Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 16

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)

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)

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), 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree, Pukhtuns from Pakistan and Afghanistan, conquered india and considered it foreign territory. Genetic testing has never shown any Pashtuns in india; furthermore, india is not a country where Pashtuns reside, neither in history or present. These sections have been added by some warped indians who want to distort their ethnicity. I dont know why this has been allowed as it has ruined the article and is devoid of fact. Please remove such reference at once.

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)

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. , AnupamTalk 22:39, 19 March 2010 (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)

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 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.


 * 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 but before the 19th century it was used for Pashtun.  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)

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. 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. 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... This information is supported by the CIA World Factbook on Afghanistan 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. 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)
 * In this case the 2010 Online version of Encyclopaedia Britannica states:Pashtun, also spelled Pushtun, or Pakhtun, Hindustani Pathan, Persian Afghan
 * According to the British Library - Afghanistan: Glossaryafghans (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: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: ...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...

Editor User:Tajik disagrees with all this. 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: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) 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)
 * 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.


 * 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.


 * 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)
 * Encyclopedia Iranica states "in current political usage". Wikipedia is not just about what politicians like to call something, it is about all. As you see that article in the same encyclopedia is just about Pashtuns and not other ethnics.-Raayen (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "Afghan" has been used "historically" for Pashtuns and that is important to mention in the intro. It's understood that all three (Pashtun, Afghan, and Pathan) are synonmous.--PosePetal (talk) 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As you see in these sources (some books published 2005-2010) Pashtun is also Afghan now:
 * "Afghans (Pashtuns). "The Pathans (the Afghans proper)". "In this context the term Afghan refers to the Pashtuns". "... the Pashtuns sometimes refer to themselves as Afghans". "... Pathan, or Afghan language) is an Iranian language of the Indo-Iranian language family spoken by Pashtuns". "Afghan in a strict sense means Pashtun or Pathan, that is, a member of any tribe speaking Pashtu, but now Afghan is ...". "But whatever the origin of Afghans and Pathans proper may be, the nation to which the two names are now applied indifferently in Persian and Pashto respectively ...". "Afghans or Pashtuns". "Pashtunistan means Land of the Pashtuns (or Afghans)".
 * I tried to exclude historical books or contexts. The "historically" that you use here infer the old times and confuses people, but "Afghan also equal Pashtun" is not that, it is Contemporary history. More than that it is still applicable. You might be taking the likely trend, the need to designate all Afghnistanis with one name and the wish of politicians as all the fact. It is not all but part of it. Also look up dictionaries like this: . It means "still applicable". BTW, your new source: is against WP:SPS, i.e. "a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight". It is a personal website.-Raayen (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

bravery of patans
I heard a lot about this. Can we get any mentions in the article? Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan has the largest Pushtun Community in the world
yet, not even a single Pakistani pashtuns picture is present in the main article. Please change the systematic bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.250.4 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC) 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)

Typo
There is a typo in the tribes section immediately after citation 99: "Despit" should be "Despite". I'd edit it myself but the article is semi-protected and I am not confirmed. Qgroff (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Photo Caption: Pashtunwali and Tribalism
The caption for the photo in this section is a WP:copypaste from an ISAF press release at http://www.flickr.com/photos/29456680@N06/4048522675/.

My attempts rework the caption were reverted twice. Can we have a consensus to reword this text so it doesn't read like a copy/paste or an advert?

Thanks, --Whoosit (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First, the text work of US military is not copyrighted and copy pasting partial of their short image description should be ok. Notice that the Wikipedia version is not exactly as the one written by the US military, so WP:copypaste doesn't apply I believe. Second, any editor can rephrase the captions of photos as long as they give it a better description. The 4 men in the photo are governors of 4 provinces in the Pashtun area of Afghanistan and they are discussing ideas with one another on how to bring peace in their provinces. There was a major conference held on that day, which was attended by large number of locals as well as many American and ISAF officials. You assumed that the photo was trying to say Afghanistan is peaceful, you didn't bother to study the event of that day.--HeratiPashtun (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Any unattributed full or partial copy/paste, even with minor rewording, even if from the public domain, is plagiarism. Read WP:Copypaste and WP:Plagiarism. I don't have a problem with what the caption says, I have a problem with how it says it: using a press release language that is un-encyclopedic and promotional in tone. Please don't presume to know my motives and impute I'm editing in bad faith. That's rude. --Whoosit (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When you leave a message like this in the edit summary "delete POV section in photo caption: it is debatable whether or not there is peace and prosperity in Afghanistan, and whether it was indeed the subject of conversation." it lets me and everyone else know your motives behind your edits. If you weren't rude you wouldn't have called me rude.--HeratiPashtun (talk) 12:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But it IS debatable. There is no broad consensus. A glance at the mainstream and world media will tell you that. I'm not saying there is or there isn't peace. Only that the caption gave undue weight towards one view. I'm happy with the caption as you've made it now, the tone is impartial and balanced, so... WP:TRUCE?--Whoosit (talk) 14:47, 25 July 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)

Shahrukh Khan is of partial hindko background, he is not a Pashtun and does not belong to any Pashtun tribe. please remove his photo from this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Pakhair Ragheilast
I am from mansehra myself and about Tanolis, we know this much that they are a tribe that came from Tanawal Dara ( I could never trace this place; most commonly put claim is its in Afghanistan while some even say Swat ). Now, according to their own claim and even many books refers to them as amalgamation of Ghilzai Afghans, Moghul Birlas and Sayeds. However, ther are a few questions that come to ones mind like: what were Tanolis doing in Mahaban a part of Swat ( Waliyat e Gabar) when the terroritory was under the Swati Sultans of Gabri Tajik race because we all know that Moghul Barlas and Gabri Tajiks since Amir Taimur times were never fond of eachother. Similarly, their claim that one Amir Khan Tanoli was Sultan of Swat when they migrated to present day Mulk e Tanawal is also doubtful.

Both their subsections Hindal and Palal claim different ancestry. The Nawab of Ambs in British times would claim to be of Moghul Barlas origin (as mentioned by many british also) however the present Nawabzada; Salahuddin claims that he is Yousafzai Isazai of the Hassanzai branch from Kala Dhaka that is why they are called Hindal and that both the words are a perfect example of homophones.

Here in Mansehra they never have had a tribal system or Afghan way of life like their brothers from other tribes who were pushed to this side of the Indus or came here at their own free will ( a great debate ). Tanolis were divided into Nawabi and daftari classes many of them even served as tenants due to ceisure of their lands either by Nawab Painda Khan Hindal or Suba Khan Palal which again is against the Afghan tradition of equality.

One thing more that is proof of their non Afghan behaviour namely quixotic allegiance to their Khans while not letting go unity. It is a great quality indeed but very few Tanolis could benefit out of it and the booty went to only the above-mentioned two head families of the tribe.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sultanfaghal (talk • contribs) 16:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Letter by Alexander the Great
I have removed a dubious claim about Alexander describing the Pashtuns as "lions" in a letter to his mother. First of all, the source says nothing about the Afghan areas, it tells a story regarding Alexander in Bactria. But that is irrelevant anyway, because the claim and the source are dubious. This mysterious letter is not mentioned by any serious western scholar. It is not known to the Encyclopaedia Iranica. And I was not able to find any other source supporting this claim. Therefore, I have removed it, because it appears to by a fabrication by the author (who happens to be an Afghan). Before re-adding this dubious claim, please make sure you find a REAL academic source. Tajik (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahmad Shah Abdali
Dear all, I would like to end this absurd debate once and for all and state that if anyone of you want to check the history of the term Afghan then i suggest you read and study about Ahmad Shah Abdali. If anyone of you have questions about Pashtuns and Afghans being one and the same people, then i advise you go back to the beginning. Ahmad Shah Abdali/Durrani clearly knew something we do not when he came up with that name or did he really come up with it? That is the question you should ask yourselves. Maybe it was a name already in circulation amongst the Pashtun people at that time, or maybe he just liked changing names like his own Durrani to Abdali. No he wanted to unite his divided Pashtun people into one united country and brotherhood, Afghanistan. If you look at history then you all know that Ahmad Shah inherited a vast empire from Nadir Shah. Ahmad Shah could have easily claimed Iran and all of his predecessors vast empire. But he decided not to, and rather decided to unite his people under the name Afghan. All that sacrifice and struggle, for what? To unite us? Its a shame we are still as divided as we were yesterday. History has shown us that no enemy is stronger than the Pashtuns by the grace of ALLAH. The only person stronger than a Pashtun is perhaps a Pashtun himself/herself. We fight well against foreigners but when there are no foreigners we also fight very well against each other and when there is noone to fight we fight our own demons and egos. Its a constant battle and i think the term "Afghan" and "Muslim" did a great deal of good to unite our people. But its not about what me or you "think". Its about the facts and facts are that Ahmad shah a Pashtun leader united his people under the name Afghan. SALAM ASK  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.3.21 (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ahmad Shah did not inherit anything. He took advantage of the chaos after Nadir Shah's death, as did so many others. He was able to unite his own tribesmen in the east, but certainly did not have the power - neither by name nor by man-power - to challenge the Qizilbash amirs in mainland Persia. That's why he mainly concentrated on India and the eastern periphery of the Persian lands. And for a short time, he also had the support of the Sunni Turkoman tribes of Khorasan. Once the situation in Persia stabilized (Qajars, Zand dynasty), the conquered - Non-Pashtun - areas were easily lost. Revolts against the Pashtuns continued until the late 19th century when the rulers of Kabul finally asked the British for military support against the Persians in the west and Russians in the north of the kingdom, as well as against unruly tribes within the empire (most importantly the Hazara). Ironically, that was the beginning of British influence in Afghanistan and ended in 1921. And ironically, Afghanistan would have been minimized to the Pashtun areas today, if it were not for British support who re-conquered Herat for the Pashtuns and prevented the Russians from crossing the Amu Darya. Tajik (talk) 13:20, 18 October 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. 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)


 * I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about when you say that Shahrukh does not look like Pashtuns. First of all, even North Indians do not look like Pashtuns, nor do Pashtuns look like Persians and neither one of those resemble Indians (north or south). Secondly, Sharukh is only half Pashtun and his mother is Northern Punjabi Rajput. Lastly compare him to other Afghan artists such as Ehsan Amaan or Khalid Kayhan, and you wouldn't say stff that does not even make sense.69.231.127.205 (talk)


 * In case if you don't know,almost every Indian muslim clailms that his forefathers had come from Iran, Afghanistan or central Asia. You can claim whatever you want but you also have to prove it. If we can except Shahrukh as Pashtun then why not except all those tens of millions of Indian Muslims´, who claim Pashtun ancestry, as Pasthusn-even though they don't speak Pashto, don't know anything about Pashtunwali and their food, attire, mentality everything is Indian. During the Muslim rule many Muslims from Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia had migrated to India but they intermarried with the indigenous Indians and in the mean time have completely assimilated into the Indian society. Shahrukh can claim whatever he wants but alone his claim doesn't make him a Pashtun. He says his father was from Peshawar when he meets Pakistanis and says his grand father was from Afghansitan when he meets Afghans, a typical Indian-Muslim mentality I would say. In my opinion he is not a Pashtun and his photo should be removed from the article.(Domasch (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC))
 * Shah Rukh's father, as I see it, was a direct Pashtun who migrated from Peshawar to Delhi during his young life. Hence, ethnically, Shah Rukh Khan can be counted as a Pashtun due to his parents. The case of 'Indian Muslims' is different; thats where we start talking about ancestory. Mar4d (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What kind of argument is this? It doesn't make the whole family Pashtun just because his father had lived in Peshawar or his surname was Khan. For your information the mother tongue of his father was Hindko and his distant relatives who are still living in Pakistan speak Hindko. Here I found something for you, read it.
 * http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/pakistan/SRKs-ancestral-home-traced-to-Pakistan/articleshow/5701179.cms
 * There is a strong misperception about Shah Rukh's identity who is widely considered as a Pathan. In fact, his entire family speaks hindko language. His ancestors came from Kashmir and settled in Peshawar centuries back, revealed Maqsood. This may disappoint many of Shah Rukh's Pashto speaking fans who consider him a pathan by origin. Shah Rukh's family also contradicted the claim that his grandfather Jan Muhammad was from Afghanistan.Domasch (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Afghan, Pashtun and Pathan
Somehow, many of you, especially Pashtuns dont know the difference. We call ourselves Afghans. Pashtun/Pukhtun derives from the language we speak. Pathan is sometimes used even for people who are not Afghans because these people might live among Afghans.

Again, Shah Rukh Khan is not an Afghan. He is not a Pushtun/Pukhtun. He is a hindko speaker and the people referred to as Khaarian (City dwellers) are sometimes called or call themselves Pathan. However, even the word Pathan must be used purely for Afghans.

Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hindkos etc. are not Afghan/Pushtun/Pukhtun/Pathan. Only known Afghan tribes (Afridis, Khattaks, Ghilzai, Durrani etc. etc. etc. the list goes on) are Afghans/Pushtun/Pukhtun/Pathan

Msrafiq (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Kapoors and Sikh-Hindu Pashtuns
Somebody has added some information regarding some Kapoor people. Who are Kapoors? I have never heard of this tribe ever before? Do they live exclusively in Pakistan's provinces of Khyber-Pashtunkhwa and Balochestan? And who are those "Pashtun Sikhs and Hindus" these people are talking about? I know there are some Hindus and Sikhs living in some part of Afghanistan but they are called Hindkowans and they also speak their own language Hindko. I think they are talking about those few Sikhs who had settled in the tribal areas during last few decades, most probably after the partition of British Inida, and have adopted Pashto language and customs of the tribes. But calling them Pashtun Sikh is still wrong. Why are some people adding this kind of misleading information here? I have also proved that the Indian actor Shahrukh doesn't have any Pashtun/Afghan ancestry but his photo is still there. Domasch (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Afghan, Pashtun and Pathan
Somehow, many of you, especially Pashtuns dont know the difference. We call ourselves Afghans. Pashtun/Pukhtun derives from the language we speak. Pathan is sometimes used even for people who are not Afghans because these people might live among Afghans.

Again, Shah Rukh Khan is not an Afghan. He is not a Pushtun/Pukhtun. He is a hindko speaker and the people referred to as Khaarian (City dwellers) are sometimes called or call themselves Pathan. However, even the word Pathan must be used purely for Afghans.

Uzbeks, Tajiks, Hindkos etc. are not Afghan/Pushtun/Pukhtun/Pathan. Only known Afghan tribes (Afridis, Khattaks, Ghilzai, Durrani etc. etc. etc. the list goes on) are Afghans/Pushtun/Pukhtun/Pathan

As far as Sikhs and Hindus are considered, they only speak Pukhto/Pushto, they are not Pashtun, but people call them Pashtun Sikh & Hindu because we Afghans misuse and wrongly use our own words. We are Afghans, & Pukhtun/Pushtun derives from our language. Only Afghans should be called Afghans/Pushtun/Pukhtun/or even Pathan. For example, A Sikh living in England and speaking English doesnt become and English Sikh, or an Anglo Sikh (unless he is half English genetically).

Msrafiq (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * In a Youtube interview Sharukh Khan said his father's father (grandfather) is from Afghanistan and that he (Sharukh Khan) is a proud Afghan and in other interviews he calls himself Pathan. Why do you still say Shah Rukh Khan is not an Afghan? Do you have any proof that he is a Hindkowan? If no than why do you always come here under different names and make a complete fool outta yourself? In Wikipedia we only go by what the reliable sources say, we do not go by what we think or believe. Everyone in Afghanistan today are Afghanized because they practice Pashtunwali and dress like Pashtuns. Language is not important in today's world.--HeratiPashtun (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Because eeveryone can claim whatever he wants to, but he also has to present substantial proof to backup his claim. Every second Indian Muslim claims Central Asian/Persian/Afghan ancestry which is of course not true, most of thema are converted Hindus. Most of these Bollywood Khans are not Pashtun, some of them may have Pashtun ancestry though, but Shahrukh Khan is surely not one of them. His father was a Hindko speaking and enough proves have been posted here. And one more thing in case if you don't know, in India eveyone whose surname is Khan autmatically becomes a Pashtun, which is of course not the case.Domasch (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In response to HeratiPashtun: User Herati, you might be from Herat or where ever, this relates to Peshawar, I am from Peshawar. I know more about Peshawar and its people since I have a first hand experience. As a reference, this is a link. There are many more, but they are not as important to me personally as the Shah Rukh Khan's own relatives living here in Peshawar. They are Hindkowans, they call themselves Hindkowans, and that is the truth from their own mouth. As an old Wikipedian User, my request is, dont let what we believe come in the way, because in Wikipedia we only go by what the reliable sources say.

As for "Everyone in Afghanistan today are Afghanized because they practice Pashtunwali and dress like Pashtuns", I completely disagree. You dont yet understand the meaning of the word Afghan/Pashtun. We are a specific group of people with the same DNA. Knowing the dress code and language, invites you into the club but it doesnt change your DNA. Just like and Indian can go to the UK, learn English and become a citizen but he cannot turn himself into an Anglo-Saxon. This article, Pashtun people is about that very specific group of people. The Afghan/Pashtun/Pukhtun people.

I am not removing the Shah Rukh Khan you put in, but, in valid scholarly circles of Afghans/Pukhtuns, Shah Rukh is not accepted as an Afghan, simply because he isnt one. The only reason why he sometimes uses the word Afghan for himself is because Hindkowans intermarry some the Afghans around them. The Pukhtun principle is that, since Shah Rukh's father is not an Afghan, he can never be an Afghan. Herati, please know Afghan history before saying such things. Thanx.

Other references:  which says:
 * While he claims Dilip Kumar, Qawi Khan, Shah Rukh Khan and Prithvi Raj family as Pushtun (they were all Hindko speakers)

Msrafiq (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes For Provincial Name and Polo
The new name of the NWFP is Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, previously it was only designated as Pakhtunkhwa on this page and I have edited it to the proper official name. I also deleted polo as a traditional sport of the Pashtuns as they have never traditionally played polo. The only region where polo is traditionally played in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa is Chitral and it is a non-Pashtun region inhabited by Dard peoples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.184.211 (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edits and the explanation. AtticusX (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Kapoor family
India's famous Bollywood Kapoor family is a Hindu Pashtun family and should be mentioned here. Iamhere786 (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pashtuns in India
There is more than just 11,086 Pashtuns/Pathans in India. That number provided by the Census of India 2001 is for the speakers of Pashto language alone. There are Pashtuns like Shahrukh Khan, Fardeen Khan and others who are ethnic Pashtuns but do not speak Pashto. I have provided a reliable source written by an Indian, Vidya Prakash Tyagi which clearly states that there are around 11 million Urdu speaking Pathans in India (Martial races of undivided India). (Ketabtoon (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC))

Dear Sir. The link to the book is not working and its not a credible source. You are engaging in Original research which is against the rules. The 11 000 figure is from the Official census of India. This is an accepted figure. Pashtuns are people who speak Pashto. People who claim Pashtun origin and do not even speak the language are not Pashtuns by official definition. Besides, the figure of 11 million makes the total number of Pashtuns and every other reference in the article incorrect. Please dont push this matter as it has been discussed before. See archives. --Xinjao (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say. 1) The link works fine; 2) Do you even know what Original Research is? I have used a proper academic book as a reference; 3) Like mentioned before, Census India's estimate is for the language spoken, not the entire ethnic group.  (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC))
 * By the way, those who have Pashtun origin but do not speak Pashto, what category will they fall under? UNKNOWN? Pashtuns in India do not speak Pashto any more but they are still Pashtuns. In India and Pakistan, they are also referred to as the Pathans, which is a synonym for Pashtun. There are ethnic Pashtuns/Pathans in both Afghanistan and Pakistan who do not speak Pashto, but are still considered as Pashtuns. Mohammed Zahir Shah - former king of Afghanistan was a Pashtun but didn't speak Pashto, Mohammed Daoud Khan - former president of Afghanistan was a Pashtun but didn't speak Pashto. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Two brief observations. Xinjao, I think original research is not the issue here; reliability of the cited source is what's under discussion. Ketabtoon, I think what Xinjao means by "the link to the book is not working" is not that the URL is broken, but that page 127 is not included in Google Books' preview of that book for many viewers, myself included.  That is one unavoidable problem with using Google Books links in references — results are not consistent for different viewers. Since you seem to be able to read the text, perhaps you could copy that section of text to the talk page here so we can see more of the context?
 * As for the definition of "Pashtun", it seems like the article says it quite clearly: there are multiple possible definitions. Cheers, AtticusX (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a screen shot of the section. As you can see, they have even divided it into provinces. The information is based on ("Pashtun, Northern of India". Joshua Project). So it is not an off the head estimated provided by the author. The book has a detailed section on Pashtuns. (Ketabtoon (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Hmm. Actually, the fact that the book cites the Joshua Project as the source for its statistics is a bad sign. I skimmed the archives of this talk page, and the consensus that seemed to emerge from the previous discussion here about the Joshua Project was that their numbers were puzzlingly off-base and untrustworthy. Which is not the first time I have seen the Joshua Project's reliability disparaged by Wikipedia editors.


 * Thanks for posting the screenshot, by the way. AtticusX (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just skimmed through the discussion as well. If we look at it, Joshua Project is not any different than any other project and source related to Afghanistan and Pashtuns. CIA world factbook put the Pashtuns of Afghanistan at 50% before 1992, dropped it to 35% after 1992 and moved it up to 42% After 2001. How reliable can that source be? Or, where did they get their numbers and estimates from? It is all unknown.
 * For the moment, the book and Joshua Project are the only sources we have on Pashtuns/Pathans of India. Census of India will work fine if we use it at Pashto language and the number of speakers in India. Looking back at the history of the region (Greater India), Pashtuns did rule for decades and even centuries over Delhi and the surrounding areas. The numbers don't look that bad. At the mean time, I will look around and see if we can find other sources that will back up those numbers.  (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

Ketabtoon you are wrong about non-Pashto speaking Pakistani Pathans being included in the Pashtun category. Only Pashto speakers are considered Pashtun. Hindko speakers, despite being descendants of Pashtuns have their own category. Even Imran Khan is considered a "Punjabi Pathan" and not a Pashtun because he is Lahori. There are no official estimates for descendants of Pashtuns in Pakistan but the number would be very high as all of Pakistan was under the Durrani empire. Your method changes the way ethnic groups are defined in Asia. In Pakistan a Pashtun is defined by language as well as culture and origin. There are tons of Pathans in Karachi who dont define themselves as Pashtun as they no longer speak the language. If you want to include Urdu speaking Pathans then please find accurate numbers for them in Pakistan and Bangladesh to keep consistent. In fact I think Urdu speaking Pathans deserve their own article if credible sources can be found. --Xinjao (talk) 09:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's where the problem is. You are trying to separate Pashto speaker Pashtuns from non-Pashto speaker Pashtuns. At the end, whether they speak the language or not, they are still considered as ethnic Pashtun, Pathan or Afghan (do not confuse it with Afghan nationality). While those Pashtuns who do not speak Pashto in Afghanistan are counted as Pashtuns, but the ones in Pakistan and India are not. That is because census in India and Pakistan are based on the language spoken. That doesn't necessary mean that those who do not speak Pashto are not considered as Pashtuns. Whether Imran Khan speaks Pashto or not, whether he was born in Punjab or Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, he is still a Pashtun/Pathan. Just because we do not have accurate numbers for Pakistan and Bangladesh, doesn't necessary mean that we cannot use the numbers on hand for India. The census problem for Pakistan to an extent is explained by this blogger from Pakistan . The point is that a Punjabi is a Punjab no matter what language he/she speaks; A Hazara is Hazara no matter what language they speak. The same applies for Pashtuns/Pathans/Afghans (ethnic Afghans). (Ketabtoon (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC))
 * User:Ketabtoon, I found one source which indicated that within the Indian state of Jammu & Kashmir itself, there are over one lakh of Pakhtoons. There is another reference that discusses the population of Pathans in other states of India as well that may be of help to you. User:Xinjao, you seem misinformed about the ethnic situation in South Asia; in actuality, people in South Asia who no longer speak Pashto still do consider themselves to be "Pathans." Also, your information about Hindko speakers is incorrect. Hindko speakers are not descendants of Pashtuns but are in fact, related to other Indo-Aryan peoples. Many academic institutions even classify Hindko to be a dialect of the Punjabi language, an Indic language. I hope this helps. Cheers, AnupamTalk 19:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the info. That is what I am trying to point out. Whether they speak the language or not, they are still considered as Pashtuns/Pathans both by others and themselves. Those who are familiar with this topic are well aware of this. Here in Wikipedia we have several articles which cover the Pathans of India; Rohilla, Pathans of Uttar Pradesh, Bhatiara, Pathans of Gujarat, Pathans of Rajasthan, [Pathans of Punjab]], Pashtun diaspora. Joshua project, like any other source on Pashtuns and Afghanistan might not be a 100% accurate, but that is the best we have. If we compare their numbers to reality, they are not that off the track. If they put it 100 million, than some doubts would arise, but 11 million is a very realistic number knowing that there were Afghan/Pashtun kingdoms in India for over 100 years.
 * About Hinkowans, as far as I am aware it is a separate ethnic group. However, not all Hindko speakers are ethnic-Hinkowans. There are thousands of pashtuns who now speak Hindko, but are still considered as Pashtuns - it is mentioned at Hindkowans article as well.
 * Hindustani Fanatics, India’s Pashtuns, and Deobandism – Connections looks like a good read on the Rohilla Pashtuns in particular.  (Ketabtoon (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC))

User:Ketabtoon, if you want to push this matter then please find reliable sources. Last time someone suggested there are 10 million Pashtuns in India we had a wiki arbitration case and it was voted down because this was not "the widely accepted view". The Pathan ancestry figure was labelled original research (not by me). You could start a new debate but the current source you are using most likely wont fly. I will be glad to help you if you find better sources. Kind regards --Xinjao (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

References for Shah Rukh being A Hindlowan/Khaaree/City Dweller

 * 
 * 
 * which says:
 * While he claims Dilip Kumar, Qawi Khan, Shah Rukh Khan and Prithvi Raj family as Pushtun (they were all Hindko speakers)

Msrafiq (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know his extended family, they call themselves Hindkowans.
 * Hindkowans might intermarry with Afghans/Psuhtuns/Pukhtuns, but the Afghan principle is, a person is an Afghan only if the father and preferably the mother as well is an Afghan.

I concur, Hindkowans are famous for being actors and artisans, and all of the afrorementioned actors are of Hindkowan backgrounds. They are not Pashtuns. This article needs to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.91.136 (talk) 14:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Scripts
I dont understand why the hindi script is used in this article as that script has nothing to do with Pashtuns, is not used in either Pakistan or Afghanistan and most importantly is not used by Pashtuns themselves. Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.54.213 (talk) 06:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Pathan is a Hindustani word and for this reason, both registers of Hindustani are given (Urdu and Hindi). Please see the Encyclopædia Britannica article on Pashtuns/Pathans, which sets the precedent. Also see the dictionary definition of the word Pathan, which states that the word is a Hindi one. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesnt make sense, should we also include the Chinese, Turkish and Greek (pactyes) scripts for Pathans as well as they also have names for Pashtuns as well. It seems you want to forcibly make some link between Pashtuns and india which is not the case. Please remove the hindi script as it has nothing to do with the Pashtuns nor is it linked to them in anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.169.146 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your statement does not reflect WP:NPOV. I cited two sources that explain the script. Also, you are the one who is trying to alter the article - I simply reverted you. The link is there. Please refer to the following articles on Pathan communities in India (which were not written by me): Pathans of Uttar Pradesh, Pathan of Bihar, Pathans of Gujarat, Pathans of Punjab, and Pathans of Rajasthan. I hope this helps. Thanks, AnupamTalk 16:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anupam stop re-writing articles to suit your distored view of history and adding an indian element to things that are not indian. I have noticed this is nearly all the articles you have written. Stop re-writing history to suit your indian bias. There are Pashtuns in Malaysia, Singapore, Iran and China.. maybe we should start adding those scripts as well. Oh and a graveyard from over 1500 years ago has been found in western China containing the grave of Germanic peoples as per DNA evidence, maybe we should add the Chinese script to the Germanic tribe/peoples thread too.
 * Perhaps it's you who is trying to deny history as it was. Why don't you think about the fact that you're denying "Encyclopædia Britannica" and the "Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition" and then make such a post? Pashtuns speak a language called Pashto. Pashtuns are also called by two other popular names - "Afghans" and "Pathans" - names given to Pashtuns by Persians and Indians respectively, since these two latter ethnic groups surround Pakhtunkhwa. "Afghan" is a Persian derived word; for this reason, the Persian script for "Afghan" is given in the introduction. "Pathan" is a Hindi word; for this reason, the Hindi script is given. I think it is very funny and convenient that you don't make any objection to leaving the Persian script in but you insist (with a purely emotional statement and without references) that the Hindi script should be removed. Read the sources and then reply to me. Thanks, AnupamTalk 21:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Anupam seems to have some kinda weird agenda. Stop trying to distort history to suit your indian biasis. Pashtuns have nothing to do with hindi. Persian is spoken in Afghanistan where it is an official language, it is also spoken by many in Pakistan, hence the reason why it is included. Please stop your nonsense and stick to your indian articles or you will be reported to wikipedia. Why do these indians seem to want to re-write history to suit their own agenda's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.91.136 (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

PASHTUN/PAKHTUN/AFGHAN/ARYAN/PATHAN ETC
I think it is absurd and untrue to think that persians and indians gave the name pathan and pashtun or afgahan or aryan etc. A nation or race is known by the name it gives itself usually, i seriously doubt pashtuns were named pasthuns by iranians or indians, and please dont talk about encyclopedia britanica or encarta or even wikipedia for that matter because all they do is speculate and bring evidance from a number of people who themselves dont have 100% concrete evidence. Not evertything you read in these encylcopedia can be termed as facts, yes alot is and alot isn't. Please dont jump to conclusions as i think pashtuns and arabs named you hindu people and then we gave the name iran to iran who called themselves persian. Pashtuns conquered india many times and influenced the indian hindu people and culture not to mention their langauge hence the similar words and customs and it seems obvious that the names must have been borrowed from the invaders aswell but hey its all just speculation and speculations have no place here so speak facts. english call themseves english, americans call themselves americans, indians called them angrez but what stuck in the end? angrez or the names they had given themselves already? case closed.86.144.199.22 (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)aSk

Shah Rukh & Pathan usage
Last changes that were made include:
 * Removing Shah Rukh & his photo. He is not Afghan/Pashtun/Pukhtun/Pathan. The word Pathan & its usage fro non Afghans is a misnomer.
 * Shah Rukh is a Hindko Speaker (Khaaree/City Dweller) basically originating from Peshawar.
 * Replaced Shah Rukh's example with the more correct Irfan Pathan & used his photo & description instead.
 * Never Forget about the tragedy king Mr. Dilip Kumar (Yousuf Khan), his lineage is also from Pakhtonkha. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skabeer (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanx. Msrafiq (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2010 (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.

That source fails verification. You are either a liar or you don't know how to provide evidence to support your claims. Farhad Darya is a Pashtun no matter which way you argue, he speaks Pashto, Dari (Persian) and English. Most people in Afghanistan speak both Dari and Pashto, especially those who live in urban areas. Just because you hear someone speak Dari it doesn't nessarily make them Tajik. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.177.245 (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Personalities in the Infobox
Some of the personalities are not very well known. Instead, we should add more well known personalities. There is no doubt that Hamid Karzai and Bacha Khan should remain. I will try to suggest few names from my side. (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Which ones are not very well known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.2.177.245 (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

kurdish people
I want to be sure of this. Can a kurdish be also a Pashtun? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no connection between Pashtuns and Kurds. They are both Iranic people, however, the followed different routes centuries ago.  (Ketabtoon (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC))
 * Well, Kurdish are only mentioned in the infobox, under "Related ethnic groups". i suppose that it's ok. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

"Afghana"
Has anyone noticed that this article is now claiming that the word "Afghan" is derived from an alleged Israeli prince known as "Afghana". Unbelievable that this article used to be a featured one a few years ago ... --Lysozym (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply
what is "Has anyone noticed" supposed to mean? do you think this is some lousy conspiracy theory? and "this article" isnt claiming it, it is an established and widely accepted fact. It is the end result of months of research. These are genuine references (go to a library instead of declaring and check any of these references). These references have been collected from libraries authors and sources from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Inida, United Kingdom, The U.S., Bangladesh, Canada and from various Universities from Oxford, Peshawar, Michigan, Nehru and the list goes on and on.

I originally had more than 50 different references for this one instance, (the word Afghan from the progenitor Afghana) but I only used 22 references out of those 50 or so.

Before passing a declaration, please go to a library near you, and check any and all of these references for yourself. If you find even one erroneous or misleading, bring that claim here and we will discuss it. Just like genuine research fellows do.

One more thing, these are not the efforts of just one person, these references were collected from Professors and Ph.D. scholars working in Universities in Pakistan, the US and UK. Some of them have research papers on this subject matter, one of these days you might actually find some this work coming out in completely new reference material on Afghans.

Thus, genuine research fellows are actually contributing to wikipedia. This I believe is the power of this free encyclopedia. People from different nations and different places contributing to the collective human knowledge. Enjoy the ride!!! Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 06:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead
Why is User:AlimNaz keep inserting India into the lead? There are NO Pashtuns in India. Period. Of course, there might be those who had ancestries, but generally, there are no proper ethnic Pashtuns in India. The only native regions of Pashtun people are Afghanistan and north Pakistan. Mentioning India is a farce and largely shows the POV some users like to insert to fulfil their own satisfaction. I think mentioning India or Muhajir people in the lead is giving undue importance to them, because they do not constitute the Pashtun definition. Besides, there is already a section on putative ancestry. Another user raised the objection and said it's not relevant to mention in the lead, but AlimNaz just reverted them too. My advice, please stop inserting distorted facts. This article is about Pashtun people, not those in the diaspora who have intermarried and mixd, and have very dubious claims of Pashtun ancestry.

Another contradiction I find in that sentence is how they switched over to using Urdu and 'Hindi' over time. As far as I know, all Pashtun-descended peoples are Muslims and are 'Urdu-speaking' communities like other Indian Muslims. Hindi is not their mother tongue. That's why in Pakistan, Indian Muslims are called "Urdu-speaking." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.16.80 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

This entire article has fallen apart since it was a Featured Article. It doesn't resemble real encyclopedia articles which don't use hyperbole like 'glorious' and warrior race etc. These are British terms and even if many Pashtuns are warriors and many are also farmers and traders. It's silly to generalize like this. In addition, yes Pashtuns are defined as speakers of Pashto. Being descendants of Pashtuns creates confusion in terms of accuracy. For example, many people claim to be of Arab descent but does this make them Arabs? No, not really as they do not speak Arabic. There is a putative section which discusses people of Pashtun and partial Pashtun descent and many things are repeated over and over again. Also, the section on Jewish ancestry is overly long and meandering and rather pointless as it is an unproven tale. Even if some Jewish ancestry is detected (as there is some Greek as well), this seems to detract from the academic view that Pashtuns speak an Eastern Iranian language and are representative of the largest ancient Eastern Iranian bloc. The emphasis on racialism is also rather unencylopedic as genes simply show the relationships to surrounding peoples. Note how different Britannica is from this article: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/445546/Pashtun

The lack of neutrality and personal POV in this article detracts from an academic rendering. This article shouldn't be about nationalism, but rather reflect what academia denotes. Roarshak (talk) 18:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ethnic Pashtun (ethnic Afghan) does not mean a "Pashto-speaker" when it comes to this article. Not only the Pathans but many ethnic Pashtuns in Pakistan speak Urdu over Pashto and that is what the intro says. The Pashtuns who live outside their native territory (whether it be in Pakistan or India) switched to Urdu or Hindi over time in the past, it doesn't matter where these people are today. If you want me to provide sources there are plenty. Also, please don't remove the percentage of Pashtuns for Kabul (25%), Ghazni (25%), Herat (10%), and Mazar-e-Sharif (10%). We don't need anti-Pashtun POV edits. I know this article attracts anti-Pashtuns and I'll be watching it. I agree that the section "Genetics" about Jews is some what silly, it shouldn't be in this article.--AlimNaz (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Alamsherkhan (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Grana wrora we find many Israellite customs between us how to address them. we need to have proper answer for each custom instead of considering them silly. To be fair for the history of Afghans. We have to say welcome to each and every claim to have educational dialogue over it. manana
 * Roarshak said "Note how different Britannica is from this article: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/445546/Pashtun". Britannica does not site sources and its information is always outdated. For example, it says "There are estimated to be about 7,500,000 Pashtun in Afghanistan and 14,000,000 in Pakistan.", but this is highly wrong because the Pashtuns are twice this number according to more reliable sources.


 * Britannica does mention this "...Several Pashtun tribes are known to have moved from Afghanistan to Pakistan between the 13th and 16th century. Each tribe, consisting of kinsmen who trace descent in the male bloodline from a common tribal ancestor, is divided into clans, subclans, and patriarchal families. Tribal genealogies establish rights of succession and inheritance and the right to use tribal lands and to speak in tribal council.... The Pashtun are farmers, herdsmen, and warriors..... Large numbers of them have always been attracted to military service. --AlimNaz (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, according to academics you do have to speak Pashto to be a Pashtun. If this is not the case, then we call into question every ethnic group article from Turkish people to Punjabis. They moved in greater numbers towards Peshawar and still speak Pashtu (or its variant, more akin to that spoken in Jalalabad, Pukhtu). How are we to establish that the 'Pathans' of India are Pashtuns? They don't speak the language, probably have only partial ancestry in most cases and don't practice any of the cultural things that make them Pashtun. Pathan itself is a corruption of the accurate term. It simply makes no sense to emphasize this as the same group that still speaks Pashto. As for the outdated population numbers, how is that somehow a sign that the article is wrong? It's outdated, but the rest is correct as this article was when it was a featured article. Now it has devolved into silly POV with usage of terms like martial race etc. It's fine to say the British and others viewed them as such, but to make a point from the start detracts from the point of this article, to give an academic rendering of the Pashtuns. Being attracted to military service is a term that can used for many people in the region. The idea that they are inherently 'warriors' is ludicrous as most are not fighters today. I'm sorry, but these points would be struck down in any university on Earth as sorely lacking. Roarshak (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I absolutely share your wisdom and previously had a long, exhaustive talk with AlimNaz about a similiar issue (see the section 'Pathan articles' on his/her talk page). The lead should definitely not contain a mention on the descendants because of the very reason itself: they are descendants. Even so, all of them have lost their culture, language and cannot be considered Pashtuns as per academics and the Pashtunwali code (actually, we can't even establish whether they have direct Pashtun ancestries because they have mixed in with the native populations and married into other races. The only relevance is one common forefather). The sentence which AlimNaz keeps inserting flatly contradicts both these and is entirely POV and original research, and an assumption. Imagine what a failure Wikipedia would be if we were to work on assumptions; I can right now assume that many Punjabis are Arabs and many Sindhis are Arabs too. Not only does this sound total rubbish, but it would be a total mess and laughable mockery if it were inserted right into the lead of the Arab people article! Pashtuns in India are as relevant in the Pashtun people article lead as the South Indian Malayalis of Pakistan would be on the lead of article Malayali people. For once, please let truth and rationality conquer distortion and unsourced nonsense. Mar4d (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You guys are writing alot of stuff but not making a point. I've read all the books there are about Pashtuns, I suggest you do the same if you want to learn. There are many ethnic Pashtuns who do not speak Pashto but these people are determined as Pashtuns, not Punjabis or others. When a Pashtun moves to Lahore or Delhi and begins to speak Punjabi language he is still a Pashtun. Do you not understand the above Britannica quote "Each tribe, consisting of kinsmen who trace descent in the male bloodline from a common tribal ancestor." Someone who determines ethnicity of people by the language they speak is really dumb because that is ancient way of doing things. In modern era people from all over the world speak whatever language they choose but it doesn't affect their race, nationality or ethnicity. It's very stupid to mention that a Pasthun must speak Pashto in order to hold on to his ethnicity or he loses it. That's something the Taliban would say.--AlimNaz (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Who is an Afghan? as Afghans, we should use the Pashtunwali code as a yardstick and our own literature or guidance from Afghan experts, not what Brittanica says. Brittanica has no meaning when it comes to Afghan Tribal definitions. If any of you editors are actually Afghans then you know what I mean, what goes on in our Tribal system and social structure. If a man in Bangladesh claims Afghan descent but he doesnt follow Afghan custom, doesnt speak Pushto, doesnt exclusively marry within the Afghan sphere, and even deosnt look like an Afghan, then I am sorry, but that is the yardstick Pashtunwali code. It is not racist, because Pashtunwali doesnt mean superiority of self over others, even in the code it explicitly says, "Preservation" of the self. Believe it or not, in this day and age it is also essential, since Pashtun populations are dwindling. The problem here is, users who arent probably experts, should go to genuine Afghan/Pashtun literary and other experts and ask them what makes an Afghan, and you will always end up at the Pashtunwali code. I suggest you people accept what the experts declare. Examples would be people like Khushal Khan Khattak or Ahmad Shah Abdali or even modern day experts like Abdul Hai Habibi, Muhammad Hothak, Latif Yad etc.
 * About the genetics part. Why isnt it relevant? just because AlimNaz doesnt believe in the Bani Israel heritage story doesnt give him the right to remove scientific work. AlimNaz isnt a medical expert. I am a medical Doctor and I have extensively worked in Genetics. Genetics is very much essential to this article. If AlimNaz really is an Afghan and lives in Afghanistan, then he must have experienced what the Non Afghans (Uzbeks, Tajiks etc.) say to Afghans!! it may be impolite to say it here, but, they make fun of Afghans for not even knowing where they come from. It is true not all Afghans are the same, some originated from the Scythians, others from Tajiks, Turks, other peoples and eventually became the Afghans that they are today. This is even more reason to use guidance from Genetics. Historians lie and are inaccurate, people make up stories, but science doesnt lie, Genetics does not lie. When your very genes tell you where you come from, and this is backed up by world renowned geneticists, then have the courage to accept the truth and start being more scientific rather than being mystical or meta psychical about it.
 * Lastly, Afghans in Afghanistan and Pakistan might not have started out as a uniform group of people, but today they are. As Khushal Khan Khattak said, whoever says Pakhtun is not Afghan bring out your sword and deal with him. As I have seen here, it is only the group of people usually referred to as Pathans (in India, Punjab, Sindh, Bangladesh) who do not fulfill the Pashtunwali code. As someone here said very rightly, these people might be descendants, but they do not fulfill the Pashtunwali code and the article is only about the Pashtun people or the Afghans. I hope we all work to make this a more scientific and literary article. Words like great martial race and glorious past etc. should be replace with a more encyclopedic form. Thank you. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What books tell us that 'Pathans' are Pashtuns? You want to write an article about them then follow the example of Brazilian Germans or something. In addition to their language, their cultural practices and geographic concentration are all relevant. Putative groups are so varied as to make this all ludicrous to contemplate. This isn't about the 'old way', but the academic way. We all realize ethnic groups are man-made and fluid, but at some point, in order to define what we're talking about, we need to draw a line. Otherwise, simply do away with ethnic groups as articles. Roarshak (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Notable Pashtun Women
Are there really no Pashtun women notable enough to be featured in the infobox collage? Just seems a tad sexist to me as it currently stands. Mnmazur (talk)
 * There are but many of them don't have free images, the ones who have are Naghma, Shukria Barakzai, or Suhaila Seddiqi. I prefer Najiba Faiz, she is Afghan by birth but works in Pakistani TV. She is popular among the Pashtuns on both sides. The only problem is that there isn't any free images of her.--Dupree fan (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Genetic section contains contradictory material
The person who wrote this clearly doesnt know the basics of DNA testing and has made contradictory claims, firstly look at a Y DNA study that is cited here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2588664/figure/F1/

According to this study, a study this author cites, the J haplogroup (Semitic marker) was found in around 5% of the Pashtun sample which not only repudiates the Israelite theory but the most common haplogroup in the Pashtun sample was the r1a1 (found at 44.8%) which incidently happened to be the Y DNA haplogroup found all Scythian remain yet the author here claims Scythian DNA is not found in Pashtuns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scythian Saka (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You are confusing things. What it means is that the Pashtuns/Afghans are not a homogeneous group of people. There are some like the Ghilzai who have a strong r1a1 share, others like Afridi, Yusufzai, Khattak have a strong G share, some studies indicate that the Bangash have J haplotypes. This is complicated even more by the fact that many of these studies include Pathan (non Pushto speaking people claiming descent from Afghans) from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Representing all these different aspect has made it a bit confusing. However, it is still valid. For example, rare genetic diseases and other studies have revealed close linkage between Afridi, Yousafzai, Khattak DNA e.g. with Sephardic, whereas Ghilzai DNA has deen described to have Scythian input. Traces of Greek, Arab and other DNA are also found.
 * The study you are referring to from which only a minor group was a match for G2c included "Pathans". Of these they included "Pathans" from India and Pakistan. Out of these, the ones positive for the G2c were people from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The Pathans (India and Pakistan but not your classical/true/blue blooded Afghans) had r1A1 and other haplogroups which make them close to Scythians and Punjabis. Any how, you are wrong in saying that it means only 5 percent are positive, the total number of people they used was only 25 or so of which most were Pathans not Afghans.(You or somebody else removed the actual table which was more accurate and you are trying to replace it with the link you have provided. That tables is based on Pathans not Afghan and on other populations. You not only dont know how to make simple percentage calculations you also know nothing about genetics. I will be keeping watch on your edits. I will also be restoring the original table)
 * All the background information about the studies I described above cannot be included in the article because it is beyond its scope and would make it even more lengthy. Infact some of the information was removed by other editors to summarize it. You can either add new info with references which will serve your point or leave it be. In any case please do not remove any existing referenced material. My suggestion would be, if you have some expertise in the field, you should add a Scytihan section to it with references of course. However, any self serving one sided edits will be challenged aggressively. Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I am of strong belief that Dr Pukhtunyar has missed this article. He is kind of trying hard to establish a connection between Jews and Pashtuns. He seems to have deliberately suppressed or under-highlighted the more elaborate Y-chromosomal DNA studies on Pashtuns. The DNA studies he has cited are outdated in most of the cases. He doesn't seem to be a Pashtun.


 * Dr Pakhtunyar, you didnt even read the damn study, the samples were Pakistani Pashtuns from Peshawar and youre attempt at explaining the discrepancy between the results of this study you ignorantly cited and your own convictions about Pashtun origins is pure surmise that is not corroborated by any evidence, moreover, Pathan is the popular term used to describe Pashtuns in Pakistan by outsiders. You have no evidence for your assertions about the various Pashtun tribes, the studies you adduced in the article attempts to establish connection between Ashekanzim and Pashtuns not Sephardic Jews who are genetically distinct so again you contradict yourself.


 * Now since you know so much about Genetics, heres a study of mostly Pashtun Afghans (the absolute majority were defined as Southern Afghans i.e. Pashtuns) that Im sure youll be able to decipher yourself but youll notice that R1a1 again comes at the majority, in fact even at a higher frequency than the Pathan one.

http://www.yhrd.org/News;159 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scythian Saka (talk • contribs) 17:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * He's not edited for some time. I and others have found him using unreliable sources (by our criteria) and particularly of misrepresenting his sources. Plus a lot of original research. Most of his material has been removed because of that. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)