Talk:List of Pashtun empires and dynasties

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Pashtun empires and dynasties. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/text_761569370___42/Afghanistan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest adding of Khalji dynesty and azad khan afghan dynesty too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.191.195.4 (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC) 

Where is Swati Pashtun dynasty

it is important to add Swati dynasty also, king Babur used matchlocks for the first time in history against them in the famous battle of bajuar to destroy a great historical fort to end thier rule in 1519 and later king Jahangir took Kashmir, their kingdom was from jalal abad to jhelum and kashmir also? (now a predominant tribe of Hazara division). Regards Haider khan10 (talk) 22:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Swati dynasty Kashmir

Shams-ud-Din Mirza (Sultan of Kashmir) 1339 - 1349 Jamshed (Sultan of Kashmir) 1349 - 1350 Ala ud Din Ali Sher (Sultan of Kashmir) 1350 - 1359 Shihab ud Din Shirashamak (Sultan of Kashmir) 1359 - 1378 Kutb ud Din Hindal (Sultan of Kashmir) 1378 - 1389 Sikandar But Shikan (Sultan of Kashmir) 1389 - 1413 Ali Mirza Khan (Sultan of Kashmir) 1413 - 1420 Zain al Abidin Shaki Khan Badsha (Sultan of Kashmir) 1420 - 1470 Haidar Shah Hai Khan (Sultan of Kashmir) 1470 - 1471 Hasan (Sultan of Kashmir) 1471 - 1489 Muhammed (Sultan of Kashmir) 1489-1490 n 1498-1499 n 1500-1526 n 1529-1533. Fat'h Shah (Sultan of Kashmir) 1490-1498 et 1499-1500. Ibrahim I (Sultan of Kashmir) 1526-1527. Nazuk (Sultan of Kashmir) 1527-1529 et 1540-1540 et 1551-1552. Shams ed-Din (Sultan of Kashmir) 1533-1540. Ibrahim II (Sultan of Kashmir) 1552-1555. Isma'il (Sultan of Kashmir) 1555-1557. Habib (Sultan of Kashmir) 1557-1561.

Haider khan10 (talk) 22:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Probably you are referring to Shah Mir dynasty. No, it was not a Pashtun dynasty; swat wasn't populated by them till 14th century. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Stop vandelising.

If you have something useful share it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:445E:9A70:A029:C935 (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Pre islamic dynasties

Some pre Islamic dynasties like indo-parthian suren(ancestors of suris),Indo- hephthalites (ancestor of abdalis) could be added Ozgharzai (talk) 06:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Sayed dynasty

Sayed dynasty should be added to this list. According to mughals historians they were of afghan ancestory and sayed was more of less of a title.bristish historians also considered them to be of Afghan descent . Ozgharzai (talk) 15:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Muntakhab-ul Lubab, Muḥammad Hāshim Khāfī Khān, Sir Henry Miers Elliot, John Dowson, 2006. Ozgharzai (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added the source ,the article should be updated according to it.Ozgharzai (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Add Protection

Protection should be added Ozgharzai (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a lot of vandalism on this page need protection Ozgharzai (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've requested this before ,those that are running this page please add protection Ozgharzai (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I supposed to Add Khalji Dynasty

I would suppose to add the Khalji dynasty in the list for several reasons I agree that it is undoubtedly of Turkish origin but its was to prove that in their time the great empires like the Marmelouk empire of India is Treat like Afghans, the khalji themselves proclaim themselves Afghans because of their Afghan culture and their language which was Pashto and their diplomatic court language was Persian so I would suppose to add them to this list. Because even made of the article of wikipedia on afghanistan. the Khaljis are considered to be pashtun and is considered the first step in the formation of present-day Afghanistan. And also otherwise the historians would not have considered him as Turko-Afghan but only as Turkish. But I am open to your opinions AfghansPashtun (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not familiar with these topics, but wanted to note our opinion is not relevant here, rather it is what independent secondary sources have to say. See Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information. Thank you for your edits and usage of talk page to seek consensus! Shushugah (talk) 17:01, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dost Mohammad Khan Bhopal (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Stop removing the Khiljis.

@Hamkar 99. stop removing the Khiljis, they were of turkic ethnic origin who were pashtunisized by the time they arrived to form the Khilji dynasty. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Some sources that also state they were afghan/pashtun,

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

Please understand. Noorullah21 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hamkar 99 This is your second incident of trying to edit war your way for getting the Khaljis off the page, I've already mentioned and put sources that support my claim, and you still ignored the talk page as shown here. If you keep trying to get your own way with these pages, I will take these up with an Admin.

@Kansas Bear and @HistoryofIran You should probably watch for any disruptive edits on this page as well, since vandalism is pretty common here from Afghan nationalists, and so on.

@Hamkar 99 If you are trying to remove the Khaljis off the page, you should respond on the talk page and provide your reasonings, or hold consensus. Noorullah21 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ibrahim Lodi.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Langah Sultanate

It wasn't claimed to be of Afghan ancestry only, several other sources claim it to be Baloch or Rajputs too. It doesn't seem justified to add it only here.

e.g sources claiming them to be Baloch Sutyarashi (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The Langah clan is a Jatt clan (with some members claiming Rajput status, similar to the Samma tribe). To date, the Langahs (especially around their old capital of Multan) identify as Jatts. Their folklore claims that their chief, Rai Sahra (a very Indic sounding name) migrated into the region.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but only the non-contemporary Feristha mentions an Afghan origin, and it is not supported by any of the Langahs themselves, save for those who live close to and were likely influenced by the Pashtuns of KPK.

As for the Baloch thesis, that is likely a misunderstanding. While Baloch were indeed imported for military services, they were not the founders themselves. OperativePhase33 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

References

Khiljis of Malwa

So as we know, Dilawar Khan established the Turko-Afghan dynasty in Malwa. Or just Afghan, as the sources dispute. Regardless, thats not what I am bringing up.

What I am bringing up is their successors, the Khilji dynasty of Malwa, which is just labeled as “Turk”, but is this not incorrect? It is denoted that they were a branch of the Turko-Afghan Khaljis of the Delhi Sultanate. (Sources will be posted below)

So shouldn’t the Khiljis of Malwa reign be incorporated here, and even for that matter, should the Khiljis of Malwa also be noted as a Turko-Afghan dynasty on their main page?

I found 2 sources relating their trace from the Khiljis, but unfortunately I can’t find one of them yesterday, but I do have one from the reliable Jonathan lee.

Jonathan Lee’s A history of Afghanistan from 1260 to Present; [4] Page 55 mentions their branch from the Khiljis.

So do we change them to Turko-Afghan, and also include their reign here. Let me know. Noorullah21 (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(Just pinging below this) Sutyarashi (talk)

HistoryofIran (talk)

Hello Noorullah21. You have to do it like this to ping others @Noorullah21:, otherwise they won't receive a notifcation (I just happened to see your comment on my watchlist). Sorry, but I don't have any opinion on this. --HistoryofIran (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi: Hey, so your opinion on this? (And thanks historyofiran) Noorullah21 (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Noorullah21 though your cited reference goes like this "one branch of Khalji dynasty ruled Malwa", and it does call all Khiljis Afghan without mentioning their origins, but if you can provide a specific reference for dynasty's ruler Mahmud Khan who is called a Khalji Turk in every source I've so far seen like[], for being a Turko-Afghan, I'd have no problem in its mention in this article. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi After searching for a while the only thing in reference I could find was further sources mentioning how the Khilji dynasty of Malwa and the Turko-Afghan Khiljis of Delhi were related. (though some of the sources that are old still call the Khiljis as just Turk themselves.

[5] (specifically of above)

The only real thing I could go off of if I wished to make this change was Jonathan Lee's source who does mention the Khalaj (The khiljis when they were considered originally just of turkic stock/origin)

And later calling them Khalji/Khilji when they began growing to power.

The only base info I could go off of is "Between 1436 and 1531 one branch of the Khalji dynasty ruled Malwa" Directly after this statement he continues to use the term Afghan. [6]

So that is really the only info I could find. The Khaljis of Malwa are said to be descendants of the Turko-Afghan Delhi Sultanate Khalji Dynasty, so we can affirm that. But there is nothing I could find about directly calling Mahmud Khalji of Turko-Afghan origin. Noorullah21 (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Lee also refers to the Khiljis as originally turkic IE in addressing their origins here. [7] Noorullah (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

References

Disputed origins

@Noorullah21@UserNumber I'm also of the opinion that we should include only those dynasties which are undoubtedly of Pashtuns origins, otherwise this article would turn into a POV dump. Plus, Noorullah21, actually WP:ONUS was upon you to use talk page, not UserNumber, as recent additions were made by you. Sutyarashi (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

For additional opinion on the inclusion of dynasties of disputed origins @HistoryofIran @पाटलिपुत्र Sutyarashi (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi

I think there's a pretty easy solution to this. We could rebrand the lead to include dynasties that are of disputed origin. This would continue with the article itself saying the disputed origins on the sections of where each dynasty was stated. This would be satisfying both sides because removing them would discredit the Afghan POV, while keeping in the state it is now would discredit the disputed origins POV. Noorullah (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think having them under a separate section ("Disputed origins") may solve problem, though I'd wait for opinion of others too. However, we should really define the criteria of Pashtun empire/dynasty. You had instated Gujarat Sultanate in the article, even though its founder had Khatri or Rajput origins, not Afghan. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Yes, but I detailed on why it was considered so. Plenty of sources said that Bahadur Shah the II was of Afghan origin, I wrote that the origins were disputed, and added that during the reign of Bahadur Shah, the empire was stated to be of Afghan origin.

A disputed section works as well, but refining the lead could work better and just putting them together regardless.

If a consensus can be reached on either matter, it’s fine by me. Noorullah (talk) 08:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Empire was nowhere stated to be of "Afghan origins", rather Bahadur Shah was called as such, and as sources suggest, due to influence of Afghan nobles. I still think we should define the criteria for inclusion: it's either ancestry of dynasty's founder or whether the kingdom itself was called as Afghan or not. And I believe we should avoid adding those of disputed Turk/Afghan or other origins, so that it doesn't get contentious like List of Turkic states and List of Iranian dynasties, both of which were deleted for the same reason ("Ancestry of the dynasty does not define it") Sutyarashi (talk) 10:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I'm just here to say that I think this article should get deleted like the others, as it causes too many issues and attracts POV pushers like the others did. I'm not saying this is the case here, but x origin doesn't necessarily mean that the kingdom is a x kingdom. Cf. Ayyubid dynasty and Mughal Empire. --HistoryofIran (talk) 11:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi In the case of that, your idea would be the best solution in adding a separate section of Disputed origins. It does not discredit either view in said case.

The base criteria could constitute to the dynasties founder. Noorullah (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I have another proposal. Perhaps we should make language the primary criteria? As HistoryofIran has already stated, ancestry usually doesn't define identity. Like Durrani or Hotak Empires, which spoke Pashto and are regarded as Pashtun dynasty/empire. Sutyarashi (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi A language basis wouldn't fair well and I don't agree with that proposal, that is still excluding what the main focus of this page relatively is meant to be and would be excluding a lot of dynasties in doing so.

"List of Pashtun empires and dynasties", for example, considering many of the Indian princely states ...presumably didn't speak Pashto, that would induce removing that.

The criteria appropriate I believe would be just to the proposition you earlier proposed and I also proposed. Which would be just putting a separate section for disputed origins. Noorullah (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Things like the Sur Empire for example didn't have Pashto as a court language, and there is a consensus that they are undisputedly of Pashtun origin. Noorullah (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

OK. Well, then you should provide references mentioning founders of certain dynasties to be of Afghan origins, with the mention of other disputed origins too. This means that we cannot add likes of Gujarat Sultanate here, as its founder was probably a Rajput or Khatri. Also, regarding your references at Hussain Shahi dynasty, they do not mention his founder, Hussain Shah, to be Afghan. This mean only Bahmani Sultanate fulfills the citeria, as there are reliable sources calling Hasan Gangu as Afghan. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I can agree on that. @Sutyarashi I also have another proposal. We could have a separate section for usurpers or some sort as well. This is specifically toward Azad Khan Afghan,

or the Hussain Shahi dynasty under Ghiyasuddin Mahmud Shah, who was stated to be an Afghan noble [8]

--------------------------------------

Also this last part is slightly off topic, but toward the Malwa Sultanate. Specifically, its Khilji dynasty. Plenty of sources seem to state that the Khiljis were of the same origin as the Khilji Delhi Sultanate, such as [9] (page.143), [10] (page.55). Would that be appropriate to continue the Malwa Sultanate's extension under the Khilji dynasty, and specifically for its main page for Malwa Sultanate and Mahmud Khalji as well? Noorullah (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but usurpers are neither dynasty nor "empire". Going through page history, Azad Khan has been repeatedly added in the article, and similarly continuously removed by other editors on the same ground. As for Malwa, it's a complex situation. Khaljis were originally Turkic, and even today, Khalaj people are Turkic, not Afghan. Which means we can't just rely on Mahmud Khan's relation with Khilji dynasty and do need separate references stating him to be Turko-Afghan. Sutyarashi (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi What about [11], (page 14) it mentions that the Khiljis of Malwa claimed descent from the Khiljis, and were of Turko-Afghan origin. Noorullah (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't access it, can you provide the relevant quotation? Sutyarashi (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Sure.

"Originally [Hes talking about another guy here] he belonged to a neighborhood of Bukhara, and after much wandering across the cities of the Islamic world, at last, came to settle in Mandu, capital city of the Independent Sultans of Malwah claiming descent from the Khalji clan, the Turko-Afghan mixture". Noorullah (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Still doesn't fulfill the agreed criteria for founder's (Mahmud Khan) ancestry. Also, is Nabi Hadi a historian? Sutyarashi (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Yes. Also, how does it not fulfill the criteria? It (alongside other sources), said that the Khiljis of Malwa were descended from the Khilji dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate. The Khiljis were of Turco-Afghan origin, and the same source here under Nabi states that they claimed descent from the Khiljis of Delhi, "The Turko-Afghan mixture". Noorullah (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we've already gone through this before. If Khiljis of Malwa are really of Turko-Afghan origins, then perhaps there should be no difficulty in finding references stating Mahmud Khan to be so? Sutyarashi (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there seems to already be a wide consensus from numerous sources that state the Khiljis of Malwa were descended from the Khiljis of Delhi. I am going to be adding that as well as the agreed upon sections of the talk page. The source by Nabi clearly states that they were of Turko-Afghan origin as well. Noorullah (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I am starting to move away from the proposal about dynasty rulers being the sole paramount reason. Numerous of these sources very clearly often state the possible origin of a dynasty (or are contested with a disputed one). Noorullah (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Was asking for a clear reference too much? Khiljis weren't just Afghan, they had Turkic character too. All sources mention Mahmud Khan as a Khilji Turk; not a Khilji Turko-Afghan. That's why we there's no reason we can rely on just passing-by references of his relation with Khilji dynasty of Delhi. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi All the sources state them as descendants of the Khiljis of Delhi, with Nabi also characterizing them as the Turko-Afghan mixture. Noorullah (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Not all Afghans are Pashtun, so Khiljis are clearly not Pashtun, they are Turkic or Turko-Afghan not Pashtun. UserNumber (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@UserNumber The Khiljis are in, plenty of scholarly sources, stated to be Turco-Afghan. The Term Afghan being synonymous with Pashtuns during this period. Noorullah (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

How are they synonymous. There are many Tajiks and non-Pashtuns in Afghanistan who identify as Afghan. Similarly, many Pakhtuns in Pakistan do not identify as Afghan. UserNumber (talk) 15:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you understood what I was trying to say. The period when the Khaljis were in power, Afghan was an synonymous term with Pashtun, similar discussions have even been held on the Khalji dynasty page as well iirc. Noorullah (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

If I may interject, it appears that there are sources which state/heavily imply that the malwas were Afghan or Turco Afghan.

“The last Khalji, Sultan Ikhtiyar al-Din, was assassinated in 1320 and a Turkish dynasty, the Tughlaqs, seized power, but the Afghans remained a force in the political and military life of northern India. Between 1436 and 1531 one branch of the Khalji dynasty ruled Malwa in modern Madhya Pradesh, while thousands of Khaljis owned large tracts of land in western India and dozens of their military cantonments were scattered throughout northern India from the Punjab to Bengal. The Afghans also continued to provide high-quality troops for the Tughlaq army and some held high military office.“ page 55 Jonathan lee https://archive.org/details/Book_1094/page/n55/mode/1up?view=theater

as for Nabi, here is his quote.

“Sultans of malwa claiming descent from the khalji clan, the Turco Afghan mixture” pg 14

@Sutyarashi it appears that there are sources which directly state/imply that the khaljis of malwa were Turco Afghan. Someguywhosbored (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok fair enough UserNumber (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion

@Sutyarashi I don’t see any reason on why those edits would be reverted.

The description of the page shows it is not exclusive to empires nor dynasties per your edit summary.

The Ghurids I added were in the disputed section because their origins are disputed. Noorullah (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Modern republics are neither dynasty or empire. There is no reason for their addition.

And I am still to find any credible modern source which states Ghurids to be Afghan. Sutyarashi (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Again, the list is not exclusive to dynasty or empires. See the description. "It includes states, princely states, empires and dynasties"

Also..the Ghurids are thought to be initially of Afghan origin, but is rejected by modern scholarship, hence why it is in the disputed section. Not including it would be failing WP:NPOV Noorullah (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There are some modern sources that have called them Afghan.

[12] p.200 Noorullah (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is uncertainty about exact ethnicity of Ghurids, but the fact that they are not Pashtuns/Afghan is not disputed. As their main article states: In the 19th century some European scholars... favoured the idea that the Ghurid dynasty was related to today's Pashtun people but this is generally rejected by modern scholarship and, as explained by Morgenstierne in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, is for "various reasons very improbable...This dynasty was not of Turkish, nor even Afghan, but of eastern Persian or Tājīk origin." Thus, there is modern consensus over its non-Pashtun origins, and so there is no reason for its inclusion. Also, I can't view the source you've cited.

Now, as for modern state of Afghanistan, its 55% population is not Afghan/Pashtun and we can't put it under label of Pashtun dynasty/empire, especially since its some leaders like Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmad Shah Massoud were instead Tajik and Uzbek.

If you want, we can ask for a third opinion over this. Sutyarashi (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sutyarashi Sure I'm fine with a third opinion. But I do want to bring up the Republics again. Don't we also often dictate on a basis of leaders? for example Hamid Karzai, etc, who were Pashtun. Noorullah (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I've listed it for third opinion, for now. Sutyarashi (talk) 04:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

You incorrectly quoted the Encyclopedic of Islam. Assuming good faith, I believe this is not intentional, but the actual quotation: "there is no evidence for assuming that the inhabitants of Ghūr were originally Pashto-speaking (cf. Dames, in E I1). If we are to believe the Paṭa Khazāna (see below, iii), the legendary Amīr Karōṝ, grandson of Shansab, (8th century) was a Pashto poet, but this for various reasons is very improbable ...""

What you were instead quoting in the later half of it was Andre wink, who said this; "The Shansabānī dynasty superseded the Ghaznavids in the second half of the twelfth century. This dynasty was not of Turkish, nor even Afghan, but of eastern Persian or Tājīk origin, speaking a distinct Persian dialect of its own, like the rest of the inhabitants of the remote and isolated mountain region of Ghūr and its capital of Fīrūzkūh (in what is now central Afghanistan)."

However, is is explained by numerous other scholarly sources such as Iranica that "Nor do we know anything about the ethnic stock of the Ḡūrīs in general and the Šansabānīs in particular; we can only assume that they were eastern Iranian Tajiks."[13]

@Sutyarashi Noorullah (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't actually visit the sources myself, but just copied what was present on the main article in Ghurids. Perhaps you should raise issue of incorrect quotation there first.

Though that still doesn't change the essence of the quote. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Ok perhaps you were talking about two different quotations. Yeah I messed it up. These two were indeed two separate sources. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Nice catch. But even with context, it still seems to suggest a Tajik origin. Insisting otherwise is, at best, saying "we can't say for certain, so they could have been [insert ethnicity]!" OperativePhase33 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Comment Commenting here since third opinion was requested for this article. I would say that only those empires should be included here who are indeed described as "Pashtun" empire by the reliable WP:HISTS. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 08:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

  @Sutyarashi Did we get a third opinion for this discussion by the way? Aman Kumar Goel was a sockpuppet. Noorullah (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

  Please see my reply below. Sutyarashi (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

References

To make way for inclusion of "individuals"

To represent individuals like Azad Khan Afghan, I am intending to add a similar sub section like done for the "disputed origins section", which would account for individuals like him. This could also in turn include individuals such as Bahadur Shah of Gujarat.

Since this has been referred to before in a previous discussion, what do you think? Pinging individuals who were involved above.

@Sutyarashi @Someguywhosbored @HistoryofIran Noorullah (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Article should only represent the title of the article imo, no more, no less. This type of article shouldn't even exist to begin with (eg Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian dynasties and countries (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Turkic dynasties and countries, and others). HistoryofIran (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with HistoryofIran. Articles like this quickly turn into a POV fork through that approach and end up getting deleted. We should really not add dynasties with disputed origins in here. The dynasties described as Turco-Afghan never spoke Pashto and can't be categorized as Afghans. Even Lodis and Sur most likely spoke Persian and Hindavi instead of Pashto.

So, this article should contain only those regarding which there is consensus over their Afghan origins and neither individuals nor with even their origins disputed, the sole marker we have to call them Pashtun. Sutyarashi (talk) 03:40, 22 December 2023 (UTC)