This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

If the article is called "Pushtu" then the bold word in the introduction should be spelled the same way, or vise versa. As "Pashto" is the generally-accepted Anglicized version, it should probably be used (and the article should be moved).—Kbolino

I agree. "Pashto" is the most common spelling, followed by "Pushto". Because of this, and the fact that the article already spells it as such (as well as most of the pages which link to it), the best title for this article is probably "Pashto language". — Ливай 18:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved. —Nightstallion (?) 08:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The article contains the warning boilerplate "This page contains Indic text...". The only Indic text on the page is the example in the boilerplate itself. There is Arabic-script text, which also involves rendering issues, but they are not, or not all, the same as those for Indic text. The boilerplate should be deleted or changed to a correct boilerplate. Thnidu 15:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to edit the table of comparative Iranian language family vocabulary, but I cannot figure out how to edit that. There are a number of errors in the Pashto column. Besides that, a few of the words represent a very specific and likely minority dialect. Here are some of the corrections which are required, with the original inaccuracy in brackets, leaving aside the dialect issues:

blood: wina [xun] bread: doḍəy or roṭəy [ - ] earth: zməka (land); naṛəy (world) [erz] fear: wera [weda] great: stər [luy (means "large")] small: kuchnai; woṛ [laz/laž (means "a little bit" or "few")] three: dre [dra]

If anyone knows how to edit the table, that would be great.Channa.web 19:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the table and now you can edit there. Whoever originally created the table has made many errors. I fixed some of the Old Persian errors. azalea_pomp

Here is where you edit it, template:Iranian languages word table make sure you are sure when you do. azalea_pomp

The Examples section is tagged with convertIPA, but the examples are clearly in a transliteration of the Pashto script, and not in any kind of "nonstandard phonetic notation". You might as well call the Pashto script itself a "nonstandard phonetic notation", if you're going to give that name to a transliteration system. I suggest this tag be removed. Paul.w.bennett 22:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not make edits without sources and do not remove tables, etc. Azalea_pomp —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Azalea pomp (talk • contribs) 01:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

There's a dispute on the Taliban page about whether the word Taliban is Pashto, or "Arabic & Farsi". If anyone could give me Taliban, in the original, to be included in the page that would be a world of help. Or indeed if anyone could just have a look and see if what is written there stands correct? Cheers. Marshall 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, Ṭālib is Arabic for "the one who learns" and -an is Pashto plural ending. Purely Arabic plural is ṭulaba. Aminullah 08:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I understood. The article ought to have it in the Pashto script then. Can anyone help with that? Marshall 14:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Taliban is a arabic word that means student in arabic there is no meaning of taliban in pashto: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.103.181 (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Native Pashto Speaker, and I know how to use it. Pashto is also known as "Afghan" In the State to some people. In my time in india, I noticed lots of people using the language from afghanistan. I don't agree with the way the origins of the language are said in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.68.247 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This topic has appeared all over this list, so I thought I would try to consolidate what we have here and in the article. The most correct spelling of the name is پښتو, which is usually transliterated as paʂto. The first letter of the name is pe, which is always [p]. The vowel after the pe is not written as it is a short vowel. The short <a> seems to be pronounced as [ə]. The second letter is ʂin, and this causes some difficulties because it's classically a retroflex consonant, which it retains in the Qandahar variety. However, in the Quetta variety it has merged with šin to become [ʃ] (just like an English 'sh', and so often written پشتو), in the Paktiya variety it has become [ç] (like the consonant in German 'ich'), and in the Jallalabad variety it has become [x] (as in the German 'ach', and both these northern varieties can write پختو). The ʂin is vowelless, and is followed by te, which is a simple [t] in all varieties. Its vowel is marked by the final letter, waw, which represents [o] or [uː]. Therefore, the classical and Qandahari pronunciation of 'Pashto' is [pəʂto], and the other varieties differ from this only in this only in the pronunciation of the ʂin and the final vowel. I hope this is satisfactory. If anyone who knows more about the subject can add anything, please do. — Gareth Hughes 11:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

پختو

This is a little bit of a misnomer. It certainly represents the sound of Pukhtu but Pushtu and Pukhtu are both spelt in exactly the same way (پشتو). As a guide to how Puktu speakers pronounce the name of their language it is fine but otherwise it implies that Pukhtu and Pushtu are separate written languages. I would either bracket it or remove the word completely. It's use in the Pakistan press would be frowned upon, the preference to record the Pukhtun tribal name of the speaker as a Res ipsa loquitur, without having to bombard the reader with notions of soft or hard Pukhtu. – EhsanQ (talk) 14:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the linguists believe Pashto belongs to Eastern Iranian , which is Indo-Iranian language Family. Indo-Aryan is a sub-Family of Indo-Iranaian. So how could Pashto be Indo-Aryan language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.84.21 (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, seems someone is making incorrect or biased changes. I reverted the changes, added infobox as well, got rid off classification section (as its mentions already in the green box) and general clean up. Asdf169 (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Most Afghans speak Pashto and Dari...it is very rare to find an Afghan that does not speak Pashto and only speaks Dari. This is the "language" we are dealing with..."not ethnicity" of people. Most of you are confused with this. Every government leader in Afghanistan speaks Dari and Pashto...including those who are NON-Pashtuns. The same goes in Pakistan with ethnic Pashtuns...they speak Urdu and Pashto. Every Pashtun in Pakistan speaks Urdu and Pashto, some speak English as well. Almost every Afghan (regardless of their ethnics) speak both Dari and Pashto. So it's foolish to say that only 30% or so Afghans speak Pashto....because that is incorrect. In case like this...that over 70% Afghans speak both languages....it should be concluded that over 70% people in Afghanistan speak Pashto...because they do and you can't hide the fact. Afghanistan's President speaks several languages including Dari and Pashto...so what catagory would he be counted in? Dari or Pashto? User:NisarKand November 5, 2006

i also believe that it is a common mistake to say that everybody in the country say that they only know dari but in reality they know light to moderate Pashto too and at least the general non pashto speaking population understands 30% of Pashto. Pashtun786 (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Pashtun786

I agree.

Some folks seem to be making up figures rather than stating facts. Dari is the lingua franca of Afghanistan, spoken and understood by the majority of the people, which includes both native speakers (Tajiks, Hazara, and Persianized Pashtuns) as well as second-language speakers (Uzbeks, Pashtuns, Turkmen, and others). While it is true that many educated Pashtuns have learned to speak Dari, very few native speakers of Dari know Pashto or make any effort to learn it. There are many reasons for this imbalance. For one, Pashto is of little use outside of traditionally Pashtun areas. Dari, on the other hand, has been the language of commerce and government for centuries. Second, Pashto has a richer phonology and grammar than Dari, so it is more difficult to learn as a second/foreign language.

Dari and Pashto are not mutually intelligible. They are two different languages. To claim that the non-Pashto speaking population understands 30% of Pashto is misleading, to say the least. (Where does this number come from anyway?) I'm a native Dari speaker and I can't speak or understand Pashto at all. Sure, there are some common words here and there (just like English, Spanish and French share some vocabulary) but that doesn't mean I can understand any Pashto sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.218.59 (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The article refers to a Latin alphabet without saying where/if it’s commonly used. Is it simply a scholarly transcription system? OK, devised by whom? Are there any publications in romanized Pashto? The article doesn’t really make it clear that this “alphabet” isn’t original research. Also, phrases like “pronounced zh or g” aren’t very helpful, especially when you already have a Ž.

Also, do any scholarly sources really refer to the language as Afghani, or is this more uninformed lay people assuming that if Tajik is what they speak in Tajikistan and German is what they speak in Germany, then Afghan must be what they speak in Afghanistan? —Wiki Wikardo 19:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't have any book or something like that in Latin alphabet, but sometimes commonly used by computer users.

Regarding Afghani and Pathani, didn't you see that links? refs? It is known by these names too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.16.67 (talk) 06:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Need Pashto script at Pacha Khan Zadran. Badagnani (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I will write it brother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.102.16.67 (talk) 11:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have found a few references which clearly states that Pashto belongs to Indo-Aryan languages.

First reference

It is a Pashto article written by a Pathan scholar named Shahsawar Sangarwal which you can read at:

http://www.baheer.com/baher/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3506

And

http://www.samsoor.com/fullstory.php?id=96&tab=tab3

It is a long article and is wholly about the origin of Pathans/Pashtons and Pashto.

About Pashto and Pathans/Pashtons he says:

ليكوالو او څېړونكو پخپلو علمي هاندو هڅو كې دا خبره سپينه كړې چې پښتانه اريايان دي او پښتو د هندو اروپايي ژبو څخه هغه ژبه ده چې په هندو اريايي څانګه كې راځي، بيا د دغې څانګې اريايي ډلګۍ كې شامليږي او د اريايي ډلګۍ په شمال ختيځ ښاخ پورې اړه لري

Translation:

The authors and researchers, after a great research, finally, clearly proved and indicated that Pathans/Pashtons are an Aryan people and Pashto is of the languages in Indo-European group which belongs to Indo-Aryan languages, and then in this group it belongs to Aryan group and of the Aryan group it belongs to the North east group.

If you can understand and read Pashto, read the whole article.

Second reference

Qudratullah Hadad, a great Pathan scholar and writer, in his new article published a few days ago, talks about the ten Aryan tribes along with the references from Rig Veda and writes the names of all the tribes one of which is the Paktyan who are now called the Pathans/Pashtons and he also talks about their language (Pashto) and says that it is an Indo-Aryan language.

You can read the whole article here: http://www.scprd.com and search the list for "د لرغوي افغانستان تاريخ" or somewhat similar to that. I didn't have much time to find it. If you look around the site you will find it.

Third reference

Ustad Aqa muhammad Grandai, a pashton scholar and writer, says in one of his articles:

"...As Pashto is an Indo-Aryan language...."

You can find this article in the http://scprd.com website too. Search for the articles of Aqa muhammad Grandai and you will see the list almost all of which are about Pashto. As I said above, I don't have time to search it and write it here. At the moment of writing this text I don't have Internet access.

I bet that not even a single Pathan/Pashton scholar or writer believe that Pashto is an Indo-Iranian language. All of them agree and believe that Pashto is an Indo-Aryan language and Pathans/Pashtons are an Aryan people.

They are the non-Pathan people some of whom say that Pashto is an Indo-Iranian language. They are not awared of the truth. Actually, they have not done any research. It is what is in their belly and they just throw it. I am going to ask the Pathan scholars to write about this matter and Insha'Allah soon will I prove to the world that it is the truth.

I think you misunderstand how Indo-European languages and Indo-Aryan languages are classified. There is no 'Aryan' branch of the Indo-Aryan group. There is a Dardic branch that is sometimes considered 'Indo-Iranian' or on the fringes of the Indo-Aryan group, but that is all. The others are linked to ancient Sanskrit and Prakrit. Lastly, your references aren't from universities as far as I can tell and contradict what academic Pashto-speakers who, for example, write language reference books for foreigners to learn the language claim (I have a dictionary by a Asmatullah Sarwan and Intoduction to Pashto by Qazi Rahimullah Khan), that Pashto is the most important branch of the Eastern and Southeastern Iranian languages. Iranian in this case is not 'Persian' but rather synonymous with the old term 'Aryan' as you previously mentioned the place of Pashto would be in the Aryan sub-branch of the Indo-Aryan group. Indo-Aryan refers to a branch of Aryans (Indo-Iranians) who largely moved into India, with the exception of the Mitanni, while Iranian (simply another way of saying Aryan) was adopted by Persian speakers almost exclusively while other Iranians or Aryans west of the Indus (like Kurds and Pashtuns) do not use the term Iranian (although the usage of Aryan has become popular at least since the 19th century with Pashtun nationalists). Lastly, IF you somehow convince the mainstream sources of the error of their ways and Pashto is reclassified as an Indo-Aryan tongue, then that would make your case much stronger because until then it is simply POV and not supported by mainstream sources. Tombseye (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tombseye for clearing that up. Just because Pashto is classified as 'Iranian', it doesnt automatically refer to the country 'I.R. Iran'. Instead it a wider term to show that the Pashto languague is more connected to other "Iranian" languagues such as Kurdish, Balochi, Persian and Ossetian (Ossetian in Georgia, which is also an Iranian lang, but doesnt have anything to or isnt spoken in Iran). It is clear that Pashto is an Iranian lang. as it is more to connected to those languages, than Indo-Aryan languages such as Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati, etc (While I do agree that Pashto has had minor influnce from Indian languaues, it still is classified as Iranian. While languagues like Urdu and Gujariti have had Iranian influences but remain 'Indo-Aryan'. So it works both ways).

Lastly to classify the languague from Hindustani is just laughable and ignorant. I hope people understand this and keep the article correct Asdf169 (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You actually misunderstand me. It is not from my belly, but it's from the Pathan scholars. I will try to find articles and references from universities and will then....

As I changed the spelling of Pashto language in ISO from Pushto to Pashto, I will try to change the classification to the correct one too.

I know that Iranian doesn't mean that it belongs to the country Iran.

I will give you an Example:

See, as long as I know, all the languages which belong to the Indo-Iranian branch do not have the sounds T, D, R, N, etc. (There are two sounds of these letters, I am talking about the second sound. I don't know the linguistic term for it.) But, Pashto have all of these sounds just like all the other Indo-Aryan languages.

If we compare the vocabulary of Pashto and other Indo-Aryan languages, we will see the relationship of them.

I know that it cannot be changed in Wikipedia until some other sources do not change it. I will try to correct the mistake of the Academic world and then we can change it here in Wikipedia too.

Thanks for your reply.

Actually, Indo-Iranian includes the Iranian, Nuristani, Dardic and Indo-Aryan branches so I'm still not sure I understand what you are saying. How can Pashto be distinct from Indo-Iranian if all the Indo-Aryan languages are within it, even by your logic?

Pashto (and the Iranian languages etc.) do share many common traits, but that doesn't mean Pashto is Indo-Aryan. I've seen vocabulary comparisons myself and there are more similarities with the Iranian languages as well as grammatical similarities. If you (or others) have discovered some overlooked evidence then indeed the academic world would change as it should, but I don't know how likely it is that so many people who have studied these and other languages for so long have made such a major errors (including Pashtun academics I might add). You should read this academic journal review of a book online about the Indo-Aryan languages: "A New Survey of the Indo-Aryan Languages", Colin P Masica. Journal of the American Oriental Society. New Haven: Jan-Mar 2005. Vol. 125, Iss. 1; pg. 79, 11 pgs. Nowhere is there mention of Pashto and this is a fairly complete and recent survey of the Indo-Aryan and Dardic languages. At any rate, good luck. Tombseye (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The Phonology section lists 6 vowels. In the Latin writing system, what do undotted i, umlaut o, accented u, and umlaut u refer to? Evidently there is more going on in the vowel phonology.

What sound does each Arabic letter represent? 71.98.230.165 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I have started a grammar page here, feel free to contribute :) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashto_grammar Lightsdownlow (talk) 16:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the unreliable "WAK" numbers (based on Enam Wak's writings, a member of the Pashtunist Afghan Mellat party) previously incorporated into the text by an IP, and replaced them with the CIA Factbook numbers. Tājik (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is this transliteration/romanization of Pashto from? I am familiar with the Library of Congress transliteration, which we should be using, but I am not familiar with this one. Anyone have a source? Azalea pomp (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the examples section here. I am not sure if these example are necessary for an encyclopedia page and the orthography is not sourced. Azalea pomp (talk) 07:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead of sh, zh, kh and gh, shouldn't š, ž, x, γ be used? AdinaPur (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It depends on the system one uses to transliterate or transcribe Pashto. Azalea pomp (talk) 08:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody add a bit saying how the name of this language is to be pronounced in English and in Pashto? (preferably with reference to the IPA alphabet).

Pashto is pronounced like ( pa-sh-to) (mostly in southern parts)

pa = pa is pronounced like in "past" or "passive" sh = sh is pronounced like in "she" or "sheet" to = to is pronounced like in 'Τau' (sound of T is soft, NOT hard)

Well as 'past' and 'passive' have different vowels for most dialects, and 'tau' can be [tɔː] or [taʊ], this is not helpful. The older spellings with 'Push-' clearly indicate it's [a] as in 'puck, pun', which was often rendered with the letter <u> in older English romanizations precisely because <a> would have been misread as the sound in 'passive'. The variation between '-to' and '-too' also indicates the quality of that vowel. ~Anon, 12 August 2006

Pashto is pronounced like (pa-ch-to) (mostly on Northern terrains)

pa = pa is pronounced like in "past" or "passive"
ch = ch as pronounced here does not exist in English, but it does in German. "ch" is soft kh sound as in "Khan", but not pure/hard "K" sound. In German as you would pronounce ch as in "Nach"

to = to is pronounced like in "tow" but the sound of "to" is like that of "th" in "thwart" (sound of T is soft, NOT hard)

response

Pronunciation in Pashto varies considerably between dialects. (See Mackenzie 1987,* especially pages 550-551. Or #Pashto Phonology below, by Imperial78.) In English: /ˈpɑʃtoʊ/. For those who don't read the International Phonetic Alphabet:

PAHSH-toe

"pah" like the first syllable of "Papa"

"sh" as in "fish"

"toe" like the name of the things on the end of your foot

accent on the first syllable

*MacKenzie, D.N. "Pashto". In The World's Major Languages, edited by Bernard Comrie, 1990, Oxford University Press; Chapter 26, pages 547-565.

Thnidu 19:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The accent should be on the final syllable in all dialects. Also, in some dialects to this day the language is called /pox'tu/, while in others it is /paṣ'to/. 82.205.191.230 18:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it counts, in my experience living in Pakistan, this language's name was pronounced (for the non IPA readers) PUHX-to, with no final glide at the end. The UH is pronounced like the U in UGLY in standard American. The X is the glottal CH of German. And it is NEVER written with the letter XE but with XIN; and the first vowel is not rounded: UH, not OO as in BOOK. Stress on first syllable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by F Harry Stowe (talk • contribs) 13:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The current (new) map is inaccurate and was already removed from other articles. User:Azalea pomp has promised to update and correct the map. I suggest to remove it until a newer and better map is uploaded. The previous "Iranian languages" map, however, is an FA map. Tajik (talk) 08:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The claim that "Kabuli" is another name for Pashto is simply ridiculous. Not only the attached source is unreliable, but the claim also contradicts the scholarly Encyclopaedia Iranica which cleary shows that "Kabuli" is the name of a unique dialect of the pluricentric Persian language. See here: [1]. Please remove this nonsense. Otherwise, an admin is needed. Tajik (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranica writes: "... The Paṧtō-speaking areas are located in the east, the south, and the southwest of the country. Important colonies of nāqelīn (displaced populations) have settled in Bactria. Persian (2) is the language most spoken in Afghanistan. The native tongue of twenty five percent of the population, it is split into numerous dialects. Darī (q.v.) is a term long recommended by Afghan authorities to designate Afghan Persian in contrast to Iranian Persian; a written language common to all educated Afghanis, Darī must not be confused with Kābolī, the dialect of Kabul and surrounding areas that is more or less understood by eighty percent of the non-Persian speaking population and is fast becoming the nation’s koine. ..." [2]

You need good sources for your claim. And since there are no serious sources for the claim that "Kabuli" is another name for Pashto, I suggest you remove this false information from the article and do not restore it again. Tajik (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but your revision was reverted because the reference corroborates what Anupam had written earlier. MassaGetae(talk) 08:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've asked an admin to help out. Iranica is authoritative. If you ask anyone in Afghanistan to explain the term "Kabuli" to you, 100% will confirm that it has absolutely nothing to do with Pashto. Tajik (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In some other articles in Iranica Kabul region is predominantly Pashto speaking.[3] [Pashto is spoken] ... in the regions of [...] Kabolistan [and ...] where it is the majority language

Stop pushing POV and removing sourced content from wikipedia. MassaGetae(talk) 11:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Massagetae, I think you need to find better sources to back up your claim. The Indian census source isn't what I would call the most authoritative on the matter, and it's ambiguous at best – I'm not sure whether it says Pashto = Kabuli or if it's simply grouping Pashto with Kabuli and Afghani (perhaps due to similarities shared by the languages). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 12:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It should temporarily stay, pending a discussion. The claim with reference was added by Anupam (talk · contribs) but removed by Tajik (talk · contribs). MassaGetae(talk) 12:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Massagetae is quoting selectively. I can provide you with first class scholarly articles, most of all from the Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica, proving that both claims are false. Neither is Kabul a Pashto-speaking region, nor is "Kabuli" another name for Pashto. I consider Massagetae's edit pure propaganda which is totally against the rules of Wikipedia - no offense. It can be easily shown that his quotes are chosen selectively, because in the very same source that he provides in this discussion to "back up" his claim, he - knowingly or unknowingly - hides the paragraph dealing with the name "Pashto". See section VI and the points (1) to (4) here. I can also send you the article "Afghan" from Encyclopaedia of Islam. At no place does it say that "Kabuli" is another name for Pashto. The same article uses "Kabuli" as a synonym for the dominant Persian dialect of Afghanistan: ... Moreover there is a distinct cleavage between Iranian and Afghan Persian, on whatever speech level, in vocabulary. This applies not only to technical terms (Kābolī palås: Iran. gāz [ambor] “tongs”) but also to items of daily life (Kābolī maska: Iran. kare “butter;” bura: šakar “sugar”), familial terms (Kābolī dayi: Iran. māmā “midwife;” måmå: dāy “maternal uncle”), and the names of many objects imported from, or originating, abroad (Kābolī nektåi, from English “necktie”: Iran. kerāvāt, from French “cravate”; cf. Tajik galstūḵ, from Russian [and ultimately German “Halstuch”]). ... He has also removed Persian names and translations from various other articles and is replacing an FA map from the article Iranian languages with an obviously incorrect one that was removed from other articles as well. No expert of the subject would ever claim that Kabul is Pashtun or Pashto-speaking. Pashtuns are an important minority, but the city itself is overwhelming Persian. The Iranica article on Kabul's history says: ... The population was mainly Persian-speaking, and included Tajiks, Paštuns, Qezelbāš (in Čendāwol and Morād Ḵāni) and Hindus, as well as some one hundred Armenians and a few Jews (Gazetteer, p. 230). ... [4] Massagetae will not be able to find one serious source to back up his claim. I suggest to remove that nonsense immediately. Tajik (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that an IP has removed the disputed content. Personally, I consider these anonymous IP edits rather disturbing. Still, I frankly ask not to revert to the obviously wrong version. Or the article needs to be tagged accordingly (i.e. accuracy disputed, etc.) Tajik (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64,

The Indian census source isn't what I would call the most authoritative on the matter, and it's ambiguous at best – I'm not sure whether it says Pashto = Kabuli or if it's simply grouping Pashto with Kabuli and Afghani (perhaps due to similarities shared by the languages).

In the Indian census Persian is listed as a separate language. Pashto (alternative names used are Afghani and Kabuli) is listed as a separate language. MassaGetae(talk) 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Be it so, this is still not a reliable source. The Indian census site is not a scholarly article. In fact, it is the only page which equates "Kabuli" and "Pashto", and your stubborn stand on this is rather disturbing, because you are ignoring major sources, among them the standard reference works of oriental studies. If you have any other sources for your claim, please name them. Otherwise, the ridiculous claim in the intro has to be removed. Tajik (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The source tells it's called Kabuli in India. Please stop restoring an old version. The revert by 71.107.11.87 (talk · contribs) also restored an older map that is edited by banned user and surely under represents Pashto, and shows even Pakistan as Dari (Persian). The newer map by Azalea pomp (talk · contribs) should be used instead. MassaGetae(talk) 19:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether India calls the language "Kabuli" or not cannot be seen in the source you have provided. It only says that there are 11,000+ speakers in India, and lists the language as "Afghan/Kabuli/Pashto". I doubt that you can find any other (Indian) source for your claim. And even if your claim (i.e. that Indians call the language "Kabuli") is true, it still does not justify a bold entry in the first sentence of the article in the English Wikipedia. In English, only "Pashto" and "Afghan" are used. I once again ask you to provide other reliable sources supporting your claim that "Kabuli" and "Pashto" are synonyms. Because if you do not have any, you should also stop pushing for this POV.

As for the map: it was not edited by a banned user but was created after months (!) of discussion. I was part of the discussion group and we needed months (!) to get the map the way it is. The map of User:Azalea pomp is inaccurate. Even he himself has accepted this fact, and has promised to update it and to correct it. So far, you are the only one who stubbornly holds on that map - a map that is not even accepted by its creator anymore. Tajik (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello all, I saw this discussion and thought that I would include links to side discussions that are going on regarding this topic. They can be found here and here. I have also added another reference from the GRN which states that Kabuli = Pashto (source), while keeping the footnote that states that the term "Kabuli" may also refer to a dialect of Punjabi or Dari. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 20:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is still not acceptable. Global Recordings Network is a Christian missionary network and has in this case no reliability at all. It is not a scholastic source. This article tries to establish an obviously false claim as a "fact". No other source supports this POV. Neither Britannica, nor Encarta, Brockhaus, or published works by scholars and/or politicians. The term is used exclusively as a synonym for "Persian" in the most important reference works of oriental studies, i.e. Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam. The current version of the article clearly violates the rules of Wikipedia, because it puts POV claim and two weak sources above all other available material, most of them scholarly works. Tajik (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to get involved in the debate and bring/refute several sources, but I'll just try to help a bit. One should not get confused two very different things: a dialect of Pashto called Kabuli and a language also called Kabuli. While South Asia would certainly be more familiar with the former, especially considering the politicized switch from Kandahar to Kabul as the capital of Afghanistan after the invasions of South Asia, individuals in the past who lived in the area that is now Afghanistan wouldn't have thought of the Pashtun dialect at first thought. I am not even sure how widespread the term "Kabuli" would be for a dialect or has been in the past, though I am sure the term is in use or has been in use. As far as referring to the entire language as “Kabuli” it's a tad ridiculous considering how minor Kabul is in the light of Pashtun history, though understandably it would be seen as central to Pashtun society in South Asia due to a strong mingling of cultures around that time period, and from individuals who before had marched from Kabul like Babur. Also, since my family settled in Pakistan due to the Russians, I notice a cultural tendency to name dialects after cities, for example, "Multani", "Dervi" and so forth. --Afghana ^[talk] 21:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have offered a possible consensus version here by putting the entire information into the footnotes. The term "Kabuli" is not a synonym for Pashto, and it is unknown in English. In scholastic works, it is explicitly used for the Persian dialect of Kabul, the dominant language of the city and the lingua franca of Afghanistan. See the Iranica articles. I will not remove the tag and I will not change the map (although it should be replaced as well). If you do not agree, please feel free to revert. Tajik (talk) 22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Again please stop removing sourced content from article lead. You can't say in all "scholastic works, it is explicitly used for the Persian dialect of Kabul". The reference by Anupam is good enough. I added a new reference "A Pashto Conversation: Manual" and clarified Kabuli is used in the reference for northern Pashto dialect. MassaGetae(talk) 07:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove sourced material. I simply moved it. All of your sources are weak, and I consider it a pure propagandistic move to establish a word in the English Wikipedia which is totally unknown in Afghanistan, in surrounding areas, and in English. "Kabuli" is a Persian word, and the suffix "-i" simply means "from". Kabuli = "from Kabul". That's also the reason why the Punjabi dialects spoken by Afghan Hindus are - as it seems - designated "Kabuli". Your claim that "Kabuli" is another name for "Pashto" is POV, based on weak sources, and propagandistic, perhaps aimed to establish the claim that Pashto is native to Kabul. That's the reason why you cannot come up with one single scholastic source, why you reject and ignore important sources such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam. Instead of focusing on your POV term "Kabuli", you should better put the word "Pathan" in the lead, which is much more common in India and elsewhere. Once again I am asking you to present REAL and RELIABLE sources for your propagandistic POV claims.

By the way: I think you have violated WP:3RR. I will ask another admin to help out. Tajik (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The constant reverts and edit warring by anon IPs is disruptive and gives the false impression of proxying and meatpuppetry for established users. Wouldn't it be better to (semi-)protect the page for some time while tagging the article to force a constructive discussion?! Tajik (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead. While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article. --Wikipedia:Lead section

1. Keep the introduction concise. The information about Kabuli and its various dialects in other languages was not needed and nearly doubled the text in the introduction while not adding anything particularly useful.

2. Calling Pashto as Kabuli is not a notable controversy, nor is it nearly important to the language in whole. It is an accepted name for a dialect of Pashto.

While mentioning that a certain dialect of Pashto is called Kabuli and mentioning that the Indian census referred to Pashto as Kabuli satisfy WP:notability criteria in and of themselves, neither belong in the WP:lead section. If any of you wish to reinsert the information, I implore you to reconsider putting it in the introduction. --Afghana ^[talk] 05:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Pushto or pashto language is a very old world,

what they are talking about shows from the third century mohamed hotiq the book ( pati khazana )

What??? I'm trying to learn this language. My father is from Pashto!!! And I'm learning dumb Urdu... D= 208.59.134.79 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC) User:Mistyfur

Can someone render Tayar Osay (Be Prepared), the Scout Motto, into Pashto script? Thanks! Chris 02:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC) Pashtons are the lords of afghanistan. pashtons are the only people who can be role afghanistan. Afghans and pashtons are brothers and they are being separted by British. Like Kurdis being separated in the whole world. Pashtons were the people who debet english.

In Arabic, Taleb is the singular form and it mean a student, the "one who asks".

In the masculin dual form, in the nominative it is Taliban, that is 2 students.

In the masculin plural form, nominative, accusative and genetive forms it is Tullab (no ending indicated here)

In Pashto, I understand that the ending AN indicats the plural form thus, TALIBAN or Students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.200.25 (talk) 01:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Pashto is an Indo-Aryan language. No doubt in it.

If anyone here wants to have a debate with me on the classification of Pashto, I will be happy to debate. I can be contacted at kingkhan@gmail.com

This is not a question of debate. All academic sources place Pashto FIRMLY within the Iranian sub-branch. It is related to the Indo-Aryan languages (as are all Iranian languages) within the larger Indo-Iranian group, but it is not one of them. All of the mainstream sources refer to Pashto as Eastern Iranian: Encyclopedia Britannica, Afghan Network, Ethnologue (not a site I particularly like as it is an evangelical site), Languages of the World, Omniglot, Pakhtun.com, and UCLA Language Materials Project. Encyclopedia Iranica, written by academics from universities in New York, also places it as the most important Eastern Iranian language:

The Afghans or Paṧtūn are characterized by: (1) Their language, Paṧtō, the most important Iranian language of the east, with a remarkably rich literature.Encyclopedia Iranica entry "Afgan"

Whatever information you have is original research, but IF you can convince the academic world of their error, then that's great and we can change the classification. Until then, this not the place for a debate. Tombseye (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to enter a debate on where in the family of languages Pashto falls. I have made some observations on the pronouns and the verb to be in the present tense. I found that they contain several languages including Arabic. Some may not like the idea that Arabic, a Semetic language also figures in an ancient Aryan language such as Pashto. I have found also that due to time and space some words who at the origin of the language had the same meaning, in modern times they have almost the same pronunciation but opposite meaning such as the Pashto word: VROSTO, meaning behind, in Greek it is VROSTA and means in front.

I would like to post the following chart, and I would appreciate someone who could help me fill in the gap where I have some question marks. It is entirely possible that the missing information is in a language that I'm not familiar with. I have familiarity with Arabic, French, English, Greek, Spanish and German.

1st zə yəm Je (Fr) Yo (Sp) I (En) Ich (Gr)

       yem  Am (En)

2nd tə ye Tu (Fr) es (Fr)

3rd Hagha day هذا (Ar)(Hada=This masculin)

       Hagha dah       هذه (Ar)(Hadi he= This feminin)

__________________________________________________________ Plural mung yu  ???

Taso = Tous (all, Fr), Toi (You singular Fr) yai = Etes (pl of ye, Fr)(they adopted only the first vowel sound E in French)

Haghui di Eux (Fr) They (En) هولاء (Ar) The sounds: ,eu,ey ee,

The pronunciation of words have changed to the point where they really look different, Haghui di= Eux (Fr) Eux (Fr), They (En), ,(Ar) هولاء

The sounds:

,eu,ey ee, appear in the various languages and on the surface sound unrelated.

signed: icedteatogo@yahoo.com Leila Martin

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.200.25 (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the sentence: According to the recent survey "Afghanistan: Where Things Stand" by BBC/ABC/ARD (average numbers from 2005-2009) Pashto is spoken by 31%. because that is not what ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD POLL – AFGHANISTAN: WHERE THINGS STAND, February 9th, 2009, p. 38-40 said. That survey reported two items related to Pashto: the first was in what language was the interview conducted on 12 January 2009, that was 30% in Pashto; the second item was the percentage that can read Pashto that was 29% in the 2009 survey down from 43% in the 2004 survey. Neither of those items support the statement that was deleted. --Bejnar (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The actual figure for Pashto speakers in Afghanistan, given by the citated CIA Factbook 2009 webpage is actually 35%, NOT the quoted 65%. Also, citation 11 appears to contain no mention of any figures regarding the amount of Pashto speakers in Afghanistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.22.5 (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the chart which diagrams the pronunciations of different words in different dialects is incorrect. I am from Kandahar and I speak the Kandahar dialect, but the written pronunciation of a lot of these words is wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.153.49 (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

((editsemiprotected)) The total number of Pashtuns living in the world is more than 60 million. More than 56% of total Papulation of Afghanistan is Pashtuns.

Tasal (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying "This article is within the scope of WikiProject India" implies that the Pashto language is chiefly a matter of Indian relevance. It is spoken primarily in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I think it is misleading to have that text box with the Indian flag at the top of the page. Thnidu 19:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it seems certain individuals are hijacking articles and adding indian POV's to them and innapropriately linking them to india, when no such link exists! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.241.60 (talk) 17:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You iranian, can you prove it that Dari is a lingua franca of Afghanistan. you just dreaming so. Pashto is lingua franca of Afghnisatn. Persian or Dari or what ever you guys call it, it is the lingua franca of Iran that's it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasal (talk • contribs) 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, it only says "Pashto" in "Language family" in the info box on the right. Could someone add the branches? Thanks! 46.126.180.188 (talk) 17:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC) (lKj)

UCLA states that [5] 50% of the population of Afghanistan and 13% of the population of Pakistan speak Pashto so how does that add up to 20 million? Afghan population is 29 million plus 3 million Afghan refugees, lets just say total 30 million and 50% of that is 15 million. As for Pakistan, it's population is 170 million and 13% of that would be around 28 million. Additionally, the Enzyklopaedia Iranica: Pashto by Georg Morgenstierne is very old and we can't use that for today's estimate. User:Chartinael is trying to lower the number of Pashto speakers by using old and outdated sources. Ethnologue states Ethnic population: 49,529,000 possibly total Pashto in all countries This doesn't mean it's confirmed but it's just the highest possible realistic number. One last thing to add, the very word "Pashtun" means "Pashto-speaker".--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not pushing any POV but that of the academic estimate based on the UCLA language project (although I prefer to stick with printed data in scholarly works. The ethnologue says possibly ... so why do you have an issue with mentioning the lower but rather agreed on number and the higher, yet guessed on number of total population worldwide. Your UCLA source states:

Number of Speakers: Approximately 17 million / Key Dialects: Eastern, Western, Central, Southern / Geographical Center: Northeastern Afghanistan Northwest Frontier Province, Pakistan

There are 8 million speakers of Pashto in Afghanistan (50% of the population) and almost 9 million in Pakistan (13% of the population).

The Ethnologue states exactly that: Ethnic population, possibly. No more, no less. Chartinael (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Read very carefully what I stated above.--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

UCLA is even safer in estimation. In Comrie (The major languages of South Asia, the Middle East and Africa), also lower figures printed in 1990. A 1997 Publication Phonologies of Asia and Africa: (including the Caucasus) - Alan S. Kaye, Peter T. Daniels, also only 20. Both works used by UCLA. At least the Comrie. There may be many more, but no figures given. Just two printed publications by scholars in the field of Iranistics. So no, I am not pushing POV. Septfonds D. 2006: Pashto. In: Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world Keith Brown, Sarah Ogilvie, elsevier 2009. p 846 states 40 Mio (article written 2006.) That would be a decent source for the higher number. And more valuable in terms of sources than the ethnologue as it comes from an academic publisher. Chartinael (talk) 15:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Chartinael - According to official sources (POPULATION CENSUS ORGANIZATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN), Pashto was spoken by around 15.42% (1998) of the total population of Pakistan. If the population of Pakistan is 170 million, Pashto is spoken by 26.18 million people in Pakistan only. I understand we prefer academic sources in wikipedia, however, we are talking about the population and demographics of country. The only reliable source that should be used in this case is an official source from the government (or United Nations in some cases). The only time we can use non-official sources for demographics and population is when official sources are not available. By using non-official sources, we are only saying that a so called scholar or academician knows more about the population and demographics of a country than the government itself. (Ketabtoon (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

However, I am fine with using the lower as well as the higher number. That is why both are in it. I do not see, why the lower number is an issue as it is referenced even by the source lagoo otherwise uses. You cannot cherry pick the parts that suit you. 'Pakistan Census states Total Numbers 130.000.000. Which makes 15 per cent equal about 19 million NOT 26, NOT 28 mio Pasthuns in Pakistan. That is what the source states. So add the 10 million that speak Pashto in Afghanistan and you come up to 29 well referenced. I still don't understand why it is an issue to go with the lower and the higher numbers as long as all are referenced even if it is outdated data. As long as it is data recently published in academic writings it is the data to be used. Wikipedia does not evaluate the TRUTH factor but the verifiability factor. Academic sources over non academic, print over web. UCLA would be a tertiary source as it is based on academic literature itself. So go to the well accepted academic sources. And I am going to bed now. Past midnight, I'll check in the morning. Chartinael (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding other edits made by Lagoo. I am fine with all the format changes, however - do not remove a template citation needed if you cannot provide a source. Also, stay away from the well sourced official language section as well as do not clutter the infobox and leave the language tree in there. Chartinael (talk)

The current population of Pakistan is approximately 174 million, not 130 million. So, 15.4% of 174 million is 26.8 million ~. For more information, please refer to the following page, Languages of Pakistan. If Afghanistan's population is 28,395,716 and Pashtuns make up 42% of the population, we will get 11.9 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan. 26.8 & 11.9 will add up to 38.7 million.

Even though the lower numbers are sourced, they absolutely contradict official and well known sources. And based on Wikipedia:UNDUE#Giving_.22equal_validity.22, those are minority views. And, like you mentioned, the source you have given is based on outdated data. According to Ethnologue, the numbers are from 1993 - that is 17 years ago. In 1993, the population of Pakistan was around 122 million and now it is 174 million (52 million difference). It is also worth to mention that the population growth rate of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (where most of the Pashtuns are located) has always been higher than Pakistan's average population growth rate.

As you should see now, there are multiple problems with those lower numbers. (Ketabtoon (talk) 22:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC))

However the census information you referenced with 15,42% Pasthuns native speakers in Pakistan works with a total population of 130+ million. What you guys are trying to do is Original Research based on estimations not reflected in academic writing, again: not truth, verifiability is the credo. There is no undue weight as I say, use both figures and explain. You guys say, no only the high figure, it doesn't matter what others say. Academically the 20 million are not a minority opinion. Check the papers and books on the subject. By the way, don't mix ethic pashtuns with pashto speakers. Despite the fact that about 50% in Afghanistan are ethnic pashtuns, not all speak pastho as the primary language. Hence, the cia factbook states 35% of the population being pastho native speakers. Is it really that difficult to see that not all members of a given ethnicity actually speak the language as a mother tongue usually identified with the ethnicity? In Pakistan the annual growth rate is about 3+ Per Cent. So you'd end up around 25 Million in Pakistan now plus lets say 15 mio in afghanistan - so you get 40 million with estimation then lets add another 10 million just for the heck of it for all possible other places. Yes, you can get to 50 Mio with guess work. It is possible but no census data for that exists right now. Chartinael (talk) 23:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Chartinael, I doesn't know from what society you belongs, but in Wikipedia Pakistan's population is 170 million because this is backed by all the major sources. Before I continue, the CIA's lowest 35% for Afghanistan is challenged by Encyclopedia Iranica and American professor Louis Dupree whom say 50-55%. CIA don't mention from where this 35% figure comes. I don't need to list all the sources but it's the majority view that the population of Pakistan today is 170 Mio today, CIA states 174 Mio. It has the second largest Muslim population according to Pew Research Center and all the top universities around the world, if your 130 million claim was truth then Pakistan would not be 2nd largest Muslim nation. The 40-50 Mio Pashtuns are all Pashto-speakers, and there are many among Baloch, Hindko, Tajiks, Hazaras, Nuristanis, Pashays, Bruais, and many other smaller groups who speak Pashto fluently. In Quetta (Pakistan) 1 Mio Hazaras speak Pashto fluently because Pashto is the main language of the area in which everyone speak it, including Punjabis. In Peshawar (Pakistan) all non-Pashtuns speak Pashto. In Kandahar, Jalalabad, Helmand, Gardez, Logar, Ghazni, and other places of Afghanistan all Tajiks and Hazaras speak Pashto. Don't forget the 5 Mio or so Afghan refugees who are majority Pashto speakers and they are not counted in Pakistan or in Afghanistan census or population estimations. It is you who is on a special mission to lower Pashto speakers to lowest number by doing W:Original research.--Lagoo sab (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not about original research, but more of a consensus. Almost the same population and demographic stats for Pakistan are used at Demographics of Pakistan and Languages of Pakistan. The numbers and percentages for Pakistan are the same as mentioned in those 2 pages. Even if you drop the percentage for Afghanistan from 42 to 35 in Afghanistan, it is only going to change the numbers by a million or 2 max. Your source, Ethnologue, is out of the question to be included in here since the numbers are 17 years old. By adding 20 million and using an Ethnologue as a reference makes it look like the estimates start from 1993 (for the lower one) and ends at 2009/2010 (for the higher one). In the Infobox and anywhere else in that article, current numbers are needed. You cannot add both numbers and then explain that the lower numbers are from 17 years ago. A link has been provided for Demographics of Pakistan in the main article for those readers who want to find out the population and demographics of Pakistan in 1993. (Ketabtoon (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

Both UCLA and Ethnologue are outdated sources. In the Infobox we are suppose to provide current estimates (not 17 years old). And, while the percentages for ethnic demographics might remain the same or change very little in 17 years, the number changes a lot for the population of a country. (Ketabtoon (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

And forget about G. Morgenstierne's article from Iranica. I don't even know how old that is. According to that articles, Pashto is spoken by 8 million in Afghanistan while by only 6 million in Pakistan.

By the way, you are very welcome to invite a third person neutral point of view to this discussion. (Ketabtoon (talk) 00:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC))

I've added several most current references from people who are familiar with Pashto and the number of Pashto speakers, the rules of Wikipedia is that we stick to using the generally-accepted and more realistic figures. Majority of the reliable sources state that Pashto speakers are anywhere between 40 to 60 million and I've cited these sources, if you do your own calculation it comes to 50 million as what Ethnologue claims. So we leave these things to experts instead of making our own ridiculous numbers. I hope this makes sense to Chartinael and is accepted. She claims that Pashto speakers are only 20 million because she says so and uses old contradictory and misleading information. The 20 million number is so wrong every way you approach it.--Lagoo sab (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The section "Official Status" is mostly explaining the political situation of Afghanistan. It should explain a little about the political situation of Pashtun nationalists of British-India (Pakistan).--Lagoo sab (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, we will discuss other countries as soon as Pashto has been awarded official status. As long as their is no official status in other countries, it is rather difficult to say anything about that. Chartinael (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mention anything about that. I said the political situation in the NWFP/FATA/Balochistan (British-India) should also be covered in the section because there were Pashtuns promoting Pashto there as well.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Official status is the section however. Oh, and please stop adding king to every name. No titles to be used in text. Chartinael (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to understand what is motivating Lagoo Sab for pushing his version:

Critique: Timeline inkonsistent. First para introduction of both languages. Cont. to since the 18th and to making pashto official language in 1936. There is info missing like, why the heck does pashto have to be made official language if every king spoke pashto? My first para deals with that. You come from the 30s and its movement to the citation of the CAL. A statement which is part of the beginning in lagoo sabs version. It should only be a reflection of the scientific writings but not the basis. That's why I finish with that. I think it could be shortened, but hey - who cares.

So before reverting once more, I would really like to understand what is going on here. Is there some sort of emotional issue? Some cultural aspect I am missing? Maybe this is one of these things along the line why some folks would like to note every location where ethnicities live. With globalization continuing, I wonder where this will lead to, since ehtnicities mix and mingle. Chartinael (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You're an anti-Pashtun pov warrior who is determined to write your persian ethnocentric BS and povs here. Never seen anyone so obsessed with hate like you, this article is about Pashto language, not about your Dari language. Afghanistan historically included today's Pakistan, and there was no official language. Each region had its own language (i.e. Pashtuns spoke Pashto, Persians = Farsi, Punjabis = Urdu, etc.) "Dari" didn't even exist in pre-1936. Btw, you're the pov pusher who claimed Pashto speakers @20 million when all the sources are telling you in your face that Pashto-speakers are 40-60 million.--Lagoo sab (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are totally wrong, Lagoo Sab, I am a historical linguist with a major in Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan Linguistics - with absolutely no pro-Persian POV. I am a German by ethnicity and nationality. I have absolutely no hate towards any south-asian ethno-linguistic community. You should not project your feelings onto somebody else. Dari existed btw. way before 1936 and Aghan Persian was only called Dari because some folks had issues with having Persian named Persian. I am sorry, but I realize, you are a fanatic one cannot talk to on an academic level. Chartinael (talk) 11:54, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Chartinael, the only Persian fanatic here is you and that is showing very clearly to us in your contributions. The way you behave in Wikipedia suggests that you have no major in anything. You are a.k.a. User:Sommerkom, active in the German version of Wikipedia as [6] (Sommerkom) and [7] (Phoenix2), and you're editing in an anti-Pashtun way with a Persian ethnocentric POV. Do you understand Afghanistan's history or you just come here to attack Pashtun related articles? And you being from Germany means very little to me, Adolf Hitler was from there. Afghanistan was formed as an Afghan Empire (Pashtun Empire) in 1747 which was a large territory that also included Pakistan but in 1893 it was reduced to what you see in maps today. If you think you are smart then you should have known this very well known fact. To say that before 1930s Persian was the official language of Afghanistan is misleading and incorrect. Providing one person's opinion in a book shows your academic level. As someone who is more of an expert on Afghanistan, I told you that there was no official language designated in Afghanistan from 1747 to 1930s. The rulers and those running Afghanistan were Pashtuns, speakers of Pashto language. Read the biographies of each of the leaders of Afghanistan since 1709. Now, explain how did Persian become the official language of Afghanistan when that is the language spoken by the minorities (i.e. Tajiks)? If Persian was the official language of Afghanistan from 1747 to 1930s then surely it would have left traces in Pakistan's Pashtun tribal areas and would be understood today by the Pashtuns who now live in Pakistan.--Lagoo sab (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong on all accounts. Hitler was an Austrian, btw. Persian has btw left huge traces in Pakistan. Ever heard of Urdu? No stop spreading incorrect information about my identiy. Chartinael (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

According to his article, Hitler was an Austrian-born "German". That would be the same as current U.S. President Barak Obama being an American, regardless where he was born. I'm not wrong, I'm an expert on people's writings, like how someone is expert on finger prints. The above named users have used "btw" in the same way you are using it. (i.e. [8]). A set of IPs from Germany have been cursing Pashtuns in many Afghanistan-related articles (i.e. [9], [10]), and those IPs also used "btw" quite often. Your level of English is very close to theirs. So please don't waste my time. When I said leaving traces, I meant the Pashtun tribal areas of Pakistan. There are no Persian-speaking Pashtuns in Pakistan as how there are in Afghanistan. Urdu is irrelevant, many languages borrowed words from others and that was not what I meant by leaving "traces."--Lagoo sab (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

3O Requested as of 06-12-2010

I have requested additional, neutral opinions regarding this section. Chartinael (talk) 12:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

• I like Chartinael's version; more consistent and easy to follow. Can someone explain to me exactly how this is POV-pushing? I don't see any removal of information or addition of contentious information. If Lagoo sab can provide evidence that the citations given are incorrect, fine, but until then consider this a warning against unsubstantiated personal attacks. Ironholds (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Source Discussion

Ironholds, you need to familiarize yourself with the subject or topic being discussed here before you tell us which version is better. Do you have any idea about Afghanistan's history?--Lagoo sab (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually. Your comment above about Chartinael was, again, a personal attack; cease from hereonin and comment about the content rather than the contributors, or I will have you blocked. I have familiarised myself with the content, and what is obviously clear to me is that your argument is not based on say, sourced information. Rather than pointing us to Wikipedia lists, could you find an academic or ten commenting on the official recognition of the Pashto and Persian languages? Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

If you are familiar then you should read what neutral sources such as The World Factbook (CIA), Library of Congress Country Studies on Afghanistan, Encyclopedia Iranica, Encyclopedia Britannica, Center for Applied Linguistics, and other academic sources say about Afghanistan's official languages. Chartinael did not cite any of these, all the sources he cited in this article are works by Shi'a Persian book writers and obviously they are biased because in Afghanistan you should know that Persians are the biggest rivals of Pashtuns. In such case we should rely on the 3rd party neutral sources.--Lagoo sab (talk) 19:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Really? Academic Journals published in London and Germany are all works by Persian book writers? At no point in the proposed changes has Chartinael really inserted a mass of new sources; the sources you're accusing of being biased works by Shi'a Persian book writers are ones you yourself have used. The proposed changes are not some vast shift in POV. They're a vast shift in style so that the two paragraphs actually make sense. Ironholds (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Source Questioned by Lagoo Sab

An editor adding things like this: "In 1936, Pashto was granted the status of an official language[8] with full rights to usage in all aspects of government and education by royal decree despite the fact that the ethnically Pashtun rulers and bureaucrates spoke Persian at home and work" is ethnocentric POV-pushing. That claim is made by Rizwan Hussein, a Shia book writer, and not all books are academic works. I can direct you to a book in which the author copied entire badly-written section from Afghanistan's page of Wikipedia and pasted it in his/her book. Anyway, did Rizwan visit all the rulers and bureaucrates of Afghanistan in 1936 to find out what languages they spok at home. We should avoid adding nonsense like this into articles, especially in multi-ethnic Afghanistan where most of its people are fluent in multiple languages. It's controversial ethnocentric POV which leads to edit-wars by editors of different ethnicity and this was my point but I probably didn't explain it better.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, that's possibly an inappropriate source. Jack Fellman's "Language and National Identity: The Case of the Middle East", found in Vol. 15, Issue 5 of Anthropological Linguistics, Page 248. "Afghanistan, like Iran, employs Persian as its national standard official language. However, in 1936, Pashto became a second and equal official language language..." going on to say something about the King's desire for a politically unified nation. Vartan Gregorian's "Mahmud Tarzi and Saraj-ol-Akhbar: Ideology of Nationalism and Modernization in Afghanistan", found in Vol 21 Issue 3 of the Middle East Journal, notes on p.365 the familiarity and exposure of the "country's popular courtiers, educators, members of the Royal Family and some representatives of the religious establishment". Can I suggest we try and work on a middle ground? In the mean time, yes, Chartinael is of a different ethnicity. Chartinael is German. The only person here claiming or making ethnicity an issue is you.

I am fully aware that books are sometimes unreliable - I've been editing Wikipedia for four years, and I'm currently preparing an academic work of my own. Comments like "Anyway, did Rizwan visit all the rulers and bureaucrates of Afghanistan in 1936 to find out what languages they spok at home" are not proper arguments however. It is not appropriate for us to ask those questions. We do not synthesise, undertake original research or query the findings of third parties, because that is not our role. We report what others have said. Show me multiple, third-party sources which don't say and imply the use of Persian as the language of the elites and government and we'll talk. Until then, you have no support for your position. Ironholds (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If Lagoo Sab has issues with a source, say so. But dismissing an academic publication on the grounds of the author being a "Shi'a Persian book writer", I get the feeling that Shi'a is being used in a derogatory manner. Here is information about the Hussain source: http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9780754644347 Dr Rizwan Hussain is a Research Scholar at The Australian National University, Australia. More precisely at the "Centre for Arab & Islamic Studies". The review of Contemporary South Asia, a peer reviewed academic journal, is positiv as well ( ... a must read ... highly recommended ...). Rizwan Hussain has been used by other editors in other lemmata (such as Pakthas, Pashtunistan, Sawar Khan, Iqbal Khan (general), Batkhela, Afridi, Pre-Islamic Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan and plenty more as a reference. Hussain received his Ph.D. in 2003 with a dissertation about "Pakistan and the emergence of Islamic militancy in Afghanistan: a politico-historical analysis." The source in question. Chartinael (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggested Sources by Lagoo Sab

To Ironholds, like I said you're not familiar with Afghanistan, its people, its history and etc. Please follow these major sources and then you'll have a better understanding.

• According to Encyclopedia Britannica:[11]

  'Pashto language, Pashto also spelled Pashtu, also called Pakhtu, member of the Iranian division of the Indo-Iranian group of Indo-European languages. Extensive borrowing has caused Pashto to share many features of the Indo-Aryan group of the Indo-European languages as well. Originally spoken by the Pashtun people, Pashto became the national language of Afghanistan in 1936. It is spoken by more than 35 million people, most of whom reside in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Smaller speech communities exist in Iran, Tajikistan, the United Arab Emirates, and the United Kingdom.

• According to Library of Congress Country Studies on Afghanistan:[12]

  Pashtun - The largest and traditionally most politically powerful ethnic group... The Afghan Pushtun heartland roughly covers a large crescent-shaped belt following the Afghan-Pakistani border on the east, southward from Nuristan, across the south, and northward along the Iranian border almost to Herat. Enclaves of Pashtun also live scattered among other ethnic groups throughout the nation... Physically the Pushtun are basically a Mediterranean variant of the greater Caucasian race and speak several mutually intelligible dialects of Pashtu; some also speak Dari. Both Pashtu and Dari belong to the Iranian branch of the Indo-European language family... The Pushtun have provided the central leadership for Afghanistan since the eighteenth century when Ahmad Khan Abdali of Kandahar established the Durrani Empire.

• According to Encyclopedia Britannica on Dari [13]:

  Dari language, along with Pashto, one of the two official languages of Afghanistan. Dari is the Afghan dialect of Farsi (Persian). It is written in a modified Arabic alphabet, and it has many Arabic and Persian loanwords. The syntax of Dari does not differ greatly from Farsi, but the stress accent is less prominent in Dari than in Farsi. To mark attribution, Dari uses the suffix -ra. The vowel system of Dari differs from that of Farsi, and Dari also has additional consonants. About one-third of the population of Afghanistan, i.e., about 5,000,000 people, speak Dari. It is the primary language of the Tadzhik, Hạzāra, and Chahar Aimak peoples. Dari, rather than Pashto, serves as the means of communication between speakers of different languages in Afghanistan.

What the major academic sources who specialize on Afghanistan say is that Pashtuns, whose native language is Pashto, are the elite (politically powerful) people of Afghanistan.[14] They are the founders and largest ethnic group of Afghanistan. Some, especially those living in the capital Kabul, also speak Dari as a second language. That's because Kabul is generally known as a Persian(Dari)-speaking city although people of all ethnic background live there. That doesn't mean that everyone in the city speak Persian inside their homes. If you still don't believe this, you can go down the list of all the Afghan ministers and read their bios which clearly states that they speak both Pashto and Dari. See Council of Ministers (Afghanistan), Afghan Cabinet of Ministers, List of monarchs of Afghanistan, and List of presidents of Afghanistan and so on. It's hard to find someone in the Afghan government who only speaks Dari but not Pashto.--Lagoo sab (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

To Chartinael, please do not start an edit-war.--Lagoo sab (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You're saying that a) Wikipedia is a reliable source, b) Ethnic pashtun = pashto speaking, automatically and c) that it is appropriate for an editor to undertake his own original research. None of these things are true. If you can provide a reliable source that directly contradicts Rizwan Hussain, fine. Showing sources which stay silent on the topic and then inferring that this means Hussain is wrong is not evidence. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That is your own mind telling you these things, I didn't claim any of that. The ethnicity of all the Afghan government employees are properly sourced in their articles. "Pashtun" translates to "Pashto-speaker" and Pashto is the mother toung of all Pashtuns [15]. If you still disagree then you have no idea what you're arguing about here. Another big problem with yours and chartinael's version is that it tries to make Pashto a language limited to Afghanistan, ignoring the fact that it is more widely spoken in Pakistan (being the second largest after Punjabi).--Lagoo sab (talk) 18:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

"Pashtuns, whose native language is Pashto, are the elite (politically powerful) people of Afghanistan.... They are the founders and largest ethnic group of Afghanistan". You make reference to the ethnic group being synonymous with the language. Ironholds (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Due, that's what I've been trying to teach you. Pashto is the "native" language of all the Pashtuns, a people known historically as ethnic Afghans. Some non-Pashtuns (Tajiks, Hazaras, others) speak Pashto as a 2nd language.--Lagoo sab (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that every single member of the Pashtun ethnicity speaks Pashto? Ironholds (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. They speak other languages as 2nd, 3rd, and so on.--Lagoo sab (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

That's simply ludicrous. There is no way you can honestly guarantee that every single member of an ethnicity speaks the language associated with that ethnicity. Ironholds (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

According to Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan Amānullāh Khān did not speak Pashto as his mother tongue. BTW I know a few Pashtun that are unable to speak the language of their ancestors. Chartinael (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you have issues man.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This is according to the External link at bottom of article: Pashto Language & Identity Formation in Pakistan which user Lagoo Sab entered as an external link and I incorporated said articled into the section about 2 hours later. This article referenced was published btw in Contemporary South Asia, the peer reviewed journal issuing the positive review of the contested Hussain source. Chartinael (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Claiming that Pashtuns are the "indigenous" people of the area is unscholarly and POV. In fact, according to literature and leading scholars, the origin of the Pashtuns is totaly obscure:

Looking for the origin of Pashtuns and the Afghans is something like exploring the source of the Amazon. Is there one specific beginning? And are the Pashtuns originally identical with the Afghans? Although the Pashtuns nowadays constitute a clear ethnic group with their own language and culture, there is no evidence whatsoever that all modern Pashtuns share the same ethnic origin. In fact it is highly unlikely - Vogelsang, Willem (2002). The Afghans. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 18.

Tajik (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they are not indigenous peoples, there are accurate historical records of the Pashtuns living in this area since 500 BC, they are mentioned by many people throughout history[16] and historians all agree that they are natives of the region.--Lagoo sab (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, indigenous is a term not applicable. It is used as a means to establish historicity. The aryan homeland is still widely disputed and debated so I am certainly interested in see which historians agree to making Afghanistan an homeland to one of the tribes. It is kinda like saying that Germans are indigenous to Germany. Chartinael (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Pashtuns are indigenous to the region between the Hindu Kush and Indus River, in other words "southeastern Afghanistan and western-Pakistan" where Pashtuns have lived here for at least over 1,000 years. There is also a reliable source (U.S. Library of Congress) which mentions them as indigenous.--Lagoo sab (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact that source does not say they are indigenous in the sense the article uses. It is contrasting Pashtun rule to the foreign rule that Afghanistan had been under. In that sense, they were indigenous (the "natives" not Mughal invaders, for instance) but it does not support the notion that they are indigenous in the sense you imply. Consequently I'm going to strike it out. The Indo-Iranian people are not thought to have come from Afghanistan and you must provide a source that suggests they do. Grace Note (talk)