Template talk:Pashtuns

Image

There are a few reasons one can cite for keeping the female image. First, it isn't excessively vertical like most Pashtun images: we can't have a template that tall with only that many links. Second, it is a piece of art, and shows a very cultured lady. Third, the color scheme of the template was designed around the image (in fact, I chose the color of the floor for the image). --Enzuru 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, you two should handle this more diplomatically, by using this discussion page. Second, using the previous image, the vertical size is too much, as I stated before. Third, while the male image shows Pashtun men long ago, the female image, though no longer contemporary, shows Pashtun women much more revealed as you would find them in urban areas. Hence it serves as a gateway between the past and the present. --Enzuru 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol, now someone has complained that the female image is a prostitute in Kandahar[1] Wait, on the other hand, it's probably a sock of User:Beh-nam, like User:Pakhtunking and User:PashtoonGhafar, I'm reverting him for now. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I honestly don't get what he's trying to achieve, though perhaps I can guess. --Enzuru 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

He seems to like replacing all female images with male images. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The image File:Ghilzai nomads in Afghanistan.jpg is better for the template about Pashtuns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.91.136 (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The figures in the image are very small, and the colour scheme would be difficult to replicate in an aesthetic manner suitable for Wikipedia. This is part of the reason I redesigned the template on Pashtuns. --Afghana ^[talk] 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary to include, on the template, a link to Pashtunisation? This is a controversial topic; and including it is lending credit to bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.126.49 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on Pashtunization should answer any bias. --Afghana ^[talk] 04:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Girl picture

The picture of the girl has been edited to the point where it now looks cheap and artificial. Yosh 01:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosh (talk • contribs)

I agree. I think the image showing Pashto calligraphy is more appropriate than the girl's picture. Also, the edit by Azcolvin429 shows we have a consensus on removing the girl's image.[2] 182.185.90.182 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The image of the girl is nice and appropriate for an article that lacks females. When something that deals with people, it is better that we add an image of a person.--182.177.109.45 (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please don't edit against consensus. The comment by Yosh and edits by Azcolvin429 (in April 2011) and me shows there is a consensus to remove this particular girl's picture. Thanks. 182.185.74.150 (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

You're removing the image against consensus. Azcolvin429 did not vote and neither did any consensus take place over that. The above comments say we must choose a pic and so far the girl's image is better than the non-English chicken scratches. This is the English version of Wikipedia and nobody understands those writings.--182.177.14.80 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Indo thinka template about perons should hae a perosn an dnot text. If it as generally on the region/provice thats fdiffernet.Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There has been a recent edit war over which image to use in this template. One image being calligraphy[3], the other, a picture of a young girl in native clothing[4]. Which would be the better image to use here? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Vote

• Keep girl's image - The girl's image has been there for many years, it is very unique because she is dressed in typical Pashtun clothes and there's no doubt that she is Pashtun, and that helps make the Pashtun articles stand out and look good. The colors of her clothes form Afghanistan's and Pakistan's flags, both these nations have large Pashtuns, so in that aspect it is neutral for both countries. Another point is that Pashtun articles lack images of females, people around the world want to see what Pashtun females look like and this image helps them understand that. The IP from Peshawar, Pakistan who keeps removing the image from the template seems that he's not happy with this because he thinks men look at the girl's image and begin to do dirty things. This is typical thinking in Peshawar, which is a city under full control of radical or extremist Muslims. Wikipedia is a place to learn and not for foolish things like that.--182.177.32.214 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  Making derogatory comments about people with whom you disagree is not a valid argument, and it should be ignored by whoever judges the consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

  You're not familiar. I know who the person behind that IP is and everyone in general know that Peshawar is that kind of a city. I suggest you put back the girl's image because 3 different people so far favored in keeping that image.--182.177.61.103 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  It doesn't matter who you claim to know - if you make personal attacks like this you could be blocked from editing and your opinion will be given less weight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  There is no personal attacks in my statement. This is the guy behind that IP who removed the image.--182.177.41.9 (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Your wrong, Mckhan is in America. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Keep current image, of girl - since the current image has been up for years, that's evidently years of consensus—at least tacit consensus—and that counts in its favor; the burden of proof is on the challengers to show why the current image should change, and build a consensus for changes. So far, I see no reasons why from the challengers. (I was invited by the RFC bot to comment here via the bot's random selection, and come to the discussion fresh and neutral) —NickDupree (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

• I also thin keeping the girls image would be for the best. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
• Keep image as it fits in well with the template. Mar4d (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Improvements, addition of links

As the previous image([5]) was so excessively vertical and occupied most of the template because it was too tall for such a small number of links, I changed it and added more links, and also increased the width by 50%. X02.163.91.xxx (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The consensus is to keep the image of the girl, as determined recently and immediately above this section. You do not get to decide to overturn consensus yourself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Protected

Edit-warring over the image has been going on for far too long, and it has to stop, so I have protected the template. If anyone wants to make any changes to the template, discuss them here first and an admin will implement them for you if you have a consensus supporting you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Uncontroversial image

I'm adding more links which belong in this template and rearranging the template. I'm also adding an image to the top of the template and replacing the old one.
If any editor thinks it should be changed, please discuss it here. 94.59.203.161 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Those links are unnessary and some of those pages are unsourced POVs. The image u added is a controversial one. It is sending a misleading message because this is not how the 50 million Pashtuns live, it is how some village students studied back when Afghanistan didn't yet build indoor schools. Things have changed there since 2007. Plus, those children could include Tajiks which is a different ethnic group. It was made next to Gardez and that city has many Tajiks. [6] Plus, you added more cotroversial links. Pashtuns are all Sunni Muslims so there is no need to add Shias, the Turi is the only tribe which is Shia and their number does not even come near to 1% of the 50 million Pashtuns. There are Christian, Sikh and other non-Muslim Pashtuns but they are also very small. The loya jirga is Mongol origin which has been practiced by many ethnic groups throughout Asia, and most Pashtuns (especially in Pakistan where the majority live) do not use that. You added many unnessary links of pages which are unsourced and disputable. This template does not need all those page links, only main pages that directly and undisputable deal with Pashtuns should be linked. Thanks.--KunwaazTajik (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Your speaking out of your arse Tajik boy.Akmal94 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

More representative image

File:Tribal and religious leaders in southern Afghanistan.jpg shows only Pashtun men. Wouldn't a more representative image be better? (e.g. File:Pashtuns.jpg) utcursch | talk 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Khalji dynasty

As the sources at Khalji dynasty#Origins state, that dynasty doesn't belong to this template. utcursch | talk 04:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Khaljis were turko afghan so which template the dynasty should be? It clearly says they were considered Afghan as i have discussed (and provided sources) many times with you. Please dont remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:E58D:DBD6:8E3A:CCB5 (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

"Afghan" is not necessarily same as "Pashtun", especially in this context where a couple of books explicitly state that the Khaljis were wrongly considered 'Afghans'. If you think otherwise, please propose merger of the articles "Afghan" and "Pashtun" first. utcursch | talk 13:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

In the article Afghan it clearly says that in the past Afghan and pashtun were synonymous. And "some" books mentions wrongly , while majority simply mentions (they were considered afghan. I again highly propose that you delete the "wrongly" from khalji origin section. It really contradicts the article which you yourself have have written down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:FD7A:7991:D6A7:5768 (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I've not written the articles Afghan and Pashtun, and the Khaljis being "wrongly" considered as Afghans is not my opinion. The Khaljis being Turks is a theory of several notable historians, and some of these have explicitly stated that they were not ethnic Afghans (that is, Pashtuns) -- they simply lived in Afghanistan, because of which they were wrongly considered as Afghans by the Turkic families of Delhi.

Sure, there might be some historians who believe otherwise. But given that this is a contested claim, the Khaljis are best kept out of this template. utcursch | talk 15:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please intervene again to protect the page. Some POV pushers with an agenda are again adding Khilji dynasty in the template. CrashLandingNew (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi

O.k good we will discuss it "thoroughly" in here. What exactly you (or some other contributors) have problem with khalji there in template.

I (and countless others) think that since in Khalji dynasty there is still disagreement over its origin. Years ago after excessive research and scholarly studies we (like many scholars) termed it Turk o Afghan origin. Meaning they were "considered" Afghan during their rule but might have Turkic origins.( which almost every one including opposite view contributors agrees upon). Now- either it shouldn't be in both templates (Turkic peoples and Pashtuns template), or it should be in both. SO, since it is in turkic template it should be also here which is simple common sense. Now on which one you agree so after scholarly research we can contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:5C1D:55E3:9A6B:D2E3 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Afghan doesn't mean Pashtun, Pashtun is an ethnicity, a subgroup of the Iranian peoples, Turk is a different ethnicity (See:Turkic peoples). Khiljis were ethnic Turkic people. If a Turk is settled in Afghanistan he doesn't become Pashtun, his ethnicity remains Turkic. There are still many Turkic ethnic groups in Afghanistan, who are Afghans but not Pashtuns. Khilji dynasty is also called an Indian dynasty, does that mean they were Hindus/Hindis?CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

utcursch and CrashLandingNew: I request you to think again about your opinion regarding the origin of the Khalji dynasty in light of the academic sources recently added to the article on Ghilji. There seems to be a consensus among modern historians and linguists that etymologically, the name of the Ghilji tribe is derived from the name of the Khalaj people, while according to Encyclopædia Iranica, it is also "very likely" that the Khalaj formed the core of the Ghilji tribe. Due to a shortage of time, I will not take part in further discussions on the matter; it is now up to you. Thanks and regards, Khestwol (talk) 08:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The Turkic Khalaj people and the Pashtun Ghilji people being related is still a matter of debate among the historians. The origins of Khilji dynasty is thoroughly discussed on its page, which points towards various contradictory theories. The bottom line is that Khilji dynasty is identified as a TURKIC dynasty not a Pashtun dynasty by the mainstream historians, nobody identifies the Khilji dynasty as a Pashtun dynasty barring few offbeat historians. The proponents of Khilji being Pashtun theory only present circumstantial evidence rather than a direct one. If Lodis identified themselves as Pashtuns, Suris identified themselves as Pashtuns then why didn't Khiljis identified themselves as Pashtuns?. It's quite likely that a section of Kalaj may have intermarried with the Ghiljis but that doesn't mean that all the Turkic Khalaj people became Pashtuns. Khiljis also married Indians/Hindus, does that mean Khiljis were ethnic Hindus? CrashLandingNew (talk) 10:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, when you say that "the name of the Ghilji tribe is derived from the name of the Khalaj people, while according to Encyclopædia Iranica, it is also "very likely" that the Khalaj formed the core of the Ghilji tribe" then we are just letting our confirmation bias fog our thinking. It stil remains the theory of one particular school not something on which a consensus has been reached upon by known scholars. CrashLandingNew (talk) 11:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi 
With all due respect but you are confusing two "main" issues here. Which might be the reason of your stand. We don't argue the consensus among many  scholars about the origin of khaljis. Let me clear that. What is missing in here is that -during their rule- they were "considered Afghan". That is why they are called Turk o Afghan for a reason. They are NOT called Turk o Afghan, just because they came from that region. And secondly why pashtuns? because during middle ages

Pashtun and Afghan were interchangeable. That is why they are called (Afghans). For examlple Samanid dynasty is not called afghan since they were tajiks. Hope we are reaching a honest agreement and discussion is not for the sake of discussion. Thank you.

Being Afghan doesn't make them Pashtuns, just like being Indians doesn't make them Hindus. Till mediaeval era, even Indian and Hindu were interchangeable. Khilji was an INDIAN DYNASTY of Turkic-Afghan origin, does that mean they were Turks, Pashtuns and Hindus by your logic?

You are confused between ethnicity and nationality. Khiljis were Turks, who migrated to Afghanistan before settling in India. Their ethnicity was TURKIC, ethnicity doesn't change with geography or language. There are many Pashtuns living in India who are Indians and speak Hindi, does that mean they have become ethnic Hindus and are no longer Pashtuns? CrashLandingNew (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

We have to contribute to wikipedia according to facts not our personal opinion.

1- As i said they were considered Afghan and taken as Afghan in Delhi by the turkic mamluks. 2- Still there are many pashtun tribes whos ancestors might be from different origin but what would you consider them today? pashtuns right? because you wont go back a few centuries ànd find whos ancestor of that tribe or that particular individual was, right? THAT IS what is the point here. 3- And "again" there should be mention of turkics as much as Afghans. SINCE ETHNICALY THEY HAD TRANSFORMED from "possible" turkics to pashtuns (ethnic afghans). 4- And this is NOT me, it is the general knowledge about khaljis that you can find in THE VERY wikipedia. 5- To be honest this should be very simple i really don't get the point of prolonging it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:AD28:4BF1:D01:E652 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, I don't see why are you not following facts and moving in circles. We have to follow FACTS, not our own interpretation of FACTS. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a personal blog to give your own theories.

• 1. Khiljis were ethnic Turks, it's a well established FACT with scholarly consensus and it is also mentioned on their page too.
• 2. Khiljis lived in Afghanistan before moving to India, hence they are PARTIALLY identified as Afghans too, which also mentioned on their page but that doesn't change their ethnicity to PASHTUN. They are also identified as Indians, that doesn't make them ethnic Hindus.
• 3. Khiljis were NOT ethnic Pashtuns. Your ethnicity DOESN'T TRANSFORM with your nationality. An English or a French man won't become PASHTUN if he lives in Afghanistan for sometime and start speaking local language.
• 4. Pashtun is an ethnicity and Afghan is a nationality, even on Khilji's page, it is clearly mentioned that they were NOT identified as Pashtuns and were WRONGLY considered Afghans(not Pashtuns)by some Turkic nobles in Delhi. A branch of Turkic Khalaj immigrants in Afghanistan may have married local Pashtuns and merged with them but there is no scholarly evidence that the Khilji dynasty of Delhi also did the same. They remained TURKS.
• 5. This is a template for ethnic PASHTUNS not Turks and Afghans. It has LODIS and SURIS because they were clearly identified as Pashtuns UNLIKE Khiljis who are identified as TURKS.
• 6. I don't understand why you want to force your own POV by changing the ethnicity of Khiljis by giving your own theories about ethnicities and nationalities CrashLandingNew (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to say my friend but your grasb on Afghan history is very limitied. You are simply not getting what is being said here. Today they ARE TRANSFORMED and are called khilji/ghilzai tribe of pashtuns. It have happened with many tribes countless times. Infact it is part of human history. And khaljis (now ghilzais) are not an exception.And NO they were NOT identified as tukics all sources point them out as Afghans during sultanat. ALL being said here is that we should respect (both scholarly) point of views and it should be in both templates. That is it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:A57E:1B4F:A73C:30F8 (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC) 

OK, first of all you don't have to get personal, I don't need a certification regarding my knowledge from someone who is a random IP jumper and is not even a registered user on Wikipedia. There are no "two scholarly views" here. Khiljis of Khilji dynasty of Delhi were TURKIC PEOPLE. Period. It's a well established fact by mainstream scholars, even the page of Khalji dynasty on Wikipedia identifies them as Turkic people and NOT PASHTUNS. NOBODY identifies them as PASHTUNS, NOBODY. Your ethnicity can't be both Turkic and Pashtun, it is mutually exclusive. This is a template for Pashtuns, not AFGHANS, where only established Pashtun dynasties like Lodis and Suris are to be added. Stop moving in circles with your own theories and distant linkages between Ghilji, Kalaj and the Khilji dynasty of Delhi. Khiljis are not identified as Pashtuns and you have not been able to provide any direct, mainstream scholarly evidence to prove otherwise, hence there is no reason to add Khalji dyansty on a template mentioning established PASHTUN, I repeat PASHTUN not AFGHAN dynasties. AFGHAN ≠ PASHTUN CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)