Jump to content

Template talk:Pashtuns

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CrashLandingNew (talk | contribs) at 10:45, 4 July 2020 (→‎Khalji dynasty). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Image

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

First off, you two should handle this more diplomatically, by using this discussion page. Second, using the previous image, the vertical size is too much, as I stated before. Third, while the male image shows Pashtun men long ago, the female image, though no longer contemporary, shows Pashtun women much more revealed as you would find them in urban areas. Hence it serves as a gateway between the past and the present. --Enzuru 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, now someone has complained that the female image is a prostitute in Kandahar[1] Wait, on the other hand, it's probably a sock of User:Beh-nam, like User:Pakhtunking and User:PashtoonGhafar, I'm reverting him for now. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I honestly don't get what he's trying to achieve, though perhaps I can guess. --Enzuru 17:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He seems to like replacing all female images with male images. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Girl picture

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

I agree. I think the image showing Pashto calligraphy is more appropriate than the girl's picture. Also, the edit by Azcolvin429 shows we have a consensus on removing the girl's image.[2] 182.185.90.182 (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The image of the girl is nice and appropriate for an article that lacks females. When something that deals with people, it is better that we add an image of a person.--182.177.109.45 (talk) 01:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't edit against consensus. The comment by Yosh and edits by Azcolvin429 (in April 2011) and me shows there is a consensus to remove this particular girl's picture. Thanks. 182.185.74.150 (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're removing the image against consensus. Azcolvin429 did not vote and neither did any consensus take place over that. The above comments say we must choose a pic and so far the girl's image is better than the non-English chicken scratches. This is the English version of Wikipedia and nobody understands those writings.--182.177.14.80 (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indo thinka template about perons should hae a perosn an dnot text. If it as generally on the region/provice thats fdiffernet.Lihaas (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment

The result was Keep the original image. The image shows years of consensus and this RFC shows nothing different (the same appears to demonstrated elsewhere on this talk page). It seems only a single dynamic IP was warring to remove it, and hasn't participated in this discussion to present any rationale for their change. Non-admin closure. Equazcion (talk) 10:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Vote

  • Keep girl's image - The girl's image has been there for many years, it is very unique because she is dressed in typical Pashtun clothes and there's no doubt that she is Pashtun, and that helps make the Pashtun articles stand out and look good. The colors of her clothes form Afghanistan's and Pakistan's flags, both these nations have large Pashtuns, so in that aspect it is neutral for both countries. Another point is that Pashtun articles lack images of females, people around the world want to see what Pashtun females look like and this image helps them understand that. The IP from Peshawar, Pakistan who keeps removing the image from the template seems that he's not happy with this because he thinks men look at the girl's image and begin to do dirty things. This is typical thinking in Peshawar, which is a city under full control of radical or extremist Muslims. Wikipedia is a place to learn and not for foolish things like that.--182.177.32.214 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Making derogatory comments about people with whom you disagree is not a valid argument, and it should be ignored by whoever judges the consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not familiar. I know who the person behind that IP is and everyone in general know that Peshawar is that kind of a city. I suggest you put back the girl's image because 3 different people so far favored in keeping that image.--182.177.61.103 (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't matter who you claim to know - if you make personal attacks like this you could be blocked from editing and your opinion will be given less weight. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no personal attacks in my statement. This is the guy behind that IP who removed the image.--182.177.41.9 (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your wrong, Mckhan is in America. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current image, of girl - since the current image has been up for years, that's evidently years of consensus—at least tacit consensus—and that counts in its favor; the burden of proof is on the challengers to show why the current image should change, and build a consensus for changes. So far, I see no reasons why from the challengers. (I was invited by the RFC bot to comment here via the bot's random selection, and come to the discussion fresh and neutral) —NickDupree (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also thin keeping the girls image would be for the best. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep image as it fits in well with the template. Mar4d (talk) 04:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

Protected

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

Uncontroversial image

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

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

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

More representative image

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

Khalji dynasty

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

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

"Afghan" is not necessarily same as "Pashtun", especially in this context where a couple of books explicitly state that the Khaljis were wrongly considered 'Afghans'. If you think otherwise, please propose merger of the articles "Afghan" and "Pashtun" first. utcursch | talk 13:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the article Afghan it clearly says that in the past Afghan and pashtun were synonymous. And "some" books mentions wrongly , while majority simply mentions (they were considered afghan. I again highly propose that you delete the "wrongly" from khalji origin section. It really contradicts the article which you yourself have have written down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:FD7A:7991:D6A7:5768 (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've not written the articles Afghan and Pashtun, and the Khaljis being "wrongly" considered as Afghans is not my opinion. The Khaljis being Turks is a theory of several notable historians, and some of these have explicitly stated that they were not ethnic Afghans (that is, Pashtuns) -- they simply lived in Afghanistan, because of which they were wrongly considered as Afghans by the Turkic families of Delhi.
Sure, there might be some historians who believe otherwise. But given that this is a contested claim, the Khaljis are best kept out of this template. utcursch | talk 15:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi 

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

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Pashtuns&oldid=965943788"