Talk:Sarbani

message: The article needs to give a detailed list of subgroups of the Sarbans. Gringo300 10:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Subgroups of the Sarbans

message: The views of Henry Walter Bellew may be interesting but we can't present them as fact. Even if they were presented as an official report to the government (not sure what document User:Mythbuster420 is referring to). For instance, "The Afghans nation class themselves as the descendants of Saraban through his two sons," comes from a work written in 1880, over 130 years ago, which can't represent what is though today. Worse, that misrepresents what Bellew actually wrote. He didn't write "The Afghans nation", he wrote "The Afghans Proper, the Bani Israil, as they call themselves in special distinction to all other divisions of the nation". That's quite different, and this article is not about the Bani Isra'il it is about the Sarbans. And that sentence is preceded by:
"The fictions of the Afghan genealogists and historians are absurd enough, and their facts wonderfully distorted ; but for the careful enquirer they have their value as guides to a right conclusion. Thus, from the Kais above-mentioned, whose own tribe was originally but an insignificant people as to numbers and power, the Afghan genealogists derive all the Pukhto-speaking peoples of Afghanistan, partly by direct 
descent, and partly by adoption on account of a similarity of language and social polity."
Dougweller (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any sources making Bellew's claim about Suryabans. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th century views 

message: Eg  Contemporary Society: Concept of tribal society. Minor note, stay away from anything published by Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Ghi#Global Vision Publishing House (publisher). Dougweller (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use contemporary sources for these traditions 

message: We also have "The name itself is similar (or identical) with the name of an historical tribe on Caucasus that was also named Sarbani" which seems original research. If you go to the link which is actually [{Serboi]], you see the same claim, plus "Pashtuns are believed to be of Scythian descent[12] while their language is classified as East Scythian[13]" See Pashto language. But the main point is we don't have reliable sources for this claim about the name. It should go. Dougweller (talk) 12:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess 

message: I removed the section relating the Sarbani to the Suryabani for a number of reasons:
* The book "Afghanistan and the Afghans" is an old, outdated book in which the author makes basic mistakes about Afghans (such as saying that Durranis are Afghans, and the rest of the Pashtun tribes are not).
* The second reference "A glossary of the tribes and castes of the Punjab and North-West frontier province," doesn't seem to mention either the Sarbani or Suryabani at all. I couldn't find either (the book is sorted alphabetically), and the reference did not cite any page number.
* The claim is based on two legends (the legendary origins of Pashtuns and a probably legendary battle in the Mahabharata).
* Whoever added those paragraphs seemed to have misunderstood portions of it (or just added in his own original research), as I could not find any connection between the sons of Sarbani and Rajput tribes.
* As we now know that Pashtuns are primarily an Eastern Iranic people speaking an Eastern Iranic language, links to Indian tribes are unlikely.
The article is a mess in general, and unfortunately there are still references to century old and outdated books, but I think the Suryabani link was one of the most obvious places to prune this article, especially as it contradicts other parts of the article which use more modern references. 
I don't even think this theory belongs here as an alternative theory, but if someone wants to add it back in, it absolutely shouldn't be presented as anything other than an old fringe-theory. HappiDude (talk) 23:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of Sarbani Relations to Suryabani 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sarbani. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425121607/http://en.pashtunfoundation.org/bodytext.php?request=66 to http://en.pashtunfoundation.org/bodytext.php?request=66
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The source didn't back that. It says:
"Observations Tribal confederacies are often myth-based relationship between tribes that behave in a shared ancient patriarch progenitor. Nonetheless, a tribe or a portion of it. may leave the old confederacy and join a new. if its interests so dictate There are, eg.. Ahmadzai tribes among the Sarban, Batan and Gharghast confederacies The populous Lodi (or Lodin) confederacy has a close association with the Ghilzai/GMp confederation For the past many centuries, however, it has maintained an independent identity and history ot its own.
The tribes in the far northeastern regions of the Pashtun-inhabited areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan have been usually classified as independent from any traditional confederate association. This has been the standard practice by the British authors and researchers since the middle of the 19th century. The Pashtun tribes in the area, however, do not normally share this stance. The great Shmwari, Mohmand and the Safi tnbes are prime examples, as they associate themselves, respectively, with the Sarban' Abdali. Kartan and Gharghasht confederations All three were and are. however, listed in the British (and Pakistani) sources as being independent or members of the amorphous 'Northern Tribes' grouping.
In the current journalistic literature, tribal confederacies are mislabeled, "super tribes ' This misnomer is inaccurate and should be avoided.
Of great import is that the Ghitzai. being the fourth in demographe weight among the five Pashtun confederacies, have traditionally compensated for this numerical inferiority by the added warlikeness and forwardness The Afghan Communist regime as well as the Afghan Taliban were and are basicaly Ghitzai endeavors for domination of power in that country
M. Izady" Apologies for any OCR errors. I can't identify where this came from. Doug Weller talk 19:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest group?