There are a few reasons one can cite for keeping the female image. First, it isn't excessively vertical like most Pashtun images: we can't have a template that tall with only that many links. Second, it is a piece of art, and shows a very cultured lady. Third, the color scheme of the template was designed around the image (in fact, I chose the color of the floor for the image). --Enzuru 07:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2008-08-13T07:13:00.000Z","author":"Enzuru","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Enzuru-2008-08-13T07:13:00.000Z-Image","replies":["c-Enzuru-2008-08-14T07:55:00.000Z-Enzuru-2008-08-13T07:13:00.000Z"]}}-->
The image File:Ghilzai nomads in Afghanistan.jpg is better for the template about Pashtuns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.91.136 (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-21T10:58:00.000Z","author":"202.163.91.136","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-202.163.91.136-2009-06-21T10:58:00.000Z-Image","replies":["c-Afghana-2009-06-22T04:25:00.000Z-202.163.91.136-2009-06-21T10:58:00.000Z"]}}-->
Is it necessary to include, on the template, a link to Pashtunisation? This is a controversial topic; and including it is lending credit to bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.126.49 (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2009-06-21T12:24:00.000Z","author":"80.225.126.49","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-80.225.126.49-2009-06-21T12:24:00.000Z-Image","replies":["c-Afghana-2009-06-22T04:25:00.000Z-80.225.126.49-2009-06-21T12:24:00.000Z"]}}-->
The picture of the girl has been edited to the point where it now looks cheap and artificial. Yosh 01:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yosh (talk • contribs)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There has been a recent edit war over which image to use in this template. One image being calligraphy[3], the other, a picture of a young girl in native clothing[4]. Which would be the better image to use here? Darkness Shines (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-05-06T07:39:00.000Z","author":"Darkness Shines","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Darkness_Shines-2012-05-06T07:39:00.000Z-Request_for_Comment","replies":[]}}-->
As the previous image([5]) was so excessively vertical and occupied most of the template because it was too tall for such a small number of links, I changed it and added more links, and also increased the width by 50%. X02.163.91.xxx (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-21T20:19:00.000Z","author":"X02.163.91.xxx","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-X02.163.91.xxx-2012-06-21T20:19:00.000Z-Improvements,_addition_of_links","replies":["c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2012-06-24T09:32:00.000Z-X02.163.91.xxx-2012-06-21T20:19:00.000Z"]}}-->
Edit-warring over the image has been going on for far too long, and it has to stop, so I have protected the template. If anyone wants to make any changes to the template, discuss them here first and an admin will implement them for you if you have a consensus supporting you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-06-24T09:32:00.000Z","author":"Boing! said Zebedee","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Boing!_said_Zebedee-2012-06-24T09:32:00.000Z-Protected","replies":[]}}-->
I'm adding more links which belong in this template and rearranging the template. I'm also adding an image to the top of the template and replacing the old one.If any editor thinks it should be changed, please discuss it here. 94.59.203.161 (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2012-11-29T20:40:00.000Z","author":"94.59.203.161","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-94.59.203.161-2012-11-29T20:40:00.000Z-Uncontroversial_image","replies":["c-KunwaazTajik-2012-12-01T00:33:00.000Z-94.59.203.161-2012-11-29T20:40:00.000Z"]}}-->
Your speaking out of your arse Tajik boy.Akmal94 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2015-02-26T01:10:00.000Z","author":"Akmal94","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Akmal94-2015-02-26T01:10:00.000Z-Uncontroversial_image","replies":[]}}-->
File:Tribal and religious leaders in southern Afghanistan.jpg shows only Pashtun men. Wouldn't a more representative image be better? (e.g. File:Pashtuns.jpg) utcursch | talk 15:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2016-04-13T15:34:00.000Z","author":"Utcursch","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Utcursch-2016-04-13T15:34:00.000Z-More_representative_image","replies":[]}}-->
As the sources at Khalji dynasty#Origins state, that dynasty doesn't belong to this template. utcursch | talk 04:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-06-04T04:01:00.000Z","author":"Utcursch","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Utcursch-2018-06-04T04:01:00.000Z-Khalji_dynasty","replies":[]}}-->
Khaljis were turko afghan so which template the dynasty should be? It clearly says they were considered Afghan as i have discussed (and provided sources) many times with you. Please dont remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:E58D:DBD6:8E3A:CCB5 (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2018-06-04T07:32:00.000Z","author":"2001:4643:C8EC:0:E58D:DBD6:8E3A:CCB5","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-2001:4643:C8EC:0:E58D:DBD6:8E3A:CCB5-2018-06-04T07:32:00.000Z-Khalji_dynasty","replies":["c-Utcursch-2018-06-04T13:07:00.000Z-2001:4643:C8EC:0:E58D:DBD6:8E3A:CCB5-2018-06-04T07:32:00.000Z"]}}-->
Please intervene again to protect the page. Some POV pushers with an agenda are again adding Khilji dynasty in the template. CrashLandingNew (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-06-30T20:25:00.000Z","author":"CrashLandingNew","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-CrashLandingNew-2020-06-30T20:25:00.000Z-Khalji_dynasty","replies":[]}}-->
Hi
O.k good we will discuss it "thoroughly" in here. What exactly you (or some other contributors) have problem with khalji there in template.
I (and countless others) think that since in Khalji dynasty there is still disagreement over its origin. Years ago after excessive research and scholarly studies we (like many scholars) termed it Turk o Afghan origin. Meaning they were "considered" Afghan during their rule but might have Turkic origins.( which almost every one including opposite view contributors agrees upon). Now- either it shouldn't be in both templates (Turkic peoples and Pashtuns template), or it should be in both. SO, since it is in turkic template it should be also here which is simple common sense. Now on which one you agree so after scholarly research we can contribute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:5C1D:55E3:9A6B:D2E3 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-02T20:27:00.000Z","author":"2001:4643:C8EC:0:5C1D:55E3:9A6B:D2E3","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-2001:4643:C8EC:0:5C1D:55E3:9A6B:D2E3-2020-07-02T20:27:00.000Z-Khalji_dynasty","replies":["c-CrashLandingNew-2020-07-04T10:58:00.000Z-2001:4643:C8EC:0:5C1D:55E3:9A6B:D2E3-2020-07-02T20:27:00.000Z","c-Khestwol-2020-07-04T08:52:00.000Z-2001:4643:C8EC:0:5C1D:55E3:9A6B:D2E3-2020-07-02T20:27:00.000Z"]}}-->
Hi With all due respect but you are confusing two "main" issues here. Which might be the reason of your stand. We don't argue the consensus among many scholars about the origin of khaljis. Let me clear that. What is missing in here is that -during their rule- they were "considered Afghan". That is why they are called Turk o Afghan for a reason. They are NOT called Turk o Afghan, just because they came from that region. And secondly why pashtuns? because during middle ages
Pashtun and Afghan were interchangeable. That is why they are called (Afghans). For examlple Samanid dynasty is not called afghan since they were tajiks. Hope we are reaching a honest agreement and discussion is not for the sake of discussion. Thank you.
We have to contribute to wikipedia according to facts not our personal opinion.
1- As i said they were considered Afghan and taken as Afghan in Delhi by the turkic mamluks. 2- Still there are many pashtun tribes whos ancestors might be from different origin but what would you consider them today? pashtuns right? because you wont go back a few centuries ànd find whos ancestor of that tribe or that particular individual was, right? THAT IS what is the point here. 3- And "again" there should be mention of turkics as much as Afghans. SINCE ETHNICALY THEY HAD TRANSFORMED from "possible" turkics to pashtuns (ethnic afghans). 4- And this is NOT me, it is the general knowledge about khaljis that you can find in THE VERY wikipedia. 5- To be honest this should be very simple i really don't get the point of prolonging it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:AD28:4BF1:D01:E652 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-04T22:03:00.000Z","author":"2001:4643:C8EC:0:AD28:4BF1:D01:E652","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-2001:4643:C8EC:0:AD28:4BF1:D01:E652-2020-07-04T22:03:00.000Z-Khalji_dynasty","replies":[]}}-->
Exactly, I don't see why are you not following facts and moving in circles. We have to follow FACTS, not our own interpretation of FACTS. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a personal blog to give your own theories.
Sorry to say my friend but your grasb on Afghan history is very limitied. You are simply not getting what is being said here. Today they ARE TRANSFORMED and are called khilji/ghilzai tribe of pashtuns. It have happened with many tribes countless times. Infact it is part of human history. And khaljis (now ghilzais) are not an exception.And NO they were NOT identified as tukics all sources point them out as Afghans during sultanat. ALL being said here is that we should respect (both scholarly) point of views and it should be in both templates. That is it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:C8EC:0:A57E:1B4F:A73C:30F8 (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-05T09:09:00.000Z","author":"2001:4643:C8EC:0:A57E:1B4F:A73C:30F8","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-2001:4643:C8EC:0:A57E:1B4F:A73C:30F8-2020-07-05T09:09:00.000Z-Khalji_dynasty","replies":[]}}-->
OK, first of all you don't have to get personal, I don't need a certification regarding my knowledge from someone who is a random IP jumper and is not even a registered user on Wikipedia. There are no "two scholarly views" here. Khiljis of Khilji dynasty of Delhi were TURKIC PEOPLE. Period. It's a well established fact by mainstream scholars, even the page of Khalji dynasty on Wikipedia identifies them as Turkic people and NOT PASHTUNS. NOBODY identifies them as PASHTUNS, NOBODY. Your ethnicity can't be both Turkic and Pashtun, it is mutually exclusive. This is a template for Pashtuns, not AFGHANS, where only established Pashtun dynasties like Lodis and Suris are to be added. Stop moving in circles with your own theories and distant linkages between Ghilji, Kalaj and the Khilji dynasty of Delhi. Khiljis are not identified as Pashtuns and you have not been able to provide any direct, mainstream scholarly evidence to prove otherwise, hence there is no reason to add Khalji dyansty on a template mentioning established PASHTUN, I repeat PASHTUN not AFGHAN dynasties. AFGHAN ≠ PASHTUN CrashLandingNew (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"2020-07-05T12:48:00.000Z","author":"CrashLandingNew","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-CrashLandingNew-2020-07-05T12:48:00.000Z-Khalji_dynasty","replies":[]}}-->
Lokasi Pengunjung: 18.219.51.159