some removing from Ancient references

In the Ancient references section we have this paragraph: The Greek historian Herodotus first mentioned a people called Pactyans, living on the eastern frontier of the Persian Satrapy Arachosia as early as the 1st millennium BCE.[19] In addition, the Rig-Veda mentions a tribe called the Pakthas (in the region of Pakhat) inhabiting eastern Afghanistan, and some have speculated that they may have been early ancestors of the Pashtuns.[20] Other ancient peoples linked to the Pashtuns includes the Bactrians who spoke a related Middle Iranian language.

No doubt these people once living in today's southern Afghanistan were referred to as Pactyans by Herodotus... but how do we know those were Pashtuns? We don't, that's why I removed that sentence.
I checked the link provided to the Rig-Veda, and it merely mentions the word Pakthas, it doesn't say anything about eastern Afghanistan.
And the last sentence is unreferenced... though there are references that will relate the Pashto language to the old Bactrian language.

So these are the reasons these 3 sentences were removed. -- Behnam (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you trying to thrust your views to be accepted by deleting so much significant information about Pashtuns by "Herodotus", which had been written thousand of years ago, there might be some authors who have opposed him but on the other hand there are majority of Pashtuns and other non-pashtuns accepted "Pactyans" as today's pashtuns, it is more acceptable to mind as compare to different just imaginary type views, and what is wrong with those brave people of that time, who had fought great wars against Alexander in 327 bc. How come you so sure about the term "Afghan" were Pashtuns, while we didn't see such name in ancient history, the term which you are talking about was not Afghan, according to some historians thse written sentence were first founded on a stone on "Naqsh-e-Rustam" of sasani King "Shahpur first", that was "Gondefra abgan rasmad", still to get the meaning of such sentence - whatever the meaning is but why it has been affixing on Pashtuns, how do you know that Afghans were Pashtuns? According to Frazier Tyler in his book Afghanistan mentioned term afghan (don't know the race), which were further taken from a book "Hudul alam", which had been written by an unknown Geographist in approximately written in 982 AC, hudul alam has also been referenced by different authors aswell, will you avoid an ancient book against hudul alam, which was being written in 982 ac? Pactyans speak Pashto. Do not try to show just one side of the coin, let the readers deside.

Now you will be highly appreciated to take Herodotus and his mentioned Pashtuns back or I will do it myself. Thanks. Haider (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please first provide a source that links Pactyans to Pashtuns. -- Behnam (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly look up what I have asked you also about how do you know that abagans are afghans, or you are the one also who believe that Pashtuns have more than half a dozen names bieng rewarded by outsiders like Sulemaini, Khurasani, Afghani - why not just pashtun or pakhtun? Are you sure Qais had four sons, one of them was adopted one right? This article had been rated as featured one with herodotus mentioned pashtuns. Afghanistan is a country and people live in them are afghanis so simple, isn't it? If those people once living in a limited area of the region but what and why to attached them with the great pashtuns? Thanks. Haider (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beh-nam wrote: "Please first provide a source that links Pactyans to Pashtuns." Actually, letting the evidence stand and not drawing the conclusion should be satisfactory. We do have Herodotus's statement. What it means as to how long the Pashtuns have been there is open for discussion, not deletion. --Bejnar (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

If you remove the pictures I add then I will get you blocked. There is nothing wrong with the pics and every article has pics so you must leave my pics.Wmmr (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the pictures, but... there is something wrong with the user that is uploading them and editing this article... he is banned already and should not be editing (user: NisarKand, see article's history). -- 65.93.211.223 (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You (User:Beh-nam) want to remove the images because you want to only see images of people like Mulla Omar, Gulbuddin, and others like that in this article. This is your plan to try to make the Pashtun image look like uneducated, villains, and criminals but that your ethnic group Tajiks are the educated ones. You are a fraud thinker by doing these things because the world, especially top US government officials already know Pashtuns very well now. This is why USA supports Pashtuns by offering high positions in US government as well as in Afghanistan USA supported Karzai over others. Today, it is what USA says that matters. Every single time you came to edit thhis article, you remove very good useful information, or images of famous Pashtuns, and other such activities. There is no such record of you adding something good to this article. My friendly advice to you is stop this and do something good because in the long run there is nothing you will gain from what you're doing to this or other articles that you vandalise.--Hurooz (talk) 19:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zalmay Khalilzad?

Would Zalmay Khalilzad, who was born in Mazari Sharif, and doesn't even speak Pashto (alhtough he has his roots in Laghman)... be considered a Pashtun? -- Behnam (talk) 03:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are ethnic Pashtuns living in Mazari Sharif, and he does speak Pashto. The main language he speaks is English, he also speaks Arabic. His ethnic background should not be questioned when there is a source in his article explaining it. We go by sources not by what you think or assume. The last name "Khalilzad" is 100% Pashtun name, mostly used in southern Afghanistan. Zalmay is also a 100% Pashtun name, with no doubt.--Hurooz (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture conflicts

I'm not sure why there is so much reverting with regards to pictures, but I think we should simply discuss the issue here and figure out which pictures fit well with the article. As far as I know, the Tarzis are pretty well known Pashtuns and show up in a lot of the references I linked to the article so what is the objection? At any rate, we need to resolve this and stop this reverting and counter reverting nonsense please. Thanks. Tombseye (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one removing pictures is the well known anti-Pashtun who is now indef banned user: Beh-nam. He is using IPs from Canada like this one 64.229.16.84. In the future just revert all his vandalism, his only purpose is to vandalise Pashtun related articles.--Churra 19:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afghana

Who was "Afghana" and was there any reality to find out such name in jews history, while we can't find any such name in jew King Sauls history, nevertheless some historians mentioned above name in their books without any evidence? Thanks. Haider (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan is wrongly included

Imran Khan's family is only a very distant cousin of the pashtun race. He is not a pathan and is wrongly identified here as one. He has somewhat used some generations-old connection to the race to build his image and perpetuate this myth, but he belongs solely to the Niazi Shermankhel tribe. For accuracy, he should be removed from the page, I guess. Busillis (talk) 10:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, it should be removed. Imran Khan is a Niazi and stated so in his autobiography. He also says that Niazis are somehow related to Pathans but that doesn't make him Pashtun officially, or does it? Inf fg (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afghan and other Pashtun

The Wikipedia article on Pashtuns says they would appear to be primarily of Iranian origin, but have similarities with Persians, Kurds, Tajiks and Baluchis and Arabs.

Pashto-speaking Pashtuns (or Pukhtuns, depending on dialect) and are found in southern and eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. These Pashtuns also became intermingled with others groups, such as the Ghilzai (who possibly mingled with Turkic tribes), the Durrani (who interacted with the Tajiks), and Pashtun tribes north of Peshawar (who mingled with Dardic groups).

The article went on to say that from the first to the fifth century BCE huge migrations of peoples from Aryans, Persians, Sakas, Scythians, Kushans, Huns, and Greeks moved into the regions where the Pashtuns lived. Later invaders were Muslim Arabs, Central Asian Turkic tribes and Mongols.

The anthropological evidence that the Pashto-speaking Pashtuns are an Indo-European Caucasoid people, who are related to other Iranian groups and to speakers of the Kalasha and Nuristanis languages, is by no means conclusive. So far the testing has not shown any substantial connection between the Pashtun population sampled to the genetic markers found amongst most Greeks, Jews. The answer may be that Pashtuns have been slightly modified over time by various invaders and mixes as mentioned above. Yet they have kept their eastern Iranian base genetically overall.

There would thus also be Japhethitic R1a and R1b and Hamitic C YDNA present.

Many conclusions concerning the Semites come from the premise that the Semitic Haplogroups are all J .

The Pashtun are classified as Iranian, which as we have seen is primarily Haplogroup I which is derived from the Semitic IJ Haplogroup (see below) but they vary as a typical Central Asian composite YDNA grouping. An attempt was made to classify the Pashtun in the 16th century as one of the Bani Israel, of the Lost Ten Tribes and as Joseph. This was debunked based on their Indo-Iranian affinities and language. However, it is an historical fact that the area of Khandahar, Kabul and Bactria also, on the other side of the Hindu Cush, were made provinces or satrapies of the Persian Empire and their languages are thus affected by that fact. The DNA similarities with Elam and their reported historical descent and affinity with Joktan indicate that the original DNA of the Semites, including the Joktan Hebrews, was not J but F and the primary Semitic derivative is I and the secondary derivatives are J, both derived from IJ (based on S2 and S22) and then H and G. All the Eastern Semites of Elam and Joktan were Hg. I, rather than J. Thus these mutations occurred over the second millennium BCE and the extended mathematical models of the evolutionists are wrong.

some Pashtun tribes claim descent from Arabs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.91.2 (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move subsection Putative ancestry to section History and origins

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

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

No more Ethnologue please

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

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

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

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

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

Pashtun genes

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

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

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

Yusuf Pashtun

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

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

old man is not Pashtun but may be Panjabi

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

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

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

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

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

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

File:Ghilzai nomads in Afghanistan.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Tombseye, the user has tagged the image regularly for deletion just because he doe3s'nt want it to remain here. Have a look at this - [2][3][4][5][6][7].

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

Have a look at the editor's earlier record in Wikipedia and the policies he had breached: WP:CIVIL ([8],[9],[10],[11],[12]), WP:3RR ([13][14]), Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (119.30.76.138,119.30.67.8,119.30.77.149,119.30.70.188,119.30.78.21) and obviously, WP:NPOV.-Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Ravichandar84, this is the talk page to discuss things relating to the Pashtun people article. If you have issues with a user over his/her's behaviour you should take it to administrator notice board. Several administrators were involved in your/mines incident and they didn't find my actions offensive, I was leaving message on their talk pages and they didn't warn me about any thing. [15], [16]--119.30.71.194 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above unsigned message was posted by banned User:Beh-nam from Canada, who constantly comes here and to other Afghanistan articles to vandalise the pages. [17] He even removes images of well known Pashtuns. There are many people living in Islamabad and we all use the same DSL service so no we are not all NisarKand. According to NisarKand's last contributions, I don't see why he was banned, there is no explanation by admin, and there is no record of him being allowed to request for unblock. I find that very weird because all blocked editors are given a chance to request for an unblock. In this case the block of NisarKand is invalid and cannot be used as proof to block IP that he may have used in the past.--119.30.71.194 (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Edit request

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

Also, within the Infobox, please replace

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

with

|region3      = {{flag|UAE}}

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

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

Afghani photos only exept one

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

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

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

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

Pashtuns NOT the same as Pathans

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

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

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

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

recent vandalism

I seems that there is a banned user trying to push some sort of POV[18][19] and being reverted by several established editors. Can someone indicate the account of the banned user so I can make myself an idea of what's going on? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

پختون is not an accepted alternate spelling of پښتون

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

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

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

Abdur Rab Nishtar?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image edit conflict

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

Actually, it's just one user using multiple accounts and IPs to force changes into the article, and making personal attacks against other editors when reverted. Anyways, for reference, see the last change that he made[20]:

Keeps:

Removes:

Abdur Rahman Khan

Adds:

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

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

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

Yuck

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image copyright problem with File:Sharbat Gula.png

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

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

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

Brokpa woman's image

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

Karzai image in infobox

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

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

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

"He's an american puppet, a sell out, he's there on the blood of other afghans, he does not follow pashtunwalli hence he is not considered Pashtun"[21]

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

(Removed offensive comment)

Now it's been reverted again saying "This kind of arguement is valid. A Pashtun is a ethno/cultural defenition. Hence if you dont follow Pashtunwalli you are not considered Pashtun"[22]. If you look at Pashtun_people#Pashtuns_defined, you will see that there are several definitions, and the the ethnical one is the most accepted one. You are trying to exclude by using only the cultural definition. Also, this argument about Karzai not respecting Pashtunwali code is unsourced, and looking at this US military source it seems that this is a reference to Karzai not providing refuge to Taliban. So, no, this argument is not valid. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(removed offensive comment)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(removed]

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

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

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

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

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

Karzai had a 83% approval in ~~Pakistan~~ Afghanistan in 2005, and this approval has been going down, until it has reached 52% in 2009.[23], The article you linked above is back from 2003, when his approval was highest, so it looks like it was wrong. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

the source for those numbers is this. See a better source"[in 2009] 52% think President Karzai is doing a good or excellent job as against 63% last time and 83% in 2005."[24], from one of the pictures, 29% think that he makes a "fair" job, and 18% think that he is doing a "poor" job. Also [25][26]interview. As I said, the article you cited is from 2003 and it didn't give any specific numbers.

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

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

PASHTUN/PAKHTUN

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

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

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

Response to Mullaji

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

Not a debate but a FACT!

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

PASHTUN/PAKHTUN DEFINED PART 2

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

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

WA ALAIKUM! to ignorant people

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

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

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

SALAM,

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

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

Imam Mahdi army

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

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

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

Pashto has Vedic borrowings?

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

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

Pashtuns are NOT found in India

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It appears that there are descendants of pashtons on India[27] and the Britannica lists the Hindustani form on their Pashtun people[28] (there is no transcript because they only use the english form of the name on all articles). In this article, the sentence "There is also a sizeable community in India, that is of largely putative ancestry" has two sources [29][30]. Additionally, part of the Afridi (Pashtun) tribe lives at India.

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

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

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