Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Disputed source Solved

After placing 50.000 bytes of information that "Afghan/Pashtun/Baloch" Hindus are of Punjabi descendant. This Information is now well placed (not by me) on the Hindki and Hindkowans.

But the source we now have/had as disputed was this news article about the Hindus of Quetta: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tattooed-blue-skinned-hindu-pushtuns-look-back-at-their-roots/article22645932.ece

Shashank and Anupam were in favor of the source while I and Wikiaviani (and some people who deleted that source) explained that they are not Ethnic Pashtuns/Balochs but are called "Pashtun",'Baloch' or "Farsiwan' Hindus which is how they identify.

So these sources are from the same people that are from Quetta:

"My Mother had defined herself as a Hindu Pathan from Quetta, Affirming Cultural and regional identity over religious differences."

— Reena Nanda, From Quetta to Delhi: A Partition Story –

And the important source that is directly quoted from the person that was in the article:

" I was unaware of my identity as a Hindu Pashtun for the longest time. In Indian society, people are categorised on the basis of their caste and religion very early. To somehow adhere to the mainstream brackets of caste and religion my ancestors identified themselves as Punjabis. I grew up thinking that I was a Punjabi,”

— Shilpi Batra, "Hindu Pashtuns: How One Granddaughter Uncovered India’s Forgotten Links to Afghanistan", Batra, Shilpi (8 August 2018). "Hindu Pashtuns: How One Granddaughter Uncovered India's Forgotten Links to Afghanistan". Retrieved 13 December 2019.

This is the Person and the old ladies themselves that the disputed source was about. I found the article today. This clarifies everything. As I explained they are indeed "Pashtun" Hindu but not on the basis of ethnicity. So here you go they themselves say it. They are like all Hindus of Afghanistan (And Pashtun/Baloch areas of Pakistan) of Punjabi Khatri descendants. Like she confirmed here ancestors were Punjabi. Hope this helps for all. Casperti (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

You are doing WP:SYNTH. If someone else agrees with your revert which you have made probably 100 times now, then let them revert and explain their edits here. So far I am seeing nobody and you are apparently alone with your original research. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a traditional form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NPOVD, Other have accepted that I reverted the Sheen Khalai source. Otherwise that would be reverted by Kansas bear or Dough Weller(see page history when this was done). Why is this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CRUSH : The Sheen khalai themselves say they are of Punjabi Ancestry. So who are you to judge? https://www.thebetterindia.com/155394/hindu-pashtun-shilpi-batra-sheenkhalai-afghanistan/ And Why are you changing the ethnic group region to South Asia? Is Afghanistan and West Pakistan as native land incorrect or something? Because if it is let me know. This seems more Political then Informative, Hopefully this is not the case.Casperti (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Also the source you Citate here is Ethnic Groups of South Asia and the Pacific: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia citing there are only Sunni Muslim and a Small Shia minority (also Christian converts) Casperti (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The source provided in the article clearly states that those Sikh Pashtuns identify themselves as being members of the ethnic group, with Pashto being their mother tongue, not Punjabi. [2] Additionally the material removed by Casperti has been replaced since the references clearly speak of Hindu Pashtuns who practise Pashtunwali, thus meeting the cultural definition of being Pashtun. [3] Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 03:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: This is what exactly what the problem is. The Afghan / Pashtun Sikh and Hindus are identified as Pashtuns. https://www.samaa.tv/culture/2018/07/how-the-sikhs-settled-in-khyber-pakhtunkhwa/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3138282.stm All of them say that. This is true but this page is about ethnic Pashtuns and the definition of Pashtuns is that their Father need to be Pashtun according to this page.

They themselves identify as Pashtuns as you also mentioned. But are of Punjabi ancestry. Which is also called Hindki. @Uanfala: knows that the Hindus and Sikhs of Afghanistan and KPK Pakistan are called Hindkowans by the locals despite their fluency in Pashto and Pashto culture (Or Tajik culture in Kabul and Ghazni). They are called Afghan Hindus or Pashtun Hindus. but by locals Hindki or Hindkowans because of their Punjabi ancestry. (Mostly Khatri). The only source that was not saying they were of Punjabi ancestry was the hindu.com Sheen khalai source but now we have found they also saying that they are of Punjabi ancestry. Whether they should be placed in Hindki or Hindkowans or in this page Pashtuns is up to the consensus. @Wikaviani: was also part of that discussion last year. Casperti (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I will be back with a more detailed reply soon, but you need to read WP:SYNTH and stop WP:CANVASSING. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You must read the source you cited again [4]. It states that the Pashtun Hindus identified themselves as Punjabis when they came to India to fit in because they weren't accepted by their neighbours. The individuals mentioned in the article are Pashtuns, not Punjabis. The source mentions that their appearance, dress, and language is Pashtun/Pashto. Even Hamid Karzai identified them this way. I don't think there is any issue which needs to be addressed now. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

You should read it maybe again. Reading can be hard. but I will explain it carefully for you. These Hindu ladies as they state are from the Quetta Loralai region, nowadays Pakistan. They have moved from Quetta to India in 1947. Shilpi Batra the Young girl/lady in the Articles did not know her Hindu Pashtun identity. She always thought she was fully Punjabi as her ancestors had to be Punjabi due to their Caste, surname, religion, etc. But she is not a "Punjabi" as she found out through her Grandmother but an Afghan/Pashtun Hindu from Quetta. As all Afghan (Or Pashtun) Hindus, they are of Punjabi ancestry. Even Dough Weller accepted that this source is solved by the Hindu ladies themselves. Hamid Karzai only met them, he met that day all Hindus and Sikhs of Afghanistan/KPK. If He said "They are Non-Hindki Pashtun Hindus" let me know. All Quetta Hindus are called "Pathan Hindu" as how would you otherwise call them? They cannot be called normally Punjabi. That's why you have a term for them that's called 'Pashtuns/Afghans Hindus and Sikhs'" aka Hindki Hindkowans! Here are more sources that all of the Pashtun Hindus/Sikhs are of Punjabi ancestry multi-tongued-peshawars-happy-hindus-and-sikhs/Tribune But most importantly the Sheen Khalai source. It is more than clear they are of Punjabi ancestry. Also the book "From Quetta to Delhi" explains this. Just try to understand , and we will in Meantime wait for more opinions on this. Casperti (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hindkowans are not Pashtuns and do not identify themselves as Pashtuns. Rather, Hindkowans speak a dialect of Panjabi. They are from two different areas that are very very far from one another. Hindkowans are from the Peshawar area and these Hindu Pashtuns are from Loralai. Your dependence over your personal research is clearly not enough. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 14:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

There we go again, you are not reading the source are you (Hindkowans is the term Pashtuns use for anyone who speak the Western Punjabi dialects called Hindko in general by Pashtuns, it is like Farsiwan but for Western Punjabis)? They are identifying as Pashtuns like all non-muslim Hindki / Hindkowans as I showed you their in source above, it was just an example so you could understand it. They all (the non-muslim Hindki Pashto speakers) identify as Pashtuns. Also, I do not know why I am trying to explain it you. Per the source given by betterindia.com, the Ladies have Punjabi Ancestors. That's it, done. All reliable scientific sources about Pashtuns do not show Hinduism as their minority religion. All of the sources that are about the specific Pashtun ethnic group show only this: Sunni Muslim with a Shia minority (sometimes Christian converts too) that's it. Here is the list of sources that are talking about the ethnic group:

• Ethnic Groups of South Asia and the Pacific: An Encyclopedia: Your own source says Sunni Muslim with Shia minority (Also Christian converts)
• Etiquette+and+Taboos+around+the+World:+A+Geographic+Encyclopedia+of+Social+Pashtuns : Only says Sunni Muslim with a Shia minority
• Aiding Afghanistan: The Background and Prospects for Reconstruction in a Fragmented Society: Only says Sunni Muslim with a Shia minority in Pakistan Parachinar and Kandahar.
• Ethnic Groups of North, East, and Central Asia: An Encyclopedia Page 222,: Most belong to Sunni Hanafi school though adherents of Shia Islam exists.
• Afghanistan: A Country Study by United States Department of the Army: Pashtuns are generally Sunni Muslim but there are Twelver Shia as well

Reliable scientific sources are here above. This is what we use in Wikipedia. There is no source that is about the ethnicity Pashtun specifically and not saying Sunni Islam with Shia minority. There is no source mentioning any other thing.

This is no rocket science and No Personal research. Your answer is here above, loud and clear. Also These sources are reliable and the Sheen khalai has been debunked. It is accepted by Kansas Bear and Dough weller, I will change it after the protection is off the page back to the version of Dough Weller https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashtuns&diff=933538762&oldid=933538449. Only in the relgion section on paragraph 6, it can stay that: "Lasty there is little information left about the Sikh Pashtuns". As Dough requested to let stay. Although I do not agree with it, it will stay. About the Hindu Quettan's they themselves identify as Pashtun but are of Punjabi ancestry. "Quetta to Delhi" is about the Quetta ladies so you have now 2 evidences that they themselves say it. "My Mother had defined herself as a Hindu Pathan from Quetta, Affirming Cultural and regional identity over religious differences". From Quetta to Delhi: A Partition Story, ".....Of course she Knew Mother was Punjabi"From Quetta to Delhi: A Partition Story + Themselves in the article https://www.thebetterindia.com/155394/hindu-pashtun-shilpi-batra-sheenkhalai-afghanistan/ admitting they have Punjabi ancestry but should actually identify as Pathan Hindu and not as fully Punjabi. They are indeed called Pashtun Hindu or Afghan Hindu but are not ethnically so. The term that is used for the Afghan/Pashtun Hindu/Sikh is Hindki but are also just called Afghan hindu or Pashtun hindu but are not ethnic part of it. Thats the whole point. I will stop with talking, as it was already accepted. Accepted by everyone except you (And Shashank if you are not 1 person). I will change it back to Dough Wellers version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashtuns&diff=933538762&oldid=933538449 when the Protection is gone. Also just read, that your South Asia mentioning will be deleted by the user Mathglot. Read the last talk page here below. Casperti (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd support omitting mention of Hindus and Sikhs in the infobox. Of course, they can be described at length in the relevant section, but the infobox ought to be only a summary: it can't be an exhaustive catalogue of all minor marginal groups. At the very least, these are unlikely to be the only minorities: it's quite probable that there will be at least some Pashtuns in Pakistan and the diaspora who are Christian, atheist or agnostic. – Uanfala (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  At the very least, most of the the current version's refs for the infobox can't stay: #13 only mentions Hindu Pasthuns within the context of hearsay, #15 and #17 are the same ref to the CIA World Factbook, which talks about Afghanistan but says nothing that I can see specifically about the Pashtuns, #16 is alright (but it only supports the statement about the Sunni and Twelver Shia), and only #14 talks of Hindu Pashtuns. That last source looks good, and it's definitely worth using with some caution, but I'm weary of having a strong statement about Hindu Pasthuns being supported by an article in a newspaper. Can't we find an ethnographic source for that? The fact that the group self-identifies as Pashtun is a strong indicator that it should be considered as such, but there are still lingering doubts given the well-documented overall importance of Islam for Pasthun identity. And the fact that they speak Pashto doesn't mean much: language ≠ ethnicity, even for the case of Pasthuns; for example, there are Hindko-speakers of Kohat and Peshawar districts who are shifting to Pashto without presumably losing their previous ethnic identities, and there are Pasthuns in Hazara, who are abandoning Pashto in favour of Hindko apparently without their ethnic identity as Pasthuns getting affected. – Uanfala (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Uanfala, just to be clear, you only advocate removing the mention of Hindu Pashtuns in the inbofox, right? If that's the case, do you also support removing mention of another minority community, Twelver Shia Pashtuns, from the infobox too? Take into consideration that the font size in the box is different for the majority religious community and the minority religious community. I agree with your statement that "the group self-identifies as Pashtun is a strong indicator that it should be considered as such". There are other sources available regarding Hindu Pashtuns, a reason why the material in the article should be retained. [5] [6] [7] [yourstory.com/2018/01/filmmaker-goes-back-roots-traces-history-hindu-pashtuns/] [8] Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 06:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

You are showing the same ladies again, the sheen khalai movie ladies who identify as such. Identifying as Pashtun does not make you ethnic part of it. As, long there is no Ethnographic source showing that there is a existence of a blood ethnic group of Hindus, there is no point to put Hindu into the infobox as Uanfala also explained. But as Uanfala, Dough Weller and Kansas Bear agreed on is that it should be mentioned and can be described at length in the relevant section as it is worthy to mention. Like it was done in Dough Weller's Version [9] Casperti (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller and Kansas Bear both reverted you, actually and supported the inclusion of the material you censored. [10] [11] Allow them to speak for themselves instead of misquoting them. You appear to be cherry picking on all sides here. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You guys know nothing of Hindkis or Pashtuns ... only the one recorded in Makhzan e Afghan is a Pashtun so we don't have any Pashtun Hindu or Sikh but only some would speak this language out pf necessity. Hindkis aren't always of Punjabi ancestry or Hindu ancestry like Karlughs, Awans, Maliyaars, Marjans, Ghakkars and many others aren't Khatris or Punjabis per se but reckoned as Hindkis. Anyone who's not part of the majority tribe is classified as a Hindki also at times especially if he had no ownership of land. No Kakars are Hindus please do update yourself before qouting a news item as this one Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 17:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Azmarai76: for the explanation. Casperti (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Shivakarand before making claims. Just check what was reverted and open your eyes. The infobox religion info was not reverted. They (Kansas bear and Dough) did not want me to revert the relevant section (Like Uanfala). Everyone can see that [12] [13]. So they wanted that information to stay in the relevant section. They did not revert me on the infobox section like you do. I now agree with them, it is worth it to be mentioned in the relevant section like Uanfala also wants here above. The sentence that starts with "Lastly there is little information.....". But like Uanfala said here above Identifying as Pashtun (like they admit) does not mean they are ethnic part of it. Therefore it should be not mentioned as it would be a dubious claim. Pure ethnically based like here above explained by Azmarai. As long as you cannot show a reliable ethnographic source. Do not change it back. There is not even a single ETHNOGRAPHIC source that is mentioning that Pashtuns have Hindus. Even the christian converts are mentioned in some ethnographic sources but not even a single one mentions Hinduism. What you want to achieve is an excepetional claim: WP:EXTRAORDINARY read this WP. Again, identifying as such based on language and culture does not make you one + they (the Quetta ladies) admit being of Punjabi ancestry .So I do not see why you keep reverting. Yes, they are indeed mentioned and identified sometimes as Pashtun / Afghan hindus based on their language and customs because they live/lived there. Also what Uanfala mentioned show an Ethnographic source then I will accept it. But for now the suggested solution ,that it should be solely mentioned in the relevant section (like it is now), is a good idea. So try to find an ethnographic source about Pashtuns that says Pashtuns have a hindu minority. Every source citing religion for ethnic groups is based on ethnographic (including statstic and Census based sources) sources. Like on other wikipedia's ethnical pages (Randomly chosen): Visayans, Punjabis, Norwegians, Berbers, Lebanese people, Oromo people Balochis, Kazakhs etc. So show an ethnographic source and be our guest and change the infobox's religion. Till now none of them do neither do the ethnographic acadamic reliable sources above. They only mention Sunni Islam and Shia minority (1-2 sources mentions Christian converts too) Casperti (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe @El C: has an opinion too. Hello EL_C, because I can understand you do not like to constantely change the protection level of this page. You can maybe give an opinion on this if you like. What do you think of @Uanfala:'s suggestion? Casperti (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, this is not a dispute with which I am familiar. Maybe launch an RfC to better determine the consensus...(?) El_C 19:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Well that not a problem @El C:. In that case we will wait if Shivakarand has an pure reliable Ethnographic source supporting his WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. If he cannnot find/prove his claim then we will call an official third opinion to decide. Thank you for the advice. Casperti (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Fer sure. Certainly, extraordinary claims require extraordinarily-strong sources. Failure to live up to this may be viewed as tendentious editing. El_C 00:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

• Given you have already tried enough for more than 1 year now, I would recommend WP:RFC to get rid of the parameter. There is no consensus until now to remove it. Shashank5988 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

This source was disputed for 1 year and stood as such. That you dont accept it because of your own POV is another case. Maybe you should read what other people write about this too?! Uanfala, El_C, Azmarai and the edit of Dough weller say enough. Just supply an ethnographic source that supports this extraordinary claim of these ladies. If you are so certain of this case it should be in ethnographic sources?? As you can read here above faillure for this is just tendentious editing. So just prove an ethnographic source and nobody will hold you down and be our guest and change it :)Casperti (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

El_C has offered no view and Azmarai76, just like you, is relying on his personal view. I don't have to bother finding sources because you don't need anymore reliable sources here than what we already have. Shashank5988 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Everyone has eyes and can read what others write. If you are so aggresive and certain provide an ethnographic source proving the claim. Simple as that. until then Uanfala's solution will stay.Casperti (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Pashtun Numbers

We all know that there are many pashtuns in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India that speak Dari, Hindko, Saraiki, Pahari, Urdu and so many other languages and in most cases are not included in Pashtun population. But if we go with very stringent formula i.e. the pashtuns that speak pashtoItalic text and rely on information being forwarded/supported by elements who want to depress pashtun numbers, even then, pashtuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan combined are more than 54 million (Afghanistan: 16 Million (42 percent of 38 million), Pakistan: 38 million (Pakistan Census 2017)). But the reality in case of Afghanistan and Pakistan is that Pashtuns/Pathans are around 70 million in both the countries combined 101.50.68.180 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

WHY IS THE PASHTUN POPULATION IN PAKISTAN IS NOT BEING SHOWN AS AT LEAST 38 Million. When according to Pakistan's own census (Not some third countries estimate!!) 18.24 % of Pakistan is pashto speaking pashtun. If non-pashto speakers are included that number goes to 25%. However, just that makes than 38 million Pashto speaking pashtuns.. https://www.dawn.com/news/1410447 203.175.78.69 (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

India does not contain any pashtuns population and Turkey has 1.3 million Pashtuns as of this day. 2A02:C7F:A476:E300:A8CB:10C1:2411:B709 (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. –Austronesier (talk) 09:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Genetics

I think the genetics section was written by someone who doesnt understand genetics very well. First of all Y-DNA study is being referred to which only tells about the paternal lineage and nothing else, instead an autosomal study should be used to decide genetics of Pashtun people. Secondly the referred article seems very confused and has ambiguous representation of data or charts which doesnt make sense in broader perspective. Moreover in that article, halogroup L-M20 is declared to be autochonotus to India but is actually prevalent in many places in central and west Asia as well as Europe in substantial frequency rivaling that of India. And moreover the subclad of L-M20 predominant in Pashtuns is actually distinct from that of Indians. Now, majority of scholars associate it with neolithic expansion of farmers from west Asia; with central asia being second wrt scholarly consensus. So yes Pashtun, Tajik, Pakistanis and North west Indians do have genetic affinity wrt to Y DNA but that doesnt prove anything about the entire genome of Pashtuns and there are many individual groups around the world that have the same proportion of Y-dna diversity. And in broader sense the halogroup frequency is reversed towards India if individual casts are ignored with halogroup R decreasing and H increasing. If we go by the logic of article then some individual southern European and west Asian groups will cluster right next to Indians and Pakistanis but we know that's far from being a fact. So the genetics section must be written with clear emphasis on Y DNA homogeneity and not otherwise. Unfortunately there hasn't been a comprehensive autosomal study on Pashtuns due to Afghanistan and Pashtun regions of Pakistan being politically unstable since Soviet war, so nothing conclusive can be said about genetics Pashtuns. Sharjeel.khan126 (talk) 10:53, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Revision of Genetics Section

The section needs revision. Grant permission. Sharjeel.khan126 (talk) 16:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

Dear User:Casperti, I have reverted you per WP:BRD and have restored the status-quo version of the article, along with some references that you added. You provided a link to the Census of India for your number of 21,677 Pashtuns, though the Census of India link makes no mention of the number of Pashtuns in India; it only mentions the number of Pashto-speakers, which may or may not include non-Pashtun Hindu refugees from Afghanistan who speak Pashto (as such, concluding that this number represents the number of Pashtuns in India is original research). In light of these facts, I have removed it from the article. The All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind records a figure of 3,200,000 for the number of Pashtuns living in the whole country, with The Hindu mentioning that on 17 July 1954, over 100,000 Pashtuns received Indian citizenship in Gotlibagh (near Srinagar) alone. The All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind mentions that the 3,200,000 Pashtuns living and working in India do not possess citizenship, which is why they would not be recorded in the census. Since these are the only reliable figures that we have to work with that explicitly mention the number of Pashtuns in India, this is the number that should be mentioned in the infobox. Other than that, I have restored the references that you have added with respect to the large unknown number of Indians of Pashtun ancestry. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Anupam and other editors, Last year my fellow editor @Anupam: added this source [14] for the Pashtun numbers which say Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan's great granddaughter with her organization says there are 3.200.000 Pashtuns in India (descendants or ethnic Pashtun??). I advocate for the use of a Census or ethnographic source like the Government of India mentions the number 21.847 [15].

• This is clear without a doubt a non-reliable source for Census counts WP:RS. Since when are we using quotes from Famous people instead of Censuses and ethnographic sources from the government itself?.
• Since recently @Mar4d: found the numbers also unreliable (of Joshuaproject), maybe you can help Mar4d? what do you think of Anupam's citation that we use for the Pashtun counts in India.
• The source mentions that Gaffar Khan granddaughter has an organization named All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind this organization has neither a website or whatsoever only a very small Facebook page so we cannot take a source out of it, which is unfortunate. WP:RS. Our wiki page on this organization has more info then the Facebook page also this wiki page was also made by Anupam [16]. But I assume ofcourse WP:FAITH.
• 3.200.000 ethnic Pashtuns is a significant number of Pashtuns that should be mentioned in at least 1 ethnographic source (book) if they really meant full ethnic Pashtuns, not descendants. That said, this will add more to the unreliability side of this story.
• As we use for every other country: Government Censuses, CIA Factbook or Ethnographic sources but for India we use a citation from a famous living person for a count of 3.2 Million people.
• Also the source does not mention whether they are talking about descendants or full Pashtuns? They mention in the article Salman Khan & Amir Khan as Pashtuns so assumably they mean descendants(?) but it is still unclear on everything and no one knows..... + they have no counting date
• Fellow editor Anupam argues that Censuses only count citizens therefore we cannot know the exact number, which is true indeed but we can argue that on any census count? e.g. in Germany, Iran, Tajikistan, etc we can say maybe there are more Pashtuns there too because many are "illegal" or are citizenseekers (do not have citizenship?).
• UNCHR claim there are atleast 11.000+ Afghans citizen seekers in India[17].
• but in short: I prefer the Government of India census over a citation of a famous person. If the descendants of Martin Luther King in an African-American movement say that there are 100.000.000 African Americans should we take that as a Reliable source instead of a census? Certainly NOT. That said, it is indeed known that India holds millions of Pashtun descendants so maybe someone can find a source on that. @Dougweller: is an admin who frequently watches this page. maybe you have an opinion too on this 3.2 Million source and @Uanfala:, @Wikaviani:, @Arjayay:. So, therefore, the Government census, with additional notes to it, is reliable and good to use like we do on other countries for ethnicity counts. So not the citations from living persons, small organizations e.g. Joshuaproject etc. Just censuses and ethnographic sources for WP:RS --Casperti (talk) 00:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Once again, the Census of India link that you provided does not say anything about the number of Pashtuns. It only mentions the number of Pashto-speakers, which can include other ethnic groups in India that speak Pashto. Since the All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind is an interest group for Pashtuns in India, its figures would be accurate with respect to the number of Pashtuns in India. Additionally, it makes no sense that there would only be 21,677 Pashtuns in India when over 100,000 were granted citizenship in that country in 1953. As a side note, please keep the talk page comments in chronological order rather than refactoring them. I initiated the discussion here, with the timestamp of my comment coming well ahead of yours. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 01:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• The census mentions 21,000 speakers of Pushto and Casperti is trying to equate that to 21,000 Pushtuns (WP:SYNTH). The figures provided by the Indian Pushtun organisation are accurate and should be used here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
• Greetings Casperti and Anupam. Census figures, for the most part, are considered accurate and authoritative for ethno-linguistic groups as they are sourced to the government. From what I know, the established practice on Wikipedia has been to use them for any nationality/linguistic/ethnic counts. I would suggest embedding the census figure in a note so that readers are aware of the official figure purely in linguistic terms. As for the All India Pakhtoon figure, it certainly appears to be the only source out there which Anupam notes. However, I won't say it's the best source. Partly because the person making the claim (the head of this organisation) does not appear to demonstrate any academic background on the subject, and secondly because there is no source corroboration which determines how they estimated this count. There's also the major problem of lack of WP:THIRDPARTY. So essentially, we are relying on a claim coming from a primary source, which is not ideal. The reference can stay for now, but eventually it will have to be replaced by a reliable, academic source when it is found per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Best, Mar4d (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

• It is well known that many many Kabuliwallah Pakhtuns have been in India for centuries. The attempt here to diminish the numbers seems fishy, especially since the same editor tried to censor material about Hindu Pakhtuns in this article not too long ago. Both Pakistani citations and Indian ones support the 32 lakh Pakhtun figure. [ https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/281681-protect-islamabad ][ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/frontier-gandhi-khan-abdul-gaffar-khans-granddaughter-urges-centre-to-grant-citizenship-to-pathans-5064372/] Other sources say that there are 100,000 Pushtuns in J&K alone so Casperti's claim is way far off. [ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALkFKJpm-nM] Shashank5988 (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments User:Aman.kumar.goel, User:Mar4d and User:Shashank5988. In light of them, I see a consensus to retain the current figure. User:Mar4d, I agree that as of now, the figure provided by the All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind is the only one out there, though if you find another one, you can kindly let me know. I am grateful for the two additional sources that you have provided as well User:Shashank5988. These demonstrate that the same figure has been repeated in mainstream publications. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 03:30, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:Anupam and User:Mar4d. Yes it is indeed no rocket science to understand that Ghaffar Khans's Granddaughter 3.2 million figure is not reliable. We all know that there are millions of Pashtuns descendants in India, it is almost like "You do need to cite that the sky is blue" WP:DOCITEBLUE so the other user Shashank5988 making claims that I am against that, are just plain accusation which only proves the user's WP:NPOV. The other user User:Aman.kumar.goel only says "the Indian Pushtun organisation are accurate and should be used here".....that is not really helpful.. not even an argument is used. In addition Shashan5988 is putting the exactly same source (Ghaffar Khan's granddaughter's story) but from a different website/newschannel. That does not change the facts... Both editors want to challenge the 21.000+ Pashto speakers figure from Government of India itself which is undoubtedly a WP:RS. Just challenging the speaker figure by giving a video and articles about Kashmir Pashtuns to prove that the census is wrong is just WP:ORIGINAL. I accept that after Independence 100.000 Pashtuns moved there and they indeed got, several years after the Kashmir war, citizenship from India but the video Shashank5988 is even working against the editor itself. In the video they clearly say that only the elders of the community that settled there speak Pashto and that he is scared that the community will lose their native language over the years. Do not challenge the government census saying there are not 21.000+ Pashto speakers. In fact it is making sense after all according to UNHCR there are 11.000-15.000 Afghans in India (including non-citizens/refugees) so the additional figures could be Kashmir elders of the 100K Pashtuns that settled 70 years ago but again who knows... We just follow reliable sources. I can agree on Mar4d's idea to let it be like that till we have a better source for the descendants figures and that we should indeed mention the Indian census in the notes. so the source can stay for now. Cheers. Casperti (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Casperti, I have no problem with your addition of the Census of India figure in the article footnotes. That being said, it doesn't belong at the beginning of the footnote since the purpose of the footnote is to explain the main figure provided. As such, I have moved it to the end of the footnote. User:Shashank5988, I have added the references that you have provided to the footnote that User:Casperti created. Thanks for your understanding. Kind regards, Anupam^Talk 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the footnotes. I have moved it now so people can see it is separate from that. Furthermore, what I mentioned here above: Shashank5988 gave the same content/information/source from different news channels. Which is justWikipedia:Citation_overkill#Reprints But of course, I assume WP:GF in that edit of yours. Now we will just wait till we have a better source for the numbers which is atleast an ethnographic source or Census. I still think it is better to use the Official Indian census which is also used for other ethnicities figure on Wikipedia like Punjabis, Bengalis, Marathi people and all of them use this 2011 census but to avoid conflict we will let it stay like this and wait for better sources. Thank you. Casperti (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Casperti, thank you for your comment. The reason why I think retaining all three references is beneficial is because it will prevent further edit warring and will prevent this issue from coming up again and again, saving our time from further extensive discussion. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Anupam, I understand that but that does not change the fact why it is still no WP:OVERKILL? Like come on, it is exactly the same content?! Same person same story different channels. I know I am relatively a new user but this is clearly not what Wikipedia is about. Atleast show why it is not WP:OVERKILL. Your source is unreliable. User:Mar4d also finds it unreliable. Please let this not be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I accepted the souce to stay till we have a better source but what you are trying to do is against the rules clearly just work with it like all of us. Casperti (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

No User:Casperti, I've made my reasoning clear. I am willing to WP:COMPROMISE with you on the issue, however. Rather than leave three sources to support the statistic, how about retaining two? I would prefer keeping The News International since it is from Pakistan (we already have an Indian one). Also, don't speak for User:Mar4d, with whom I have worked with for many years; he agreed to retain the reliable source and my comment received a public thanks from him. Let me know your thoughts. Additionally, please be aware of the fact that if you revert once again, you will have crossed WP:3RR. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 22:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see where Mar4d agreed that it is a reliable source? Maybe you should point it out? In fact, he says I do not see it is reliable as it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Just read the comments or ask the user Mar4d again.. You have already added the Pakistani version of the Ghaffar khan story without waiting for an answer, very lowkey. Then you say: "if you revert me once more It is the 3rd time" seems it goes "childish" but with neat words but forgot that. Anyway, to be on-topic; you can merge the two references. On the WP:OVERKILL page for reprints you have solutions such as merging only if the cited contented is not mentioned in one of the other and the 2nd duplicate reference has something to support the citation (that India has 3.2M Pashtuns). I do not see how a Pakistani version of the exact same citation (that India has 3.2M Pashtuns) will not be WP:OVERKILL. None of the OVERKILL sources are statistical. Furthermore, you have added the word "Additionally" without any proof of whether Ghaffar Khan's Granddaughter includes the descendants or just speaks of pure ethnic Pashtuns who speak Pashto. In fact the source even includes Salman Khan in the 3.2M figure and he is clearly no ethnic Pashto speaking Pashtun. To be neutral on that point we can just avoid the words "includes" "excludes". If you think that is fine too? If not please provide the sentence where it says it has excluded descendants Casperti (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Casperti, you can merge the two references if you would like; I have no objections to this. If we're doing that, we might as well include the third too. The 3,200,000 figure clearly makes reference to non-citizen Pashtuns in India, not individuals of Pashtun descent who are clearly Indian citizens like Salman Khan, who is only mentioned as an individual that might contribute to the building of a university. You will not interject this POV in the article. I have separated the footnote to make clear that these are two separate facts that do not belong together. To associate them together when the source says no such thing is to create an unreferenced synthesis. Another solution might be to remove the note about millions of Indians with Pashtun ancestry altogether, since the figure about the All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind says nothing about this and claiming the 3,200,000 along with this unknown number is original research. Anupam^Talk 00:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Anupam, again before making accusations just try to look at the source besides that all these questions that we all have and unclarity just once again approves why we should not use a citation of a famous person from a news article for population counts. So on your accusation the exact text says: 'Asked about who would fund in putting up the university building, Yasmin said that if 32 lakh pathans paid Rs 10 each there would be a lot of money. “Besides there are people like Salman Khan and Amir Khan who can contribute a lot more,” she said.' so there are people (from the 3.2M that should donate 10 Rs) who can provide more than 10Rs such as Salman Khan and Amir Khan (both are Pashtun descendants). They are indeed Pashtun citizens so that once more proves how this source does not meet any WP:RS. You, making a claim that they are excluding descendants is actually a WP:ORIGINAL but anyways because she does not specifically say she includes or excludes them we will go for your idea to just drop that part. About the overkill, you have to strip the excessive duplicate and just merge the duplicates that you think should be mentioned at least. Keep in mind every ethnic-linguistic group uses censuses and ethnographic sources. this is the only ethnic-linguistic group that has a citation from a news article which cites a famous person. Do not make any accusations on me further like claiming censorship that just a sign of showing WP:NPOV from your side. So I will drop it here we just have to wait for a better source (ethnographic or census related), it is not a weird request/idea. Thank you. Cheers Casperti (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Casperti, multiple editors (User:Shashank5988, User:Aman.kumar.goel, User:Mar4d and myself) have supported the inclusion of the sources buttressing the figure provided by the All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind, viewing it as the best available figure that we have access to. For you to add a {{better citation needed}} template to the infobox is tendentious. I have therefore removed the template and you must gain consensus here if you wish to have it restored. Additionally, as I mentioned above, since you merged the sources regarding the figure, I have included the third source as I mentioned I would do above. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Joshua Mission

I was the editor who added the Pathan population of India (~11 million) citing the Joshua Mission page. Why is it considered by some here as unreliable? --Weaveravel (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

Remove title of Iranic groups, doesn't make logic sense,can't be Iranic group and not live in Iran. 138.88.167.151 (talk) 04:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dawnseeker2000 06:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

"Iranic" doesnt refer to the nationality iran or if you live in iran.

It refers to a common people with similar langauge. These people are called the iranic people. It consists of Pashtuns, Persians, Kurds, Osettians, Balochs and pamiris Pashtunfacts (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Cis- Indus Swatis aren't Pashtuns

I have to add it here for information of all editors that Cis-indus Swatis aren't Pashtuns but only Pashtunized Tajiks, therefore, some editors are trying to include them to the list of Pashtuns time and again which is against the facts. Azmarai76 (talk) 14:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Increase Protection Request

Please increase protection for this page to only referenced information. PashtoAdder4 (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Genetics Section

I had written earlier and once again mentioning that the genetics Section needs to be reviewed as it seems to be written by someone who doesn't understand genetics very well. The reason is because YDNA study is misconstrued for representing overall genetic make up of pashtuns instead of an autosomal study. Secondly L20 halogroup is claimed to be of Indian origin whereas its distributed well over Eurasia and most researchers associate it with neolithic expansion of either ancient iranic or anatolian farmers into subcontinent. Moreover the subclad L20 present in higher frequencies among pashtuns is shared with Burusho & Kalash and is distinct from that present in higher frequencies in other Indian and Pakistani ethnic groups. Sharjeel.k126 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Genetics section has been updatedAfghan1777 (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Afghan1777

We will Clean this Page up ( other request)

Salaam ! Halakas. Im not sure who runs this page actively if your pashtun or not however

- Ive re read this wiki page multiple times only to find unrelaibe unsourced info. And half the information here is just unescessary and goes into to much detail for example the genetics and someone on the women section claiming a pashtun tradition is "childmarriage" etc which i had to remove as it also provided no sourced

- add images. The images on this wiki apprently of "pashtuns" look pretty daunting but inshallah if possible we will add more which shows our culture and people more clearly

- more historical information need and images as well such as the durrani flag etc. And pashtuns in history. Pashtunfacts (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Non-Muslim Pashtuns

Around the time of Mahmud Ghaznavi, a large number of Pashtuns or Afghans self-identified as Hindus as discussed in books like Hudud al-'Alam. Therefore, we should not be surprised if some modern-day Pashtuns self-identify as Hindus (in places like Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan). There was no magic stick which converted 100% of Pashtuns to Islam. Not only that, but there are also some Sikh Pashtuns in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (including Tirah and Swat). If we can find a reliable source, we can also add Sikh religion to infobox. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This article talks about Pashtun Sikhs in Nankana Sahib, Punjab, Pakistan. “We are Pashtuns, our forefathers and our next generations all will remain wedded to Pashtunwali. Even our relatives who’ve migrated to Delhi take pride in being called Pashtun Sikhs, and many others who’ve kept Pashto alive in faraway lands. It’s a matter of pride for them when they tell others where they’ve come from. The Pashtun aura has a mystical charm to it,” said a beaming Sardar Rajan Singh. Like other Pashtuns displaced from their homes and ancestral places, the Pashtun Sikhs have been successful in keeping the basic foundation and ethos of their cultural and tradition intact. Detached from their source of origins they cherish and live every moment that connects them to their region. Also note this article published in Dawn, which mentions one of the Pashtun Afridi tribesmen from Tirah who practice Sikhism. Khestwol (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Khestwol, Thank your info. your WP:ORIGINAL argument that Pashtun ancestors had a religion so this religion has to exist still is your own opinion we could say Buddhist and Zoroastrians exist now too so try to avoid own research. We discussed that the Sikhs and Hindus that live in Afghanistan and Pashtunkhwa indeed identify themselves as "Afghan Hindus" or "Pashtun Hindus" due to the fact they are native in Pashto (or Dari) and embrace the culture. secondly, Your own source confirms that: Let me quote: We’ve lived alongside our Pashtun brothers since we first settled in the tribal region and other parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 1872, just like Sardar Rajan Singh said, we became part of their social fabric, we fostered friendships, setup businesses and even were given the right participate in the decision making process. We lived as neighbors alongside our Pashtun brothers and according to Pashtunwali, a Pashtun is responsible for the well-being of his neighbour, he is his protector and representative. This then begs the question that how can the same people who gave us our identity turn their backs on us?” This is just your own source that you provided so your own source refutes your argument. They came in the 18th-19th century and got the Pashtun identity, that's just their own words not mine. like Uanfala said here Language/culture adaption≠ ethnicity. Please provide an ethnographic source (WP:Cherrypicking) that will support the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim otherwise like user EL_C stated it will be tendentious editing. btw Sikhs/Hindus are already in the "Religion section separately mentioned as Uanfala consensus proposal. If you can provide an ethnographic source then be my guest &change the infobox For now your own source refutes your argument.Casperti (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this information User:Khestwol. I agree that this important content should be restored. I will restore the information about Hindu Pashtuns, as well as Sikh Pashtuns, along with the sources that were previously in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all User:Anupam user Khestwol's source refuted its own claim. They are identifying as Pashtuns due to assimilation they migrated to those areas in 1872. Like I quoted here above from their own source. second of all, we have already a consensus here Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 20#Disputed source Solved along with admins and other users. Do not ignore the consensus out there or just provide an ethnographic source for the claim. I hope this helps. Thanks Casperti (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Casperti, I think the sources are enough and reliable. At present, there are people who self-identify as Pashtuns, practice Hinduism/Sikhism, follow Pashtun culture, and that is what matters here. Dear Anupam, thanks for the additions to infobox. Khestwol (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Again your own source is against your claim?? Why are you ignoring the quote I gave you from your own source? This is really WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Besides, you are ignoring the consensus of this matter where non-party users commented on.Casperti (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Casperti, now that new sources have been provided (for Sikh Pashtuns), you seem to be the only one to want to omit Sikhism and Hinduism from the article. Please keep in mind that neither me nor you are an authority to issue certificates as to who is a Pashtun and who is a non-Pashtun (that will be WP:OR). Don't you agree? What we can do is simply to use reliable secondary references and that is what me and Anupam did. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Dear Khestwol, there is already a consensus about this here Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 20#Disputed source Solved, which it seems you are avoiding by purpose. About your comment, neither are you the person who can decide who is Pashtun or who not... That is just upto experts from a reliable source (Ethnographic sources) and none of them mentions these two religions. There is no single source out there that mentions them this is just Original research from your side and Anupam's. see Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 20#Disputed source Solved you are ignoring this page see all comments of all people out there. For your Tirah people here [18]. Again you are working against a clear consensus. Just provide an ethnographic source. Not much is asked! Casperti (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Casperti, I read the article you provided from Samaa TV. Nowhere does it say that Pashtun Sikhs are non-Pashtuns, does it? To assert that they are non-Pashtuns is WP:OR. As for Zoroastrian and Buddhist Pashtuns, you will need to find reliable sources before adding it. Khestwol (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

wow ignoring is a fact now. First of all your own source says they migrated from ancestral Punjab to Pashtunkhwa in 1871 second of all my Samaa source literally is called “ How the Sikhs settled in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa” they literally are saying how they became Pashto speakers “....and then sikhs became fluent in Pashto”. This is just tendentious editing from you..... And again you (and maybe friends) are ignoring the consensus of last year. + I see that the opinion of an IP bystander is deleted by Aman.Kumar.GoelCasperti (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I do not know about the year 1871. But what I do know is that the Pashtun Sikhs are now fully part of different Pashtun tribes. Also, Sikhism is a relatively new religion so we cannot expect to see Sikhism in Pashtunkhwa before the 18th century, when it was not even formalized. According to History of Sikhism, the religion was formalised on 13 April 1699. Khestwol (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Khestwol do you care to explain the difference between 'Ethnic Pashtuns' and those who have over the years 'become part of different tribes'? Sikhs may speak Pashto, practice Pashtunwali, may even get representation in local Jirga system, and get accepted as 'fellow tribesmen' by actual Pashtun tribesmen, but are they Pashtun by ethnicity? I suppose there needs to be a reasonable discussion by neutral editors on this issue; apparently it seems to me that User:Anupam and you are pushing your personal opinion here. User:Casperti also seems to ask the same question: are ethnic Pashtuns and those culturally & linguistically Pashtun the same? It should be left to more neutral editors to provide their consensus. Each of you appear to have involved your egos into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.245.9.44 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

My bad it is the year 1872 btw it is your own source that says it not me. What you think it should be considered is personal opinion or WP:OR. Facts are; they migrated 18th-19th century and learned to be Pashtun like your own source points out so what you on about? The IP address here above seems reasonable and has a good idea. But I have to point out that there was already a discussion about this at the top of the Talk page but nevertheless its a good idea we should ask for neutral third opinions. Casperti (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Btw this recent edit is a very good one: [19] made by user:Eliko007. The user is using an ethnographic source. That mentions the small Christian minority in addition the Shias-Sunnis. This is exactly what I mean. This is good. Casperti (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Khestowl's source is not reliable, all Pashtuns are 100% Muslims. Akmal94 (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I read through most of the arguments above. The following are my observations:

-There is no doubt that some converted to Christianity (mostly during British rule, but some after independence)

Regarding Sikh Pashtuns - the sources listed above do not make a good distinction between those who self-identify as Pashtun, and those who are considered Pashtun by ethnicity. Its reasonable to assume that some Pashtun probably converted to Sikhism, although it seems the Sikhs living in KPK mountains may be Punjabis who moved to the region and just assimilated. According to the source above, the Sikhs moved there in 1872 and simply assimilated (although, did they? Islam is a huge part of being Pashtun) but that doesn't make them Pashtun. I think the argument made above that they are "now Pashtun" isn't particularly convincing - living in proximity and assimilating doesn't mean your past ethnicity is simply washed away. I can be Russian living in Uzbekistan for generations, but that doesn't make me Uzbek even if I call myself Uzbek and speak Uzbek perfectly and am Uzbek in every other sense. Even if I convert to Islam (and these Sikhs didn't convert), I still would be Russian. In short, I think some Pashtuns probably became Sikhs, but the Sikhs listed in the sources are Punjabi migrants from 1872.

Regarding Hindu Pashtuns, there are a few issues. Unlike Sikhism, Hinduism doesn't seek converts, so Pashtuns becoming Hindu is extremely rare. The sole exception would be some Pashtuns who joined something like ISKCON. Otherwise, we are left with two possibilities. The first is that some Pashtuns remained wedded to their pre-Islamic religion, and that religion was Hinduism. Both of those conditions are not true, and I wonder if some people are making the claim to suggest that Pashtuns are originally Hindus? Second, the same issue as above arises - that some Hindus self-identify as Pashtuns, but that doesn't necessarily make them Pashtun. There is an interesting corollary in villages near Peshawar that many Hindko speakers call themselves Pashtun, but Pashtuns do not consider them Pashtun.

The second problem with the Hindu Pashtun claim is that the article is using journalists as reliable sources, such as Suhasini Haidar. Mrs Haidar is a reliable source as a journalist - we can trust her to report that there are some Hindus who are referring to themselves as Pashtun. She is not an ethnographer, and so her report should not be taken to mean that these Hindus are indeed Pashtun. The exact same problem arises with the ArabNews source with Mr Khan. As for Tariq Ali, he's a political historian, not an ethnographer - and in any case, all he does is quote some friends who spoke of Hindu and Sikh Pashtuns. Who are these friends? Are they reliable sources?Alishernavoi (talk) 04:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Nice theories. Is there any source that backs them?

Are you sure that only ethnographers are reliable sources for this artcile? I just checked through the reflist, and it seemed that if we remove all information not coming from an ethnographer then we would have less than three sentences left. So, please, be very sure before you say yes. Otherwise you might have no article on Pashtuns to discuss about.

Or maybe a source is not reliable until it says Pashtuns are 100% Muslims. Is that so?

According to this article Pashtun history begins 50,000 years back. Were they all Muslims back at that time? If not, then what happened to Pashtuns who were not Muslims? Every last one of them converted to Islam?

You raise some pretty interesting questions. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 18:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure about the Hindus, however the Sikh part is complete none sense, the sources themselves state the Sikhs to be Punjabi’s and that’s also the language the Sikhs in KPK and Afghanistan speak, also Sikhism was created in the 15th century, so the beautiful idea of remaining “unconverted” people isn’t valid here. From the source that’s being used: “We’ve lived alongside our Pashtun brothers since we first settled in the tribal region and other parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 1872, just like Sardar Rajan Singh said, we became part of their social fabric, we fostered friendships, setup businesses and even were given the right participate in the decision making process. We lived as neighbors alongside our Pashtun brothers and according to Pashtunwali, a Pashtun is responsible for the well-being of his neighbour, he is his protector and representative. Xerxes931 (talk) 11:10, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

"From the source that’s being used"... is there just one source being used? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I also has to remove a section about the "sheen khal indian pashtun who migrated to india. It only came from one source and the its shows an eledery lady with sheen khal on her face. However there is greater chance than people adoptinf that then pashtuns practicing hinduism which is inevident in pashtun history. Plus she could have been from the ancient gandharan civilistation of such. Who knows Pashtunfacts (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Vandalism Poor Source and Overestimation

This page should be more protected User 7373830 (talk) 12:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop changing population statistics on multiple articles without providing a verifiable reliable source as a reference citation. You have also changed stats in front of existing citations which misrepresents the citations. I'm hoping to get your attention here in case you check this article talk page, as there has been no response at your user talk. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Origin part

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1i9GhAfBmCHzgb_EqrwFbGOoFo91wjmAVJfZIRr9gJ24/mobilebasic

I've shared this paper with you and keeping in this mind the pashtun origin part should be updated. Ozgharzai (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I suggested updating the origin part based on the above mentioned paper but still no response.Ozgharzai (talk) 20:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Linguistic origin

A section has recently been added on the classification and history of Pashto. I don't know the literature on the subject, but it seems that the additions rely too much on the Encyclopedia Iranica article. Surely, the field must have advanced since the time when its author, Georg Morgenstierne, made those preliminary observations? – Uanfala (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Morgentrienes works are still pretty much up to date, furthermore Encyclopedia Iranica is one of the most, if not the most authentic sources we have on Iranic historic and linguistics. Having said this there are also other sources used in the section like the work of Cheung which is from 2007 and also still in line with most of what Morgenstierne stated. However if your concerned too much I will add more recent works and sources on a regular basis to the article. You’ve reverted my category adding to the Pashto article as well, the north-eastern categorization is actually not even disputed, I am gonna add another source here on the article from 2009 and revert you on that Xerxes931 (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Do these sources put Pashto specifically into the Northeastern subgroup? I thought it was commonly assumed to be in the Southeastern branch (see for example the introduction of this paper). On a side note, when reverting it will be helpful if you only revert edits you disagree with and don't also revert in the process edits you don't disagree with. – Uanfala (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting the other things as well, I will fix that tomorrow. The Southeastern category is the Ormuri-Parachi group which Pashto does not fall into.Pashto is rather related to languages from the Pamir family who fall into the northeastern categoryXerxes931 (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, in the traditional classification I know of, the Pamir languages and Ormuri are also members of the Southeastern branch. At any rate, I don't think that even the very idea of north and south sub-branches of Eastern Iranian is widely accepted, so it may probably be best if mention of them is left out altogether. Any discussion of debates about the classification of Pashto, if there have been actual ones, probably belong on the language article anyway. – Uanfala (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Most of the Pamir languages usually fall into the Northeastern category, but that’s another topic for itself. The linguistic origin is important here because those theory’s and analyzes evolve around The original Pashto-Speakers or Middle/Old-Pashto speakers, or in other words the origins of the first Pashtuns, the different tribes may all have different origins, however there was one group who brought the Pashto language with them from north of the Oxus who were thus the original or first Pashtuns, that’s why the linguistic origin is an important aspect in an article about the Pashtuns in general, especially when it’s a section about their origin. Xerxes931 (talk) 03:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

User: Uanfala do you mind discussing this instead of edit-warring on the Pashto article? Can you show me any authentic linguist ( not some hobby bloggers) who describe Pashto as a south eastern Iranian language and are explicitly not talking about geography? You can at least put in the broader category of Eastern Iranian languages as it’s not included. Xerxes931 (talk) 13:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

One paper I've linked above. You can also see Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari and Payne's chapter on Iranian in Comrie's volume (the same one with MacKenzie's Pashto chapter, which has, correctly, been cited here as supporting NE). – Uanfala (talk) 14:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we need a thorough survey of exisiting subgrouping proposals, in order to see which can be used in infoboxes and categories. The minimal threshold should be wide scholarly consensus, and not just the authority of a single source, however high its reputation may be. But frankly, I find the fact confusing that Korn (who proposes a novel classification) portrays Pashto being a SE Iranian as the "traditional" view, when quite many sources describe it as a NE Iranian language: apart from Morgenstierne in the EI and MacKenzie in Comrie's The World's Major Languages, there is also Daniel Septfonds's "Pashto" chapter in the Elsevier Concise Encyclopaedia of Languages of the World ("From a strictly genetic point of view, Pashto, an Indo–European language, belongs to the northeastern group of Iranian languages").

While I am sympathetic to renegade approaches in historical-comparative linguistics, we should apply them with care here, in order not to fall for recentism. Novel hypotheses should receive due mention in prose, but nothing more than that. I have edited hundreds of pages to remove a classification proposal which I had published some 20 yrs ago from infoboxes, templates and categories because—for reasons I've never understood—it was given undue weight here in Wikipedia. –Austronesier (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, Korn herself notes the wide divergences between the various definitions of NE and SE Iranian. Wendtland, for example, also has a paragraph or two about that [20]. – Uanfala (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Plus there's Windfuhr[21] who splits the traditional Eastern languages into "East Iranian" (Pashto, Pamir lgs and others), "Southeast Iranian" (Parachi-Ormuri) and "North Iranian" (Yaghnobi, Ossetic). That's why I think a survey would be interesting, and maybe we could do something similar in Iranian languages as AryamanA has done in Indo-Aryan languages. –Austronesier (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

The wikipedia page states "historically known as Afghans,[b] are an Iranian ethnic group[30] native to Central and South Asia.[31][32] The native language of the Pashtuns is Pashto, an Iranian language on the Indo-Iranian branch."

The statement is somewhat of an oxymoron, where it is not only inaccurate through its explanation, the overall statement is incorrect, and the source referenced does not infer this point. Furthermore, the statement and the source incorrectly reference Iranian and Indo-Iranian relation to Afghanistan and Pashtuns. Pashtuns are very specific to the Afghanistan and Pakistan border and is in no way, shape, or form related to Iranian or Indo-Iranian. It is actually related to an ethnic group in Afghanistan. A simple source to confirm this is https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pashtun where they state "Pashto-speaking people residing primarily in the region that lies between the Hindu Kush in northeastern Afghanistan and the northern stretch of the Indus River in Pakistan."

Therefore change: "historically known as Afghans,[b] are an Iranian ethnic group[30] native to Central and South Asia.[31][32] The native language of the Pashtuns is Pashto, an Iranian language on the Indo-Iranian branch." to "historically known as Afghans,[b] they are the ethnic group of the Afghanistan and Pakistan, and native to Central and South Asia. The native language of the Pashtuns is Pashto, the national language of Afghanistan and also spoken in the two largest provinces of Pakistan, including Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Baluchistan."

The source for this change is https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238423

ALSO

The page says "The vast majority of Pashtuns in Afghanistan speak Persian[33] as a second language".

This is absolutely false because "Persian" is not a language, and the source is an opinion article that is not factual or constructed in a historically, and linguistically coherent manner. Additionally, its random and irrelevant to Pashtun and Pashto. The source is not credible to say the least. Persian is a term for the people of Iran. Persians speak the Farsi language, which is very specific to Iran. Sources to confirm this are: https://web.archive.org/web/20120203093100/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/cs/profiles/Iran.pdf

Pashtun people speak Pashtu and its very specific to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Has nothing to do with Persian, Iranian, or Indo-Iranian. The original statement is geographically and linguistically inaccurate. And it doesnt make sense that the post is beginning to talk about a "second language" without addressing their primary language first, or at all. Pashtun people speak Pashtu. Some may speak Dari as their second language. Not Persian. The source to prove this is https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0238423

So change "The vast majority of Pashtuns in Afghanistan speak Persian[33] as a second language" to "The vast majority of Pashtuns in Afghanistan speak Pashtu as their primary language." Mnesvade (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The changes are not supported by the sources given (including "PHND: Pashtu Handwritten Numerals Database and deep learning benchmark", a rather odd choice for looking up basic information about Pashto). 1) The classification of Pashto as an Iranian language in the Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages is universally accepted in mainstream scholarship and also reflected in the article "Pashto language" in Encyclopædia Britannica. The source "PHND..." does not contradict this, but simply does not mention it, because it's topic is not language classification. 2) Persian (endonym Farsi) is a language, not to say so again is in completely contradiction to mainstream scholarship. Dari is the Afghan variant of Persian. Again, refer to "Persian language" in Encyclopædia Britannica. 3) It is incorrect that the article begins to talk about a "second language" without addressing their primary language first. The second paragraph begins with "The native language of the Pashtuns is Pashto", only the next sentence mentions the second language. –Austronesier (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A Question of Zoroastrians

There appears to be a series of edits adding and then deleting edits about Zoroastrians; i have no opinion on the appropriateness of the edit, but i strongly believe that we should be discussing rather than pushing back and forth. To that end, i'm pinging the editors whom i have seen doing this most recently and asking that we discuss it here. Thanks. PashtoPromoter, PashtoAdder4, Xerxes931; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

PashtoPromoter and PashtoAdder4 clearly seem to be sock puppets of each other, this issue needs to get adressed--Xerxes931 (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes that was my account but i lost my password and when i did i created this account. I dont use that account anymore. PashtoPromoter (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In any case I feel that the information lacks credible sources and the source which mentions Zorastrians of Afghan origins does not mention Pashtuns. Afghanistan is a multi ethnic term. A blogspot with vague information should not be used as title information. Any news article, book or academic journal if cited - would be better PashtoPromoter (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Whatever is the in the infobox, should also be found in the article text. The section "Religion" only says that Pashtuns may have been followers of Zoroastrianism before the arrival of Islam, and even that is not fully supported by the quotes in the references. Only one says: At the time of the first Muslim advances, numerous local natural religions were competing with Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Hinduism in the territory of modern Afghanistan, but does not specifically refer to Pashtuns. Unless there are reliable sources (not blogs) which support the claim of adherents of Zoroastrianism among present-day Pashtuns, there is no way to mention it in the infobox. –Austronesier (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources about Pashtun “Sikh” and “Hindu” minority do not state Pashtuns specifically to be followers of those religions either, if anything it states that they are Punjabi’s/Hindkos residing in majority Pashtun areas, either remove them as well or non, thanks. Xerxes931 (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I would agree when it come to Sikhs; but the same can not be said for Hindus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RehHXM7Fe8 Here is a BBC news video clipping showing and referring to Pashtun hindus. The articles also refer to Pashtun Hindus. Moreover, being a Pashtun myself I can confirm the existence of Pashtun Hindus PashtoPromoter (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Ehh your personal “conformation” about anything does not have any weight here, wether you are Pashtun, Aboriginal or Scottish. The documentation is on Punjabi or Hindi, this is English Wikipedia, I don’t understand anything in the video but those allegedly “Hindu Pashtuns” are speaking Hindi/Punjabi as well in the documentation and not Pashto.... Xerxes931 (talk) 22:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Pashtuns in India

There seems to be a dispute between some of the users wether to put in the number of all people with partial Pashtun descent in India(numbers raging from 3-10 million) or just the number of Pashto speakers. My suggestion would be to put in both, for instance

India: 3.200.000 (descent),23.000(Speakers)

One could argue that we don’t do this for other countries either, however the difference is that for India it’s a relatively extreme case where way less than 1% of the “Pashtuns” speak Pashto in first place, many of who have their ancestry traced back to Afghanistan in medieval and historic times, so that’s why I would this as a compromise for both parties

Xerxes931 (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If you move India back to position 3 with the number of Indian Pushtuns first and then the number of Pushto speakers, then that's fine with me and I can accept the compromise. I will have to revert to the WP:STATUSQUO until you gain consensus for your changes. But I hope that you will do this yourself and we can leave this in peace. Segaton (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, go ahead and do it Segaton --Xerxes931 (talk) 03:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2021

Please change the ‘Historically known as Afghans’ at the start of the page back to ‘Also known as Afghans’! It said that before but was just changed. Many pashtuns and non-pashtuns still refer to Pashtuns as Afghans, even ethnic minorities in Afghanistan are protesting that they should not be labeled ‘Afghans’ but their own Afghan name. People across the world still refer to pashtuns as Afghan. Even if that is not the ‘official’ definition, it doesn’t change the fact that they are in fact ‘also known as’ Afghans. Sz.zxi (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Zalmay Khalilzad with George W. Bush in 2004.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Can you name the pakistani actress Mahira Khan in the Pushtuns wikepedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.236.139.131 (talk) 07:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion other Languages spoken by Pashtuns

شاه عباس Did the following edit:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashtuns&type=revision&diff=1013180745&oldid=1013179679

Additionally, the vast majority of ethnic Pashtuns in Afghanistan speak the Dari dialect of Persian as a second language, while those in the Indian subcontinent speak Hindi–Urdu as their second language.

No reliable source has been provided nor any Linguistic survey carried out that "the vast majority of ethnic Pashtuns" speak Dari or Hindustani - There are 50-70 million Pashtuns globally. Per Wp:Verifiability this statement need to be removed and replaced with more accurate wording on the lines of "may also speak Dari and Hindustani" PashtoPromoter (talk) 06:03, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Disruptive Reversion

Please take note of the disruptive reversion by: شاه عباس

• [22]

The reason for revert: "No consensus"

The information is new information - not under any talkpage dispute. PashtoPromoter (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on the inclusion of Information Relating to the Spread of Buddhism

This is the information that was removed

In relation to Buddhism, it has been observed "the Mauryans introduced Buddhism to the region during their occupation in southern Afghanistan, and Buddhism would become a religion almost as prominent and influential as Zoroastrianism.In 262 B.C.E., a figure emerged who would play a pivotal role in shaping the religious beliefs of Afghanistan. As the last major emperor in the Mauryan dynasty of India, Asoka was a vigorous supporter of Buddhism."

PashtoPromoter (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ شاه عباس Please explain any objections to this information. So that we can reach consensus PashtoPromoter (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The article already states that Buddhism was also common throughout the whole region. The article already contains all the information needed, and in its current form is agreed upon by most editors. It states that there were multiple religions in the area, and that Buddhism was also present and common throughout the whole region. You on the other hand desire to over represent certain religions with your edits. Why are you so obsessed with this? NE47NE (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@NE47NE Thank you for your observations. Here is my response-

1. The quote refers to how Buddhism spread not that it was present/existent there
2. It is a direct quote citation from a book on Afghan historty relevant to the section
3. There is an underrepresentation of Buddhism/Hinduism and an over emphasis on Zoroastrianism: 1. " around Kandahar in modern day southern Afghanistan, used to be primarily Zoroastrian"; 2. ""second homeland of Zoroastrianism""; 3. "used to worship various local ancient Iranian gods"; 4. "people would be patrons of Buddhism but still worship local Iranian god".
4. The sources current used to justify information on Zoroastrianism are either not related to Afghanistan [e.g. "Gnoli, Gherado (1989). The Idea of Iran, an Essay on its Origin"] or specifically related to Iranian History [e.g. encyclopaedia iranica]. This gives a one-sided understanding of the Pre-Islamic Period

PashtoPromoter (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This comment further proves your utter lack of understanding of the topic being discussed. Gherdo Gnoli covers the history of the historic Iran, or Greater Iran, focusing specifically on what is today Afghanistan and Iran, in his work, not only that of modern day Iran, same goes for Ecyclopedia Iranica, which goes in depth for countless of Afghanistan related topics as well, if anything its among the most reliable sources we have for the region. Also Kandahar being the "second homeland of Zoroastrianism" and "primarily Zoroastrian" is in the same sentence, if this is truely your issue, then feel free to add Gandhara being a major hotbed of Buddhism as well. Second and most importantly: not every Iranian God is automatically Zoroastrian, because of the Kushans or Turk Shahis worshipping Iranian (or Irani*c* as some like to say) Gods it doesnt mean that they are Zoroastrians, but I am not here to educate anyone. The section is pretty balanced already, why are you so uncomfortable about the presence of any source or statement not related to the Indian subcontinent? Mr. "Pashto"promoter... --Xerxes931 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

What needs to be decided on is which information is worthy and suitable for the article, this is how consensi work in regards to article refinement. The information newly presented is debatable in content and in the sources it provides, and should be subject to scrutiny as if explicitly relates to the previous disputed sections. It is in the exact same section of the article, moreover. It is not "new" in the pure sense as you are trying to convey. I advise you to engage in the talk page's discussions, and in the meanwhile retain the status quo. This seems to me to be the most reasonable plan of action. شاه عباس (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@ شاه عباس you mentioned "what needs to be decided on is which information is worthy and suitable for the article" as I have mentioned this information expands on:

1. How Buddhism became the dominant religion on par with Zoroastrianism. (Mauryan introduction])
2. Which Time period it became dominant. (262 B.C.E)
3. Whose efforts made it dominant. (Asoka]
4. It is related directly to Southern Afghanistan ("introduced Buddhism to the region during their occupation in southern Afghanistan")
5. It is from an academic book on Afghan history. (The History of Afghanistan by M. L. Runion)
6. It is a recent book thus based on contemporary historical research (written in 2007)

The onus is on you, now. On why it is not "is worthy and suitable for the article" in your words PashtoPromoter (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

PashtoPromoter, There is not an over representation of any one religion. It simply states the religions which were practiced there, the fact that you feel hinduism/buddism is under represented is simply your POV(which clearly shows what your agenda is). As stated before, most editors agree on the current content of the section. It shows a balanced view of the different faiths practiced by the people there. It clearly says Buddhism was COMMON along side other faiths. That is all that is needed, and there really isn't more to discuss. NE47NE (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

PashtoPromoter's sources actually talk about how Pushtuns followed Hinduism and Buddhism. I have asked for direct quotations from the sources showing that the Pushtuns followed Zoroastrianism and worshipped Iranian gods and no one has provided them here. So right now, this article violates WP:OR. The Garland Encyclopedia is the only source we have talking about the pre-Islamic religion of the Pushtuns and that's what should be included in the article, not any of the other stuff that's there now. If I don't see any direct quotes within a few days, I will be fine with going ahead and rewrite that section, removing all the WP:OR. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel This was never the topic up to debate, the sources PashtoPromoter is referring to are those talking about Eastern Afghanistan as a region. The source stating Pashtuns to be follower of Hinduism and Buddhism is from a website focusing on music and doesn't even properly spell the word "Pashtun". What PashtoPromoters issue is that he thinks Hinduism and Buddhism are underrepresented in the section, not that Zoroastriansm and Iranian Gods should be removed, you are suggesting a completely new topic and want to handle on your own. The Khalaj of Kabul and Zabulistan worshipping various Iranian-Gods in pre-islamic time is well sourced, the Khalaj being the ancestors of the modern day Ghilji Pashtuns is well sourced as well, I can give you million of more sources about that if that is your concerned, none of that is WP:OR but very well sourced. You do realize that Pashtuns are rather a Tribal confederation with various diverse origins? The source about Kandahar/Arachosia does not mention Pashtuns specifically, but neither do the sources about Eastern Afghanistan provided by PashtoPromoter, asides that the region around Arachosia is generally ackonweledged to be Pashtun traditional homeland and essential for Pashtun history, in fact the place where Pashtuns emerged from Here is another source for your concern Anyways this discussion has another purpose, your missing the topic.--Xerxes931 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Aman.Kumar.Goel The areas which are currently mentioned (Arachosia) and groups such as Khalaj, are groups/areas strongly associated with Pashtuns. Additionally that source repeatedly brings up NWFP province, aka Gandhara area which is already mentioned as being Buddist/Hindu. Nothing should be rewritten. NE47NE (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

@NE47NE Afghanistan is mentioned 2 times; no where is referene made to Gandhara or NWFP : ""the Mauryans introduced Buddhism to the region during their occupation in southern Afghanistan, and Buddhism would become a religion almost as prominent and influential as Zoroastrianism.In 262 B.C.E., a figure emerged who would play a pivotal role in shaping the religious beliefs of Afghanistan. As the last major emperor in the Mauryan dynasty of India, Asoka was a vigorous supporter of Buddhism." PashtoPromoter (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

PashtoPromoter I was not talking about your source. I was mentioning the source your friend mr.goel referenced. Secondly as I have said before, Buddhism is already mentioned. We don't need a history lesson on Buddhism in this article, neither information about Ashoka. The article in its current forum states the various different faiths and states that buddism was common. We could add many paragraphs about Avestan geography which makes many mentions about the different locations all over southern AFG, but we don't because its not appropriate for this article, we simply state that Zoroastrian was practice there, that's it.NE47NE (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Aman.kumar.goel Asked for a quote, and Xerxes931 has provided one. Any attempts to complete rewrite the section by Aman.kumar.goel would be clear disruption and POV pushing. NE47NE (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Points in support of citation

Reasons for inclusion of the above quote-citation:

1. It is a direct quote citation from a book on Afghan history relevant to the section
2. There is an underrepresentation of Buddhism/Hinduism and an over emphasis on Zoroastrianism: 1. " around Kandahar in modern day southern Afghanistan, used to be primarily Zoroastrian"; 2. ""second homeland of Zoroastrianism""; 3. "used to worship various local ancient Iranian gods"; 4. "people would be patrons of Buddhism but still worship local Iranian god".
3. The sources current used to justify information on Zoroastrianism are either not related to Afghanistan [e.g. "Gnoli, Gherado (1989). The Idea of Iran, an Essay on its Origin"] or specifically related to Iranian History [e.g. encyclopaedia iranica]. This gives a one-sided understanding of the Pre-Islamic Period
4. Shows How Buddhism became the dominant religion on par with Zoroastrianism. (Mauryan introduction)
5. In Which Time period it became dominant. (262 B.C.E)
6. And whose efforts made it dominant. (Asoka)
7. It is related directly to Southern Afghanistan ("introduced Buddhism to the region during their occupation in southern Afghanistan")
8. It is from an academic book on Afghan history. (The History of Afghanistan by M. L. Runion)
9. It is a recent book thus based on contemporary historical research (written in 2007)

PashtoPromoter (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Points against of citation

Editors NE47NE , شاه عباس etc list your points on the reasons against the inclusion:

Encyclopedia of the World's Minorities, which states exactly what we are saying that SOME ancestors of pashtuns were Zoroastian. the current wiki article does not say ALL, but SOME. The current article also says SOME of their ancestors(khalaj)were worshipers of the Iranian deities, not ALL. and also SOME were Buddist, and that buddism was common all over AFG, and Hinduism was common mainly in Gandhara. It is already balanced and sheds light on the many different faiths there. We do not need a history lesson on buddism or Ashoka in this article. As i stated before we could go into detail about Zoroastrians in Southern Afg, how it got there, the different locations mentioned in Avestan geography (such as Haraxᵛaitī or Čaxra) but we dont. There are also sources which say Zoroaster himself might have been born in South west AFG, but we dont mention all of that... why? because it is not appropriate for an article about PASHTUNS. Also as a side note mr.Goel wanted a direct qoute, and we have one. The section in its current form is agree upon by most editors as being sufficient. Please stop pushing your POV, its too obvious what your agenda is. NE47NE (talk) 18:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

• Alright Xerxes, the Routledge citation is fine for Zoroastrianism. You can't use the Medium one because that doesn't pass WP:RS. The other citations don't specifically say that the Pushtuns follow Zoroastrianism and aren't relevant. Do you have citations saying that the Pushtuns followed Iranian gods? Provide the quotes for those now. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 12:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel I think it is better to rewrite the whole section as it seem me and Xerxes931 wont reach consensus on the quote above: it will avoid all inaccuracies and one-sided representation if something neutral based on direct quotes on the lines of, is written instead:

"Pashtuns before the emergence of Islam likely followed Hinduism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism."

Replacing this paragraph:

"Before the Islamization of their territory, the region used to be home to various beliefs and cults, often resulting in Syncretism between the dominant religions[240] such as Zoroastrianism, Buddhism or Greco-Buddhism, Ancient Iranian religions, Hinduism and Zunism.The region of Arachosia, around Kandahar in modern day southern Afghanistan, used to be primarily Zoroastrian and played a key role in the transfer of the Avesta to Persia and is thus considered by some to be the "second homeland of Zoroastriansm". The Khalaj of Kabul, supposed ancestors of the modern Ghilji Pashtuns, used to worship various local ancient Iranian gods such as the fire God Atar. [251] The historic region of Gandhara used to be dominantly Hindu and Buddhist. Buddhism, in its own unique syncretic form, was also common throughout the whole region of contemporary Afghanistan, people would be patrons of Buddhism but still worship local Iranian gods such as Ahura Mazda, Lady Nana, Anahita or Mihr(Mithra)"

PashtoPromoter (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel, No I disagree. This is not just about you and what you want. There are many other editors here such as Xerxes931 , Foxhound03, شاه عباس and a few others. The majority of editors are in agreement with the current state of the section. There is no bias in it, it simply states all the different faiths which were practiced in the areas which are inhabited by modern day Pashtuns. The fact that you think certain faiths are over represented is simply your POV, It is very clear why you are so hyper focused on this issue, and the agenda is very clear. NE47NE (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

PashtoPromoter, good job. What you have there is close to how I wanted to rewrite the section, because that's all the sources say. The only thing I would change is "likely" because that's not in the source. This is what I suggest: "Before the arrival of Islam in South Asia, the Pushtuns were followers of Hinduism and Buddhism, and some may have practiced Zoroastrianism." Your version is fine too, but mine is a little more true to the sources. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 13:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply no, all sources are provided and the majority of the users agree with it already. This is simply WP:Idontlikeit--Xerxes931 (talk) 14:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel thanks PashtoPromoter (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually Xerxes, you're wrong. We can't have material in the article that doesn't meet WP:V. You've been asked to provide original quotes for your claim that Pushtuns worship Iranian gods and you haven't done that. This WP:OR material will be removed soon and will be replaced by the version PashtoPromoter and I suggested above. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You are making no sense, can you elaborate what part about what Gods Khalaj worshipped does not belong into the section? PashtoPromoter argues that Buddhism and Hinduism should be more represented, which is one topic we can discuss, you are bringing up a whole different topic by wanting to remove all the sourced information, simply because they dont fit into your agenda, even PashtoPromoter does not want the information to be removed but instead just add more info on Buddhism and Hinduism, you are talking to yourself at this point. --Xerxes931 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel Do you plan on doing the re-editing ? PashtoPromoter (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You're having difficulty understanding very very basic principles of the Wikipedia. You can't add material that says something unless a citation specifically says that (and it's verifiable by others). I asked you to do a simple thing - give quotes from the sources to support your claim that Pushtuns worship Iranian gods. You haven't done that. PashtoPromoter agrees too as we both are in support of the same version. It's time to remove your SYNTH and OR paragraph and replace it with a properly cited one. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

You should refrain from doing any edits without consensus, especially when there is a discussion going on on the talk page. And you still keep ignoring my points about the Khalaj and them being quiet literally the ancestors of the biggest Pashtun tribe in Afghanistan, the sources are provided, if you’re so sure about being right you can elaborate on what exactly is wrong about the section with Khalaj and them worshipping Iranian gods, either you deny the existence of the biggest Pashtun tribe in Afghanistan, the Ghilji’s, or you are simply ignoring any point of me for the sake of having the section in accordance to your agenda, please do not ignore any points again if you seriously consider yourself to be in right and if you want to continue this.Xerxes931 (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel Also the Gandhara point above; the citation states East Afghanistan but the users changed the words to Gandhara PashtoPromoter (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Thanks PashtoPromoter. Xerxes has reversed the edit (not surprisingly) and has still failed to provide quotes from the citations that he is misrepresenting. Xerxes, once again, to have material in the article supporting what you say, you need to provide the original quotes from the article per Wp:Verifiability, that say that "Pushtuns worshipped in the past...Iranian gods". You haven't done that now and so the previous cited version will be restored. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 21:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

He and I were both warned for edit warring Talk PashtoPromoter (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)