Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 10

Don’t confuse Balochis with Pashtuns

The Baloch people do not consider themselves as ethnic Pashtuns. Baloch tribal leaders are currently conducting an insurgency against outsiders such as Pashtuns, Afghan refugees and Punjabis who are flocking to the province because of an economic boom. The Nationalistic Balochis leaders fear a demographic shift against the native people of the province. --Napoleon12 11:58 am, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Show me one single report about Baloch fighting with Pashtuns? Baloch are anti-Punjabis and anti-all other non-Pashtuns (Hazaras, Tajiks, Iranians, and etc.) BUT NEVER PASHTUNS as they are both friends since ages. You keep talking outta your back, with your own POVs User:Tajik...hahahahaha.--NisarKand 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtuns living in Balochistan have migrated their and are not considered Balochi by the native population. But, Balochistan does consists of small pockets of Pashtun communities particularly the Quetta. --Napoleon12 1:10 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Why are you all worrying about other ethnics if you're not even one? Balochistan is always home to Pashtuns and they go back and forth all the time with no restrictions at all or no fear of any type. If you are non-Pashtun or non-Baloch, try going to Balochistan by road and see what happens to you there. Hahahahaha....Baloch people go to southern Afghanistan freely also because we allow them. Don't worry about Baloch and Pashtuns, as they are both friends and they always will be.--NisarKand 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THAT'S THE STUPIDEST THING I HAVE EVER HEARD. There is a full scale insurgency against outsiders. READ THE NEWS, RETARD! Since the 1970s there has been some small-scale violence. The area had been badly affected by fighting and instability in Afghanistan, with arms and refugees flooding the province. Small attacks have occurred against coal miners, oil prospectors, and energy infrastructure. Balochis have a seperate culture, language and not to mention province. Read Balochistan--Napoleon12 2:01 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's just a name of the province (Balochistan), as almost half the population of Balochistan is Pashtuns. Go do search online on the exact number of population of each ethnics in Balochistan and you will learn the truth. It's a waste of time here arguing that Pashtuns are only small pockets when in reality almost half of the population is Pashtuns. I don't have time to bring reports here so I suggest you do it on your own as I've done previosly. I am a very educated Pashtun, and you suckers are just here to explain your own thoughts and feelings. That does not do any good for you because things don't change with your thoughts.--NisarKand 09:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soon the Taliban will step up the BOMBINGS in the interior of Afghanistan. Eventually, the Americans and Nato will have withdraw from the country and leave it in chaos. To them IRAQ is more important because of its oil reverses. The only solution will be to divide Afghanistan between its neighbors on ethnic grounds (Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan). In a few months or years most of the world’s Pashtuns will be bought under the leadership of NWFP (Afghania) with American GREEN LIGHT and Afghanistan will cease to exist by 2015. HE HE!!! . --Napoleon12 2:15 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a nice plan you have there, but everyone have their own plans. It's only a matter of who Allah (God almighty) chooses as the Kings to rule the region. America = Green Light? Afghanistan is a nation that nobody can conquer. Even the most strict or pure religious orthadox Islamic fundementalists (Taliban) nearly got whiped out on the very sacred soil of Afghanistan. It's believed by the locals that a handful of soil from Heaven is dropped on there. Prophet Mohammad's (PBUH) cloak and piece of hair are also in Afghanistan (Kandahar). The same cloak he wore while he went closer to Allah (God almighty). In 2001, Mulla Omar opened the box which contained the cloak and pulled it out in public, it was the same time period his Empire (Taliban) crumbled and destroyed, him removed from power to a running fugitive man. Afghanistan has many deep unbelievable things inside it, it's a very strange place. If you step inside Afghanistan with bad intentions, you won't make it out alive. But if you step inside with a good intention, you make it out good. If I was Afghanistan's neighbor, I would be always scared because it's always the poor people that come to invade the richer countries. For example, poverty modivates poor people to go take others under. In this case, if Afghans decide...they will invade Iran like how they did during Hotaki's times of 1722, and take all the riches from Iran to Afghanistan. Same thing with Pakistan or India, the poors will do anything to get your treasures ($$$$). But those who are not poor, are always cowards and afraid of thieves or people that will take their property. This means, Pakistan, Iran, India should always be afraid of Afghanistan because it's just a matter of time that Afghans decide to take your treasures. Don't worry much about the northern countries (Turkemistan Uzbekistan and Tajikistan), they are poor powerless and also very isolated...they don't want any trouble. The way you said about Afghanistan being vonurable at the moment, shows that you are not smart thinker.--NisarKand 20:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you have clearly stated above is your prerogative which is separate from what Pashtuns think in Pakistan. Only the Khuda and time will tell the future and not you or me.--Napoleon12 3:32 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

That again proves that you are User:Tajik because he or she always contradicts in his or hers statements....I mean look above what you stated early (up...before my post) you first explained "Soon the Taliban will step up the BOMBINGS in the interior of Afghanistan. Eventually, the Americans and Nato will have withdraw from the country and leave it in chaos"....and now you said..."only the Khuda and time will tell the future and not you or me".--NisarKand 14:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now what does the Khuda suppose to mean? Hahahahahaha. That explains that you don't believe in Allah (God almighty)...I suspect that you are a communist. Hahahahaha--NisarKand 09:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Napoleon12 here. I have said the same thing before, Baluchis are not Pashtun and do not consider themselves Pashtun. To say Baluchis are Pashtun is extremely incorrect and definatly a POV. There is no source that says Baluchis are Pashtuns. It is a ridicules thing to say in my opinion, unless you can find just one source that claims this. -- Behnam 04:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tajik-afghan, who said that Baloch and Pashtuns were the same people? Are you drunk man? Maybe you are fighting your inner self by your own thoughts perhaps because nobody in this conversation claimed of Pashtuns and Baloch to be the same people.--NisarKand 09:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balochis are not Pashtuns, end of story. Plus, I have considerable evidence to prove their heritage.--Napoleon12 5:18 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What's funny is that both users, User:Tajik-afghan (Parsiwan) and User:Napoleon12, spelled the word Balochis for the Baloch people. This is not even the proper way to spell it. LOL... sucker! --NisarKand 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Darya

I am leaving Farhad Darya's picture on the article b/c he is an Afghan citizen and not mixed. Also, important to note is that Farhad Darya is not a pure Pashtun and is clearly mixed with Tajiks. --Napoleon12 12:18 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cares what you do? sooner or later all your vandalism will be restored one way or another. Records stay here permanently, so that old images may be restored in the future. If you come here to start trouble with others by removing their edits, you're just wasting your time here.--NisarKand 18:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SAD!!! B/c I will combat vandalism according to the rules.--Napoleon12 2:08 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Farhad Darya, regardless of him being half Tajik, has contributed enormously to Pashto music/culture. He is one of the more prominent Pashto singers and so his picture is infact very relevant to that section. Behnam 05:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist things around....Farhad Darya's father is Pashtun and his mother maybe Tajik...that qualifies him to Pashtun. But does not qualify him as Tajik. Why you purposly hide the Pashtun part and only explain the Tajik part? Remember new born person carries the father's last name...not their mothers. A woman that marries a man attains the man's last name...not the other way around.--NisarKand 09:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Darya does not qualify to be a Pashtun or a Tajik b/c, he is mixed! Regardless, we must recognize his achievements towards Pashto music.--Napoleon12 5:21 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Farhad Darya is pashtun, and i bet if we look at any of ur lineages u guys would not be full pashtun either. So stop hating and listen to some babu lali

Abdul Ahad Mohmand

I have agreed with NisarKand to post the picture of Abdul Ahad Mohmmand as a source of Pashtun pride..--Napoleon12 2:41 pm, 17 December 2006 (UTC

If you want you may go ahead and remove or delete the entire article on Pashtun people...like we give a $h!t about it. Man we Pashtuns don't want people to know about us...cause we lik it that way...hahahahahahahaha you sucker!.--NisarKand 09:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NisarKand, I suggest you be a little polite and show respect with some courtesy.--Napoleon12 5:23 pm, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nisar should behave like a perfect contributor. Haider 13:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get lost! nobody can be perfect. Only Allah (God almighty) is perfect. --NisarKand 11:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger! I am lost. I think you must be using "Kand" for Kandhar at the end of Nisar if I am not wrong? Haider 21:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are the first one to recognize this. The way you spelled Kandhar means you're from India.--NisarKand 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to my dear Almighty Allah I am not from India, that way I would be calling "PATHAN" rather than Pashtun. I think you like indian Pathan who have lost their culture, language and land, that's why you are thrusting Indian Pathans as Pashtuns like your great Dilip Kumar? Take care Nisar Qandhari! Haider 13:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics mistakes

I looked at some of the demographics figures and they do not make any sense. The figures denote non-Pashto-speakers in India and Bangladesh (I've only found references to a small refugee group of between 40 and 60,000 living in India and nothing for Bangladesh) as the reference claims that they speak Urdu. Ethnologue, at least, claims to count only language demographic figures. These inflated numbers seem out of place and are another reason why this article has declined in quality since I nominated it for Featured Article status. We need to keep in mind that we cannot simply insert whatever we feel like and must take not of professional encyclopedias and how they approach this and other topics. Regardless, the demographics information will have to be changed.Tombseye 06:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tombseye, thanks for bringing this up. I'm not tto sure about the populations of Pashtuns in other countries but as for India, the currents source states 776,000 Pashto-speaking Pashtuns out of 11,703,000 total. Could you please give the source that discusses the refugees? I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up these figures to verify them and found that the Joshua Project was quoting Ethnologue which does not make the claim that there are over 700,000 Pashto speakers in India and doesn't mention Bangladesh or Nepal (?!) at all. The figures for the UAE are also strange as I only found that there are 126,000 from Ethnologue. The Joshua Project seems very unreliable and lumps the Pashtuns with Pathans in India for some reason, which is beyond the scope of this article. I have in the past suggested that an article could be written about Pathans in India as well as a Hindkowan article so as to differentiate between Pashto-speaking Pashtuns and Pathans. At any rate, these figures seem very confusing and unreliable. The figures for India I found came from articles like this. The low end was 13,000 as of 2001 according to this article. Of these apparently a large percentage may not be Pashtuns as 8,500 or so are Sikhs and Hindus whose first language tends to be a Punjabi variant followed by their proficiency in local Dari and Pashto: refugees. I have found nothing on 700,000 Pashto-speakers in India, but lots on Urdu speaking Pathans. There is no historic Pashto-speaking region in India and as such most Pashtuns who went there were no doubt part of Islamic armies and thus lost their language long ago as they assimilated with local Muslims. There is no Indian census and nothing regarding Bangladesh either as Pashtuns living there seems as plausible as Burma or Indonesia as these areas are remote and not economically viable to move to and there is again no real historic Pashto-speaking presence. Much of the demographics section is thus going to have to be scaled down to more plausible figures as it is not easy to find numbers on Pashtuns in the US either (figures tend to include Tajiks who are the larger immigrant group in the US) or Britain etc. Fixing this article is full-time job that I'm not up to and I was disappointed to see it lose featured article status, but not surprised given the mess it became after I was done with it. Tombseye 07:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know from where these figures came in!! Believe me Indian Pathans can just say "Khochey or Mara" of Pashto that's all, there should be another article for PATHANS of Idian and around. Haider 15:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some minor changes in Sports section because the game is still being played in the western skirts of the Hazara division amgonst swatis and yousafzais. Haider 15:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine. I have updated the information a bit, but will have to add more later. I know there are smaller groups of Pashtuns in Central Asia, Russia, etc. but can't find any reliable stats on their numbers. Nor is there any indication of a large Pashto-speaking group in India as of this time other than the Afghan refugees. If anyone has any other data it would be appreciated. Thanks. Tombseye 20:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work Tom. I have just removed Batagram from the putitive ancestory, while the above mentioned district is above 95% of Pashto speaking clans, covering some eastern slopes of the Black Mountain and Mountains of Allai. Haider 21:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tombseye, I don't mean to be a stumbling block, but your sources of Pashto speakers in India only seems to consider refugees, not a native population. Before the partition of India, it wasn't uncommon for people to travel throughout the country and settle down in new places. In the past, the Rohilkhand region in India was ruled and populated by ethnic Pashtuns (who spoke Pashto). The source I provided (Pushtan, Southern of India) dealt with the entire Pashto-speaking population in India, not just refugees. Your reply would be appreciated. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know of the source. I'm actually the one who added references to the Joshua Project in this article and others before I realized its inconsistencies. As for Pashtuns travelling around, yes many do, but there is a strong distinction between Pashtuns who still speak Pashto and those who no longer do and were always outnumbered by local Muslim inhabitants in India with whom they intermarried. The Rohilkhand is just such an example and no doubt many Pathans there are their partial descendents (Pashtun males moved around moreso than entire families), but today speak Urdu not Pashto. This falls under putative ancestry. There is thus no large Pashto-speaking population, just a history of Pashtun settlement in parts of India, which predictably decreases the further away from Pashtunistan we get. What's more the Indian census has nothing on Pashto-speakers and nor does Ethnologue, which Joshua Project claims as one of its sources. In essence, we have no real evidence of Pashto speakers in India at all other than the refugees. Pashtuns do move around, but not in ways like that of other groups. I suspect that many of the people who moved to India during the British era were Hindkowans (since they are a cultural overlapping group between Pashtuns and Punjabis) as seems to be the case with many well known Pathans in India thus far. Pashtun males tend to move for work and then return to Pashtunistan in modern times so I'm not sure how large a Pashtun migration would have taken place during the short British occupation (we're talking 50 years at the most since the 2nd Anglo-Afghan war). Islamic ghazis on the other hand would have gained much through conquest and would probably see no reason to leave India historically and thus many Pashtun males no doubt remained and became part of the local population, but clearly lost their language as they mixed with the locals. The Joshua Project figures seem unreliable as they do not explain who these Pashto-speakers are and where they live for that matter. For example, 113,000 non-refugee Pashtuns live in Iranian Khorasan centered around Nishapur right next to Afghanistan (no doubt due to the close proximity of other Pashtuns in Herat etc.). The Pashtun population though has no continuity with Indian geography as the British moved into the areas populated by the Pashtuns late after separating it from Afghanistan and so mass movement appears unlikely. Thus, we have no evidence of a sizeable Pashto-speaking population in India, whereas we do have evidence of a Pashtun legacy amongst India's Muslim population. Again, for the purposes of this article, which I worked to make into a featured article and has since declined in quality and verifiability, Pathans can't be counted as Pashtuns as that is beyond the scope of this article and does not correspond to usage in Encyclopedias such as Britannica or Americana which do not note any sizeable Pashtun prescence in India. Tombseye 22:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I'm thinking of starting a Hindkowan article and came across this information about Dilip Kumar. According to this link he is a Hindkowan so we can't include him in the article either unfortunately. Tombseye 04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This site also refers to him and Shah Rukh Khan as a Hindkowan. I would strongly support you in the creation of a Hindkowan article. Regarding the demographics section, I gave a range as you did with the Iranian Pashtun popoulation since we have various sources. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anupam, your source says, "approximately 60,000 Afghans live in India". I couldn't find any reference to the word "Pashtun" or "Pathan" in the text...are you sure the article is about Pashtuns? Khoi khoi 06:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's the problem. of those afghans we know that 9,500 or so are Afghan Sikhs and Hindus and who knows how many Tajiks and others. Regardless there aren't many reliable figures to quantify the Pashtuns in India really. Tombseye 06:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and something else here. It appears Mohammad Yunus is from Abbottabad which is the only Hindko-majority district in the NWFP (94% apparently) and so this appears to follow the trend we've seen with Hindkowans moving about, while ethnic Pashtuns remain where they are. At any rate, we now have a problem with Mr. Yunus as he may not be an ethnic Pashtun but a Hindkowan. Well at the very least the Hindkowan article won't be lacking in notable people I guess. Tombseye 06:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't provide the source - Tombseye did. Maybe the question should be directed towards him. At any rate, does the Joshua Project source which quotes 776,000 Pashto speaking Pashtuns meet WP:RS? If so than the range could encmpass 13,000-776,000. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes I did indeed provide that source and have since then realized that it is also an ambiguous figure. If we extract 9,500 Sikhs and Hindus and then figure that many of the remainder would also be Tajiks and others, we still are left with 13,000 to some larger number that can't be quantified at this time. The Joshua Project source turns out to be completely unreliable as it notes as one of ITS own sources as Ethnologue which has nothing on 776,000 Pashtuns in India, which is a large figure, and yet gives no indication as to where this figure comes from. That's why I took out the Joshua Project figures as they seem like arbitrary numbers rather than based upon census data of some sort. There is nothing on such a large Pashtun presence in India in any encyclopedia or articles I've read (and I've looked at plenty on the Pashtuns). At this time, I don't see how we can give a range other than the 13,000 until we have something more substantive. Tombseye 06:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's where some confusion may originate from. "Pathan" does not refer to Indian Pashtun descendants but is actually a traditional Hindi/Urdu pronunciation of the word "Pashtun". The Pashtuns of Afghanistan were always known in the rest of South Asia as "Pathans". Prior to Partition, the peoples of the NWFP and northern Balochistan were labeled in the census I think as "Pathans" or "Pashtun" and were included in the Indian demographic. ( I think such large estimates of "Pashtuns" in India come in part from references to old imperial censuses that included the NWFP and Balochistan populations). After partition, with the NWFP and Balochistan going to Pakistan, the Pashtuns became a non-existant group in India. However, some Indians of Pashtun descent continued the use of the word "Pathan" which is now the term they reserve for themselves while Pashtuns have revived the use of the original terms of "Pashtun" or "Pakhtun" into the Pakistani and Afghani censuses. Also, there are quite a few "Kabulliwallahs" that used to go and live in India often to do local trade and stuff. They are probably what constitute the bulk of the "Pashtuns" in India. Other then that, the Pashtuns are a non-existant group in India. Afghan Historian 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feroz Khan

Hey Tom! Is it fruitful to hang Feroz Khan as Pashtun actor while once we had some argued even on Imran Khan due to his language and you had prefered Shahid Afridi for his Pashto, nevertheless Imran Khan can chat in Pashto aswell. Should we accept Feroz Khan as Pashtun as mentioned under his photo? Take care! Haider 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about Feroz Khan to say myself. He's half Pashtun and I don't know if he can speak Pashto myself. I thought Shahid Afridi was the safest choice just because he is obviously Pashtun and there is no question about it. Overall, so long as there is a direct link I think inclusion of notable Pashtuns is ok regardless of where they are. Hope that answers your question. Tombseye 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Pashtun is ok, but Feroz Khan can't speak Pashto, what we were trying to concenterate only on Pashto speaking people would be consider Pashtuns and that is a fact aswell, nevertheless from anywhere around. Me myself had tried to chat with him in Pashto here in our country (now banned), "no sorry I cant speak Pashto", he replied! By just saying few words in their films like Yara,Mara or Khochey Qurban couldn't proove them Pashtuns. I don't think, even they would'nt consider themsleves as Pashtuns. Take care! Haider 23:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am neutral on his inclusion, since he is directly descended from Pashtuns from his father's side without question whereas the other people who claim Pashtun ancestry tend to be from centuries ago which makes it more difficult to assess. We could vote on it, but I personally don't think it's important to keep him or remove him as the pictures of famous people is less important than pictures of regular Pashtuns as can be seen in most reference books. Take care. Tombseye 19:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not go for the voting on this issue, esp when I know you are neutral on it. I had also been in little contributing with you to make it a featured article, if you remember? And also don't forget, you had worked so hard to glorify this article, so if it is okay with you than it's alright! Take care Tomb. Haider 22:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, sure no problem Haider. You were very helpful too. Feel free to set-up the voting on this picture whenever you wish to. Tombseye 22:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New picture for info-box

File:At a wedding tif.jpg

Elders are important people in the Pashtun society and often make important decisions in the community.

I added this picture at the top of the caption. It's a picture of typical everyday Pashtuns which is good and not a picture of celebrities (which is again a sign of nationalism). Most encyclopedias tend to show pictures of regular people so this picture makes sense in the article. Please people don't remove it without a good explanation. Cheers. Tombseye 19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those in the picture are not proven to be Pashtuns because they are from Kabul. The majority people in Kabul are Tajiks. Also, Tajiks and Pashtuns both wear turbans and they look very identical to one another. The best thing would be to place a picture of Pashtuns from a well known populated Pashtun cities such as Kandahar or Peshawar, where they make up the mojority. I will look around for better images of Pashtuns.--NisarKand 15:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can we make this article a Featured article again?

I think here we should discuss what we can do to make this article a featured article again. Lets make a list. I will start. Behnam 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the nationalism. Before one reason why this article was Featured was because this article had no nationalism in it and was totally neutral. Today, it reads more like a nationalistic neutral article. I am partly to blame for that, but I have now recognized it. I think that is one thing we could do to make this article featured again, remove nationalism and make it neutral again. Otherwise, I doubt it will ever become Featured again. Behnam 23:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was the one who originally nominated to become a featured article and what I did was re-write it and add significantly to it with lots of suggestions etc. For one thing some sections have become too long and mired in unnecessary details (for example no need to explain something that is explained in a link to another article). I will work on this article some more and then nominate it to be a featured article again. I see no reason why it can't be done again as the content is mostly all still here. It's just been messed with and altered badly. I agree that nationalism should play no part here. Tombseye 02:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, who removed it from Featured status? Behnam 03:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pashtun people. Khoi khoi 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you Khoikhoi! Behnam 03:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Also see Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pashtun people/archive2 (the original nomination page). Khoi khoi 03:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok guys, I've been editing the page quite a bit to shorten it and create some clarity. There was lots of information that was redundant (stating over and over again that Karzai is Popalzai etc. is just not professional) or stating what can be read in other articles (biographies of people). I think we're very close to putting this article back into Featured status. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Ciao. Tombseye 19:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nisarkand, I actually uploaded that picture of Abdul Ahad. You must have deleted it and uploaded your own or something, I don't know what happened there. But that wasn't my point. So nevermind. Behnam 09:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beh-nam, do you have a problem with Abdul Ahad Mohmand? Why you keep removing his image from this article? You removed it from Afghanistan's article about a month back, which I didn't challenge you then, and now you want to remove it from here also. He is the first Pashtun to reach space but you want to hide this fact. I suggest you leave it alone because I will reinsert it everytime I come here. His image has nothing to do with nationalism but simply pride of all the Pashtuns. Chech Israel and see they also have the first Jewish person to go to space in 2002. Plus, I was the one who uploaded this image not you. --NisarKand 09:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I uploaded it before you did and I placed it in this article. But for some reason you uploaded your won and replaced mine. I'm not sure why. But thats not the point, so nevermind.

File:Mohmand-large.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohmand-large.jpg Behnam 09:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced yours because the name of your image did not have his full name plus I thought I had a larger sized image but it ended up being the same.--NisarKand 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nisarkand, why would I have a problem with this picture IF I WAS THE ONE WHO PLACED IT HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Stop throwing around meaningless allegations. Check the date of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mohmand-large.jpg and you'll see I uploaded that picture long before you did. And check the history of this article and you'll see that I placed it here long ago! And the reason I removed it from the Afghanistan article is because it had NOTHING to do with Culture section! And I told you that then! So do I have a problem with that picture? If yes as you suggest, then why would I upload and place it here in the first place? I already clearly express my reasoning above, but forget it. Behnam 09:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: Nisarkand, on several occations you have accused me of being "anti-Pashtun". I have already answered your allegation that I want to "hide" Mohmand being Pashtun. Now I also want to add that I was the one who also uploaded the Zalmay Khalizad picture and ALSO placed it HERE! Just check the history of this article. So now I'd appreciate if you stop throwing around these accusations whenever you disagree with someone. Behnam 09:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now that you showed the Israel article, I think it would be good if you put his picture back into the Afghanistan article. But we should first find an appropriate place to put it. Last time it was in the culture section and thats why I removed it. I think we should place it back now and make a spot for it. Behnam 09:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to place your ethnic background behind you when editing articles of other ethnics. When you removed his image from Afghanistan's article I didn't challenge you because you were right that it didn't belong in the culture section. Anyway, if you want to remove an image it should be Rahim Shah's, as I know him very well and his culture changed in 2003 to Urdu or Punjabi. He is more famous among those crowds than Pashtuns...not many Pashtuns know him. He is Pashtun I fully agree but his work has nothing to do with Pashtuns. In fact, in one of his 2003 songs, he clearly says "I'm Pakhtun". That still does not mean anything. There are many new Pashtun singers in Pakistan and they are much well known to Pashtuns of Afghanistan and Pakistan than this Rahim Shah dude. About the Afghan article, I will later make a section for the image to be there.--NisarKand 10:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nisarkand, here you are starting again with your baseless allegations. Did I not just prove to you that I uploaded and placed BOTH the Mohmand picture and the Khalilzad picture? And my ethnic backround? I am actually part Pashtun myself (my mother's mother), so considering that, you're allegation of me being anti-Pashtun is even more ridiculous. As for Rahim Shah, that is up to you if you want to remove him. You do you have a good point about him so I don't mind if he is removed at all. Behnam 10:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help me find the proper Liscensing for this Important pictre:

I had this picture uploaded on to the Demographics section, but it was removed because at the time I did not know much about licensing and I picked the wrong one. This image does not appear to be copyrighted at all. So there must be a way we can use it. Please help me pick the correct license so that we can use this image. --Behnam 23:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea will be to make it yourself. I can make it for the article in a couple of days time. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can also try adding {{reqmap}} to this talk page; not sure if it'll work though. Khoi khoi 23:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there is no copyright on this image (as far as I can see on that webpage), so there must be a way we can use it. Right? --Behnam 00:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown copyright status is a good reason for speedy deletion. In this case, however, the contents of the website are © Moesgård Museum. deeptrivia (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for finding out the copyright. I kept looking but couldn't find it. So I guess we'll just have to make our own map, or find another one. Behnam 01:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. deeptrivia (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, just wow! That is just such a great work of art! :-D It looks even way better than the original! I think you should get an award for that or some sort of recognition! Thanks alot deeptrivia, you are great! Behnam 01:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New map has problems

The new map seems to show Pakistan Kashmir in grey for some reason and not Indian Kashmir. It seems odd to even bring that up here, but why the grey for one and not the other and why bring it up at all? Just use the line of control which most encyclopedias do. Tombseye 06:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will fix that soon. deeptrivia (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I appreciate it. Also, the Line of Control with China needs to be adjusted. Much obliged. Tombseye 18:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtuns are direct descendant from Scythians?

Pashtuns may have some descent from Scythians, but they certainly do not have direct descend from the Scythians. Pashtuns have various ancestries and yes Scythian is one of them, but they are not direct descendants of the Scythians, only some Pashtuns have Scythian ancestry. Because if Pashtuns are from southern/eastern Afghanisan and western Pakistan, and Scythians were from Central Asia, then direct descend is obviously wrong. We should correct that. Also why is there no info here on the possible Semitic ancestry, and also the obvious Indic admixture? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.55.10 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm, yes we could alter the Scythian link a bit, but I believe that link exists because of teh strong similarities between Scythian and Pashto (which shows similarities with Ossetic as well. As for the Semitic and Indic links they appear to be minor given the genetic tests that show a general (but by no means solid) genetic difference west of the Indus in-comparison to the Indian subcontinent. The Semitic link appears to be more mythological than real as well and is comparable to the Indic link you speak of. the Pashtuns are related to their immediate neighbors and to most of the Iranian peoples in a variety of ways. Thus, the rationale in the article. Tombseye 06:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also various other East Iranian peoples they descend from, including the Parthians, Bactrians, Sogdians, etc. who all have relative links to the Scythians anyway. Some of the Pashtun ancestry can be traced to the Hepthalites or so called White Huns, whom many now believe to be Iranian anyway. Afghan Historian 14:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semitic ancestry is hogwash, though of course Pashtuns cluster with the Mediterranean branch of the Caucasoid type, but then again so do southern Europeans, Indians, Pakistanis, etc. There are groups such as the Hindkowans who have partial Indian ancestry due to mixing with Punjabis, but apart from them, (and even they arent considered full Pashtun), there is no Indic ancestry among the Pashtuns specifically. Afghan Historian 14:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This pashtun pseudo pride makes me laugh. As far as the genetic tests on pakistani population are concerned showed that the pashtuns/pakhtuns of pakistan are paternally(father side) are very closely related to their immediate neighbours in pakistan which include punjabi, balochi, sindis and kashmiris from the valley since all of them have not only high frequency of R1a1 Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup but also have uniform rates of R2 Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup. R1a1 haplogroup rates for pashtuns were found 45% , for punjabis 50%, balochis 42% ,for sindis 49% and for kashmiris 58%. R1a1 haplogroup is spread also in high rates in India, Russia, Ukrain, Poland, and other slavic speaking countries whose languages are very closely related to ancient sanskrit. Thus R1a1 haplogroup can be associated with ancient indo-iranians (also known as Aryans in sanskrit and avestan texts) whose languages we are speaking today. The R2 haplogroup is specific to pakistani and indian populations and its small rates are also found in the caucacus countries between caspian and black sees.

Original Research

I can't help noticing that a lot of the discussion on this page is original research and unsourced. I hope that this is not true for the article, although I came here because of references to Shah Rukh Khan. WP:NOR may be of help. Ekantik ^talk 04:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]