Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 8

ATTENTION!!! There are 2 Pashtun articles. Pashtuns and Pashtun people
There are 2 Pashtun articles. Pashtuns and Pashtun people

I don't know how this happened, but this needs to be fixed immediatly or it will cause major problems! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Behnam) 07:10, 22 October 2006.


 * Thanks, I've fixed it now. &mdash; Khoikhoi 18:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. But, Sorry for asking, but just to be sure, did you add the changes from the Pashtuns article to the Pashtun people article. Because I remember a few people made some changes to the Pashtuns article. --Behnam 17:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The only changes were this (which was also made here), this, and this (which was also made here as well). Khoikhoi 03:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great! Nice work. Thank you. Issue solved. Behnam 07:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WHERE IS SQUASH? PASHTUNS RULED THE WOLRD IN THIS SPORT

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please place removed/replaced images here.
Whenever an image is replaced/removed, please place it here in case it is needed again in the future. Also, we should always have a section open for this. So when this is archived, please make a new section for this purpose. Thank you.

Behnam 05:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Highly Questionable Fair Use of National Geographic Photograph
I founded New Yorkers for Fair Use, NYLXS and work with people in the FSF and I believe that under current law, that photo from National Geographic is not going to make an effective fair use argument under US Law.

Why not just ask them for a donation :)

Ruben Safir


 * I have done just that. The photographer's manager wants to talk about it, so I'll keep everyone posted as to the results. Tombseye 22:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The Tribal section is a mess
I keep fixing it and someone adds another tribe or two and leaves it a mess. I suggest that we list only major tribes and create a new article to list the many other tribes as a whole in order to avoid making this article look so sloppy. I want to improve this article with the hopes that it will be considered a good article and perhaps a featured article. The main tribes I believe would be, due to their large numbers and references in various books: Durrani, Ghilzai, Wazir, Mahsud, Khattak, Bangash, Afridi, Mohmand, Yusufzai, Orakzai, Kakar, and Shinwari. The rest can be seen in both the category and an article on Pashtun tribes since the section is such a mess and needs to be maintained for presentability. Tombseye 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Tomseye!! You have been keep making mistakes since I am here with wikipedia, even couldn't say a word of Pashto and trying to imposed your academic views on us(Pashtuns). Now a very important thing which I would like to mention here for your changing in Tribes list like by saying MAIN PASHTUNS TRIBES or larger pashtun tribes and smaller pashtun tribes, this is exectly what Britishers did in the past much important tribes, lesser known tribes and rewarding them by pure, doubtful, brave, cowards, and decietful, they had already tried to make clear distinctions among pashtuns for their own targets goals etc, they had adopted divide and rule policy and they were succeeded aswell but today's Pashtun will not tolerate any discrimination amongst them as you have done as by showing some of the Pashtun tribes in "Main Pashtuns Tribes" and the rest of pashtun tribes gone into the Pashtun tribes catogary list !!!! Who do you want to make one happy here? The Pashtuns of those tribes glowing on as the main pashtun tribes or should I take it as your another weapon to achieve your task and most probably that would be to make it controversial? There is no need to show any tribe as Main Pashtun tribes - All the Tribes should have been seen in the Pashtun tribes list, dosn't matter if all of them are in Pashtun tribes catagory. Now I won't take any single minuite to delete your this idea to see Pashtuns vs Pashtuns. I hope you would understand my point!     Haider 19:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

AoA, Brother. Why dont you just add the population sizes with all the tribes so people dont just start adding what ever they want in there. Secondly, the best way to stop this i think is to just have a separate article with all the tribe names and not mention which tribes are the major ones in the main article. This i think will keep people from adding.


 * I will when I get the chance. Hopefully, people will get the idea and not keep adding tribes since the list is not there anymore. I already created a new article for the tribe list as well so that should be okay. Tombseye 21:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a very imporatant issue what I have replied as against in your recent changes as Main Pashtun Tribes - Not even a single Pashtun would like your this discriminative idea so don't go for it again, it's repulsive !! Haider 19:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you change your tone of voice. Your comments include personal attacks and will not be tolerated next time you do it. &mdash;Khoikhoi 20:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can't you see the massive attacks on Pastuns as by making distinctions among them!? Where did you see me to apply any personel attacks? I would reiterate it not to attacks technically on Pashtuns by any means!! Remind you it's not your home page! Haider 20:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns will not tolerate any thing which will lead them to distroy into pieces, all the tribes wether smaller or larger should have been treated the same or Pashtuns will take it as a conspiracy for another additional line as done in the past! Remeber that every organ of the body whether large or small is important for the entire fitness of whole body ! Haider 21:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here: Not even a single Pashtun would like your this discriminative idea so don't go for it again, it's repulsive. How is that not a personal attack? Haider, please assume good faith here. I've worked with Tombseye for quite some time now, and I can definately tell you that his goal at Wikipedia is not to "destroy the Pashtuns". Can we try to be civil here? &mdash;Khoikhoi 21:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate you Khoikhoi for atleast tried to understand feelings. I have been contributing Pashtuns pages for over a year now so it's natural to become emotional sometimes esp when someone making repulsive changes without making any consensus! What was the purpose for making such changes on the main by saying like MAIN PASHTUN TRIBES and other had lost in Pashtun catagory list, what was wrong if all the great tribes could be seen in the catagory list, just try to understand this is the start here to make distintions amongst Pashtuns itself! We Pashtuns are very sensitive on such discriminations. Anyway I have rectified it, now any Pashtun can locate his tribe in Pashtuns catagory list. ~Thanks~   Haider 22:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You need to learn that no one hates Pashtuns here. You're not assuming good faith by thinking that when someone only wants the main tribes listed, it's automatically "Pashtun discrimination". Your inability to address people's points in a mature manner is making things very difficult. &mdash;Khoikhoi 23:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It's quite impressive now that anyone could see his tribe and details through just one click on Pashtun Tribes! What do you mean by keep saying MAIN TRIBES? Every Tribes among Pashtuns are main, this is what the real conspiracy is to make pashtuns divide to appease some while those tribes people wouldn't like this idea even! Every body was ok with Pashtun tribes list, if the list goes lengthy that dosn't mean to attach few tribes as main and rest have gone for click, that is what I had mentioned as discrimination among Pashtuns, where no Pashtun would be in favour to thrust changes like this, every Pashtun would love to be intact! ~Thanks~  Haider 17:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No offense was meant when I decided to fix that section as it was a mess in terms of appearance. The Main tribes referred to the largest tribes. Surely you don't dispute that those tribes I listed are by far the largest? That's all I meant by it. Also, you perhaps don't understand that a sloppy article has no hope of being a good article or a featured article and the long list of tribes was both disjointed and largely unverifiable (many had not articles and were simply obscure tribes, which is not meant to offend, but to the reader would be meaningless except as a name. As for not knowing a word of Pashto, well I did learn a few words and sentences and tried to communicate using what little I could through some books I took with me when I was in Peshawar just to show my respect towards the local people as I am far from anti-Pashtun. I am considering studying Pashto in school so we'll see how that goes. You may note that I'm the guy who wrote most of this article and without malice or ill-intent I might add. Manana and khuda paman. Tombseye 18:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I took it so seriously because I consider it as a first step to start quarrel among pashtuns, history is evidence that Pashtuns had already been dicieved so many times by making distictions in between them in their past! What was wrong if every tribe could have been seen by just one click rather then to attach few tribes as "Main Tribes", every one would feel comfortable with that other wise believe me Pashtun is very sensitive on such matters now, they now want to act as a nation, they have learnt much from the history so kindly don't make it an issue, just try to understand my point and probably you would because you like Pashtuns! You should have done it as far as empty for articles tribes concerned, I am preparing myself to do more as I had filled many empty boxes regarding Pashtun tribes! Today's Pashtun hate war whether it is of pen or weapon because they had already suffered alot! I am happy to know that you have some words of Pashto and like Pashtuns that way you would have understood my point! I would accept it that you didn't mean to make any discrimination but sometimes the situation has been created unintentionaly which hurts! Kindly do not support any idea either from any outsider otherwise I bet you will see soon on the same page like main, doubtful, pure, brave, cowards, cruel and decietful tribes, what I am afraid of! I hope you would not have appreciated such ideas. Zama yaar sha, dildar sha - Pakhtun yama, baidar sha! Haider 20:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand what you are saying and I would like to say that I meant no offense as I like the Pashtun people which is why I contributed to this article. Hopefully, in its current form with the Pashtun tribes given their own article we cannot offend anyone. Nor do I seek to divide anyone, as my intent is to write a good article that has a chance to be a featured article so that more people can learn about the fascinating Pashtuns. Wabakshah. Har shay sam barabar di? Tombseye 23:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes a featured article not just one which comprise distinctions amongst the people who you are talking about so that way it would definetely tilt towards a controversial one. Che har sa sam di - Nu sa la wranawey? Haider 9th of May 2006.

Some feedback
Hey guys, just wanted to give you some feedback, I really like the article I've learned alot about my people that I didn't know before, and I agree with the above comment that the tribal section is really sloppy. another thing that you guys can incorporate into the article is the Durand line issue, but don't know if that would be too controversial. anyways, keep up the good work =) Teardrops


 * Haider is back ! I was absent due to sphere some time as volunteer in earthquake affected areas like Batagram and Mansehra etc. Great job SYNC will join you soon in so called iranic thrusty debate on Pashtuns page! 203.170.71.56 20:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * We do talk about the Durand Line and it's mentioned twice in the article, but the article is already too long and in order for it to be considered a good or hopefully after some more editing a featured article it needs to be made more presentable. I don't think it's controversial myself, but then a lot of things become controversial if just one or two people get upset. Tombseye 21:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Pathans or Pashtuns in india
In this article there is no information about pathans who live in india. In the table the total population of pashtuns in india is written 40000 which is totally incorrect. Infact indian pathans may numbered next to the pashtuns of afghanistan. but is very difficult to determine who is a true pashtun in india .But there are some famous pathan communities who are regarded as pashtuns A research is needed about pathans in india who are estimated to have a population of 1600000 --Jawwad khan marwat 06:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Rohilllas mainly live in U.P.
 * 2) Bangashes living in Farrukhabad
 * 3) Yosafzais other than Rohillas living in Tonk, Baroda, and Bhopal
 * 4) Mianas in Southern India
 * 5) Lodhis and Suris


 * This article is about the Pashtuns who speak Pashto, while there is mention of other groups who trace their ancestry putatively to Pashtun groups. What you are referring to would constitute another article as this article conforms to what other encyclopedias, reference books and academics view as Pashtuns, those who speak Pashto and live in a largely contiguous geographic area. Nor can the Pashtun ancestry of Pathans be verified since there is no linguistic connection. Also, wikipedia is not the place for original research. What I would suggest is starting an article on the Pathans or Pathans of India to discuss them as this article is now considered too long by wikipedia standards and some of us are trying to render an article that might be considered a good or featured article in the future. Thanks. Tombseye 18:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Knowledgeble article will be highly apreciated for this debatable issue! I will take part soon . Haider 14th of may 2006

(mostly) no research or facts here
Guys, Like it or not but the ones who have posted information here (not all) but many have no idea about the real history or given any time in research and then a guy comes in and says he labelled the major tribes (funny that he thinks what is major and what is not "moderator").

I am not saying that all the information is incorrect, but much of it has been twisted or given by the person as he liked it, negating the facts. FYI, reading a book does not make you an expert of Pathans, and when someone adds or corrects the incorrect information here who has a proper record or research about it, who had his ancestors and family tree even with him, it is again changed. Well done, are you trying to keep your own tribe info here or what you think was your idea?

Jehangiri info missing again here? And if someone thinks one thinks it is not a major or significant tribe, then correct your research and get the facts straight since you have no idea about history. Also, Indian pathans not mentioned much here much, like Pathans only existed in Pakistan? So much more like that. and so much more information deleted or intentionally changed. Infact, this article is about Pashtuns who speak Pashtu and not about Pathans. The moderators have used the term Pashtuns and Pathans interchangeably and then given the idea that its the same. Moreover, Pathans article is redirected to Pashtuns. Come on, it is an Encyclopedia, not your own views here.


 * Yes a very healthy debate required here that weather the Pathans of India esp Youasfzais and others would be conisdered Pastuns or not, despite they had lost their culture and language and are mingled with other indian people completely ... What is the difference between Pathan and Pashtun while Pashtun himself dosnt like the term Pathan? I have seen so many people in Karachi reffered themselves Yousafzai Pashtun as they were migrated from India in recent past history, I couldn't see any resemblence a Pashtun of NWFP and a Bhopal returned Pathan. I have heard also that Youafzais are in believe that the pathans of India are their relatives, and no matter if they had different culture, complexion and culture, a yousafzai will guide us here .... Majority of Pashtuns of different tribes intellectuls does not count them as Pashtuns.


 * Not to mention that although I am a Pashtun myself but I do not think so narrowly, Pashtun (Pashtu speaking), what the guys here have done is give an image that only those who know Pashtu are Pathans, and Pashtun is Pathan, "grow up" and think ligically, would a jew be labelled as a Pathan if he knew Pashtu. Leaving that aside, do not try to change history and facts of Pathans. (Pathans is a general category in which many large and big tribes come in, and yes in the later part of history they were never united, so lets leave the differences and set the facts straight instead of trying to change things here by giving our own views). Redirecting Pathans to Pashtuns here in wikipedia is wrong. "Pashtuns = Pashtu speaking people mostly of Afghanistan and Pakistan in which there is a majority who are Pathans."


 * Well one problem is that you aren't taking an academic view. Most dictionaries, encyclopedias, and other reference books refer to Pashtuns as those who speak Pashto. Including Pathans is a putative matter and this article is not the place for it (and the article is already too long by wikipedia standards). Wikipedia is not the place for Original research or dissenting views that veer away from academia and common usage. The Pashtuns I met in Peshawar view the term Pathan as an Indian term that is incorrect and applicable to people who claim Pashtun descent in India whom they view as distinct somewhat as one of their main criteria is speaking Pashto and then sometimes Pashtunwali and Islam are factors. Since Pathans in India generally don't follow Pashtunwali or speak Pashto, their inclusion becomes even more problematic. And yes Pashtun Jews are included as they speak Pashto, but aren't universally regarded (by tribesmen) as Pashtun since they aren't Muslim, while city intellectuals may include them. If you want to create a separate article for Pathans then go ahead as I have no problem with it. As for the main tribes debate, basically those of you viewed that as some sort of slight didn't bother to read what I wrote in response as it was based upon population figures (the biggest tribes) and usage in reference books. So really I'm simply following general academic practices here, while some people seem to be taking it as a personal insult to them if the article doesn't reflect their own personal views that are largely either unverifiable or simply constitute original research. In addition, I might add that many people who claim Pathan descent are often descendents of Hindko-speaking groups who are of mixed Punjabi and Pashtun origin and often go by the last name Khan which Pashtuns in general do not have as a last name, although this varies somewhat. You see I didn't simply read this stuff in books, but I actually went to the areas where Pashtuns live and consulted many of them (including a good friend of mine) before writing this article. The Hindko people are prominent in the Northwest Frontier province even though they are a minority (2 million at the most) and yet are disproportionately represented in positions of authority due to their education. The Pathans of India become even more difficult to define as the claims are putative and sometimes go back centuries and intermarriage and cultural assimilation make categorizing them as Pashtuns difficult as that would be like saying the Uzbeks and the Turks of Turkey are identical and we all know that is not the case. In conclusion, feel free to write a Pathan article on the groups found in India as that should not be a problem. Tombseye 17:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "original research or dissenting view" about that, thats not that case, the person who challegnged the facts here said correct and facts can't be changed even if you ask people and they say what they think, that doesnt make a fact. Also, the topic Pathans is redirected to Pashtuns which is totally incorrect. And about your inference about people claiming to be Pathans, from the way you've said here, that is inferring that language is the basis, and not blood. Similarly, get the meaning of Pashtun, that is who speaks Pashtu. Over years, it has only been generalized to be interchangeably used due to the majority with Pathans. And it is easily seen that you met the Pathans who are in Peshawar, therefore, you got their views. Mind it, it's views. So Tombseye, I would also not agree with you as the other guy said.


 * I'm not asking you to agree with me, I am merely saying that the article is written to conform to the general information that is found in most encyclopedias and academic references. In fact, the article has numerous sources to back up the claims made in the article. Well, I also received the views of Afghan Pashtuns (refugees) and the Punjabi Pathans so I do believe I got a wide range of perspectives. In addition, even if we're talking about 'blood relations' the Pathans of India have no doubt mixed with the local populations so perhaps an article called Pathans of India could be created as Pathan, as a term, is also used by Indians (and westerners such as the British who often used Indian terms) and others to denote the Pashtuns and sometimes other Afghans who aren't Pashtuns (such as the Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc.). Tombseye 14:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, if you do create such an article, it can be linked from this article and it could be added to the Indian society category. Good luck. Tombseye 14:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * And tombseye, about backing the claims, simply find out the exact/true meaning of the "word" Pahstun and you will know. And i did not say anything about indian pathans.

Pashtun population in Sindh
A jirga of a Political party ANP held in Karachi dated 14th of April, Pashtun politicians and elders also took part in it and claimed that the Pashtun people in Sindh are about three million and majority of them dwell in the cosmopolitan city of Karachi. We must take it as authentic information till new official counting set in. Pashtun population in Sindh/Karachi should have been rectified now on main pashtun page ! Haider 16th of may 2006.
 * This is such a strange thing here, Wikipedia was made so anyone can add and change info but whenever we add or change anything in here, it is reverted back by a few guys (one or two) so that only they can change and noone else can. That undermines the point of Wikipedia and the authencity of it. Upto the point, that a person has to suggest to that guy so he can make the change as others can't, making it his decision as the what he thinks is right or wrong. Infact, it it against the Wiki culture.


 * We really need something more specific. There is already a census of Karachi that shows the number of Pashtuns there and if there are 3 million in the province, okay, but again we need something more than some guy saying that's the figure. Demographics tend to reflect official stats and not what some guy, politician or not, says. Otherwise, if we went by what George Bush said, we'd be living in fantasy-land (which many Americans are if they actually believe what he says). Tombseye 12:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

According to official census last held in 1998 the Pashtuns population was 1.1 million in Karachi only. Eight years have gone, so is there any scale to carry out the exact figure of Pashutns in Sindh/Karachi now, or otherwise we will have to believe Pashtuns geniuses as they have been keep mentioning like about three million Pashtuns in Sindh, this is the best way to update the people, those who are taking great interest! User:Haider 13:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

currently wrong info is depicted here
even in britannica it was said that Any member of a Pashto-speaking people is Pashtun and that is it. So all the Pathan information being written in Pashtun topic is basically wrong. So, even the tribes being listed here are basically Pathan tribes and Pashtun is merely a term referred to people who speak Pashtu.


 * I reverted your changes. You cannot move a page by copying and pasting, it destroys the edit history. You must do it the proper way, by going to Requested moves. Thank you. &mdash; Khoikhoi 21:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


 * That's largely found on the tribal article. We don't include the Pathans, just references to them as a related group in some instances. Tombseye 12:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tombseye, I just came and read all this discussion over here, it is certainly not the case since the article contents are about Pathans and Pathans is redirected to Pashtuns


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

don't move, reeks of sock- or meatpuppeting. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 10:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Requested move


Pashtuns → Pathans – Page is about Pathans and Pashtuns is actually a term incorrectly used whereas Pashtuns mean Pashtu speaking people so correct name here would be Pathans as the article covers comprehensively Pathans — Talk:Pashtuns — AliKhan007 14:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~


 * Support I support it since it is a main category and the article is about Pathans and term Pashtuns only means Pashtu speaking people. Confirmed from Dict. too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliKhan007 (talk • contribs)


 * Strongly Oppose There is no such thing as Pathans. Pathan only matters in the books of the British where the word was used for Pashto speaking Pashtuns and they picked it up from the Bharatis who called the Pashto speakers Pashtun/Pakhtuns Pathans that fought the Sikhs, Rajputs, Maharatas, Mughuls etc. Pathan term was later popularized by the Muslims in Bollywood who wanted nothing to do with the Hindu/Hindustani origin and hence claimed to be Pathans. Sync2k5 23:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Pashtun is a perfectly valid group and a perfectly valid article title. If you want Pathans to have their own article instead of redirecting here, create one and replace the redirect that is currently there. Kafziel 15:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose.  Haider 18:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support. Seems like a straight forward logic, nothing complicated about it. All the amtter is about Pathans and its named as Pashtuns (which is only language specific word) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.10.50.60 (talk • contribs).
 * Support. totally support it sir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.13.169.9 (talk • contribs).
 * Note to closing administrator: The two above statements are from brand-new users. Kafziel 18:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Pashtun is by far the more widespread useage today. We're not living in the 20th or even 19th century anymore. At Wikipedia we use the most common names. &mdash; Khoikhoi 18:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support everyone is saying it, so should i too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.47.219.1 (talk • contribs).


 * Support is the world changing? I typed Pathans and i was on pashtun people page, and everything about pathans there. Salimgul
 * Oh, give me a break. This is ridiculous. Kafziel 19:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support i once tried to do the same and gaveup after my first edit of adding the correct figures was reverted. One sided!!!
 * You have never editing anything before, much less had your edit reverted. Kafziel 20:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

New user
 * Support This article has alot of content and it mainly covers Pathans. (see historic evidence/books) Utaker 20:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose. Not academic to say Pathan as that is an Indian term and not used by Pashtuns (who refer to themselves as Pashtuns or Pukhtuns) first off. Secondly, new users should not be allowed to vote here as we don't know if it's one person conducting multiple votes. Just make a separate article for Pathans of India or Pathans or South Asia. This article is about something quite specific, the Pashtuns who live in Afghan. and Pak. Tombseye 20:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, the new users will be ignored by the administrator who closes the discussion. Kafziel 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * excuse me? what Pathans of India? Was this about some Indian talk or about Pathans Utaker 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pathans is an Indian term and is not at all accurate when it comes to referring to the Pashtuns. Pashtun is now the most common usage as Pathan is archaic and generally applied increasingly to people who claim Pashtun descent in India or it is used (incorrectly) to denote all the people of Afghanistan. Tombseye 20:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * There have been mixed views about it, some saying your statement and some saying against it. Anyway, this discussion seems neverending. What matters is our current deeds and the world we make out of our lives. Utaker 21:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose as per norm. Pashtuns are Pashtuns and the term is very correct to refer to the people described in the article who sometimes call their inhabited region as Pashtunistan -- - K a s h  Talk 21:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose the debate is pointless Pashtuns are the original ethnic group...for the purpose of space I'd recommend a separate article within a pashtun category on Pathans which covers the various pathan groups where they settled and how they settled. --Zak 15:01, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Support it due to reasons given below by various authors as well as hitory

Siddiqui 10:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose There is no such thing as Pathans and it is probably an Indian term for Pashtuns. or Pakhtuns living in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Pashtuns have already been rewarded by many names like Sulemani, Rohilla, Khurasani and some others, so there is no need to affix Pathan for Pashtun. The term Pathan were bieng used by some Mughals first and then Britishers in their reign. Even some says a friend of mine, "those who had migratted to Patna, had been glorified with the term as Pathans". Haider 18:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Haider, here is where you are wrong. It was not awarded. You are probably mixing history. and Pashtuns is a sub of Pathans, comes in it,. not in any way substituting it.203.101.182.167 19:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)AliKhan007


 * A great poet of Pashtu language of Ghani Khan (1914-1996) did title his book as The Pathans, and said:
 * "Pathan is not merely a race but, in fact, a state of mind; there is a Pathan lying inside every man, who at times wakes up and overpowers him".
 * "The Pathan, are rain sown wheat-they all came up on the same day they are all the same!.... But the chief reason why I love him is because he will wash his face and oilhis beard and perfume his locks and put on his best pair of clothes when he goes out to fought and die".
 * Utaker 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong, Pathans are a sub-group of Pashtuns as Pathans are usually descendents of Pashtuns in India. Pashtuns are the original group who speak Pashto. Most references using the term of Pathan are either borrowed from Indian usage (as the British often do) OR is an archaic reference. Modern usage of the group is Pashtun. Tombseye 20:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Pashtuns have never like the term Pathan for themsleves, it was the term intentionally being thrust on Pashtuns even of Pakistan and Afghanistan, despite the term Pathan has been using for the people who had migratted to India and had lost their heritage as well. I will request them to come and join Pashtuns atleast by start speaking Pashto language, it will take some time to gain but not impossible. Haider 21:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What are tribes for... like you clearly said here that speaking it will make them join it? Atleast, i would not let anyone join my family if he learns the language. I think Blood relation does matter and that is where hereditary traits/legacy come in too. But I appreciate that all have showed their opinion. Before I end my last post regarding all this, I would say, let's not go towards racist approach. Religion first in all things for me. Peace out.Utaker 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To Pashtuns/Pakhtuns Pashto, Pashtunwali, Pashtunyat matters most. Blood relations only matter in Pakhtun society as far as a tabar (extended family) is concerned and khel (a network of families) matters. Even then a khel of a large tribe will not allow another khel from the same tribe marry their women or men. The same way large tribes like Afridi, Shinwari, Khattak etc. for a long time didn't allow marriages outside of their own tribes even though they were connected. Some even today won’t allow such marriages. Blood relations in Pakhtun society only matters in close circles. Outside that circle the importance is put on language, culture, history, and commonality. In this sense if those Hindustani Pathans who have no blood connection to the Pashtuns/Pakhtuns/Pathans of today then there is no way they can prove their blood connection at all. You can claim your forefather was Qais himself but that doesn't prove anything unless you have a living breathing connection. The blood of Pashtun/Afghans has been spilled, shared and injected in everyone of that region, doesn't make anyone special. Sync2k5 22:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some one above had offered me to "come in it"(Pathans), just a simple retaliation had been applied nothing else. Yes you are right you will never allow some one to join your family but what I have mentioned here is not your family, it is signifying the whole Nation. Pashtuns are Pashtuns for their glorious heritage, culture and language, it's not a matter of blood, if you think you are Pashtun then you will have to learn it's language atleast or keep your self Pathan. Do you believe in it that Qais baba as your real originator, inventor, builder, author, disigner, founder, mastermind, maker, planner and father? Blood may be important into some extent in Plarganey and khels that's all. Anyways I would appreciate you also for your contribution! Thanks  User:Haider 11:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To Sync2k5, tombseye, ali and all others: Speaking Pashto has NOTHING to do with being an Afghan/Pathan for the mere fact that one’s language can be changed by settling somewhere where that language is not spoken but being Afghan/Pathan, an ethnicity, cannot.

Mehmud Ghaznavi and Shahabuddin Ghauri were both Turkic and so other Afghan/Pathan conquerors. Ironically, these Pashto-Speaking Pathans love to own the tales of bravery of Mehmud Ghaznavi and Shahabuddin Ghauri .etc as their Afghan/Pathan heritage despite the fact that both, Mehmud Ghaznavi and Shahabuddin Ghauri, were Turkic. And yet they have got the audacity to deny the same rights to some of non-Pashto Speaking Afghan/Pathans. (You have to deal with the truth and "not" rewrite history now) Can these Pashto-Speaking Pathans deny the contributions of Mehmud Ghaznavi and Shahabuddin Ghauri to Afghans/Pathans’ history? If they do then they deny their own background and therefore the tales of their bravery, truthfulness .etc that Afghans/Pathans are famous for. One needs to study the ancient history of Afghanistan, not only under the light of books written by foreign scholars and travelers but also by the native authors (especially the historic ones), to learn about the background of Afghans/Pathans. And they always used the term either Pathan or Afghan. And last but not the least, these so called Pashto-speaking Afghan/Pathans needs to snap out of their trance/ecstasy of arrogance of being “The Real” solely upon their ability to speak Pashto – specially - when some of them are still confused, to this day, about their own background and call themselves Pashtun. Before out-casting Pathans OR ANYBODY else as NON-PATHANS or telling that Pathan is a word given by the British (which is a wrong perception given to you by anyone), they need to figure out who they really are; and then being ignorant by redirecting Pathans to Pashtuns. You are only trying to change history the way you are doing. [ and your supposition of Pathans of India is "wrong", you have no idea of history]


 * agree with you, above, whoever you are "anonymous" Utaker 08:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The correct name is Pashtun and not Pathan. This is the term used by Pashtun people to describe themselves. This oxymoron discussion also open the pandora' box of cities and countries renamed to thier native spellings or names. For example : Peking being changed to Bejing; Calcutta to Kolkata, Bombay to Mumbai, Dacca to Dhaka, Ceylon to Sri Lanka, Burma to Myanmar, Zaire renamed as Congo.
 * Siddiqui 10:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Photos
Since the majority of Pashtuns reside in Pakistan, why aren't there any photos of Pakistani Pathans? You could include one of Imran Khan perhaps.


 * Khushal Khan Khattak was born in the Pashtun region of what is today Pakistan actually so he counts. The others are the best known Pashtun figures so the pictures are pretty complete. Tombseye 01:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

To Mr. Pathan
There is no such thing as PATHAN! Pathan was a denotation given to those who are known as Pashtuns/Pakhtuns. Pathans was a term used by the British for Pashtuns/Pakhtuns. It was popularized by the Bollywood culture later. It has no historical significance other then false desperado macho ego of some Hindustanis who like to boost their non-Indian non-Hindu origins in the face of their countrymen whether in Pakistan or India.

Baharatis called the Pakhtuns Pathans and Persian/Iranians used the term Afghan. The Pathan term was later used by the British for the Pakhtuns/Pashtuns. There didn’t exist another tribe or nation who didn’t speak Pashto and where Pathans that the British were fighting and writing about. When they were writing and recording the history of Pathans they were in the areas of Pashto speakers, they were at war with Pashto speakers. They were talking about Pashto speaking PATHANS not Pathans of Hindustan.

Someone give this PATHAN a history book. Sync2k5 22:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Pathan vs. Pashtun and / or Pashtun / vs. Pathan is a futile and counter-productive discussion
Pathan vs. Pashtun and / or Pashtun / vs. Pathan is a futile discussion and complete wastage of time and energy.

Being a Pathan / Pashtun / Pakhtun is all about belonging to an ethnicity NOT a liguistic race. It has nothing to do with the language.

Only ignorants and insecured ones claim that Pashto is the only language spoken by the Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns.

It is disservice to the history of Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns and tantamount to "divide and rule" strategy, the very same strategy which Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns accuse the others of - as well as - categorically UN-ISLAMIC.

Moreoever, Didn't Pathans / Pakhtuns / Pashtuns notice that how many times the other parties have tried to tweak the demographics / statistics of Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns, incorporate Pro-Iranian excerpts or references .etc on this very page? Doesn't all these efforts constitute to a wake-up call to all these Pathans / Pakhtuns / Pashtuns who are so passionately fighting over such a minute "issue"?

Those people who are trying to draw these lines on the premises of spellings and / or any language are only playing in the hands of those people who want Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns to be divided and consequently get weakened.

Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns need as much as help they can get from their bretherens rather than severing the ties with them.

It is time for Pathans / Pakhtuns / Pashtuns to wake up and stick together rather than destroying themselves with their own bare hands.

McKhan


 * Agreed. and we need to be tolerant as well as not fall into the divide and rule strategy of the opressors. Utaker 12:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Term Pathan
Infact the term Pathan as we can see has no historical back ground just bieng thrust on Pashtuns - yes I could see some Pashtuns those who in reply says "I am Pathan" significantly pashto speaking people of Karachi, this is due to lack of awareness, despite the majority of Pashtuns now dosnt like the term Pathan for themselves, so atleast this is our liability that they should have been well informed not to use Pathan, for that I would suggest/request the contributors to take start with Pashtun (if he is) for them selves rather than Pathan. Pahtun can't afford half of dozen names any more! Certainly without tolerance and patience nothing could be achieved. ~ Thanks ~   Haider 12:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am posting the following excerpts with "NO COMMENTS" as most of the Pathans / Pashtuns / Pakhtuns know and / or have learned about this theory, whether they believe it or discard it as a fairy-tale:

"It is said that the decedents of Afghan and Asif who fled from their homeland in Palestine and lost their way, were ten in number. One of the lost Afghan tribes proceeded towards Mecca where they met Khalid bin-Walid who belong to the same tribe of bani-israel, as did the Afghans. He was a renowned Islamic warrior and the most famous of prophet's companions and the first Arab great conqueror. He being their fellow tribesman either proceeded personally or sent a letter to his Afghan kinsmen settled in Ghor, to bring them tidings of new faith and an invitation to join the prophet's religion. Led by Qais (a decedent of king Sawal in thirty seventh generation), a delegation met the holy prophet at medina and was greatly impresses by the new faith. The Qais and his comrades then waged was most gallantly on the prophet's behalf and won many battles against the infidels."

"The account as given above is written by Namiatullah Haravi in 'Makhzan-i-Afghani' during the times of emperor jehangir. It is also referred to by Olaf caro in his book 'the Pathans' as under:"

'' "The prophet lavished all sort of blessings upon them and having ascertained the name of each individual, and remarked the Qais was a Hebrew name, whereas they themselves were Arabs, he gave Qais the name of Abdur Rashid and observed further that being the posterity of Malik, it was quite proper and just that they should be called Malik likewise... And the prophet predicted that god would make the issues of Qais so numerous that they would outlive all other people, that their attachment to the faith would in strength be like constructing a ship which seamen call 'Bathan'. On this account he conferred upon Abdur Rashid the title of Bathan ('b' converted to 'p' later on)." [Source: "Pathans in retrospect" - http://www.afghanan.net/pashto/pashtunwali/retrospect.htm ] ''


 * Here are some other "discussions":

"- The Origins of Pashtoon and Pashto" "- The new definition of the Pashtun"


 * Here is another source:

"- PASHTUNS/ PAKHTUNS/ PATHANS/ AFGHANS"


 * Ain't we trying to hold the tongue of others or trying to make fool of ourselves by indulging into these futile "discussions"?


 * McKhan

Well - I don't know what to say because now it's up to us whether to discard or believe it ... we were having debate about the term pathan and now it's drifting (the theory of Bani Israel etc) away of its real subject. As far as the word Bitan or batan concerned, as mentioned in Maghza-e-Afghani dosn't required any debate even, that's my line of thought - while the title Bitan was first awarded to Pashtuns during the great invasion of "Somnat" for their bravery under the command of Mehmood Ghaznavi, this had been mentioned by a great Pashtun warrior and poet Khushal Khan Khattak in his book " Dastar Naama ". How and when the term "Pathan" has been delivered ! What could one do exept just trying to make some awareness amongst Pashtuns. Take care. Haider 19:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just elaborating on the background of term "Pathan" to reinforce that it may go pretty far. Therefore, indulging into these futile "discussions" is NOT only complexed but also counter-productive. McKhan


 * Pashtun is the correct term. Pathan is used by non-Pashtuns by some in Pakistan and mostly in India. It is true that that Pashtuns have never like the term Pathan. We should keep the name Pashtun''.
 * Siddiqui 22:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Siddiqui, Wikipedia is for facts and not to show ones views and your statement does not even tally with history, especially, w.r.t. India. Similarly, Haider, are you not confising bitan with bathan and pathan... and mixing up history with time frame too.... You mentioned Pathans was a term used by non-Pashtuns. Will you guys atleast read some history when you do not know even about Mehmood Ghaznavi, Ghauri. After you know that, you will find more evidence before their time too... Utaker 08:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Pashtun is the correct name. This discussion also opens the pandora' box of cities and countries renamed to thier native spellings or names. For example : Peking being changed to Bejing; Calcutta to Kolkata, Bombay to Mumbai, Dacca to Dhaka, Ceylon to Sri Lanka, Burma to Myanmar, Zaire renamed as Congo. Nobody calls China as Cathay anymore. May be Pathan was used in the past and still used by many people today but that does not mean that we change the name of this page to Pathan.
 * Siddiqui 20:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If bitan converted as Pathan then whats wrong with Patna - people who had migrated to Patna were bieng called Pathans .. Patna is seems to be much closer to Pathans! Should I believe on these fables or I should have to use my own brain by reading in between the lines from the collection of books. I have already told you that this was an intentional successful conspiracy against Pashtuns to let them divide further and rule easily! I hope you would have got my point.  Thanks.    Haider 12:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You here stated yourself your judgment is based on on "if". History remains the same, and is never judged on what rhymes closer. This discussion will be endless; trying to hold the tongue of others. Utaker 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point here. This is about a specific ethnic group that speaks Pashto. The etymology of the word Pathan would be better discussed in some other article as this article is already overly long by wikipedia standards and is about a specific group. We have, as a matter of compromise, discussed peripheral peoples but not to any great length. The reason the term Pathan is included here as well is because many groups (particularly in India and the UK) use the term and apply to the Pashtuns and sometimes to Afghans as well as to people who claim Pashtun descent. It's a confusing mess in some ways, but when I wrote much of this article, I did it to render an academic view that reflects common usage. Tombseye 18:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd always assumed that 'Pathan' was an Anglicised corruption of 'Pashtun' or 'Pakhtun', which had come into widespread use in India. Sir Olaf Caroe (Governor of the N.W.F.P.) entitled his 1958 book The Pathans, and he was not referring to the populations that had migrated to India, but to the inhabitants of the Frontier and Afghanistan. I think it is an ethnic term, which encompasses those groups (such as the Rohillas) which live in India, and should not simply be restricted to Pashtu-speakers - there are speakers of Pashtu who are not Pathans, or were not considered to be in the 19th century: In the Peshawar District in 1897 "Of the People no less than 339,069 persons, or 47.2 per cent, are true Pathans, and 562,649 persons, or 90 per cent, speak Pashtu" Gazetteer of the Peshawar District (Lahore) 1898 p125. Now, such colonial publications have to be handled with care, but this figure of non-Pashtun Pashtu speakers included Gujars, Hindu traders & c. but above all the tenant population of the lowland areas who were not part of Pashtun tribal structure, and were probably descended from the earlier inhabitants of the region (the Pashtuns are supposed to have crossed the Hindu Kush c.550 BC). I do not know whether this distinction still exists, or whether it is simply a colonial invention, but Mukulika Banerjee (The Pathan Unarmed (Oxford) 2000 pp28-30) also hints at it.

That said, Pashtun is a more correct form of the name, and nowadays probably just as familiar as 'Pathan', so I think this page should remain with the former title. Sikandarji 11:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns is a Featured Article now!
And there is only one other ethnic groups featured article, Tamil people, so that's pretty cool. I just want to thank all the folks who helped me make this article a featured article: Khoikhoi, Zak, Deeptrivia, Nichal, Sundar and lots of other folks who have come in and fixed up the page and gave their valuable input! Tombseye 17:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh and special mention to Haider, whose concerns and critiques were also taken into consideration to improve this article! Tombseye 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure by what criteria this page has become recommended for feature presentation. I beleive it rrquires quite a bit o cleaning up to do. omerlivesOmerlives 08:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Such as? I edited the section with the genetic study as your criticism was valid there. What else? Please raise the questions here first. The article was voted on through a concensus of a lot of people. Tombseye 16:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

sure. omerlivesOmerlives 16:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Are Pashtuns a Part of Pan-Iranism????
look this site: http://www.pan-iranism.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.112.150.72 (talk • contribs)


 * Pan-Iranism is an ideology. Theoretically Pashtuns speak an Iranian language and counted as Iranian peoples but because of centuries of conflicts between Tajiks and Pashtuns, many disregard Pashtuns as Iranian peoples as they do not identify themselves as Iranian peoples (culturally and genetically). --K a s h Talk 18:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pan-Iranists wish. Historically, religiously, and culturaly Pashtuns oppose anything thats "Iranian" or "Persian". Just read the recent news about Afghanistan. Most of the rebellion is coming from Pashtun parts, one due to Taliban factor, second Persians/Iranians in Kabul. And we don't consider ourselves "Iranian" even if means "Aryanians" from which the term "Iran" is derived from. "Iranian" classification is a Western perversion of the original term. Persians don't consider themselves Iranians also. Sync2k5 04:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, many Pan-Iranists don't wish. Because of many attempts of GENOCIDE by the Pashtuns on Tajiks. --K a s h Talk 09:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Muslim invaders
quote: "One of the most prominent dances is the Attan, a dance with ancient pagan roots that was altered by Muslim invaders and has become the national dance of Afghanistan.[36]"

Please remove the "invaders" part from the line. Islam was and is never considered an "invading" force amongst the Pashtuns. In fact it is widely believed that Pashtuns willingly accepted Islam to the last man. Plus what parts were aletered by Muslims? Do you have any proof, evidence? Sync2k5 04:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * See the link attached to it. Basically, the religious introspection part that is Islamic and sufi oriented is believed to have been added to the pagan dance. As for Muslims not being invaders, the Arabs invaded the region and thus they are considered invaders as they brought Islam to the region. Would you prefer conquerors? I see no reason to remove these things as I provided links to them. Tombseye 05:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw the link attached to it, and no where it says Muslim “invaders”. If you like discussing invaders my American friend from California interested in Pashtuns, then you might like to add something about the Pashtun women raped by British invaders, and the recently molested Pashtun elderly men by American invaders. What about the Pashtun men found dead in a fake prison hanging upside down by American bounty hunters? I can give you links and video documentaries for all.


 * Now kindly, remove the “invader” part. Muslims were never considered “invaders”. Afghans/Pashtuns became the Muslim expansionist of the sub-continent. Kindly go to that part of the world and ask them yourself what do they think of Muslims and Islam? Your Arab hating buddy doesn’t count. You can’t take a single person view point by ignoring the sentiments of an entire people. Change it to what it says on the special little link you have, “This was later modified into a Muslim dance of soldiers to allow the dancers to get 'closer to God' before they advanced on their missions.” Modified is the word we are looking for. Besides, the invaders didn’t know the dance. So those who modified it were Pashtuns MUSLIMS, after accepting ISLAM, and evolution to course.


 * Not so scholarly are you? Sync2k5 08:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed invaders just to appease you frankly. Your opinion of me not being scholarly really doesn't mean anything to me. Tombseye 16:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No not to appease me but to be accurate has humanly possible. Personally I could careless but then again you are writing an article on my people on a site that has dominated every search engine and internet directory with it’s pseudo information written and concluded by anyone from anywhere with no scholarly or academic research or criticism behind it. Obliviously Muslim invaders didn't know Attrn, they had no reason to perform it. So whoever altered it were Pashtun Muslims later after accepting Islam who modified their heritage to represent their new beliefs. Common sense. Sync2k5 21:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair enough. Tombseye 21:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No yet, I hadn't seen the sentence, this sounds better "One of the most prominent dances is the Attan, a dance with ancient pagan roots that was later modified with Islamic mysticism in some parts and has become the national dance of Afghanistan." There are many different types of Attan, and most are not modified with anything Islamic or Muslim, in fact it is not allowed for men to dance and shake like you would see in Attan in Islam. The only Attan that I know which is modified with Islamic mysticism is probably the one perfermed by Sufis in Herat, and other fakeers around the many shrines in the Pashtun belt. When the Attan is performed by locals, tribes men, there is nothing religoius about it, besides the fact that when ever they went to fight, whether a religious war or a war with another tribe, it is performed the same. So only some types of Attan reflects religious mysticism, not all. Sync2k5 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's good to know. This is the type of criticism I wanted, rather than some vague complaints. Something specific that can be added to improve the article. Now, in addition, we need some sort of citations (on the web or from books or something to verify) on the dance being a prelude act before war. Some of your suggestions might be better served on the Pashtun culture page as this page is already long by wikipedia standards and is meant to be a succinct summarization of various topics relating to the Pashtuns as an ethnic group. Tombseye 22:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I will take a look at that page as well. Sync2k5 22:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pollywood?
I never heard this term before and I hope it isn't here on Wikipedia because of a single article. Pashto films produced in Pakistan are made and directed Lahore, aka Lollywood. There is no such thing as Pollywood since there is no production based in Peshawar of any Pashto films. Even Pashto TV channels are serving from Punjab. Please remove this joke. Sync2k5 05:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There are some links that also discuss Pashto films and films that used to be made in Peshawar were known as Pollywood. Can you prove the term is not a valid one? We can't go by your own original research as we need something more than heresay. Tombseye 05:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because I can't prove it isn't valid, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Since you can't prove that it is valid, and I can't prove that it isn't, it is best that it shouldn't be included in the mumbo jumbo on Pashtuns in Wikipedia. For a reference, try doing a little research on the film industry of Pakistan, and you will find out that no other city or state besides the state of Punjab, and the city of Lahore are authorized to make official films. Pollywood? hahaha Sync2k5 08:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I talked to Zak, who is from Peshawar, on the matter and he suggested including discussion of Pashto films and Pollywood. Now since the Culture Minister of Pakistan uses the term (in the link in the section), I do believe that makes it valid. How about you come up with some actual evidence since I have provided links for all of the statements if you want me to make changes instead? Tombseye 16:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Zak is from Britin, not from Peshawar. Now it is very odd because on that link I didn't find Culture Minister of Pakistan, rather it says "Culture Minister of Punjab". Not scholarly are we? Come on now no arguing with someone who owns entertainment shops in Kohat, Bannu, and Peshawar. We are also in the debugging business and I can assure you no movies take place in Peshawar nor do we print the term "Pollywood" on our labels. We just use Peshawar or any other city from where the material originates from. All is done in Lahore as far as making directing cutting producing films in Pakistan, where your special little “Culture Minister” probably originates from. Why take a Punjabis word over a Pashtun? Mazghe de kaar ke Tomzoeya? Pa hes poeye ge kha laya pa laya krat prat da internet ke lagawalee? Mumbo jumbo Sync2k5 21:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, but surely some people use the term as the Punjab culture minister used the term and Zak was familiar with the term as well? and films used to be made in Peshawar in the past, yes? I'm not saying I don't believe you, I'm just saying that we need more than what you've said, even though you may be 100% right. I'd appreciate it if you could find some reference that supports what you've said and I'm not taking anyone's word so much as going by an official website. I don't care if he's Punjabi or Chinese, but we do need some citation to make changes. I wrote a typo when I called him culture minister of Pakistan, so again my scholarly intent aside, the name of the article is Culture of Pakistan even if it is on the Culture minister of Punjab's page. Tombseye 22:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Punjab doesn't represent Pakistani culture, although thats what is widely believed and Punjabis would like everyone to believe. You are taking something from Culture Minister of Punjabs page and applying it to the Pashtuns? One could understand the nature of that website only by the fact that when it says Culture of Pakistan, it has a sign Culture Minister of Punjab. Discriminitory, arrogant? Is that your source? Fine with me. Pollywood ta larsha kamees toor mata rawra hahahaha No there isn't any movie that is made in Peshawar, when I am talking about made I'm talking about assembled. First Pashto movie was made by a Punjabi director at the request of the infamous Pashtun movie star Badir Munir who was a servant in his banglow. From there on all Pashto films are produced, directed, and assembled in Lahore. For example, NWFP is a conservertive and extremly religious province, now go watch some Pashto movies, totally contridictory. Heck there is one little stinky studium studio in Peshawar that is used by PTV whenever there is a concert or event. All new events now take place in Islamabad where you will see "Pathans" doing things totally unacceptible to Pashtuns, yet only possible to do outside of Pashtun area. Not that it does't happen in our areas, it does, but not openly. The only films that are created, produced, and assembled in Peshawar are the many amatuer wedding vidoes, hujra dance videos, and the recent phenomnan of debbuggings. Find me a single label of audio, video, dvd, cd, anything from that part of the world with “Pollywood” then you have made your case. There is no such thing. This is just a vision of the “some”. The reason why I am against it is because I see this as invasion of Punjabi/Hindustani/Baharati insertion in to the Pashtun fold. Sync2k5 22:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey look, I'm trying to be civil and I've made further changes based upon your valued input, but there is no need for you to accuse me of being dishonest or trying to promote the views of one group over another. I only used it because it's an example of the usage of the term Pollywood, which may be more of a reference to the Pashto language (with the 'P') rather than Peshawar anyway. Again, I am asking for some citations, that's how wikipedia operates. At any rate, I changed the sentence further based upon what you've told me. Tombseye 22:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not accusing you of anything. Sync2k5

05:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Pollywood issue has been resovled now, as I couldn't see any mentioned term on Pashtuns article anymore, I will thank to Tomb and Sync to rectify it. For Sync now "Larsha Pekhahawar ta kamees tor mala raura - Taza Taza gwaloona drey salor mala raura" (Alaka Pollywood ta lar nashey) hahaha!     Haider 12:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh for Tombseye "Go to Peshawar and take me a black shirt and three four fresh flowers also" (don't go to Pollywood). Just trying to appease friends around and release tentions, after all all of us helping on a featured article to make it more worthful. Take care.     Haider 12:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Congrats
Congratualtions to everyone who contributed to this article. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 10:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pashtunwali
In (Pashtunwali) Pashtuns code of life there was no need to be mentioned any theory about Pashtuns origin like Bani Israel while it was already mentioned in Pashtuns featured article, it should be rectified. Thanks! Haider 23:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't know who did the edits, but they wanted that theory to be seen everywhere. Feel free to delete it from the Pashtunwali article. Tombseye 23:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I have deleted the non-related information from Pashtunwali, hope every one would feel better with it. Haider 21:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

question about sikhs and hindus settled amongst pashtuns
I've met a few and they speak pashto..practice pashtunwali..I think they deserve some mention if not in this maybe another article? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3138282.stm http://www.afghanhindu.info/ --Zak 15:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Saw your message and put in the info. Good job finding out about this little known fact. Tombseye 19:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I know a sikh Doctor, according to him, his ancestors have been living in the district of batagram for hundreds of years or so - a perfect Pashto speaking man practicing Pashtunwali, it was interesting when he revealed Pashto as his home language aswell, it is hard to differenciate them with Pashtun until or unless he told you himself about his origin.   Haider 20:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I learn something new everyday. I thought they just lived in the area. I didn't know they were also Pashtuns. Well it's in the article now so good job guys. Tombseye 23:07, 14 June 2006(UTC)


 * Yara Tomb, I didn't mean that to consider or add them as Pashtuns, what I meant was, at first look it's not easy to recognize them as sikhs, mistakenly some one could easily be decieved to reckoned them as Pashtuns. *smile man* Thanks!     Haider 20:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, I figured they were probably not Pashtuns, but people who came to the region and over the generations adopted Pashto. Good to know. Cheers. Tombseye 22:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Infact they do not claim themselves as Pashtuns.   Haider 10:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot Pharang learned Pashto, they should include them under "Pashtuns" as well j/k. Sync2k5 20:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So their mother tongue is not Pashto and they aren't Pashtuns then? If that's the case I'll take out mention of them in the religion section. Tombseye 21:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sports
I think Polo should be included in the sports section. The Yousafzai are well known for playing Polo. Sync2k5 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't have much idea about the game but if Pashtuns plays it then it should be mentioned in the sports section aswell, Chitral and some other places are very famous for Polo, if I am not wrong.  Haider 12:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Added polo. Good call. Tombseye 21:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * here is a reference link if needed: http://www28.brinkster.com/pakistan4ever/htmls/nwfp/nwfp.asp Sync2k5 20:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Question about copyright
I wanted to know if we could use this image in the article, so I've listed it on Requested copyright examinations. &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)



Pakistani Pashtuns
Images should be included of Pakistani Pasthtuns as the majority of them reside in Pakistan.


 * You should have signed first atleast we must know to whome we are replying to ~ Thanks ~    Haider 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We can include pictures of Pakistani Pashtuns as long as someone can find some that have no copyright problems. Otherwise we can't just put any pictures in the article. This article is a featured article and has to maintain its high quality. The pictures Khoikhoi is working to get approved are pictures of Pashtuns so I believe they will suffice for now. Khushal Khan Khattak and Rahman Baba were technically from the Pakistani side of the border so I believe they constitute Pashtuns from Pakistan anyway. Tombseye 20:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Wiki-Pashtuns
Those of you interested in greater collaboration on pashtun issues I hope you will join http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wiki-Pashtuns --Zak 19:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

new pictures
Who added all these Afghan only pictures? Why not pictures of famous sports heroes like Jansher Khan or Pakistani president Ghulam Ishaq Khan? --Zak 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You are right. We should have more Pakistani Pashtuns pictures. Those two are good suggestions.
 * How about these pictures:
 * http://www.squashtalk.com/photos/history/jansher1.gif
 * http://www.giki.edu.pk/us/images/gik.jpg

But the problem is those pictures are too small. If you can find some larger pictures, we should add some Pakistani Pashtuns. That would be great. I put up a picture of Ahmad Jan in the Literature section. He is a Pakistani Pashtun (I think).
 * I just added Jansher Khan's picture. Thanks.

Incorrect caption at top of article, Pashtun.jpg?
If you click on the image at the top, the info for the picture isn't right. It says Harmid Karzai is on the right, but he isn't, the astronaut is. Please, would somebody who is sure of all four pictured people correct this? --Howdybob 09:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, Ill fix that.

this is from the article of Buddhas of Bamiyan "The smaller of the two statues, about 120 feet tall, was built in the 3rd century A.D. The larger one, at 175 feet, was constructed in the 5th century A.D. The statues are believed to have been built by the Indo-European Kushans and Hephthalites at the hey day of their empires. Ironically, the above mentioned tribes also formed the basis of Pashtun ethnogenesis-- the ethnic group from which the Taliban drew its core following [1]."

and this is from below the buddha picture in this article "Pashtuns are descendends of Arabs while ancient buddhists of Afghanistan were of Asian origin who according to frescoes resembled present day Hazaras."

note the difference?

now the fun part
Pashtuns have managed to survive a turbulent history despite having rarely been united. Their history can literally be traced back millennia, while their modern past began with the rise of the Durrani Empire starting in 1747. Pashtun martial prowess has been renowned since the accounts of Alexander the Great's(dot missing here) Ancient

First their martial prowess had been renowned and then they came into being, formed of arabs or other people.

More Pakistani Pashtun pictures (title changed)
As a Pakistani Pashtun from the Durrani tribe, I am completely disappointed in this article. This article seems to be PRO-AFHGAN bias and does not even mention the vast contributions and influences of Pakistani Pashtuns. They are more than double the amount of Pashtuns in Pakistan compared to Afghanistan.

-	Most of the pictures are of Afghan Pashtuns who have never lived in their own country for long periods of time.

-	I ask that this article be written in a more PRO-PAKISTANI manner according to the demographics.

-	Plus, you must post the pictures of Pakistani Pashtuns... --Napoleon12 07:48, 24 July 2006


 * Actually I agree with you. Thats why in my previous discussions I have asked for more pictures of Pakistani Pashtuns. But no one would help me out.So far I have added a Pakistani Pashtun in the "Sports" section of Jansher Khan. I now need a female Pakistani Pashtun, it has to be female, for the "Women" section. Can you please provide one? I will add it. Thanks. ps: we should work to make this article not pro-anything, just neutral solid information--- User:tajik-afghan

There are large numbers of Pashtun in every walk of life in Pakistan. They exert massive influence on the economy and governance of the state. I can give an example by showing the Ministries and Committees website of Pakistan, one of three ministers are of Pashtun origin http://www.na.gov.pk/ministry.htm. The opposition MMA leaders in Parliament are all Pashtun as well.

One very famous educated female Pashtun is the minister of state education by the name of Miss Anisa Zeb Tahirkheli. http://www.senate.gov.pk/ShowMemberDetail.asp?MemberCode=421&CatCode=7&CatName=Senate+Tenure+(Current+2006....) She was born in Peshawar, NWFP.

--Napoleon12 05:25, 25 July 2006


 * Hello. Actually when I wrote the article I did so by consulting many Pakistani Pashtuns. The text actually just refers to Pashtuns overall and does not attempt any bias, but I also agree that the pictures probably should include more Pakistani Pashtuns. Tombseye 21:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just added a picture of Anisa Zeb Tahirkheli in the "Women" section. Take a look. User: Tajik-afghan

Can you also mention Shahid Khan Afridi in the sports section? http://www.adore.jp/archives/images/afridi.jpg He is Pakistan’s number one cricketer. Apparently, he is also the poster boy for millions of Pakistani girls, LOL. --Napoleon12 05:43, 25 July 2006


 * Sure, I can do that. I wish you were around earlier. We got lots of good input from folks who wanted Pakistani Pashtuns mentioned more. Tombseye 21:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just added his picture to the "Sports" section, check it out.


 * I do have some knowledge about cricket. I like Shahid Khan Afridi but is it true to be mentioned him as Pakistan's no 1 cricketer? It would have been more sufficient to mention him as famous Pashtun cricketer rather than no 1 cricketer. He is famous for his huge 6s while Younus Khan (a Pashtun also) is more reliable batsman out there as vice captain.    Haider 08:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. I just corrected it. Good point. Thanks. Check it out.

we need a picture of a Pakistani Pashtun female politician or any other well known females
for the women section, I put a picture of an Afghan MP. but I know there are Pakistani Pashtun women that have more important roles in Pakistan. does anyone know any well known and important female Pakistani Pashtun politicians or anything else of a well known position?? it could be anything, we just need a picture for the women section.---User:tajik-afghan

Pashtuns in Canada?
We need to find out how many Pashtuns there are in Canada. For sure there are TONS of them. We just have to find out how many.User:tajik-afghan


 * As a Pashtun, what should I take your word "TONS" for Pashtuns in Canada or it is your scale to weight Pashtuns like this, how many Pashtuns will level your one ton??   Haider 08:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to say? I dont get it. What I was asking is very simple. There are Pashtuns in Canada. We need to find out how many. And by "tons", I mean thousands. And thats right, there is atleast 50,000. Whats your problem with that? tajik-afghan 15:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay it is a slang like "ton" is being used for thousand. No problem. Take care.    Haider 20:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Famous Pakistani Pashto Singer
Can you include information about Rahim Shah in the music section? Rahim Shah's first Pushto album, Peera was a well-rounded album, consisting of fast-paced, catchy Pushto songs. Tracks that stood out were Peera, Ro Ro Ra Za and Izhaar. http://www.khyberwatch.com/index/yarana3.JPG Also, the picture is from the PAK-AFGHAN friendship concert in Kabul I think. Advil 02:01, 27 July 2006
 * Ok thanks. I will add his picture to the music section very soon.tajik-afghan 15:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Imran khan is greatest pashtun sportsman
There is no image of imran khan who lead pakistan to win 1992 crickit world cup. Shahid afridi is a famous player but not a great player like imran khan was.


 * A picture of Imran Khan should have mentioned because his batting and bowling performances was great amongst all other Pashtun cricketers. That should be rectified without any delay. Thanks!    Haider 09:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Buddhas of Bamiyan picture should be removed
The Buddhas of Bamiyan have hardly nothing to do with Pashtuns. I say we remove it and get a picture of another ancient structure or painting or artifact or anything else. Any suggestions? User:tajik-afghan 01:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

(No Fake Pathans) Shah Rukh Khan picture should be removed
A large majority of Indians who claim to be Pathan cannot heter single word of Pashto or Dari. They are usually descendants of converts over periods of generations who adapted the last name KHAN to justify their Muslimness to the Hindus. I strongly disagree of including this picture in the article. They don’t even have a clue as to what clan or tribe they belong too!!! User:Advil 3:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

well said bro....remember to say revert and not convert and by the way all pashtun are converts( revert)....well done by making statements lke "tribe" "clan" and remember there are no tribes or clans in Islam and we all belong to one clan i.e muslim...

Pashtun living in India
300,000 Pashtun living in India is really hard to believe. Maximum number is around 30,000 mostly refugees due to the Soviet-Afghan War. User:Advil 3:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There are 300,000 Pathans living in India and probably even more. See Pashtun Population tables. Allah Hafiz.
 * These are just speculations not based on any proper census. Plus, Pathans are Pashto speaking people not Indians who just have the last name as "Khan".
 * Advil, I have looked at your contributions and am horrified. It is individuals like you who wish to create and foster enimity between Pakistanis and Indians when they are the same people who listen to the same music, watch the same movies, and respect the same values. This is a shame. Patel24 05:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact is that Pakistan is a distinctly separate culture from Hindustan with its own set of values. Also, my allegiance is not on debate here. Advil 02:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello!wake up Advil..There are more than 30,000 pashtuns in india and could number more than 300,000..I know lots of pashtun speaking families from Bangalore who are 3rd or 4th generation afghans who came to india in 19th century and i am one of them and not from the civil war! In my city itself pathans number about 5000....this is for your kind info.

Mujeerkhan 20:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. For some reason the number of Pasthuns in India is being repeatedly deleted by anti-India POVists. I am reinserting the citation. Thanks. Jdas07 19:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

someone is vandalising " pathan population of india" so pls if u have issues then pls put it in this discussion...moreover the website used to refer is a christian missionery website trying to deceive our brothers and mislead us..this parah is the 8th reference from the article and is taken from this site..[] "Ask the Holy Spirit to soften their hearts towards Christians so that they will be receptive to the Gospel. Ask the Lord to raise up strong local churches among the Pathan"....pls brothers n sisters dont take anything from this website as they are zoinst and anti muslim..jazakkallah

Zaid

At last got a population of pashtuns in india though it is from a zoinst site...yeh could show some users its not 5500 but a whopping 11,904,000...let me tell you folks some of the references are taken from this same site then why not this...CAN anyone PLS fix up the reference part was stuck thr. Mujeerkhan 23:25, 8 september 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly the people with Pashtun heritage for more than three genertions ago and have lost Pashtun culture cannot be classified as Pushtuns. Nearly 25% of Urdu speaking Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India are in this category. Claiming 11 million Pashtuns in India cannot be accepted. They now belong to Urdu speaking ethnic group.
 * Siddiqui 03:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonviolent Pathan Abdul Ghaffar Khan
Why is there nothing in this article about the great nonvilent movement lead by Abdul Ghaffar Khan? To be a fair and blanced article if we are going to talk about the Pathans reputation as warriors it is important to discuss how they became nonviolent warriors. If no addition to this article at least a link to another article on Khan.


 * Abdul Ghaffar Khan was a great Pashtun rights leader, we will surely mention him soon. Advil 10:41 am, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Amanullah Ghilzai
Are the views of Amanullah Ghilzai widely enough accepted to merit two long sections in this article? Are they widely accepted at all? I notice that these two large sections were added to this featured article with no discussion on the talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 21:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now removed. - Jmabel | Talk 22:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Section "New theory about the history of the code of Pashtunwali or Pakhtunwali"
This section is too long and really needs to be wikified, but shouldn't be but on the page Pashtunwali, and not this one? Mar de Sin  Speak up!  01:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is one of the two sections I refer to in my previous comment. - Jmabel | Talk 00:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Now removed. - Jmabel | Talk 22:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Mar de Sin   Speak up!  14:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns in India
The cite provided for 11 million Pashtuns also mentions that most of these Pashtuns actually use Urdu as a mother tongue, showing their ancestry from Pashtun Muslims who settled down and married with local Muslims. Only 5000 of the Indian Pashtuns speak Pashto according to that cite. They are probably Pashto-speaking Hindus and Sikhs who consider themselves Afghans. Or, they could be Kabulliwallahs. When speaking about the Pashtun ethnicity, we are speaking about those who speak the language as well and follow the culture. Not those who are of Pashtun lineage. If they could be called Pashtun, then Arab-descended Moplahs, who speak Malayalam, could be called Arabs, Somali-speaking clans can call themselves Arabs, and Parsis who speak Gujarati and are long Indianized, can call themselves Persian. We dont see their numbers on the Arab and Persian population statistic. Afghan Historian 22:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done some reading and can now say with certainity that there are about some 5-6000 Pashtun Afghan Kabulliwallahs in India, working in trade. These people use Pashto as a mother tongue of course and are also Muslim. Therefore, I have included a small 5000 statistic for a Pashtun population in India, at the bottom of the stat list. But yeah, we cant include the Pathan descendants in other parts of India who are many and while they may be Pashtuns by lineage they are not modern Pashtuns as in Pashto speaking Afghans who follow Pashtunwali. It would be like calling Parsis "Persian", while they may be genealogically Persian, they do not follow Persian culture or speak the Persian language, or Sayyids Arabs, even though they dont speak Arabic or follow Arab culture. Afghan Historian 17:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * please see Pashtun diaspora --Zak 23:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 11,000,000 PASHTO-SPEAKERS IN INDIA!!! OK. Urdu-speaking Muslims are not Pashtun, they are just plain Indian Muslims. OK. Just referencing from the “The Joshua Project Website” is not going to cut it. I want to see a proper government census by mother-tongue to prove your claims. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2006.