Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Pashtuns

Former featured articlePashtuns is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 28, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 2, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
December 4, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
January 23, 2007Good article nomineeListed
February 22, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
December 5, 2008Featured article reviewDemoted
March 11, 2017Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article

Edits to religion in the infobox

The current religion section in the infobox includes Shias, Sikhs, and Hindus as Pashtun minorities. The supposed Hindu Pashtuns seem to be an isolated group of a few people who live in India, while the Sikh Pashtuns seem to be a few hundred people in Pakistan. Neither of these groups warrant inclusion in the infobox, as including them presents a misleading image of these groups being significant minorities among Pashtuns. You can find small groups of any religion among most ethnic groups. To compare to other groups - Kazakhs have about 40k Christians according to their Wiki page (a much greater proportion compared to the proportions of Sikhs/Hindu Pashtuns), yet their infobox simply says "predominantly Islam" for religion. Tajiks have 2,600 Christians according to their Wiki page, but the religion infobox lists only Sunni and Shia Islam. Uzbeks have 7k Zoroastrians, but the infobox simply lists "predominantly Sunni Islam".

That said, these groups are notable enough to remain in the article in the religion section, though not in the infobox. I propose changing the infobox to simply list "predominantly Islam", which covers probably about 99.99% of Pashtuns. PatriarchMacbeth (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced material removing reasons

@Noorullah21: Dear user, now you express your logical and reasonable reasons regarding the removal of sourced material in the article. Thank you! Nooritahir734 (talk) 05:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nooritahir734 As I said, any further reverts would see an ANI report against you, which has been done. It was up to you to discuss your edits a long time ago per WP:ONUS.
Britannica is not WP:RS. Noorullah (talk) 05:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Noorullah21:
You shouldn't have done that, you should have discuss, and if I acted against the consensus, then you could have filed a complaint at ANI, not now. Before that I said that I will discuss on the talk page and I came to a more definite conclusion and reach a consensus and until you do not have a better source than Britannica, sources and materials should not be removed.
And I shouldn't stop editing, which is reasonable and legal by your faulty warning (any further reverts would see an ANI report against you). I have the same right to edit as you do and you should not behave like an administrator. Thank you! Nooritahir734 (talk) 08:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“You shouldn't have done that, you should have discuss, and if I acted against the consensus, then you could have filed a complaint at ANI, not now”
He had every right to revert you and take this to ANI when you didn’t stop edit warring. Per WP:ONUS, the burden is on you to attain consensus. You were supposed to cease from reverting to your preferred edit and take this to the talk page.
“The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.”
Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion
That means you in this case. Your trying to add content that got disputed by another editor, which means YOU have to build consensus, not Noorullah
“ Before that I said that I will discuss on the talk page and I came to a more definite conclusion and reach a consensus and until you do not have a better source than Britannica, sources and materials should not be removed.
Respectfully, It doesn’t seem that you have a good grasp on how consensus works. You can’t just declare consensus because you think you’re right. You need to actually build it by discussing with the community.
So far you’ve been reverted by multiple editors, and nobody has come forward to support your position. That means you are far from reaching consensus.
For now you need to refrain from reverting and attempt to gain consensus through discussion here in the talk page. Someguywhosbored (talk) 09:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kushan not sakas

The description of fall of the greko bactrians are for yuezhi tribes which strapo mistook for sakas. You can furthur read on yuezhi and kushan empire pages. This is an important mistake that should be fixed. 178.232.246.100 (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the 1964 identity change

Hi all, I was reading the intro section and read this section "They historically were also referred to as Afghans until 1964 after the term's meaning had become a demonym for members of all ethnic groups in Afghanistan"

This part seems strange to me. They were Ethnic Afghans in 1963 and lost that identity in 1964? Did no Pashtun outside of Afghanistan call themself Afghan after 1964? Are there any other cases of an ethnicities identity changing in the space of a year? 2A02:C7C:640:9F00:D07A:203:BB7A:F178 (talk) 12:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]