Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 14

Jewish Pashtuns are discussed at several points in the article, but I don't see any reference that such a community of native Pashto-speaking Jews actually ever existed. Am I missing something? There's a difference between saying that there were Jewish communities in Afghanistan and Pakistan and saying that there were Pashtun Jews. If there are no WP:RS on this point, I think any such speculation should be removed.--Pharos 19:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous references in the web and in historical documents stating that Pashtuns have long-running traditions that they originated from the original Jewish tribes. See Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites for more. thanks. --Sm8900 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not talking about the oral traditions of the Pashtuns that posit an ancient Israelite origin. That is an unrelated issue. I am referring to the discussions of modern "Pashtuns of the Jewish faith" in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Is there any evidence that the Jewish communities in these countries ever used Pashto as their primary cultural language?--Pharos 00:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Sorry, can't help you there, friend. Hope you find some good information on that useful topic. thanks. --Sm8900 13:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing with this is that there were Jews in Peshawar and Kandahar, traditionally Pashtun strongholds and thus they were more than likely Pashto-speakers. I'm conflicted on this as I'm tempted to delete all mention of them given the scant and frankly circumstantial evidence of Pashtun Jews (that is Pashtuns who practice Judaism) as they may just be Persian Jews, but there is no clarity with the Peshawar group that was pretty small to begin with. Tombseye 02:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most important thing to consider here is (1) we don't even know if they spoke Pashto (and if they did whether it was their primary cultural language) and (2) even if they spoke Pashto it is extremely unlikely that they ever self-identified or were identified by others as "Pashtuns". I suggest we replace the discussion of Jews at Pashtun_people#Cultural_definition with a discussion of some more prominent religious minority like Shi'as (are there Sunni Pashtuns who do not accept Shi'a Pashtuns?) and that we recontextualize the "Pashtun Jewish" discussion at Pashtun_people#Religion. For what it's worth, from my limited reading it seems most likely that the Jewish community in Peshawar and Kandahar were Bukharian Jews, who speak a language similar to the Tajiks.--Pharos 03:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's all true. The inclusion of Pashtun Jews was a holdover from the much smaller and poorly written article I rewrote (with the help of many) to be a featured article. I agree that writing about the Shias would be more productive, but I had trouble finding good info. on them. Probably go to research library when I get a chance to find out more. I agree that the Jews in the region were probably Bukharian Dari speakers. I'll take mention of them out of the article. Thanks for bringing this up. And if you have info. on Shia Pashtuns, then by all means share. Ciao. Tombseye 01:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The common practice is to treat ethnicity as per lineage/blood and thats what each and every reader who reads Wikipedia expects. When you write or edit this article you are supposed to follow common conventions and not force your definition of ethnicity. The only solution to this problem seems to be that the article mention that Pashtuns generally consider a pathan to live by pashtunwali to be considered a true Pashtun or some such thing. Also if you are not going to include a certain person even though he has pashtun parents, then the reason for that should be apparent in the Definition of the Pashtun people.

Ok another thought lets say in the article on Islam, if some muslim considers that someone mentioned in that article does not follow the basic tenets of Islam. Does that mean that person can not be mentioned in that article?

Hasan

Why does this article starts with "Pashtuns have rarely been politically united"? Sounds to me like someone is pushing their POV but ignoring facts. The REF to back the claim is from late 1600s and does not mention Pashtuns being disunited, [[REF: Khushal Khan Khattak was the chief of the Khattak tribe, and also a great warrior poet. He urged other Afghan tribes to resist Moghul domination of their lands, and to unite. He wrote excellent poetry in Pashto about such things as unity, honor, war, love, and everyday life. He also wrote about philosophy and ethics. His poetry is still widely read. He died in 1689.]] It should say that Pashtuns have been politically united since 1747 until present days. REF 1: Ahmad Shah DURRANI unified the Pashtun tribes and founded Afghanistan in 1747. REF 2: Afghans and Pakistanis had same religion, languages, culture and traditions and no one could separate them from each other--Khan1982 12:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think the people who wrote these articles are just jealous of pushtoons and are tryin to say that pashtoons are nothin so i wouldnt read this cause its stupid and totally not true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.185.59.149 (talk) 01:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, what is there to be jealous about? I think some people who edit articles about ethnic groups take things too personal. As far as I know Pashtun ethnic group has been united since we know it, they follow a type of idea that naturally keeps them united. I don't think there are any differences among the Pashtuns, like how there are differences between Sunni and Shia Muslims, all Pashtuns are Sunni.--Khan1982 09:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beh-nam has removed the reference to the Iranian language of the Pashtuns from the intro without explaining why [1]. Someone should revert that.

Pashto is an Iranian language no doubt, but there is no such language as Iranian, Pashtuns language is Pashto, not Iranian (Pashto is an Iranian language). -- Behnam 01:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article said "Iranian-speaking ethno-linguistic" people. This is a common expression in scholarly literature. See here: [2]. Your edit was contraproductive, and your reasoning is weak. By the way, the article says that Pashtuns were the "most intransigent tribe that fought British Indian incursions". This is not true. According to British sources, the Tajiks of Kohistan were the fiercest enemies of Afghanistan's occupation. See this article in Britannica 1911: [3]. It says: The Kohistani Tajiks proved to be the most powerful and the best organized clans that opposed the British occupation of Kabul in 1879-80.

Ok I'll revert it, also I guess since most Pashtuns speak Farsi over Pashto. -- Behnam 01:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on this page spilled into insulting commentary on talk pages, and, as a result, I've protected the page for 48 hours -- Samir 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are of public domain pictures. We had this discussion, which is archived, and found this to be the case. Tombseye 18:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that conclusion but I respect the fact that it was discussed and something was agreed upon and apologize for the edit. Out of interest, what archive page can I find this discussion on? Thanks. --Yenemus 19:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We had it on all of the pages I worked on to make them Featured articles. I don't recall where it is in the archives here, probably somewhere with the FA nomination. It was also something that took place with Iranian peoples and Azerbaijani people, which I also worked on. The main central point was that a collage constitutes a new image and thus is a violation. Tombseye 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tombseye. Another reason I removed this: are prominently represented in the military and is because I don't think it should be in the intro. Maybe it should be removed to another section? -- Behnam 03:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with moving it. Any reason why you think it shouldn't be in the intro? I thought it was kind of a useful general issue to raise given the dominance of the Pakistan military there and the role of the Pashtun contingent which is disproportionately represented given their % of the total population. Thanks. Tombseye 15:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've understood on this talk page, this article only concentrates on Pashtuns who speak Pashtu as a first language, correct? I understand we're using a scholarly definition here, but isn't this controversial in the scholarship world in itself? I suppose Tombseye could clarify this the best.

Let me give you an example. I am a Pashtun of direct paternal lineage, of the Mohammadzai of the Durani tribe, a small portion of which immigrated from Afghanistan to Pakistan perhaps around little over a century ago because of political turmoil. My father's family which settled in Dera Ismail Khan speaks Siraiki, while my mother's family speaks Hindko. Both sides of the family know Pashtu as a second/third/fourth language, but not as their first. Culturally and genetically, if not lingually, our family shares and celebrates Pashtun heritage, perhaps my mother's side more than my father's.

It seems odd to me that we are assuming there is a consensus in the scholarly world that a Pashtun must speak Pashtu, especially considering how diverse the ethnic group is in itself, not even considering its sheer geographical breadth. The Mohammadzai generally speak Dari as their first language, while an urbanized Pashtun in Karachi may even know Urdu before Pashto. But, this does not make the former Persian, nor even specify the latter in any race in particular (Urdu has no 'race' after all). I feel there is a huge need to widen the scope of this article, and would be more than happy to cite scholarly research on this subject to prove my point. I also understand how controversial this is, hence me writing this before making any drastic changes on my own. --Enzuru 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what we did was basically go with what Encyclopedia Britannica/Encylcopedia Americana and the host of books I listed use as defining Pashtuns as a group. They all use the qualifier of speaking Pashto so there is SOME consenus amongst at least reference writers. We added a putative section to accommodate what Britannica refers to as 'Punjabi Pathans' (Hindkowans

as well though. Ethnic lines are very hazy obviously and my intent was not to draw lines in the sand per se, BUT without some parameters this article was in danger of spiraling out of control. By that I mean that encyclopedias and reference books tend to lump together groups based upon language as well as cultural factors such as practicing Pashtunwali and living in close geographic proximity and written records that point towards kinship and the views of the Pashtuns themselves. They do this to create some order and clarity as the complex lineages issue can muddle the matter and make it very difficult to stay focused.

I understand. Indeed in that region of the world in particular ethnic lines can't be driven, because of so many 'transitionary' ethnic groups. You have to be a bit picky about it. However, as you said before, aside from the language issue, the cultural issues such as Pashtunwali and tribal kinship will be found among the Hindkowan and Siraiki speakers as well.

As for consensus, the problem is that academics do tend to identify Pashtuns based upon language and their living space is defined as Afghanistan and western Pakistan. Thus, the references speak for themselves in this regard. Now what you may be talking about is that there is a Pashtun lineage issue as well which we talk about in the article. The problem is that this falls under things like talking about people who claim to be of Arab descent or descended from Muhammad himself etc. and we just can't really accommodate that other than mentioning that some people claim such and such descent.

The lineage thing I can understand is also somewhat of a cloudy issue. Indeed, many people claim to be descended from Muhammad in a direct male lineage to Ali, and to some extents they are accurate and less accurate, but when it comes to ethnic groups living by the Pashtuns who have intermarried them as they invaded, migrated, or came as refugees, it becomes I feel a little odder to classify them as simply the 'other' face, much like someone who is one-fourth African-American in ethnicity will be considered completely African-American in the United States. Once again however, I understand the lingual issue you're pushing.

With the examples, the Muhammadzai, as far as I know, do speak Pashtu and may often be bilingual in Dari (as are many Afghans for that matter), as Karzai is, while some urban Pashtuns speak Dari almost exclusively mainly in Kabul and other areas where they aren't a majority. The Hindkowans, like the Tajiks, are part of an area that is mingled and mixed up to the point that the groups all overlap each other. Now for our purposes, there is some evidence to indicate that groups like Persianized Pashtuns show an overlap with Tajiks while Hindkowans are the intermediate group between Pashtuns and Punjabis/Seraikis. And that's another issue as well, intermarriage and cultural assimilation. In short, it's all a mess when talking about claiming descent, which may be perfectly valid. I didn't set the precedent though and specifically there should be an article that e discusses the Pashto-speaking Pashtuns who do form a group of their own that does require speaking the language for 'membership', at least amongst themselves. In addition to the putative section in this article (and this article is already too long), some mention of Seraiki Pathans could be put into the Seraikis article and you could also work to clarify the issue on the Hindkowans page. And I think you would agree that the Pashtuns are named after the language of Pashto (synymous with the code of honor) and so there is some evidence of language as a signifier. Cheers. Tombseye 00:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most among the Muhammadzai speak Dari as a first language to the best of my knowledge. I've talked to many Pashtuns regarding us, and though we are considered a princely tribe, our origins and interaccial marriages with Persians and Turks have been frowned upon as being impure. But very few will consider us non-Pashtun. So, I simply can't agree with this statement that the speaking of the language becomes part of some circle of membership. Many Pashtuns in the United States, who come from Pashtun-speaking backgrounds, will identify themselves as ethnic Pashtuns, and by all means this is correct. But, actually, I think you gave me the best idea now. I will simply start reforming the Hindkowan and Siraiki articles to include information about the Pashtuns among them. Thanks for your help. --Enzuru 18:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, Majority of Muhammadzais speak Pashto, why not the rest of them, there is reason behind it, when Pearls of pearl (Duri-duran) presided Afghanistan, at that time Farsi was the official language, as the king he should have imposed Pashto as first official language against other office languages but unfortunately he didn't do it, if he had done it than Pahsto would have been a more efficient language as compare to today. Its all our own fault, here a pashto proverb "Wai cha kare akhpala - nu biya gila sala". My younger brother is living in Ireland and forgotten his language so I am calling him Pathan, a name which we have been awarded by some Mughals and Britishers so for non pashto speakers pathan would be suitable, while pashtun should be the one who know his language, tradition and culture, dosn't matter where he dwell. Sorry for intervening. Haider 22:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was that map deleted? It was made by a user here on Wiki, so there were no license problems. Very strange. -- Behnam 04:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think map wasn't covering the whole Pashtuns area of the region, it could have been a more impressive map but it is not, man who drew this map should think that what areas are being missed and for that have a close look, anyways I didn't delete it. Take care. Haider 08:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was covering all areas. Don't claim Balochistan as Pashtun

land. I suspect it was a sockpuppet of user: NisarKand that deleted it because he thinks Balochistan is Pashtun land. I will get the person who uploaded it to upload it again. -- Behnam 00:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Won't you accept dominating pashtun areas in Balochistan, where pashtuns have been living for centuries, where will you place the pashtuns tribes of Dera Ismail Khan and Pahsto speaking Pashtuns ofHazara Division(the largest of all divisions)? Have those pashtun lands been shown on so-called map? Think again, Take care. Haider 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement for the map to show every single Pashtun settlement. The map showed areas where there was a predominant Pashtun population and that was good enough. The map actually exaggerated the Pashtun population around Quetta... Regardless, it was a good map and I suspect it was a like minded person (a person who believes Balochistan is Pashtun land) that deleted that map. It should be brought back. -- Behnam 11:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you must be thinking about the missing Pashtun Districts in that so-called pashtun map, I was trying to get your attention about million of Pashtuns, who were missing, not some few or single pashtun settlers, did I mentioned some single settlement of pathans of India, or had only Qais baba settled Pashtuns around? Think again. Thanks. Haider (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]