Talk:Pashtun tribes

message: Pushtuns
Hello, I would like to know why the pushtuns sadly belive that their history only started 1400 years ago.  Their leaders in the Afghan Millat and ANP claim 4000 year old history.  In that case they should explain that history.  If it was from Arabia as is bizzarely claimed, please tell me who are the pushuns in Arabia.  Only one arab came to Pak/afg border and all pushtuns claim that this arab was their father.  Then surely that father's other family must still be in Arabia.  So please advise about the history of the pushtuns in Arabia before and now.  Who are these pushtuns.  Further why did all these pushtuns abandon their langauge Arabic.  Also whose language are they speaking now.  Who were the people whose language they learned and adopted.  Also why did this arab muslim who is deemed the ancestor of pushtuns name his children non arabic names, they were after all his children.  
Further who were the original inhabitants of this land as only one arab came 1400 years ago and even if they carried on having children they would take centuries to inhabit a land.  
Why did the Afghans claim to be Aryans when they are Arabs.  
If you are unable to answer these questions please think why many of the Pusthun groups and many areas in Afghanistan like Kandahar, Wardak, Takhar etc.. are names of Jat tribes.  
Finally i think a serious non biased secular debate needs to take place as to who the pustuns are.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jat punyal (talk • contribs) 12:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: hello. i have complete family tree/clan tree of niazi tribe. can i submit it here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.158.120.17 (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Niazi

message: Who says Sherwanis are not pashtuns? If they are not pashtuns, then neither are Niazis and Lodhis. But you will not dare remove Niazis nor Lodhis from the list, because if you take these two out there is nothing left to show the greatness of Pashtuns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherwani_(tribe)
-PP
Yes my friend they are pashtuns but most of them don't speak pashtu & most of the tribe migrated to India long a ago during the reign of Ibrahim Lodhi. Infact most of his generals were Sherwani.
Lodhi, Sherwani & Khiliji were sons of Bibi Mattu & Turk father. When Ahmad Shah Durrani divided the pashtuns in Durranis & Khiljis the pashtun sherwanis started calling themselves Khiljis & in-fact you can trace many Sarwanis (Sarwani is the actual word it got distorted in India) in Ghazni province of Aghanistan but they call themselves Khiljis.
Actually I know a pashtun historian, the next time I will meet him I will most probably update the sherwani/sarwani wiki page, until then have fun.... :)
--Cogitoplacebo  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cogitoplacebo (talk • contribs) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sherwanis

message: Tanolis are gujjar Pathan, migrated from Afghanistan as there are in Hindko speaking area in majority so they speak Hindko rest all speak Pashto language.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.127.250 (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: He is not Sikh, he is very much Muslim. But he has just been told (on top of the research that has been done) that Tanolis gujjar (who are adamant to include in this section) are gujjar Pashtun. They are not and never considered to be by their own.--Raja 15:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for your poor language. However, citing oen source is futile as I have much more than one that states gujjar Tanoli are not Pashtun. Infact you have been requested for over a year now to provide proof and you have provided none to attest your claims. Until then,gujjar Tanolis should not be included in Pashtun tribes, as another gujjar user has already proven that any resident of Tanwal is known as a gujjar Tanoli. Hardly proof for ones ancestry to Pashtuns. --Raja 13:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: No YOU are on a mission to prove gujjar Tanolis are Pashtun when they clearly are not. In fact the other tribes who know gujjar Tanolis reject it to this day. Your use of poor language got you banned many times, so please dont cast this assertion of innocence here. The fact that you called supersaiyan a super shaitan is proof enough of your poor language rather than a typo error. Thats really bad for you to do Mumtaz, and although this poor behaviour has been going on since April '06, you have STILL not provided any solid proof. What you HAVE done is prove that you will one day prove it. No luck in almost a year, I dont see this being done quicker. Besides, if you are yousafzai gujjar, then you are yousafzai gujjar, how can you call the Yousafzai's of Tanawal gujjar and Tanawalis gujjar? they would still be Yousafzai essentially. Hence if a geographic residence gives one the name gujjar Khan Tanoli, then saying Tanoli is a pure pashtun tribe is misleading, simply because a Awan of Tanawal gujjar is also essentially a 'tanawali' according to YOUR logic (which you yourself confirmed my friend. Your argument is very weak and confusing.--Raja 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I've decided to include the gujjar Tanoli tribe as a Pasthun gujjar tribe, despite the counter historical evidence of their differing origins, their practices however are culturally very much Pashtun. If any other members have any objection to this, they can discuss it. This issue is has gone on long enough I feel and I don't think the  gujjar Tanoli side has added any articulate reasoning to this issue. But rather than anger another user who identifies himself as a Pashtun, far be it from me to counter self identification. Good luck guys :-).--khan Raja khan 16:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanoli gujjar

message: Get it into your ignorant head that Tanolis are Pakhtuns and Janjuas are kasbis (I know at least 3 families of Janjua origin who do not claim to rajputs but say they are of Maliyar caste. None of the historical sources link them with rajputs. 
:Is that so? 3 fakes tell you they are Janjua and you took their word for it?! Then how can you explain that Janjua Rajputs are Ambassadors (Nepal and UAE - Brig.Amir Gulistan Janjua, and Egypt Raja Zafar Ul Haq), Generals (past and present), chief of staff of Pakistan Army & Navy, UN representatives (Tehmina Janjua), High ranking Police DSP's and SP's, Nishan e Haider recipients, Olympic award winners (Amir Khan), international sportsmen (Sajid Mahmood) and National heroes (Maj. Gen Shahnawaz Khan of the INA, Gen.Iftikhar Janjua, Gen AK Janjua of Haripur....your locality no less!)? Infact, a well known Janjua Rajput was a Governor of the NWFP i.e. your tribal land!!!! How can you forget Brigadier Amir Gulistan Janjua saheb? Thats just their achievements post 1947. In terms of status and titles, Tanoli's only have one Nawabzada, yet the Janjua have a current Nawabzada of Darapur who is also politically active , as well as two current Sultans in control of ancestral forts (makhiala and Watli). Besides, the powerful General AK Janjua, who almost toppled Ayub Khan was a Janjua from Haripur Hazara, of the acclaimed Raja Tanoli line himself! Boy did you get that wrong when you tried to make us insignificant, lol. In terms of success, don't EVER dare to compare yourself against a Janjua Rajput mumtaz, you will keep failing....
:It's a fact that many socially/economically deprived tribes use grander tribal names for reasons to do with our poor societal caste system prejudice, in hopes of elevation somehow. Far be it from me to stop people using my ancestral name if it helps a needy person Inshallah. If anything, Janjua is not the topic in discussion here. If they were that minorly, then Emperor Babur wouldn't have allied himself with them in his conquests and the Syed's wouldn't have taken their princesses hands in marriage. Even the powerful Niazi tribe intermarried with the Janjua according to Babur!!! I didnt see a Tanoli name mentioned in his records or todays as nationally acclaimed as the Janjua?!
:I know 3 families in UK who all allege to be Tanolis and allege to be Rajputs!!!! Explain that one?! Stick to the topic before it costs you your remaining credibility.
Ghakhars use the title raja but are not rajputs as do the Turks of Hazara, in Manakrai,and they are not rajputs either - read about Raja of Mahmoodabad. Moreover, the real Rajputs of Rajputana use the universal title of Singh to denote their proud identity (the term raja is reserved for the rulers). As for the Gujjar issue it is well documented that Jat, Gujjar and the so-called rajputs of northern Punjab are the same people. 
:Prove it. You cant even cite evidence for Tanolis being genuine Pashtuns, what are you going to prove for any other tribe? Again, another typical diversion from your main issue. But for the record, none of the major Muslim rajput tribes of the Bhatti, Jarral, Johya, Khanzada's, Chauhans or Chibs, use Singh at all since conversion but all use the ancestral titles of Raja, Malik and Khan. Your knowledge of my proud people is evidently very very very poor, so dont embarass yourself anymore with ridiculous assertions of my caste. No really.
This leads to the conclusion that maybe the Janjua claim to be rajput is suspect as I have said all along. Darbar-e-Akbari, Tuzuk-e-Jahangiri and other historical works do not mention Janjuas and Rajputs together and locate the former in Bhir far away from Hazara, and more importantly, from real Rajputs as well. 
:Prepare to be openly embarassed because it is incredible that Abu Fazl, author of Ain e Akbari (Vol i, Delhi 2006, p354, and Vol iii, p131) Abu Fazl himself includes the Janjua with list of the Most Renowned Rajputs. Akbar himself deputised them as generals! (Malik Darwesh Khan Janjua). The British who deputaised your Nawab and gave him Knighthood,  openly called them "the only real pure Rajputs in the Punjab". But then you knew this. Forgotten maybe? ;-)
I accept there are people who live in Tanawal and use Tanoli gujjar as their geographical origin but they do not fit into the clan system of the original Tanawalis gujjar. We know who the gujjar families are in Tanawal and they do not use Tanoli for themselves though they do say they reside in Tnawal. Other Gujjars in Hazara are either settled or are move about between Swat, Upper hazara and Azad Kashmir.
:Your right, there are Gujars in Tanawal. You seem to denigrate them, but it appears that they did defeat the Tanolis quite recently .
Additionally, you seem to be on a mission to prove something that is not proveable. I know you are in the UK and I can meet you face to face to discuss this if you prefer. We can sort a number of things relevant to this debate as well as you can know who I really am.
(User: Pakhtun Tanoli - 11:41
:Thanks for your input. You are obviously an issue taker, because you have yet to provide the proof you adamantly keep harping on about like a lost child. The link above, is something that claims Gujjars beat back areas of Tanawal, your homeland (but then you dont read things properly do you?) otherwise you would have had to explain how such a meagre tribe in your eyes accomplished such a feat? 
:Read the actual points instead of adding your irrelevant info, I dont care what Tanoli are or that they think they are Pashtun. I am the writer who has actually called for Tanolis to be left on here as Pashtun, other users such as Tanoli blogger et al are the ones who have taken it off. Get THAT through your head Mumtaz. 
:As far as the offer of meeting, if you like meeting men over the net, I'd say that's a shaytaani pass time you need help with ;-) 
:Your argument is strange in that, I am not against you putting your geographically named tribe here on this list despite your admissions and later retractions. I am asking for it to be left there, not because you back what you said with proof, but because if thats what you believe then so be it. It's no biggy. 
:I think if you weren't so prejudiced and poorly behaved, we could possibly have a civil discussion on the topic and I have even offered to help write the Tanoli page with the clarifications and explanations which you (thus far) have been unable to do as a wikipedian. I dont take things personally, because ultimately, you are simply just a text of an internet page to me lol. But civility and respect is all the more important, rather than trying to belittle my tribe with silly class demotions etc (which always end up embarassing you back, as this is not a tribe you can belittle, by any means) which till date, I have not done to your alleged tribe. I feel class/dignity speak for themselves in actions rather than claimed assertions. Either way, for the record again I have no issue with the Gujjar Tanoli name being left on this page, as per my last posts above. Please understand this once and for all. Argue with the users who HAVE this issue, not me Mumtaz gujjar'--Raja 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mumtaz makes a big mistake...

message: Can someone please add Lodin to the list? It is a large tribe in Kandahar but it has not been mentioned in this list. Thank You
74.96.217.21 (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions?  

message: I'm wondering from where the Alekozai tribe originates from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.249.52 (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Alekozai Tribe

message: sorry histry of tanoli started from afghanistan 
Taniwal tanoli tani origin of afghanistan ..you get the reference from India and pakistan since, but his estate is afghanistan .. and also its original language is Pashto does not mean that in pakistan and india do not speak Pashto and non-Pashtun —Preceding unsigned comment added by  79.150.221.154 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 10 February 2009 
:You have given no source at all for your edits, and I already pointed on the other section several sources about them not being pashtun, so I have reverted all of your edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  sorry 

message: I added Burki, Pashai and Tanoli because most of them consider themslves Pashtun. Burki (Urmur) were already in the article, who are considered Sarbanri Pashtuns. Should the Tanoli and Pashai stay? I think the tables need to be rewritten. 119.152.248.25 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Burki, Pashai and Tanoli

message: Wikipedians, I am just writing to compliment ALL of you on your efforts on this table.  For people from the region, this may be no big deal.  For those of us outside the region, you are building a mightily impressive resource.  Continue the good work! A.k.a. (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Congratulations

message: :::::::::::::::::::This discussion could improve with content and proper  citations from verifiable sources 
Intothefire (talk) 09:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Pashtun and non Pashtun

message: is more fully Tanoli them are from afghanistan, which is not on the list belongs Tanoli was a royal branch of the Pashtuns, article indicated are Hazara region of Pakistan that are not, is a breed of afghanistan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.169.212 (talk) 12:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: | ||Ahmadzai || || || || || ||
212.88.98.150 (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Any reliable sources for Tanoli being Yusufzai and Sarbanri? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish to have on record that I have removed the Tanoli from this list of Pashtuns. They are NOT Pashtuns, although some of them are settled in parts of Afghanistan too, they are according to all their own historical records, Barlas Turks, who originally came from Central Asia-- one groups or section entered Afghanistan, where some still live, and are confused by some so-called scholars with a Pashtun sub-group, the Tanae. Another group of them drifted into North-West Pakistan and entered Hazara, Pakistan, via Swat, and still live there. Yet another group or branch entered via the Kashmir passes and some are settled still in Kashmir and some came down further West and also entered Hazara, meeting up with their kin there. Over time, the Tanolis have taken on Pushto as a second language and some aspects of Pashtun culture, via close proximity to the Pashtun tribes; but they dont fit into any of the original Pashtun pedigrees and never have, I dont see why people here are insisting on adding them please? I dont see any particular shame in being of Barlas Turk origins vis a vis Pashtun? Even well into the 1980s and 1990s, almost all the Tanolis accepted their Turkic origins, its only recently that Ive noted living up here, that some of their head families are starting to claim Pashtun roots. I believe it might be a political scam, as they are trying to obtain district status for the former Amb area? In any case, I have made the proper and due correction. I would hope that people will respect this and not try to insinuate the Tanolis here, again, thanks. 39.54.228.138 (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from 212.88.98.150, 19 April 2010 

message: The hadnote already states the malady: "This articles is about the tribal lineages." There is nearly nothing in this article about the Pashtun tribes. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is incomplete 

message: As of April 2011, this is more of a list than an article. However, the first half is organized structurally, while the text seems to be all at Pashtun tribal structure. Should these two articles be integrated? --Bejnar (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to organize the article structurally, and removed the badly formatted huge unsourced tables because they were a badly written original research. However the article is still mostly a list. 182.185.78.0 (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Page needs work. The lists are not useful. It also makes no sense to have individual pages for all the tribes (a population of 60 people is usually not notable; comparable to a street people live on.) I propose these individual pages be merged into this document and redirects made to this article.Dig Deeper (talk) 20:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Text vs. list

message: The current version of the article is poorly formatted and unencyclopedic, and contains too many redlinks whose accuracy is dubious. Many of the same names are mentioned multiple times because of the poor structure of the tables and lists. Almost none of the tables or lists, the names of tribes in them or their structure, is sourced. Wikipedia is not the place to publish such poorly written original reseach.
So to wikify this article, I am arranging all names in alphabet order, removing 100s of redlinks with no existing articles, and keeping mostly those links which are sourced with refs either in this article, or in other main articles about the tribes and clans. 
For any mistakes I may do with the lists, please notify on this talk page and correct. Thank you. 182.185.78.0 (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is right. As of now I am adding more info on the history, culture, etc. of various large tribes. Most of the info there is a summarization of the main articles, and some of the info there is from Iranica and other relatively reliable online weblinks. 182.185.113.225 (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research and inaccuracies in this article 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Pashtun tribes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Nath":
From Pashtunwali: 
From Pashtuns: 
Reference named "Heredotus":
From Pashtuns: 
From Pashtunwali: 
From Ethnic groups in Afghanistan: Chapter 7 of The History of Herodotus (trans. George Rawlinson; originally written 440 BC) (retrieved 10 January 2007)
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Pashtun tribes]] 

message: This article has been totally ruined, what happened to the good old chart that showed the different tribes and what branch they fell into? Now its just too hard to read and the word "Afghan" is completely missing from this article. Akmal94 (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too hard to read 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: 218.185.233.102 (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBriTalk 19:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2019 

message: Aren't pashtuns and pashtunized tajiks someone is inserting them here due some misunderstanding as half of this tribe speak Pashtu. They are basically pashtunized tajiks. Regards Azmarai76 (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swatis Cis Indus tribe 

message: I can see Pashtun Nationalists are active on this page using various IDs and rotating IP addresses to push their "Pashtun = Afghan" agenda. Wikipedia is not the place to indulge in such activity. I have inserted the word "historically" in the sentence to address and settle their "grievances" and hopefully, it should help although I doubt it. The fact remains that in this modern age, "Pashtun" is no longer synonymous with "Afghan" as it has become a nationality covering all the ethnicities living in Afghanistan including but not limited to Uzbek, Tajik, Hazara as well as Pashtuns even under Afghanistan's own constitution. Thank you.  McKhan  (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pashtun = Afghan? Historically, Yes. In this modern age? No. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: There is an omission of full reference in the "External Links" at the very end. 
Change "Articulation of Tribalism into Modernity: the Case of Pashtuns in Afghanistan" to "Sungur, Z.T. (2013). Articulation of Tribalism into Modernity: the Case of Pashtuns in Afghanistan (Master's Thesis). Middle East Technical University, Ankara. 178.245.95.80 (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2021 

message: Pashtuns have not been dropped from the sky on earth they have been a minority in the region they live in ,in the past and they must have mixed with other Turkic and other ethnic groups like hephthalites and they have used Persian culture and language to Rise up in politics and other fields in life but this page is making it sound like pashtuns have been a thing independent people which they were not they always had to pay tax to someone and had to mix up with other tribes they have always been a tribe as long as they have stuck to their pashtunwali if they have reached anything higher than that it’s because of Islam and Persian culture not Pashtun culture as they are still a tribe up to this day.
So please stop making up history. 80.43.143.42 (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 September 2021 

message: No mention of khattak tribe which is largest in Pashtuns 39.43.18.136 (talk) 21:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Khattak the Biggest tribe of Pashtuns is missing in this article