Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pashtun people

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 18:32, 22 February 2007.

[edit] Pashtun people

I'm nominating this article again for its return to featured article status and hopefully it'll stick this time. It has 80 citations and has undergone numerous edits and I believe it's up to par. It is currently a good article as well so the next step is, I believe, a logical one. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Tombseye 04:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• SupportComment refs not consistent, some only have url and title, add publisher and retrieval date to all please.Rlevse 12:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• Object. I see limited improvement since the article was defeatured. The refs are not properly formatted to a consistent and complete bibliographic style, and there is far too much unreferenced text which appears as opinion or original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Second look - the article needs to be better categorized. On my second look, I went straight to the Women section, which was in bad shape before. The first sentence I encounter there is not supported by the cited reference:
    • The Pashtuns today are a diverse population with widely varying lifestyles and perspectives. The effects of globalization have led to the proliferation of Western ideas as well as the infiltration of Saudi-style Wahhabist Islam into Pashtun regions.
  • The BBC article referenced does not support the cited text. The rest of the first paragraph in "Women" is uncited, and looks like opinion. These are the same kinds of issues that led to the article FARC; I remain concerened that this article needs much work to reflect FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I reworked the women's section considerably and added relevant references as well closely mirroring your criticism. Please let me know what you think and if there are other sections that you feel require similar revisions. Thanks. Tombseye 16:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object. Just a quick glance at this state [1] :

1. Image problems:
   • Problematic image: Image:At_a_wedding_tif.jpg The license is "copyrighted, but freely used". However, the permission is stated as "CopyrightedFairUse". Which one is the correct one? Furthermore, I don't really believe the claim that the image is free according to the license tag. Looking at the source in [2], the image is part of a Photographs Exhibition by Michael Foley. Can you tell me that you have explicit permission / statement from Michael Foley that the image can be used freely, even commercially?
   • Failed fair use image: Image:Sharbat_Gula.png. The image is very famous, taken by the famous NGC photographer Steve Mc Curry. It is absolutely copyrighted. However, the inclusion here violates the WP:FAIR criteria, esp. #8 that the image only serves as decorative purposes. The image can be used under Fair Use rationale only for Sharbat Gula, National Geographic Magazine or Steve McCurry articles. Nowhere else.
   • Wrong tag: Image:Afghanistan_-_Ahmad_Shah_Durrani.jpg. Again, the permission is stated "CopyrightedFairUse (Attribution Required)", but the license tag is {{cc-by-2.5}}. Looking at the source, I don't think the image was released under Creative Commons license.
   • Unknown source: Image:Portrait_of_Rahman_Baba.jpg. No source is given where the image is taken. Please see the tag in the image description.
   • No license: Image:Rahim_Shah.jpg. It is a possible copyright violation.
   • Wrong CC license: Image:Governors of Kandahar, Helmand, Zabul and Uruzgan.jpg. The license is {{cc-by-2.0}} but the source says {{cc-by-nc-sa-2.0}}. So I have corrected and it turns out to be CSDed.
   • Requested for deletion: Image:Abdul Ahad Mohmand (2).jpg. See the request here: Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Abdul Ahad Mohmand (2).jpg.
   • Self-made? Image:QueenSorayaTarzi.JPG. The license is {{PD-self}} which is public domain taken by the uploader him/her-self. Really?
   • Contradict license tages: Image:Meena-7.jpg. Two license: one is assumed-to-have-been-released-as GFDL and the other is GFDL taken by the uploader him/her-self. Which one is correct? Also there is no link to the source where the image was taken. It's dubiously released as GFDL.
2. External link farms. Please reduce them. Wikipedia is not a directory. Some of them are commercial (spam?) and there are some that are best to be used as references (links to articles) rather than ext. links.

Pheew! I stop first. After the above issues are resolved, I'll make a second look to the references. — Indon (reply) — 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• UpdateEveryone thanks for the comments. I'm in the process of fixing the references so that they all match and I'm adding references to everything that currently may be viewed as original research as well. Also, I will delete or figure out the pictures situation as well and have already removed many of the pics that are of questionable copyright status and will be done by tomorrow. Tombseye 07:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Further Update, I fixed the references and made them all consistent and re-wrote some sections. In addition, anything that was original research and not corroborated by references has been deleted. Pictures will be taken care of asap. Thanks. Tombseye 01:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Update part 3, Well we have taken care of the picture situation (special shout out to Khoikhoi for assist) so hopefully people can change their votes to support now? Tombseye 02:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support. I think all major problems have been fixed now. (the refs, pictures, etc.) The article looks great. Khoikhoi 03:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Support Well informative, well referenced --Rayis 10:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comments after another fresh look into [3]. The image problems have been resolved and no external links, that's good, but I still have some issues below:
  1. The numbers of Pashtun population in several countries used different sources. Even one figure has 2 different sources. This may contradict the numbers. For instance, for Pashtun in Iran, the article uses Ethnologue report based on 1993 sensus, but also points to UNHCR census in 2005, which does not specifically says about Pashtuns, but only Afghan refugees. Why would you point two different sources for one number? Please also state when the census/survey of Pashtun population was taken to give an idea how old it is, particularly when you use different sources.
  2. Important metropolitan centers of Pashtun culture include Peshawar and Kandahar, while Quetta and Kabul, though having large Pashtun populations, are more mixed cities of cultural significance. → I don't understand the bold part. Do you mean mixed culture or mixed cities? What is actually metropolitan center and cultural significance? Perhaps a wikilink to a WP article describing these two terms?
  3. Pashtuns comprise over 15.42% of Pakistan's population or 25.6 million^[2] and about 42% of Afghanistan's population totaling 12.5 million. → ambiguity. The totaling 12.5 million, is that all Pasthuns in Pakistan and Afghanistan combined? or the number of Pasthun in Afghanistan? or 42% from 12.5 million Afghanistan population?
  4. A cumulative population assessment suggests a total of over 40 million. → needs inline citation there.
  5. It is often hypothesized that the Pashtuns emerged from the area around Kandahar and the Suleiman Mountains and began expanding millennia ago. → needs inline citation there.
  6. According to many academics, such as Yu V. Gankovsky, the Pashtuns began... → since there is no wikilink to Gankovsky and the statement has used Gankovsky's publications, it is better to simplified as "Some sources claimed that the Pasthuns began...".
     • Update: Now, you introduced a new unauthoarized source of ^ History of Pakistan - Pashtuns (retrieved 10 January 2007) links to free geocities website. Please find more academic/reliable source or just remove this source. — Indon (reply) — 10:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  7. "Oral traditions and recent research" section name. I don't really see why would you want to put "recent research" there. Are all other sections based on non-recent research? And how recent it is? It's better to remove that because "recent" is inexact word.
  8. Other Pashtun tribes claim descent from Arabs including some even claiming to be descendants of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad (popularly referred to as sayyids). → needs an inline citation there. WP:AGF
  9. According to some genetic research (the source of which is disclosed under the references section below regarding a random sampling of Pashtun populations without specification as to which Pashtun tribes were tested in western Pakistan) the anthropological evidence .... → I don't understand why the editorial comment (bold part) is inserted in the statement?
  10. The genetic testing, though still in its initial phases, has not shown any substantial connection between the general Pashtun population sampled to the genetic markers found among most Greeks, Jews, or Arabs. → It seems that the bold part is a POV assertion. Is the statement that the genetic testing is an initial phases mentioned in the article?
  11. What may be the case is that the genetically Pashtuns have slightly changed over time due to various migrations in the area, while still maintaining an eastern Iranian base genetically overall. → looks an opinion to me, any citation for this?
  12. ..., possibly derived from ancient Israelite Mosaic Law, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." → a speculative statement, needs an inline citation there.
      • Update: yes, it is cited now, but when I read the source, there is no mentioning that Badal is derived from Isaelite Law. You stated it is probably, so it still sounds opinion. Wouldn't it be just a coincidence that Israelite Law is similar with Badal? I know one ethnic group in Indonesia who has the same law like this, but it is just their characters. — Indon (reply) — 10:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  13. The "Sport" section for an ethnic group is a bit strange. Unless there is a specific traditional ethnic sport game to describe, then it is unnecessary information. The section does not give additional information about Pasthun, because all other people in the world play soccer, cricket, volleyball and other modern sports. The only traditional game is a single statement of buzul-bazi, which is not enough to form a separate section.
  14. Possibly the most prominent institution of the Pashtun people is the intricate system of tribes. → another speculation, needs an inline citation.
  15. The "The modern era" section should be merged into "History" section.
  16. The effects of globalization have led to the proliferation of Western ideas as well as the infiltration of Saudi-style Wahhabist Islam into Pashtun regions. → needs an inline citation.
  17. I am wondering about the "Women" section. Is the problem discussed in the section only specific to Pasthun or is it commonly observed by the whole Afghan women? I am not sure that, for instance, the literacy of women is lower than male only holds for Pashtuns. Looking to tremendous turbulation of Afghanisthan history, I think all Afghan women suffered from injustice civil rights, not only Pasthuns. In these two statements, for instance, "Pashtun women often have their legal rights curtailed in favor of their husbands or male relatives as well. For example, though women are technically allowed to vote in Afghanistan and Pakistan, many have been kept away from ballot boxes by males.", the second statement does not conclude that the rule only applies for Pasthun women, but it is for the whole Afghan women. So I believe, the Women section should be trimmed significantly and only describes specific Pasthun women information.

All right, those are my comments about this article. — Indon (reply) — 11:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I instituted most of your criticisms as they were valid, BUT I kept the sports section as is because it describes what sports Pashtuns play in addition to traditional sports. It's brief and some sports like cricket are widely popular and worth mentioning. The women section I also kept as is because although the stats are applicable to all ethnic groups, I figure it is still worth mentioning as it includes Pashtun women. Everything else though I agreed with and so have instituted in the article. Thanks for the suggestions. Tombseye 23:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have updated my issues above and added a few comments there. About Sport and Women section, I did not ask you to remove it, but simply filtering out what issues are related to the subject, that is the Pashtuns. Still, I can't figure out why would you write something that Pashtuns engage many modern sports? Everybody else does. For instance, in this statement: Pashtuns engage in wrestling (Pehlwani), which is often part of larger sporting events.^[65], the citation links to ^ Afghanistan: Sports and Recreation, Afghanistan (retrieved 18 January 2007). The source tells about sports in Afghanistan, not Pashtun specific issue. If the section is inside Afghanistan article, then it will be in the correct place. Again, if the section is about traditional Pashtun games/sports, then I wouldn't mind about it. It's also the same issue with the Women section. Please filter out which women issues that are specific only for Pashtuns, not to write a general Afghan's women issues. — Indon (reply) — 10:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will work on these points asap. Tombseye 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Finished addressing your complaints. Tombseye 18:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Suppport. Nice work. --Mardavich 03:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Indon has some good points. I think as long as the speculations and opinions (or interpretations if you like) are removed there will be a wide support for this FA status. Khorshid 05:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Object Why exactly does Iranian People have to be wikilinked in almost every instance, even twice in the same section, ditto Pashto twice in the same paragraph, and almost every ethnic group wikilinked to create a black and blue mess of an article throughout? This simply makes the article hard to read, it doesn't, as is supposed by people who use this method, emphasize the importance of these ethnic groups. It's not necessary.
• Also I have concerns about the photographs, the ethnicity of the people in the images is asserted by the photographer, an American servicemember. This may be sufficient, but the images do not include the background information. As Pashtuns are patrilineal, a family would describe itself to a visiting American airman as Pashtun if the father is Pashtun. However, is this what the images are meant to convey, or are they meant to convey ethno-linguistic Pashtuns? Whichever, it should be clarified in the images. If it can't be clarified without original research, though, the images have to be removed, whatever anyone concludes on the talk page about the ethnicities of the people in the pictures. This issue also remains unresolved on the article's talk page, with editors offering their personal viewpoints as to whether or not and how they know the people in the images are Pashtuns. This is Original Research! The issue should have been resolved before it was brought for FAC, or the images should not have been added after FAC.
• I know that all the nationality articles do this in Wikipedia, but geeze, I would love to just read an opening sentence for once, "Pashtuns (also Pushtuns, Pakhtuns, Pukhtuns; Pashto/Urdu/Persian: پشتون‎ Paštūn or پختون‎ Paxtūn), or Pathans (Urdu: پٹھان‎, Hindi: पठान Paṭhān) and/or ethnic Afghans (Persian: افغان‎ Afğān)[10]" I'm getting used to it now on Wikipedia, but it really doesn't enhance reading the article. Can't this just be put in the box?

*"Northwestern Frontier Province" should be written without the "province" as this is provided at the end of the sentence in the lead paragraph, or all the other provinces should have "province" attached. This sentence would also be easier to read, to see where folks are going with it if Afghanistan was listed first, then Pakistan.

• "during which they have rarely been united." Rarely united in what way? Culturally? Linguistically? Or politically?
• "Pashtuns have survived a turbulent history over several centuries, during which they have rarely been united. Their modern past began with the rise of the Durrani Empire in 1747. Pashtun martial prowess has been renowned since Alexander the Great ran up against them in the third century BCE.[12]" Although I know the relevance of this, it's confusing to lead with "the modern past" and move immediately back a couple thousand years. Reword/rewrite/or tie the two sentences together somehow, even though this is just the introduction. Not just "the Mujahideen" but the "Afghan Mujahideen," because "mujahideen" is a general word, whereas the Pashtuns were part of a specific Mujahideen, well, a rather loosely specific one, still not just any. Were they "the main ethnic contingent in the movement" or the "largest" or both? And what is meant by main if not the largest in number?
• "Modern Pashtuns have been prominent in the rebuilding of Afghanistan where they are the largest ethnic group and are an important community in Pakistan, where they are the second-largest ethnic group." This sentence shows that Afghanistan should be mentioned first in the lead paragraph, or if it shouldn't be, the reason should also be included in the lead.
• "Additional colonies can be found in the Northern Areas, Azad Kashmir and Karachi in Pakistan as well as in other parts of Afghanistan." Why are they colonies? Colonies of whom?
• "Though no official census has ever been made in Afghanistan, some higher estimates place speakers of Pashto at 60% to 65% of the population.[15]" But you just told me one had been made in the 1970s, "...the practice of secluding women and the lack of an official census in Afghanistan since the 1970s." Which is it, the last one was in the 70s or "no official census has ever been made?" This makes me question the accurate interpretation of sources, or it could just be an error that needs minor correction.
• The demographics section needs expanded, there are unexplained paranthetical remarks about refugees. "The exact measure of all of these figures remains uncertain, particularly those for Afghanistan, and are affected by approximately three million Afghan refugees (of which 81.5% or 2.49 million are ethnic Pashtuns) that remain in Pakistan.[3] An indeteminate number of refugees continue to reside in Iran.[16]" Also, "indeteminate" is not a word. This section is just too short for a people with a modern and ancient diaspora this complex.
• "The history of the Pashtuns is ancient and much of it has yet to be recorded." Doesn't tie in with confusing lead about modern past, need to establish their ancient lineage early on, in the lead, in order to place this much emphasis here. Here we go with a section where Greeks are linked twice, Persians, three times, although only 2 to Persian peoples, one to Persian Empire. Then we have 1st millennium BCE.[17] wikilinked, but not the second. Can we get continuity of linking that DOESN'T include frantic overlinking multiple times of the same term throughout the article? It really isn't the equivalent of bolding something to emphasize its importance--it's just annoying to the on-screen reader.
• "It has been conjectured that these may be the ancestors of today's Pashtuns, but there is no corroborating evidence for this. In addition, the Rig-Veda mentions a tribe called the Pakthas (in the region of Pakhat) as inhabiting eastern Afghanistan and some have speculated that they may have been early ancestors of the Pashtuns, but this too remains unproven." If it "has been conjectured" and is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, it must be tied to a specific reference, so we know who conjectured it. Unsourced conjectures are not part of an encyclopedia.
• There are more issues. Overall, however, the prose is excellent. Not necessarily its order, and the irritating over-wikilinking interferes with this, but it is one of the few FAC that I've read that had clear prose without dumbing things down. However, there's still a lot of work to be done, although with enough work it will be a FA.
• KP Botany 21:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, will continue to work on these points asap. Tombseye 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Your objections have been addressed. Tombseye 18:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll look it over thoroughly, beautiful introductory sentence, though. KP Botany 00:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) is the official name of the province. The word "Province" is included in the name. North-West Frontier could be confused with the Durand line. I think it makes sense to use the full name unless it is causing some serious problems. deeptrivia (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

You're totally correct about this, and I can't believe I said this! KP Botany 19:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Object per KP Botany and Sandy. LuciferMorgan 09:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Dillip Kumar (Yousuf Khan) and Shah Rukh Khan, both are not Pashtuns by blood. They are Hindko Speaking Persian decendents. I am from Peshawar and I know their families tree personally. I beleive they should be removed right away from the list of Pashtun celebrities! Thank you.

They aren't on the Pashtuns page so I don't know what the problem is you are referring to. Tombseye 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment The population figures for some countries are figures of Afghan refugees, which might be much less than the total Pashtun population in some of those countries. It would be good to have figures on Pashtuns, but in absence of actual Pashtun figures, we should atleast have a note on what exactly the figures presented are about. deeptrivia (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The references clarify that they are refugees. If this is confusing I'll change it to reflect it further, but I figured it would make it messy to include the caption refugees at the top. Tombseye 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There is still a lot of work to be done on this article. Although it's fine to refer the reader to a more in-depth article on a subject, that doesn't excuse the failure to write a complete paragraph about the topic to include in this article--an article about Pashtuns that a list of points on Pashtunwali? No way. The language? Pashtuns are largely identified by their language, it needs a complete paragraph, ditto culture. Maintain the structure throughout, language religion, Pashtunwali, including introductory paragraph and order in subsections.
• If "segmentary lineage" is prominent in the introduction, it needs elaborated below, and it is a major part of Pashtun culture, so its absence from the article outside of the introduction needs to be addressed.
• Also, did Afghanistan have an official census in the 70s? Then put the year in, or the years, don't be vague, then you can use it again, instead of the "for decades."
• The writing needs worked on by one editor, from top to bottom, preferably someone not obsessed with wikilinking Persian prominently at the beginning of each section--this often leads to sentences that don't actually say anything. There are stray sentences everywhere that simply reek of getting Persian in the article without attaching it in a sensible way, this may be an artifact of multiple editors, though. "For much of Pashtun history, literature has not played a major role as Persian was the lingua franca used by neighboring peoples and generally relied upon for writing purposes." What precisely does this have to do with Pashtun literature, did Pashtuns write in Persian? This is a mix/mash of culture/language. Literature played a major role in Western European history when Latin was their lingua franca, so specifically say what you are saying. Tie it directly into Pashtun culture, ditto language, ditto everything in this section which is, after all, about Pashtun culture. This appears to detract overall from a compelling writing style that is generally necessary and desirable in a FA.
• "These tribes, who most likely spoke an early version of modern Pashto, survived countless invasions and spread throughout the eastern Iranian plateau." This is rather an obscure use of the Iranian plateau, which I suspect many readers simply have no idea what it is. Also, the Wikipedia article on it is incorrect, Tajikistan is not part of the Iranian plateau, it is not plateau, so linking to an unresearched article that doesn't include the relevant information is not helpful. What precisely is meant by eastern Iranian plateau? I could believe this, knowing the modern day distribution of Pasthuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but possibly just saying southern and southeastern Afghanistan would suffice. KP Botany 22:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed most of your points. As for explanations on other sections, I'm afraid any more additions will balloon this article to epic proportions. If that's what people want I'll add more, but the links and references do address some of the issues you raise. The family picture is being objected to by Behnam who thinks they don't look like Pashtuns (I think that's what he means but I'm not sure) or can't be identified as such I'm going to avoid that picture for the time being even I think they do look like Pashtuns I've encountered myself. The segmentary nature is a reference to their tribal way of life. If it's that unclear I'll work on it more, but again for the sake of keeping the article within readable limits (and comparable to Britannica which usually avoids lengthy discussions) I didn't add anything more. The Iranian plateau is a geographic range that parallels almost exactly the areas populated by Pashtuns so I thought it worth mentioning and I've added a reference to it. I can change the wiki article of course. I'll see what I can do further as well with regards to clarity and re-writing the putative section (which is the most problematic and prone to changes it seems). Tombseye 03:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • Reply The article has to stand alone, and having sections that really say nothing doesn't do it.
  • I changed the Iranian plateau article, but if you know Iranian geology, by all means, get over there and fix it, as it was a disaster and called the Iranian plateau a "geological formation!" Also you may have just gone with the link because it highlights the region north of the Zagros/Makran continental zones, but it's unsourced on the website it's on, which clearly states it is a casual site, not a reliable reference for technical information. You'd have to find their source in order to use it. And hasn't this changed greatly over the past decade?
    • Comment about Iranian plateau I realized something thinking about this yesterday and looking at your attached links to the quote about the dispersal of Pashto speaking peoples into the eastern Iranian plateau. You connected to the peakbaggers map at the Iranian plateau page probably because it coincides well with the core dispersal of Pashto-speaking people in Afghanistan/Pakistan. The map at peakbaggers is in reference to the geological area north of faulting due to the impact of the Arabian plate into the Eurasian continent, which is what the Wikipedia article on the Iranian plateau is speaking about. However, almost certainly the sources you originally got this information from were not speaking about the geological Iranian plateau, but rather the geographical Iranian plateau, an area fairly coincident with the eastern expansion of the peoples of the Persian Empire. This makes linking to the Wikipedia article on the Iranian plateau, and the article on the Iranian plateau itself problematic, rather than any particular reference in the Pashtun people article. However, neither of the references included actually discuss the issue in the sentence, "These tribes, ... spread throughout the eastern Iranian plateau." References must be tied directly to what they are supporting, not indirectly. I will add the one reference to the Iranian plateau article, though, so someone can clarify the geographical aspect. But this information must be referenced. KP Botany 18:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what it is you are referring to, but the reference does refer to Old Iranian tribes, which we know the Pashtuns were a part of and we know that the Iranian plateau or whatever you want to call it (the British referred to the Afghan and Pashtun areas as highlands) coincides with where the Pashtuns live so I thought it worth mentioning. Also, the reference is ancient precursors who need some mention here. I can clarify the wording, but I believe that all of this is worth mentioning and having in the article. Tombseye 19:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, clarifying the wording to tie the resource into the sentence would suffice. A plateau is a highland, the flatter parts of the highlands, in general. KP Botany 19:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok done. Tombseye 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• • "Language

Main article: Pashto language The Pashtuns speak Pashto, an Indo-European language. It belongs to the Iranian sub-group of the Indo-Iranian branch.[55] In addition to their mother-tongue, many Pashtuns are fluent in Persian (Dari) and/or Urdu."

• • This really says nothing. I see there is a larger language area above, but if Pasthuns are defined by their language, or united in their culture by their language, this has to be elaborated--the article is not written for people who know Pasthun culture--this section is simply insufficient. And the ordering in this section, placing Pashtun literature above Pashtunwali, is contradicted by the article itself which clearly defines Pashtuns according to their language, religion and Pashtunwali. The article has to be internally consitent, and it's not, that's why I urge someone to read through the article with an open mind to giving it this internal consistency.
  • The problem with the images is that any selection relies upon our original research. My cousin is an ethnographer, and I would be glad to ask her whether all these folks are Pashtuns--but it's not published, peer-reviewed research any more than any of us saying they look like Pashtuns. Yet, if we're going in this direction, we ought to at least use the culturally most relevant and normal picture of Pashtuns: a family, rather than stylized American snapshots of Pashtuns in solitude. KP Botany 03:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the language section with academic references. I can't do much about the pictures as I am just trying to add what I can. I'd be happy with just a few and I agree that families or group shots are a good way to go (it's how encyclopedias do it), but it seems that the pictures often have objections. By all means ask your cousin for her advice. I do believe that all of the people are Pashtuns as I've seen people just like all of them during my travels. The boy looks like many Pashtun boys I've seen except his hat is more ethnically linked to the Sindhis rather than Pashtuns, while the family look like many Pashtuns I've seen as well. I'm okay with the family but we have the aforementioned objection. Tombseye 04:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on Pashtun Jews and BBC link This article doesn't state they are Pashtuns, only they are Afghan Jews. It's an unusual enough situation that there must be a resource that explicitly states they are Pashtun. KP Botany 19:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Changed the link to ones referring to Jews in Kandahar and Peshawar. Tombseye 21:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support - A very complete page.Bakaman 02:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose:
  • Lots of weasly sentences. If a theory or hypothesis is or was held by only one part of the scientific community, then name one or two of the most prominent scientists that do or did so. Here are some examples.
    • "It has been conjectured that these may be the ancestors of today's Pashtuns, but there is no corroborating evidence for this."
    • "The Bactrians appear to have spoken a related Middle Iranian language and it is conceivable that at least some Pashtuns are partially related to them."
    • "It is often hypothesized that the Pashtuns emerged from the area around Kandahar and the Suleiman Mountains and began expanding millennia ago."
    • "the Pashtuns are often classified as an Iranian people,[25][26][27] possibly as partial modern-day descendants of the "Scythians, an ancient Iranian group"
    • Some sources claim that the Pashtuns began as a "union of largely East-Iranian tribes which became the initial ethnic stratum of the Pashtun ethnogenesis dates from the middle of the first millennium CE and is connected with the dissolution of the Epthalite (White Huns) confederacy.""
  • "Pashtun martial prowess has been renowned since Alexander the Great ran up against them in the third century BCE." Renowned by whom? And could you be a bit more specific than "ran up against them. Was he defeated in a war or what happened? And BTW it wasn't just Alexander the Great that "ran up against them" it was an army led by him.
  • "The Pashtuns gained notoriety with the rise and fall of the Taliban" This is written from a Western standpoint. Just because noone in the West heard about them before the Taliban, doesn't mean they weren't notorious before that. Notoriety in itself seems to be a POV term to me.
  • The demographics section does not mention the populations in the US and the UK at all, even though the infobox tells us these are significant.
  • "The origins of the Pashtuns are not entirely clear" That's redundant, because that's pretty much what the previous section told us.
  • "the Ghilzai who may have mingled with Turkic tribes." What difference does it make to this article whom the Ghilzai mingled with?
• That's just looking through the first few sub-sections.--Carabinieri 23:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I have made your recommended changes. If there is anything else let me know. Cheers. Tombseye 14:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.