Former featured articlePashtuns is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
December 4, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
January 23, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
December 5, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
March 11, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article

Disputed source Solved

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

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

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

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

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

— Reena Nanda, From Quetta to Delhi: A Partition Story – [1]


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

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

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



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

You are doing WP:SYNTH. If someone else agrees with your revert which you have made probably 100 times now, then let them revert and explain their edits here. So far I am seeing nobody and you are apparently alone with your original research. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 03:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a traditional form of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NPOVD, Other have accepted that I reverted the Sheen Khalai source. Otherwise that would be reverted by Kansas bear or Dough Weller(see page history when this was done). Why is this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CRUSH : The Sheen khalai themselves say they are of Punjabi Ancestry. So who are you to judge? https://www.thebetterindia.com/155394/hindu-pashtun-shilpi-batra-sheenkhalai-afghanistan/ And Why are you changing the ethnic group region to South Asia? Is Afghanistan and West Pakistan as native land incorrect or something? Because if it is let me know. This seems more Political then Informative, Hopefully this is not the case.Casperti (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also the source you Citate here is Ethnic Groups of South Asia and the Pacific: An Encyclopedia: An Encyclopedia citing there are only Sunni Muslim and a Small Shia minority (also Christian converts) Casperti (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Reena Nanda (2018). From Quetta to Delhi: A Partition Story. Bloomsbury Publishing India. pp. 97–98. ISBN 978-93-8664-344-5.; Columbia University [1]
The source provided in the article clearly states that those Sikh Pashtuns identify themselves as being members of the ethnic group, with Pashto being their mother tongue, not Punjabi. [2] Additionally the material removed by Casperti has been replaced since the references clearly speak of Hindu Pashtuns who practise Pashtunwali, thus meeting the cultural definition of being Pashtun. [3] Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 03:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel: This is what exactly what the problem is. The Afghan / Pashtun Sikh and Hindus are identified as Pashtuns. https://www.samaa.tv/culture/2018/07/how-the-sikhs-settled-in-khyber-pakhtunkhwa/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3138282.stm All of them say that. This is true but this page is about ethnic Pashtuns and the definition of Pashtuns is that their Father need to be Pashtun according to this page.

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

I will be back with a more detailed reply soon, but you need to read WP:SYNTH and stop WP:CANVASSING. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 16:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You must read the source you cited again [4]. It states that the Pashtun Hindus identified themselves as Punjabis when they came to India to fit in because they weren't accepted by their neighbours. The individuals mentioned in the article are Pashtuns, not Punjabis. The source mentions that their appearance, dress, and language is Pashtun/Pashto. Even Hamid Karzai identified them this way. I don't think there is any issue which needs to be addressed now. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 16:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hindkowans are not Pashtuns and do not identify themselves as Pashtuns. Rather, Hindkowans speak a dialect of Panjabi. They are from two different areas that are very very far from one another. Hindkowans are from the Peshawar area and these Hindu Pashtuns are from Loralai. Your dependence over your personal research is clearly not enough. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 14:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There we go again, you are not reading the source are you (Hindkowans is the term Pashtuns use for anyone who speak the Western Punjabi dialects called Hindko in general by Pashtuns, it is like Farsiwan but for Western Punjabis)? They are identifying as Pashtuns like all non-muslim Hindki / Hindkowans as I showed you their in source above, it was just an example so you could understand it. They all (the non-muslim Hindki Pashto speakers) identify as Pashtuns. Also, I do not know why I am trying to explain it you. Per the source given by betterindia.com, the Ladies have Punjabi Ancestors. That's it, done. All reliable scientific sources about Pashtuns do not show Hinduism as their minority religion. All of the sources that are about the specific Pashtun ethnic group show only this: Sunni Muslim with a Shia minority (sometimes Christian converts too) that's it. Here is the list of sources that are talking about the ethnic group:

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

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

Uanfala, just to be clear, you only advocate removing the mention of Hindu Pashtuns in the inbofox, right? If that's the case, do you also support removing mention of another minority community, Twelver Shia Pashtuns, from the infobox too? Take into consideration that the font size in the box is different for the majority religious community and the minority religious community. I agree with your statement that "the group self-identifies as Pashtun is a strong indicator that it should be considered as such". There are other sources available regarding Hindu Pashtuns, a reason why the material in the article should be retained. [5] [6] [7] [yourstory.com/2018/01/filmmaker-goes-back-roots-traces-history-hindu-pashtuns/] [8] Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 06:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are showing the same ladies again, the sheen khalai movie ladies who identify as such. Identifying as Pashtun does not make you ethnic part of it. As, long there is no Ethnographic source showing that there is a existence of a blood ethnic group of Hindus, there is no point to put Hindu into the infobox as Uanfala also explained. But as Uanfala, Dough Weller and Kansas Bear agreed on is that it should be mentioned and can be described at length in the relevant section as it is worthy to mention. Like it was done in Dough Weller's Version [9] Casperti (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Weller and Kansas Bear both reverted you, actually and supported the inclusion of the material you censored. [10] [11] Allow them to speak for themselves instead of misquoting them. You appear to be cherry picking on all sides here. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Sorry, this is not a dispute with which I am familiar. Maybe launch an RfC to better determine the consensus...(?) El_C 19:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that not a problem @El C:. In that case we will wait if Shivakarand has an pure reliable Ethnographic source supporting his WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. If he cannnot find/prove his claim then we will call an official third opinion to decide. Thank you for the advice. Casperti (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fer sure. Certainly, extraordinary claims require extraordinarily-strong sources. Failure to live up to this may be viewed as tendentious editing. El_C 00:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This source was disputed for 1 year and stood as such. That you dont accept it because of your own POV is another case. Maybe you should read what other people write about this too?! Uanfala, El_C, Azmarai and the edit of Dough weller say enough. Just supply an ethnographic source that supports this extraordinary claim of these ladies. If you are so certain of this case it should be in ethnographic sources?? As you can read here above faillure for this is just tendentious editing. So just prove an ethnographic source and nobody will hold you down and be our guest and change it :)Casperti (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
El_C has offered no view and Azmarai76, just like you, is relying on his personal view. I don't have to bother finding sources because you don't need anymore reliable sources here than what we already have. Shashank5988 (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has eyes and can read what others write. If you are so aggresive and certain provide an ethnographic source proving the claim. Simple as that. until then Uanfala's solution will stay.Casperti (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pashtun Numbers

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

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

Salaam

Namaste.


Amanbir Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.204.227.41 (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2020

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

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

Genetics

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

Revision of Genetics Section

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

Infobox

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

Dear Anupam and other editors, Last year my fellow editor @Anupam: added this source [14] for the Pashtun numbers which say Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan's great granddaughter with her organization says there are 3.200.000 Pashtuns in India (descendants or ethnic Pashtun??). I advocate for the use of a Census or ethnographic source like the Government of India mentions the number 21.847 [15].
Once again, the Census of India link that you provided does not say anything about the number of Pashtuns. It only mentions the number of Pashto-speakers, which can include other ethnic groups in India that speak Pashto. Since the All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind is an interest group for Pashtuns in India, its figures would be accurate with respect to the number of Pashtuns in India. Additionally, it makes no sense that there would only be 21,677 Pashtuns in India when over 100,000 were granted citizenship in that country in 1953. As a side note, please keep the talk page comments in chronological order rather than refactoring them. I initiated the discussion here, with the timestamp of my comment coming well ahead of yours. Thanks, AnupamTalk 01:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you User:Anupam and User:Mar4d. Yes it is indeed no rocket science to understand that Ghaffar Khans's Granddaughter 3.2 million figure is not reliable. We all know that there are millions of Pashtuns descendants in India, it is almost like "You do need to cite that the sky is blue" WP:DOCITEBLUE so the other user Shashank5988 making claims that I am against that, are just plain accusation which only proves the user's WP:NPOV. The other user User:Aman.kumar.goel only says "the Indian Pushtun organisation are accurate and should be used here".....that is not really helpful.. not even an argument is used. In addition Shashan5988 is putting the exactly same source (Ghaffar Khan's granddaughter's story) but from a different website/newschannel. That does not change the facts... Both editors want to challenge the 21.000+ Pashto speakers figure from Government of India itself which is undoubtedly a WP:RS. Just challenging the speaker figure by giving a video and articles about Kashmir Pashtuns to prove that the census is wrong is just WP:ORIGINAL. I accept that after Independence 100.000 Pashtuns moved there and they indeed got, several years after the Kashmir war, citizenship from India but the video Shashank5988 is even working against the editor itself. In the video they clearly say that only the elders of the community that settled there speak Pashto and that he is scared that the community will lose their native language over the years. Do not challenge the government census saying there are not 21.000+ Pashto speakers. In fact it is making sense after all according to UNHCR there are 11.000-15.000 Afghans in India (including non-citizens/refugees) so the additional figures could be Kashmir elders of the 100K Pashtuns that settled 70 years ago but again who knows... We just follow reliable sources. I can agree on Mar4d's idea to let it be like that till we have a better source for the descendants figures and that we should indeed mention the Indian census in the notes. so the source can stay for now. Cheers. Casperti (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Casperti, I have no problem with your addition of the Census of India figure in the article footnotes. That being said, it doesn't belong at the beginning of the footnote since the purpose of the footnote is to explain the main figure provided. As such, I have moved it to the end of the footnote. User:Shashank5988, I have added the references that you have provided to the footnote that User:Casperti created. Thanks for your understanding. Kind regards, AnupamTalk 19:21, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right about the footnotes. I have moved it now so people can see it is separate from that. Furthermore, what I mentioned here above: Shashank5988 gave the same content/information/source from different news channels. Which is justWikipedia:Citation_overkill#Reprints But of course, I assume WP:GF in that edit of yours. Now we will just wait till we have a better source for the numbers which is atleast an ethnographic source or Census. I still think it is better to use the Official Indian census which is also used for other ethnicities figure on Wikipedia like Punjabis, Bengalis, Marathi people and all of them use this 2011 census but to avoid conflict we will let it stay like this and wait for better sources. Thank you. Casperti (talk) 22:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Casperti, thank you for your comment. The reason why I think retaining all three references is beneficial is because it will prevent further edit warring and will prevent this issue from coming up again and again, saving our time from further extensive discussion. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anupam, I understand that but that does not change the fact why it is still no WP:OVERKILL? Like come on, it is exactly the same content?! Same person same story different channels. I know I am relatively a new user but this is clearly not what Wikipedia is about. Atleast show why it is not WP:OVERKILL. Your source is unreliable. User:Mar4d also finds it unreliable. Please let this not be a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I accepted the souce to stay till we have a better source but what you are trying to do is against the rules clearly just work with it like all of us. Casperti (talk) 22:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No User:Casperti, I've made my reasoning clear. I am willing to WP:COMPROMISE with you on the issue, however. Rather than leave three sources to support the statistic, how about retaining two? I would prefer keeping The News International since it is from Pakistan (we already have an Indian one). Also, don't speak for User:Mar4d, with whom I have worked with for many years; he agreed to retain the reliable source and my comment received a public thanks from him. Let me know your thoughts. Additionally, please be aware of the fact that if you revert once again, you will have crossed WP:3RR. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:53, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see where Mar4d agreed that it is a reliable source? Maybe you should point it out? In fact, he says I do not see it is reliable as it does not meet the requirements of WP:RS. Just read the comments or ask the user Mar4d again.. You have already added the Pakistani version of the Ghaffar khan story without waiting for an answer, very lowkey. Then you say: "if you revert me once more It is the 3rd time" seems it goes "childish" but with neat words but forgot that. Anyway, to be on-topic; you can merge the two references. On the WP:OVERKILL page for reprints you have solutions such as merging only if the cited contented is not mentioned in one of the other and the 2nd duplicate reference has something to support the citation (that India has 3.2M Pashtuns). I do not see how a Pakistani version of the exact same citation (that India has 3.2M Pashtuns) will not be WP:OVERKILL. None of the OVERKILL sources are statistical. Furthermore, you have added the word "Additionally" without any proof of whether Ghaffar Khan's Granddaughter includes the descendants or just speaks of pure ethnic Pashtuns who speak Pashto. In fact the source even includes Salman Khan in the 3.2M figure and he is clearly no ethnic Pashto speaking Pashtun. To be neutral on that point we can just avoid the words "includes" "excludes". If you think that is fine too? If not please provide the sentence where it says it has excluded descendants Casperti (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Casperti, you can merge the two references if you would like; I have no objections to this. If we're doing that, we might as well include the third too. The 3,200,000 figure clearly makes reference to non-citizen Pashtuns in India, not individuals of Pashtun descent who are clearly Indian citizens like Salman Khan, who is only mentioned as an individual that might contribute to the building of a university. You will not interject this POV in the article. I have separated the footnote to make clear that these are two separate facts that do not belong together. To associate them together when the source says no such thing is to create an unreferenced synthesis. Another solution might be to remove the note about millions of Indians with Pashtun ancestry altogether, since the figure about the All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind says nothing about this and claiming the 3,200,000 along with this unknown number is original research. AnupamTalk 00:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Anupam, again before making accusations just try to look at the source besides that all these questions that we all have and unclarity just once again approves why we should not use a citation of a famous person from a news article for population counts. So on your accusation the exact text says: 'Asked about who would fund in putting up the university building, Yasmin said that if 32 lakh pathans paid Rs 10 each there would be a lot of money. “Besides there are people like Salman Khan and Amir Khan who can contribute a lot more,” she said.' so there are people (from the 3.2M that should donate 10 Rs) who can provide more than 10Rs such as Salman Khan and Amir Khan (both are Pashtun descendants). They are indeed Pashtun citizens so that once more proves how this source does not meet any WP:RS. You, making a claim that they are excluding descendants is actually a WP:ORIGINAL but anyways because she does not specifically say she includes or excludes them we will go for your idea to just drop that part. About the overkill, you have to strip the excessive duplicate and just merge the duplicates that you think should be mentioned at least. Keep in mind every ethnic-linguistic group uses censuses and ethnographic sources. this is the only ethnic-linguistic group that has a citation from a news article which cites a famous person. Do not make any accusations on me further like claiming censorship that just a sign of showing WP:NPOV from your side. So I will drop it here we just have to wait for a better source (ethnographic or census related), it is not a weird request/idea. Thank you. Cheers Casperti (talk) 14:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Casperti, multiple editors (User:Shashank5988, User:Aman.kumar.goel, User:Mar4d and myself) have supported the inclusion of the sources buttressing the figure provided by the All India Pakhtoon Jirga-e-Hind, viewing it as the best available figure that we have access to. For you to add a ((better citation needed)) template to the infobox is tendentious. I have therefore removed the template and you must gain consensus here if you wish to have it restored. Additionally, as I mentioned above, since you merged the sources regarding the figure, I have included the third source as I mentioned I would do above. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Muslim Pashtuns

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

This article talks about Pashtun Sikhs in Nankana Sahib, Punjab, Pakistan. “We are Pashtuns, our forefathers and our next generations all will remain wedded to Pashtunwali. Even our relatives who’ve migrated to Delhi take pride in being called Pashtun Sikhs, and many others who’ve kept Pashto alive in faraway lands. It’s a matter of pride for them when they tell others where they’ve come from. The Pashtun aura has a mystical charm to it,” said a beaming Sardar Rajan Singh. Like other Pashtuns displaced from their homes and ancestral places, the Pashtun Sikhs have been successful in keeping the basic foundation and ethos of their cultural and tradition intact. Detached from their source of origins they cherish and live every moment that connects them to their region. Also note this article published in Dawn, which mentions one of the Pashtun Afridi tribesmen from Tirah who practice Sikhism. Khestwol (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear User:Khestwol, Thank your info. your WP:ORIGINAL argument that Pashtun ancestors had a religion so this religion has to exist still is your own opinion we could say Buddhist and Zoroastrians exist now too so try to avoid own research. We discussed that the Sikhs and Hindus that live in Afghanistan and Pashtunkhwa indeed identify themselves as "Afghan Hindus" or "Pashtun Hindus" due to the fact they are native in Pashto (or Dari) and embrace the culture. secondly, Your own source confirms that: Let me quote: We’ve lived alongside our Pashtun brothers since we first settled in the tribal region and other parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in 1872, just like Sardar Rajan Singh said, we became part of their social fabric, we fostered friendships, setup businesses and even were given the right participate in the decision making process. We lived as neighbors alongside our Pashtun brothers and according to Pashtunwali, a Pashtun is responsible for the well-being of his neighbour, he is his protector and representative. This then begs the question that how can the same people who gave us our identity turn their backs on us?” This is just your own source that you provided so your own source refutes your argument. They came in the 18th-19th century and got the Pashtun identity, that's just their own words not mine. like Uanfala said here Language/culture adaption≠ ethnicity. Please provide an ethnographic source (WP:Cherrypicking) that will support the WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim otherwise like user EL_C stated it will be tendentious editing. btw Sikhs/Hindus are already in the "Religion section separately mentioned as Uanfala consensus proposal. If you can provide an ethnographic source then be my guest &change the infobox For now your own source refutes your argument.Casperti (talk) 16:31, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for sharing this information User:Khestwol. I agree that this important content should be restored. I will restore the information about Hindu Pashtuns, as well as Sikh Pashtuns, along with the sources that were previously in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all User:Anupam user Khestwol's source refuted its own claim. They are identifying as Pashtuns due to assimilation they migrated to those areas in 1872. Like I quoted here above from their own source. second of all, we have already a consensus here Talk:Pashtuns#Disputed_source_Solved along with admins and other users. Do not ignore the consensus out there or just provide an ethnographic source for the claim. I hope this helps. Thanks Casperti (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Casperti, I think the sources are enough and reliable. At present, there are people who self-identify as Pashtuns, practice Hinduism/Sikhism, follow Pashtun culture, and that is what matters here. Dear Anupam, thanks for the additions to infobox. Khestwol (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again your own source is against your claim?? Why are you ignoring the quote I gave you from your own source? This is really WP:TENDENTIOUS editing. Besides, you are ignoring the consensus of this matter where non-party users commented on.Casperti (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Casperti, now that new sources have been provided (for Sikh Pashtuns), you seem to be the only one to want to omit Sikhism and Hinduism from the article. Please keep in mind that neither me nor you are an authority to issue certificates as to who is a Pashtun and who is a non-Pashtun (that will be WP:OR). Don't you agree? What we can do is simply to use reliable secondary references and that is what me and Anupam did. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Khestwol, there is already a consensus about this here Talk:Pashtuns#Disputed_source_Solved, which it seems you are avoiding by purpose. About your comment, neither are you the person who can decide who is Pashtun or who not... That is just upto experts from a reliable source (Ethnographic sources) and none of them mentions these two religions. There is no single source out there that mentions them this is just Original research from your side and Anupam's. see Talk:Pashtuns#Disputed_source_Solved you are ignoring this page see all comments of all people out there. For your Tirah people here [18]. Again you are working against a clear consensus. Just provide an ethnographic source. Not much is asked! Casperti (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to note that the obsession of Indian people with Pashtuns and Afghans is visible here on WP too. User:Khestwol conveniently ignores the quote provided by another user to push forward his own opinion. A large section of Pashtuns may have identified as Hindus or Bhuddists in the past, but there is significant historical evidence to prove the existence of Zoroastrian religious practices in southern Afghanistan in the past (Pashtun dominated territories), which means that Pashtuns were a multi religious society. Indian nationalism is actually a curse. Quora, Twitter and Now WP, all these platforms have become a hotbed for Indian nationalists to further their nationalistic agendas. I wonder why do Pashtuns have Hindus and Sikhs and not Zoroastrians and Bhuddists anymore. After all these religions were practiced by people in areas now inhibited by Pashtuns. I came to this talk page after witnessing a discussion on location of Afghanistan in another article where the same users User:Khestwol and User: Anupam have argued against inclusion of Afghanistan in South-Central Asia, inspite of previous agreement to include it Central Asia as well. A simple google search shows that Afghanistan is both a south and a central asian country. There's already a discussion going on whether to include Afghanistan in Indian subcontinent. This obsession with Afghans and pashtuns is CRAZY and perhaps User:Khestwol and User:Anupam should pay visit to psychiatrist and figure what's with their obsession.
Casperti, I read the article you provided from Samaa TV. Nowhere does it say that Pashtun Sikhs are non-Pashtuns, does it? To assert that they are non-Pashtuns is WP:OR. As for Zoroastrian and Buddhist Pashtuns, you will need to find reliable sources before adding it. Khestwol (talk) 02:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
wow lying is a fact now. First of all your own source says they migrated from ancestral Punjab to Pashtunkhwa in 1871 second of all my Samaa source literally is called “ How the Sikhs settled in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa” they literally are saying how they became Pashto speakers “....and then sikhs became fluent in Pashto”. This is just tendentious editing from you..... And again you (and maybe friends) are ignoring the consensus of last year. + I see that the opinion of an IP bystander is deleted by Aman.Kumar.GoelCasperti (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories