, before ethnicity.

“ Another result, supporting this direction, backs up the notion of a national identity in Afghanistan, which some observers have questioned. Asked if they think of themselves more as Afghans, or more as members of their ethnic group (Pashtun and Tajik are the largest), most by far – 72 percent – say they’re Afghans first.[44] ”

This is the reason why I'm combating editor Tajik's edits, which are intended to mislead.Ahmed shahi (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

None of the sources you have quoted (keeping in mind that you do not even have access to the EI) actually prove your claim that the term was "historically" synonymous with Pashtun and that it has lost this meaning. Quite contrary, all of them agree that the modern meaning of "citizen of Afghanistan" is rather new, but that it has not lost its original meaning. Quoting Ferishta and referring to a modern research poll in order to "prove" your point is WP:OR. Even if 70% call themselves "Afghans" (which means that 1/3 of the country do not!), it is not a prove that it is not synonymous with "Pashtun" anymore. Tajik (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The primary sources that I've quoted above clearly explain that historically (in and around the 1500s) Pashtuns were called Afghans, there is no source that mentions Pashtuns during that period. Even during the Anglo-Afghan wars (in the 19th century) the British called the Pashtuns Afghans in all their records. You can search the British Library [45].

When Pakistan was created as a state in 1947, the 28 million Pashtun citizens of that country are no longer called Afghans, they are called Pakistanis. It is wrong for the little educated Persian-speakers of Afghanistan to call them Afghans. You cannot find a source which mentions the Pashtuns of Pakistan being called or referred to as Afghans today. And, it is totally irrelevant that the minority 28% people in Afghanistan do not want to be called Afghans.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 13:50, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That is WP:OR. The "primary source" your are quoting above is a translation of the original Persian work of Ferishta. Of course he called them "Afghans", because that how Persians call Pashtuns, even today. "Afghan" is the Persian name for the Pashtuns and hence should be mentioned as such. The sources quoted above all make clear that it is the Persian name for the Pashtuns, not their own self-designation. Persian-speakers are 50+% of Afghanistan, and it was the Persian influence of Mughal India on the British that established the name "Afghanistan" for the Pashtun kingdom that later became the modern nation-state. Your claim that it is only a "historical term" and not used today anymore is totally wrong and your own POV. It is still used as a name for the Pashtuns by the Persian-speakers - both by the Persian-speaking majority in Afghanistan, as well as in Iran, and elsewhere. Tajik (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not limited to Persian-speakers of Afghanistan, and only some of these Persian-speakers think Afghan should only be used for Pashtuns today. The rest of you're argument makes no sense and is based on your POV.Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is a fact that Pashtuns were known historically as Afghans. However, it should be emphasized that these two terms were synonmous only historically. Today, Afghan refers to all citizens of Afghanistan and Pashtuns are called Pashtuns. EasternAryan (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The intro makes it quite clear that "Pashtun", "Afghan" and "Pathan" are synonymous without needing to add the extra word "synonymously".--PosePetal (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not what the sources tell us. According to academic literature (and as can be seen in all Persian-speaking areas), "Afghan" is still synonymous with "Pashtun". In fact, the Encyclopaedia of Islam does not even have an article "Pashtuns" but only uses the Persian term "Afghan"! The truth is: "Afghan" and "Pashtun" were names of different peoples who may have mixed in the course of time, but in antiquity, the terms were not identical. In the past 500+ years, the terms became synonyms in the Persian language, while Pashtuns themselves continued to call themselves "Pashtun" and not "Afghan". Today, the term has been accepted as the official designation of the population of Afghanistan while it has not lost its meaning as "Pashtun". Ahmed shahi's claim that it is a "historical name for Pashtuns" is totally unsourced (so far, he has not been able to present a single reliable source in this regard) and fully contradicts academic works (EI and EIr). Tajik (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It is very clear that "Pashtuns", "Afghans" and "Pathans" are synonmous according to the sources. The "Afghan" and "Pathan" is the historical terms as compare to Pashtun which is only found in recent history. I think it's proper to put it that way, and even the ELr states "AFGHAN (afḡān), in current political usage, any citizen of Afghanistan, whatever his ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliation. Calling all Pashtuns Afghans today is contrary to what Elr states.--PosePetal (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)