Talk:Pashtuns/Archive 7

message: I am willing to express my feelings although I don't have any mass collection of words..  Here is a logical example from a Book "Pashtun in the light of their race" by Syed Bahadur Shah Zafer Kaka Khel, that there are many rivers like Ravi, Jehlum and Kabul etc making their way and fell in great Indus river,, Ravi is no more ravi untill or unless it falls in Indus, that means ravi has lost it's identity, while no one can filter ravi and rest of the rivers from the great Indus....In the same way, in different period of time there might be some tribes and people, who migeratted and get assimilated in Pashtuns, so how these out side people could effect the origin of Pashtuns same like small rivers assimilated in River Inuds!   Haider 15:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Logic

message: It was so distressing, when I saw Hindko or Panjabi pashtuns in an article "Transitional groups". I will ask the contributor, whether do he ever visited the northern areas of Pakistan ... Hindko is just a common dialect as same as urdu in urban areas, in cities like Abbotabad etc, while the Pashtuns themselves do chat to each other in their mother tongue Pashto, upto the Mountains of Allai and Black Mountain and even in Kohistan. I have no hesitation to remove that impolite and repulsive material from Wikipedia's pashtuns main page! Durranis may speak any language they want, but the question is, the language of their home?  Haider 14:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transitional Pashtuns ?

message: Karachi is the biggest Pakhtun city in the world. There are more Pakhtuns living in Karachi than Peshawar, Quetta, Kabul or Kandahar. I will get the reliable source before adding this information in the Pakhtun page.
Siddiqui 17:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without any doubt, there are numerous Pashtuns in Karachi, but never heard about the exact figure. The most significant aspect of the Karachi's Pashtun is, the majority of them strictly speak Pashto amongst them, even Pashto songs are very familiar to other non Pashtun people and some can understand chat as well, nevertheless they dwell in, where lot of other languages have been spoken, like Sindhi, Panjabi and Urdu etc, that's a very great sign for the advancement of Pashto language in Cosmopolitan cities like Karachi.    Haider 17:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Pakhtun]]s in [[Karachi]] 

message: I've deleted the Awans as a pashtun tribe..I think it is a matter of fact that while some awans were and are pashto speaking both ethnically and linguistically they cant be considered pashtuns. I've added a link to Khattak dance under culture and I hope whenI get the time I will add another one for Attan ..if someone else can add it though feel free...is there any plan to add sections on handicrafts peculiar to the pashtun region of food?--Zak 22:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahsud Dance & awans 

message: I have added Buskashi as a cultural sport. The game has been playing for hundreds of years on the back of the horses, but on the other hand, the game has been criticizing for few years as well.  ~ Thanks ~   Haider 16:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps a separate section is needed on cultural sports and cuisine? --Zak 00:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buskashi 

message: A great page overall, but we all must remember that this not a page where one is to impose one's own opinion, just the facts, therefore, I have omitted that Pashtuns are of "Iranian Stock" as that is, first, not completely true, second, derogatory, and third, the Pashtuns are a group to themselves, not anyones "stock".
Thank you very much.69.201.139.98 07:25, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? SouthernComfort 07:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iranian Stock - Derogatory 

message: Per research in New York, as discussed before, they may have the same origins, but Pashtuns, are not "mainly Iranian people". They are a distinct group, with many similar lineages, with perhaps the same origins, but are definitely not "mainly Iranian People".
Talk to you all soon!
:Please provide a source. This page already lists quite a number of sources which may be consulted - until then, please do not remove information. SouthernComfort 07:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pashtun / Iranian People 

message: So far, the corrections that have been implemented were simply found through sources already listed.
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/displaced.php
I will gather further information to make further corrections. Being of Iranian descent may be wonderful, but I hope noone is taking this personally. We should all want the facts to be stated on Wikipedia, not opinions.
Thank you very much.
:That doesn't say anything about Pashtuns ethnic origins. SouthernComfort 08:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections and source 

message: I don't have much time for this but..
Read the first paragraph.
The first paragraph states whom Afghans draw their lineage from and nowhere does it state "Iranian ", "Iranian stock" etc.
There seems to be a hint of someone trying to impose an opinion, rather than stating factual evidence here!
This page needs serious revision, but I will leave this to scholars after further discussion with them and discussion with Wikipedia about incorrect information and non-primary sources being used. 
The source for debunking the Bani-Israel theory is from a website with no primary sources to back it up. Anyone can find a source to prove anything, but to have proper primary sources is what is always needed. This page needs primary sources immediately as many of the sources used are a joke.
References are used for some of the page, ok in some instances, but in between some of the facts stated, are statements passed on as fact that have no substantive sources to back them up, such as the statement that Pashtuns "are Iranian People". What?!!!
Also to say, Iranian this, and Iranian that, on the Pashtun page is really misleading, as Iran as it is known today, was called Persia until 1935.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ir.html
Please stop imposing a view that everything on this page derives from something Iranian.
Even if one accepted many of the false statements on this page, many would say that they would be Persian not Iranian as they pre-date 1935.
It is not proper to mislead people with weak sources and false statements.
According to Wikipedia Resolving Disputes, one should limit their bias in the writings on Wikipedia. This does not seem to be the case here.
::: I have heard about the theoreis of Bani Israel, Greeks ancestory, Sythians, very old race, Heterogenous and Aryans .. Now a branch of Persian people or stock! Definitley you would say now Pashto is the sister or younger brother of Persian language! 
: Pashuns are itself a very old race, as already been mentioned by Rigved, Osta and Herodotus, Pashutns have their own history, tradition and culture, do they speak Persian language or do they have any similarity as far as their code of honor concerned? The compilation of Rigved is said to be 14 to 1600 years BC, it means that the Pashtuns would have been united in different tribes atleast 500 years before been mentioned, that's why  Rigved or Osta had mentioned them with their own name, because creation of any nation is not an overnight game!!
: The Persians have their own history of glory, they should have been discussed on their page, why trying to relate Pashtuns with Irani stock? Pashtuns have their own glorious Past, present and future also! Bellew had mentioned them with Rajputs, still we can see the Rajputs with their own heritage and culture, why people amongst them had became Pashtuns, same way Persians have thier way of culture, why a large group of scattered people had chosen their way of life .. yes I would admit that some of the irani tribes would have intermigled with pashtuns and acceted their code of honor to become Pashtuns, pure races are rear now even in remote corners of the icee world.
: Don't you think the tribes, nations came into bieng through evolutionary period or Persians have fables or folklores of any of their some lost tribes, which now they are trying to find them out in Pashtuns? I don't know what Persians had done, when Alexander invaded their country but I know, what the people of Paktivas (Pakhtunkhwa-land of Pashtuns) had shown esp the tribes of Swat and adjacent areas, when women came forward to help their husbands and brothers against Alexander, they the tribes of "as" and "aspa" of Pashto, they had chosen the death of honor rather than the lives of slaves. Finally my request is, not to thrust your great Persian history on Pashtuns!     Haider 21:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First Paragraph 

message: I am glad to see that someone agrees with keeping bias out of the pages of Wikipedia and just stating the facts. Please keep up the good work!
There is evidence all over Wikipedia of strategically placed phrases about "Iranian" this and "Iranian" that. This must be stopped as most of the statements are not true and are only placed in various pages to attempt to impose their brainwashing view. Facts should be used not made up thoughts of what you would like to be true.
Good job Haider!!
: considering the recorded history of pashtuns stretches so far back..one can claim a common migratory origin..and that Afghanistan..and likewise Mighal India was influenced culturally by Iranians..but to claim of iranian stock is pushing it..I don't think there is sufficient DNA evidence to confirm that either..
--Zak 00:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you Haider! 

message: Not only is it pushing it, but I have researched most of this page, and almost all the misleading material comes from one website, which I will not promote, that imposes this arrogant idea that everything is of Iranian descent, come on, let's get real here!!!
Yes, you are correct, the people of that region are very closely related in many aspects, but as you said, don't push it, with incorrect fact pushing here and on other sites where they feel they can hide these little sentences on "Iranian" this and "Iranian" that.
Good job Zak!!
-------------------------------------------
Iranic or Iranian is an appellation used for culturally related people. The term shouldn't be confused with modern Iran. Tajiks, Kurds, Persians, Zazas, Baluchis, etc. are all Iranic or Iranians. That doesn't mean they descended from Persians.
Persian itself is an Iranian language.
Zakk, Iranian or Iranic is a cultrolinguistic term than having anything to do with race.
And before you people so enthusiastically object to the term Iranian used for Pashtuns, please consult studies by George Morgenstierne, Wilheim Griegar, Darmister, etc. who decisively classified Pashto to be an iranian language.''
Mohammad Naeem
:Mr Naeem the usage of the term Iranic I can understand but while there is quite a bit of evidence to suggest an iranic influence..and there is no harm in citing that evidence as one point of view..the reality is a lot more research needs to be done..the implication of what a some people have said was implying much more influence then is realistic..while I have utmost respect for iranian culture ..a few writers points of view does not a link make..I can cite equal number of references declaring the jewish link..ideally this article should incorporate all accepted and researched points of view..but not jump beyond that..unrelated issue..I hope everyone thinks my edit on separating buzkashi as a cultural sport under a separate heading makes that section flow better.
Regards --Zak 20:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From the historial point of view, in different period of time, who had invaded Pashtunkhwa, would have been assilimated in Pashtuns for example, Iranis, Maqdoonis, Hindi greeks, Bactrians greeks, saka, koshanis and aptalaits or white huns. That dosn't makes any difference because all the above mentioned people have been absorbed by the great Pashtuns!  ~ Thanks ~    Haider 21:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello everyone. The Pashtuns have avoided intermarriage historically and managed to be more isolated than other groups around them, but their language and genetic studies do link them mostly to Iranic peoples or Iranian peoples. This does not mean Iranian in the modern sense or the Persians necessarily either, but a larger West Eurasian group. The Pashtuns probably absorbed some small elements of invaders, while remaining mostly an Eastern Iranic population with their own distinct Iranic tongue that is probably as old as Persian.  Most observors who have been to the region confirm the striking similarities between the Pashtuns and the other Iranic peoples from the Kurds to the Baloch. Clearly, the Iranian languages spoken have also meant, at least, some common ancestry as well.  Tombseye 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Kurds and Baloch have their distinct culture and language, any similarity dosn't prove anything, there are countless groups around the world who have dazzling similarities in some cases but language and culture counts. There are so many words of Pashto, which we can explore in Persian language, that would not be suitable for any Pashtun to mention Persian language as a branch or younger sister etc, of Pashto language.    Haider 18:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Morphology does make many academics conclude the relationship between Pashtuns and other Iranic peoples in a way similar to the Punjabis being an Indo-Aryan people. Basically, the term Iranian people or Iranic people should refer to a language relationship as both Persian and Pashto have a common ancestry that is the most recent in terms of language families. In other words, when looking outside the Pashtun group, their closest relatives are other Iranian peoples for the most part. More research and genetic studies will be required before we can make any conclusive arguments though I'd say. Tombseye 23:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Certainly new research with the help of logical (accepted to mind) history would be always appreciated.     Haider 19:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, keep in mind one thing, the vast majority of universities, academics, and Pashtun academics as well all agree that Pashto is Iranian language that is related to the other Iranian languages. We aren't here to do original research, but to simply reiterate what is known. Perhaps some future research will convey that Pashto is not an Iranic language, but I doubt it. Pecularities that some languages have does not preclude their links to more ancient languages or cultural drift etc. Thus, the Iranian peoples linkage is the correct designation until mainstream academia claims otherwise (along the lines of the IndoAryan, Germanic, Slavic, Latin groups etc.).  Tombseye 18:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:No original research. --Khoikhoi 20:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: These are the views under reliable books and personal observations!    Haider 20:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you name some of these books? --Khoikhoi 21:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't believe that the great Pashto has any relation with Irani languages. Pashto is as older as any other language around could be! Take care!  Haider 20:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ethnologue classies Pashto as an Iranian language.  --Khoikhoi 20:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes and Encyclopedia Britannica and Americana both classify Pashto as an Iranian language as well. What you personally believe is not relevant. You're backing original research that is not supported by the academic community. We might as well put back that the Pashtuns are a lost tribe of Israel too since many want to believe that. Everyone wants certain things to be true or that 'feel' right, but that's not what an encyclopedia is about. It's about informing based upon what is known, not what is speculated by a few people. Irani is not what we mean here anyway. Iranian is something that pre-dates the Persians and the modern state of Iran. All these people such as the Sakas, Scythians, Sarmatians, Kurds, Baluchis, Persians, etc. speak languages that can be traced back to a parent Iranian language that then split off. The US Library of Congress also places Pashto as an Iranian language, since we're talking sources. Unless you have something better than your gut feeling and obscure books, your position is not a tenable one. Tombseye 15:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Pashto is a regular permenant language amongst the different aryans family, which has been already accepted by the some authors like Mr garisson, Mr tromp, Mr James darmester, Mr bellew, Mr margestren, Mr Surparsi samaks, Mr alwadson, Mr frezier tetler, Dr Shahidullah and Dr Abdulrahim of Karachi university. Pashto is as old aryan language as any language around. If Zand, and other european aryan languages originated from earliest aryan language then certainly Pashto should have been the first aryan language among others, as all the other aryan languages flourished through evolutionary period, so reckoning Pashto as a family language of Sunskrit or Zand etc would be wrong. For readers benefit see a book "Pashtun" by Syed Bahadur Shah Zafer Kaka Khel. We can place and reckoned Pashto as from an Aryan family, not from the family of the Irani or Sunskrit languages although all o f these languages belong to aryan family of languages. Remember one thing if something is "known" to you or in your country, it is not certain those "knowns" are also well known in our country so these are my known! There might be some spelling mistakes because majority of stuff, I have is in Urudu.  Haider 17:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Infact there are different theories about the many races around the world but I think great Pashtuns are the leading one due to the authors esp of the Mughal period and few of earlier, who have deliberately imposed illogical theories just tried to pleased the Kings of their times etc. I have already admitted that majority of the anthropologist consider Pashto as an estern irani language but that couldn't be accepted, because the authors like Zafer Kaka Khel (Tamgha-i-Imtiaz - A highly ranked official medal for his classical researched work} has strongly opposed to accept Pashto as a part of irani language but also gave us some logical evidence to prove Pashto as same as other irani or sunskrit languages are! That was a good debate between us, I would appreciate it!   Haider 20:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Appreciated ! Nations and Cultures developed through evolution - All of the Aryans didn't migrate all at once, they moved from their ancient centers in form of larger groups and scattered in different parts of the massive area, there is some possiblity to accept that their lanuguage would have be the same and creation of new languages would have took start later, so remember to one thing that their original form or model on which examples are based were Aryans group of languages, not iranis, which itself an aryan language.  Haider 18:22, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thank you Zak! 

message: My greetings to all Pashtun editors and brothers.
I believe I can shed some light on the Tanoli issue. I am a Janjua researcher. I have fully referenced sources that confirm that Tanolis are in NO WAY Pashtun and also have links with the last Nawab of Amb, Nawab Salahuddin Khan who is a Hindwal Tanoli (Pindwal and Pulowal are 2 sub branches of Tanoli) and he has also confirmed this from his own family ancestral records, without dispute and actually much support. HOWEVER they have taken many wives from Pashtun clans and the like (which is obviously a localised practice wherever any peoples settled they practised this) however a certian user from this page 202.83.173.117, who is a Tanoli in denial is vandalising my own Janjua page and also it appears your Pashtun page. I have huge respect for my Pashtun friends and my links to Hazara and Amb confirm the same as the editors above have also stated (as well as a ton of books from the colonial and modern era)
Can something be done about this guy as he's clearly illiterate to debate on the subject (his TYPO errors alone evidence this) and based on 2 or 3 poorly written (not to mention mysterious as I can NOT locate these books anywhere here in UK or Pakistan). He is challenging over 10 reputable and fully sourced books. He's also vandalising his Tanoli page implying Pashtun descendancy which is POV pushing and denial as it is, he's also vandalising the Janjua page.
His opinion that the 'residents of Tanawal are all known as Tanolis' alone shows poor argument. In that case Hari Singh Nalwa the Governor of the Sikhs was also a Tanoli? I think not.
Ahmed Shah Abdali had allied with Kahuta Janjua's too and they also allied with the Tanolis to fight along side against the Marathas, so this strong detail denial is very bad in my opinion by this Tanoli denier.
My own end I can provide these sources off the top of my head confirming that Tanolis aren't Pashtun in origin;
# Chiefs and Families of Note in Punjab by Lepel H.Griffin (1910, ii, p254)
# Gazetteer of the North-Western Frontier Province p138
# Journal of Central Asia Vol XII, (July 1990), Prof.Ahmed Hasan Dani, July, 1990 p79
# Tehreek e Janjua written by Muhammad Anwar Khan Janjua
# Chronicles of Early Janjuas by Dr Hussain Khan
Failing this by him, his own Chief Nawab Salahuddin Khan (the last Nawab of Amb and head of all Tanolis) is prepared to clarify this for him if he attends his residence, that I CAN GUARANTEE without hesitation.
Please feel free to contact me regarding this reference. --
Raja 18:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Mr Raja, 
Thank you for your input you seem to have researched the topic well, and if there are no objections I think the deletion of the tanolis from the list will be accepetable. Your particpation is appreciated. --Zak 13:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tanolis ARE NOT Pashtun

message: Please refer to our conversations with Zak and Haider on April, 1st. We decided on some permanent changes and yet, some people once again are trying to push it with all this "Iranian' this and "Iranian" that.
Come on people, give it up and let's state the facts here, not your own agenda. Enough with the Pushy "Iranian" comments.
STOP IT!!! Tombseye  and SouthernComfort keep reverting the article back to the pushy subliminal messaging with "Iranian" this and "Iranian" that, strategically placed throughout the page. ZAK and HAIDER agree with me according to April 1st!
We all agreed on it, Khoikkhoi (sorry if I mispelled it), also agreed to it earlier this month.
Stop reverting back to older versions.
Thank you!!
:: I am sure you are absolutely right!    Haider 21:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Tombseye is not here at the moment, I decided to to do it. I also added a  tag for the information about Pashtuns living in Karachi and Lahore. Let me know if there are any other problems with the article. Cheers, Khoikhoi 22:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Changes 

message: Mr. Naeem:
YOU HAVE THE WRONG GUY MY FRIEND!!
I had nothing to do with that part and have no clue as to what you are talking about!!
I am just dealing with the "Iranian Stock" part of the page and the pushiness of Khoikhoi and Southerncomfort on many ethnic pages with Iranian descent talk as the main focal point. Mentioning that Pashtuns are partially of eastern Iranian descent is true, and is great but do not make it the focal point.
Use the word descent not "stock".
So please calm down and find the person you are addresssing before you attack me.
I had nothing to do with your NURISTAN etc argument, part of the page.
:please use the signature key on the edit list so we know who is who..it is the 2nd key from the right when editing..thanks, I have marked abasin and nuristan for deletion as they should instead be part of the pakhtunistan/pakhtunkhwa threads --Zak 13:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I had nothing to do with Abbasin and Nuristan! 

message: I see that Tombseye took out the derogatory "stock" wording which I agree with. Seems that everyone is fine with it now, but when I took it out, I got all sorts of warnings etc!!
Proves my point exactly!!
:Well I decided to reword it, in part due to the controversy, and also because the info box explains the related peoples, in this case obviously the Pashtuns have relationships with people who live among them and around them to some degree. Also, I think Iranian peoples is increasingly being viewed as some sort of 'race' which was not my intent as I think it's more important as a language group with some common ancestral links and cultural and historical ties. I think one difference might be the long explanation involved and the other being that I'm the one who wrote a lot of this article including that opening. Regardless, hopefully people will be okay with the changes. Tombseye 20:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tombseye took out "eastern Iranian Stock" 

message: Zmmz
Try to understand that the information that you so deperately want to push onto everyone is in the information box.
Calm down.
Please stop trying to be the Iranian information police of Wikipedia.
Others can contribute also, as your view of how everything should appear on the page is not consistent with the majority here!
I`m sorry, how is it not necessary to state in the intro of an article the lineage of the certain ethnic group that the article is about, in an encylopedia of all places? The infobox mention is rather irrelevant, and not a good excuse to erase this fact from the intro.  Plus, this section does not belong here; perhaps it belongs in my talk page.  And, your statement is very offensive, please take time to review the Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not,Wikipedia:No personal attacks policies.  Try to sign in, and stick to discussing the issues, rather than the persons per se.  Thank you and Good Luck Zmmz 22:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone please explain how wikipedia works to Zmmz 

message: If some hirtorians/authors/anthropoligists mentions Pashtuns as an eastern iranian people, that's okay, and that "view" could take place on the main page but that shouldn't take more than one or two lines because this is the most weakest theory amongst Pashtuns itself ! I need to tell the contributors, those who are taking keen interest to show Pashtuns as an Irani stock, should just compare the massive culture differences, atleast, or go and submitt your so-called precious comments on great irani page, don't try to make it over controvercial, nevertheless I have already displayed few of the authors, who had opposed this view so strongly!  Cha lala Pathan krama - Cha lala Afghan krama - Uss - Cha lala Iran krama - Alaka lewaniya za de Haryan krama !!     Haider 11:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most seintific or most rediculous theory to relate Pashtuns with the eastern irani people! People even in the whole world have some resemblences in some respect but that dosn't provide any prove! What make herodotus to mention Pashtuns as distinct people even he described the dresses and weapons of Pactyans, while he had already mentioned Persian people? If they wern't of different cultures, he would have never described these two distintive people seperately, now even righved and Persian Osta itself mentions as Pakat and Bagad signifying the same people of the same relevent geoghrapical area!! I have already given some of the names of intillectuals, who had opposed this view strongly !, so remember to one thing that their original form or model on which examples are based were Aryans group of people, not iranis, which itself were aryan people. If you believe the most weakest thoery, than it's upto you, I couldn't do any thing, but kindly let it be a view don't try to make it a hard pushy stuff like a thrust !! There were so many major tribes were bieng absorbed by Pashtuns and one of them were the people who had been living on the eastern boundries of the ancient Persia and those were today's great iranis ! Panjabi Pathans or Panjabi Pashtuns? Well far better as compare to Bhopali pathans of India! Can you mention any single folklore or fable stories etc, which is bieng used by me as a reference at any stage ... I have been here with wikipedia for more than a year and well aware about dos and donts ! As far as history of reality concerned, let me say it again Pashtuns are great!!   Haider 12:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello all. Mr. Naeem is quite correct in his assessment and I support all of the statements he's made. The Pashtuns are, by most accounts, descendents, at least in part, of the Proto-Iranians, a group that split off into the Pashtuns, Kurds, Persians, etc. Out of these larger groups we later have the Tajiks (who adopt Persian at a later date from invaders from Fars), Baluchis (an offshoot of the Kurds), the Ossetes (a holdover of the old Scythian peoples and Alans of the east who lived in southern Russia), and some remnants of the Soghdians in Central Asia. Now, these groups have also drifted in nearly 3000 years so obviously that has to be taken into account, but also have had some common histories (with the exception of the Ossetes). Also, Haider I can't help but notice that you keep saying 'Iranis' as if in reference to the Iranians of modern Iran (or even the ancient Persians) and I have to tell you that is NOT what is meant by Eastern Iranians as they are derived from a Proto-Iranian peoples who are the parent group of all the Iranian speaking peoples. MOdern Iran took the name as its own, but Iranian people does not equal Iran or Persia, but INCLUDES them.  Also, we can mainly surmise that the Pashtuns are related to the people they live around, as genetic tests are showing their interaction has been the greatest with their immediate neighbors.  The Punjabi Pathans are a group that the Encyclopedia Brittannica refers to as a transitional group, meaning they often speak their Hindko language and Pashto and show a great deal mixing with Pashtuns with whom they've intermarried over the centuries. They are the eastern group that is related to the Pashtuns and are an overlapping group with the Punjabis of Pakistan. Similarly, many of the Durrani have intermarried with Tajiks and northern Pashtuns sometimes with Dardic groups. At any rate, Punjabi Pathans, in my view, are a transitional group and as they often speak Pashto in addition to Hindko, they do qualify as a related people even if they are Pashtuns in the fullest sense as in speakers of Pashto only.  At any rate, I'd like to emphasize that as an encyclopedia, Mr. Naeem is correct, we aren't here to glorify anyone. The Pashtuns are a fascinating people, but my intent when editing is to relate information, good or bad (as that is a matter of opinion).  I also agree that saying that there are twice as many Pashtuns in Pakistan as Afghanistan is pointless as it doesn't tell us anything that we can't read in the info. box.  Once a census is done in Afghanistan, then we'll know exactly their demographics. Tombseye 18:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had already asked you that what is original research but coudn't revieved my answer, obviously few authors as I have mintioned - will you reckoned them as doing original research?? nevertheless some of them were old also ! Thanks    Haider 18:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great [[Pashtuns]] are itself as old as any other nations around 

message: The following remarks were added recently to Talk:Pashtun/Archive 3. I have moved them here to the current talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 19:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Jmabel ! It's nice to see you around, kindly do visit Pashtuns without any debate sometimes!  Thanks in advance ~  Haider 21:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: We need to debate