Talk:Pashtunization

Agreement of text and source
It is important that when providing a source for text that the text match the information provided in the source. I have changed the lead sentence in this article to match the information provided in the Lansford source. --Bejnar (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * At 22:12, 30 January 2008, YousufzaySwati56, believed to be a sockpuppet of banned editor Beh-nam returned the text to the unsupported version saying: "rv, there are other sources not just this one that describes it, I just put this source so the article is not deleted".  Unfortunately, that is not a reason to have one's source say one thing and the text of the article say another.  See Citing sources and Reliable sources. If you cannot put together an article with adequate reference, wait and don't write it until you can do a good enough job so that it won't be deleted. So far in my searching I have not found support for the original text in an English language source.  Although the 1985 US Country study was cited by Lansford, the current 2001 edition does not seem to address the issue. --Bejnar (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * On 18 February 2008, in deleting the words and cultural from the sentence Pashtunization is the process of the erosion of the customs, traditions and language of non-Pashtun peoples due to the political and cultural power of the Pashtuns., Khowsti said "Then what is it? Of course it's political power.". The cited piece (Lansford) indicates that it was not just political power.  Lansford implies that the culture itself can exert an influence.  For example, in another context, the changes in Santa Fe culture between 1836 and 1848 brought about by the opening of the Santa Fe Trail did not result from political power. In the case of pashtunization, political power has played a significant role, but Lansford indicates that it was not the only cause. --Bejnar (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Taliban
Pashtunization by the Taliban has been alleged. The Taliban article mentions that the majority of leaders were Pashtun. It also mentions specific violence against the Hazaras, which seemed to be based on religious differences. It did not discuss Pashtunization, did not discuss moving of peoples, did not discuss making non-Pashto languages illegal, etc. So, if you want to keep the Taliban in the Pashtunization article, please provide a citation to a reliable published source. --Bejnar (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Muhammad Gul Khan Mohmand
Pashtunization by Muhammad Gul Khan Mohmand has been alleged. The Muhammad Gul Khan Mohmand article allegation of Pashtunization was contradicted by its own source which said: "Despite fiercely pro-Pashtun sentiments, Muhammad Gul Khan refused to countenance the oppression perpetuated by the Khans. He balanced the domination of Durrani from Kandahar by introducing many more eastern Pashtuns to the area (especially as landowners between Aqcha and Balkh), and he appears to have dealt fairly with petitions against the Nazarzai brought by Uzbeks and Aymaks from throughout the Saripul region and its hinterland." Tapper p. 34 So, if you want to keep Muhammad Gul Khan Mohmand in the Pashtunization article, please provide a citation to a reliable published source. --Bejnar (talk) 22:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

POV
I see no discussion of the POV problems of this article. Is the article as it is now (9 March 2008) written reasonably NPOV? Are there still opinions sneaking in some place? --Bejnar (talk) 03:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The only part that Scythian1 considered POV was the part about Khoram's policy toward Farsi being Pashtunization. That part has been removed so should the POV tag since every sentence is now sourced. A vandal user E10121 placed the POV tag back just because he was frustrated that his Pan-Turkist POVs on other articles was being challenged. PekhawarKhan (talk) 06:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It looks that way to me. If no one objects in the next couple of days, I will remove the POV tag. Khoram does seem to be a loose cannon. --Bejnar (talk) 03:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I’ll admit to not being familiar with the subject, but I will say that my initial feeling when first reading the article was that of a POV tone. I don’t know how the migration of Pashtuns due to economic necessity can be referred to as a “forced settling”—forced by whom?—if the government of Pakistan is not Pashtun themselves. Why would they be forcing Pashtun settlement on other Pakistanis? Is the Afghan government somehow exercizing influence into Pakistan? Also, many urban capitals have sizable ethnic minorities—no doubt they bring cultural influence, but it’s arguable whether this can be referred to as “Pastunization.” —Wiki Wikardo 19:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Blog as source
I removed the text: In the 1950s Daud Khan During the Helmand Project, sponsored by the United States, ethnically cleansed Helmand by removing the indigenous non-Pashtun ethnic groups and settling Pashtun nomads. which was supported by a citation to a blog at http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14411.html. Blogs are generally not reliable sources. That blog in particular cites reliable sources for some of its statements; however, that blog does not cite any sources for the above statement. The blog, without citation also says of Prime Minister Daoud: One of his political critics put it bluntly: "He wanted to use these new settlers as a death squad to crush the uprisings of the non-Pashtun people of the southwest and central part of the country" If you wish to re-add this statement, please find a reliable published source for it. Thanks. --Bejnar (talk) 03:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

mostly happened by force
The existing sources do not support the claim that Pashtunization "mostly happened by force". Does someone have a source for that? --Bejnar (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This article attracts anti-Pashtuns and nationalists of other countries.--Mirwais Hotak (talk) 10:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Afghanization & Pashtunization
Afghanization redirects here but the term (per for example its definition in Wiktionary) is also used more broadly wirh respect to Afghanistan in general. Would it make sense to have a separate article on Afghanization, mentioning the range of usage, including Pashtunization (with appropriate link to this article)?--A11n-research (talk) 11:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Most sources provided for the use of Afghanization do not support the specific meaning suggested. In fact the first two,  and  support the meaning of putting Afghans rather than foreigners in charge of the programs in Afghanistan.  The third item cited,, does use Afghanization in the suggested way, but it appears to be a idiosyncratic usage. --Bejnar (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)