Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Weblink Update

URL changed: Please update the link to the following picture gallery

http://asiapolis.perspektive89.com/gallery - Pictures from Kabul and Afghanistan => NEW Link: http://foto.perspektive89.com Mario Behling (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

State of Afghanistan emerged in 1880

According to Anwar-ul-Haq Ahady (a Pashtun himself and the head of Afghan Mellat) the state of Afghanistan emerged in 1880 under Abdur Rahman Khan, not during the Ahmad Shah Durrani era as this article claims. See Ahady's article:

The Decline of the Pashtuns in Afghanistan, Anwar-ul-Haq Ahady, Asian Survey, Vol. 35, No. 7. (Jul., 1995), pp. 621-634.

Why is Afghani not listed as a demonym in info-box?

Afghani is another commonly used demonym. A Google search for Afghani gives 2,260,000 results, so obviously it is a commonly used term. It is also listed in dictionaries as a native or inhabitant of Afghanistan (link).

The term is used for the currency so the google hits are not that meaningful. Also, only one dictionary said "inhabitant of Afghanistan" the rest said its the currency. --MarsRover (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've done another Google search excluding the word "currency" and I ended up getting even more results (3,080,000 Google search results for Afghani - excluding the word "currency"). So now we can be sure that it is a commonly used term.

There are many dictionaries that define Afghani as a demonym of Afghanistan. Here's two from dictionary.com:

• American Heritage Dictionary: Af·ghan·i Audio Help (āf-gān'ē, -gä'nē) Pronunciation Key adj. Of or relating to Afghanistan; Afghan. n. pl. Af·ghan·is A native or inhabitant of Afghanistan; an Afghan.

• Princeton University's WordNet: adjective 1. of or relating to or characteristic of Afghanistan or its people

And here's another dictionary that define Afghani as a demonym:

• The Canadian Oxford Dictionary: 1. Afghani noun a native or national of Afghanistan.

Google hits are a rough indicator if anything, and your method of excluding "currency" is not valid. Look how many hits you get with dollar excluding currency (24,100,000 for Dollar -currency). Also, I would recommend signing your comments if you're serious about convincing people. --MarsRover (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

We have been through this already. It is included in a footnote to what is in the infobox, and this was the consensus agreement for the sake of compromise. If you wish to see the lengthy discussions we have already had concerning this, please see the talk archives. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's methods is to always improve itself and if something is uncertain it should be further discussed. Discusses things again is a good thing. Also, you mention consensus but a poll is not consensus according to Wikipedia. You also mention "compromise", I really don't know what you mean by this. I'm asking why is it not in the info-box. The whole purpose of why there is a demonym section setup in the info-box is to list the demonym or demonyms for countries that have multiple demonyms. From the discussion last time, it appears the argument was that even though it was in dictionaries, it was not commonly used. But according to these Google search results (3,080,000 Google search results - excluding the word "currency") the term is commonly used. Therefore, there is no reason for it not to be in the info-box. Unless a good reason is provided it should stay in the info-box.

Everyone involved agreed that there was consensus. Thus, even though there was a poll, everyone involved agreed to use a poll to establish consensus. When everyone involved (socks obviously, and sensibly, excluded) agrees that there is consensus, then there is consensus. Whether or not a poll was used does not matter, provided that everyone agrees on the method. We would have participated in a poll if we did not think it was a useful and necessary way of establishing consensus for what was to be put in the infobox. And why are you saying that polls are against WP policy, when you have subsequently set up a poll?

Yes, consensus can change. But until there is an undeniable change in consensus, the status quo needs be kept. It is not in the infobox because it was agreed that though Afghani and Afghanistani are used, they are not the standard demonym. Thus we put them in a footnote, to compromise between those who wanted them in the infobox, and those who wanted them left out altogether.

They are not commonly used, we have all seen that. Anytime NPR or a reputable journalistic source, such as the Washington Post, speaks of persons from Afghanistan, they use "Afghan"; educated English-speakers do not use Afghani or Afghanistani. Please realize that since these terms are in a footnote, the information is retained in the encyclopedia--it is hardly as though the info isn't here. The info is in the article, why do people not understand that? Just because it is in a footnote does not mean it is not included. Afghani and Afghanistani are already included in the article, no change is needed.

Pushing for them to be in the infobox alongside Afghan is unnecessary rocking of the boat.

Also, please realize that as an anon, your motivations are suspect. This page has far-too often been the victim of vandalism by socks for everyone to trust anons and new users. If (and I'm not saying you are) you are a sock, please quit upsetting this page. Further, I suspect your motivations because you are only concerned with inserting Afghani in the userbox; if your intentions were honourable, you would want Afghanistani listed as well. You're likely just another nationalist sock trying to interfere with the page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not asking for it to be included in the article, I am asking why it is not in the info-box. Please stop throwing around accusations, I am not an Afghan-nationalist. The nationalistic position is actually to only have Afghan and not Afghani, that is what Afghan-nationalists like to insist on. I never brought up Afghanistani, I am asking about Afghani. But since you claim that only educated people use Afghan, then are the authors of these 222 (http://books.google.com/books?q=Afghanistani&btnG=Search+Books) books not educated? What you just said is an extreme POV. As you can see educated people do use demonyms other than Afghan, especially educated people as 220 books on Google books use Afghanistani instead of Afghan. However, if you like polls then we will have another one. This poll will only be for Afghani.

Yes, the fact that you are asking about Afghani and never brought up Afghanistani is what makes me suspect your intentions. If your concern was to include all demonyms, you would be just as concerned with Afghanistani as Afghani. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that you are a POV-pusher who wants persons from Afghanistan to be called Afghanis, rather than Afghans or Afghanistanis. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I want all demonyms to be listed. If I wanted only Afghani then I would have asked Afghan to be removed. I have not mentioned Afghanistani yet because that is a different case which I will bring up later.

"The poll will only be for Afghani." This is obviously demonstrative of your lack of interest in what is right. As you said, "The whole purpose of why there is a demonym section setup in the info-box is to list the demonym or demonyms for countries that have multiple demonyms." If you were concerned with including the multiple demonyms of Afghanistan in the infobox, you would be concerned with Afghanistani as well as Afghani. The only logical explanation I can see is that you're another POV-pushing sock. If you are actually concerned with Afghanistani, why have you yet to bring that up? It is sourced, so there is no reason to treat it differently from Afghani. Both are less-commonly used demonyms than are Afghan. If you think that Afghanistani should not be included, this would further strengthen the case that you are a POV-pusher, because it is sourced, so there is no good reason not to treat it on an equal footing with Afghani. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You are a very aggressive editor and constantly throwing around accusations, please stop. I have explained that Afghanistani is a different issue than Afghani and I will bring it up later on. I am not the POV pusher, it is you the one that claimed that educated people do not use Afghanistani then I gave you 222 books whose author uses Afghanistani instead of Afghan disproving your POV. Right now I want to discuss Afghani. I will discuss Afghanistani later. I am doing it this way to avoid confusion with the two terms otherwise things will get complicated and people will loose track of things.

Would you mind at least stating your case on Afghanistani, to demonstrate that you aren't just trying to throw it out? Cause at this point, it is what I am afraid you are trying to do. And while yes, Afghani is used some by people with an education, it is behind Afghan by leaps and bounds; that was the point I was making. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will start another discussion and poll on Afghanistani probably tomorrow. Let's give people a day to read this and vote without confusion. I assure you I am not trying to throw it out.

"By leaps and bounds" is not POV. Google both of them. "Afghan" comes up 8.3x as much as does the word "Afghani". 8.3 is leaps and bounds. Afghani is not included in the OED, the definitive English dictionary, as a demonym--that is leaps and bounds. That was the whole point of people who did not want Afghani (or Afghanistani) included at all--they are not used anywhere near as much as is Afghan. Afghani and Afghanistani were almost not even included in the article. That they are in a footnote, for everyone to see, is a reasonable compromise. There is no new reason to Please quit acting as though as many people use Afghani as do Afghan. That is patently not true. And Afghani and Afghanistani are related to one another; there is no reason not to bring them up together. If you think there is, then please say so. Otherwise, you continue to smell like a sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

That does not neglect the 2.9 million results for Afghani. If you notice, the dictionaries I provided are American and Canadian (North American). And one of them was a Canadian version of OED. So it is in the OED actually, though the Canadian version. American and Canadian English are as important as British so it should not be neglected. Afghani and Afghanistani of coarse both mean native or inhabitant of Afghanistan but I want to discuss them separately and give each one it's own reasons and not to have them confused with the other. By the way, Afghani and Afghanistani are a little different in their meanings. Please see the article Afghanistani. Just give it a little time for this discussion to settle.

There are only 2.3m results for Afghani, first of all. And as Mars pointed out, you're methods are off and google results are rough anyhow. Furthermore, as we have said, Afghani is still included in the article. You're acting as though it is excluded. The OED is the best indicator of English usage; I'm not denying that the dictionaries you provided are RS, but it is still the case that because it is not in the OED, it is by no means a widely accepted demonym. Thus why it is in a footnote and not in the main body of the infobox. And we have sources saying that both Afghani and Afghanistani are demonyms of Afghanistan. So for what we are discussing, that is their meaning, regardless if they have other, different connotations according to other persons. Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The OED is a British English dictionary. American and Canadian English dictionaries do have Afghani defined as a demonym. OED's Canadian edition (The Canadian Oxford Dictionary) has Afghani defined as a demonym. So it is in the OED, just not the British version. The English Wikipedia includes all varieties of English. Besides, American English is gaining more influence than British these days.

I'm glad you're not trying to throw out Afghanistani. If nothing else, would you state what you think on it on my talk page though? However, I really think that people are smart enough to follow a conversation on both of the alternative demonyms, so it would be ideal here. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The poll needs to be re-worded. The way it is now, it gives the impression that Afghani is not included in the article at all. The wording is misleading and could skew the results, so the poll needs to be redone. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The poll is very simple: either this demonym is included in the info-box or not. The info-box is where we list the demonyms so that is what this poll is concerning. If you don't think Afghani should be in the info-box's demonym listing for the reader to see and should be in the footnotes instead where no reader will see it, then please vote and provide that as your reason.

You've failed to notice my point. The way you have worded the poll will skew the results. Surely you realize this. Everyone knows that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. I am fine having a poll, but it needs to be fair. I will strike through this poll again, and continue to do so if the sock (not you, anon) undoes my edit. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you shouldn't be doing that since you are not an administrator, but I will change the wording since you insist.

Ok its going to take more than that. We need to completely start the poll over. It should be worded more like the previous poll than the version you have. Your wording right now is very biased against my position. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've provided a new poll, in which everyone is free to vote. If you disagree with the wording I have provided, please discuss it with me and we will come up with something that we can agree on. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon, this discussion thread, as well as the previous ones, give plenty enough context for people to decide how to vote. Including reasons in the poll itself is push polling. When we vote for elected officials, we arent presented with a pro/con list in the polling place...the appropriate time for that is prior to the polling.

The reason there should be two separate polls is very simple and should be obvious: the person voting might want Afghani but not Afghanistasni, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani.

But there is no reason to want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or vice versa. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There might not be a reason that you can think of, but I'm sure others can. One reason would be for example that Afghanistani does not have as many Google search results as Afghani.

That is an invalid reason. As long as both are sourced, both ought to be treated the same. Your poll is treating them separately, in defiance of precedence, and still is giving reasons for Afghanistani. My poll solves both of those issues. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You've again deleted my comments, in defiance of a three-fold warning from another user. And ThuranX does not seem to be an admin: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&dir=prev&limit=500&group=sysop

I did not delete your latest comment intentionally, you keep reverting and crossing out the poll in defiance of ThuranX. I've placed your latest comment back. Even if he is not an administrator, there is now consensus that you are pushing your POV. This is obvious by the fact that you voted negative.

There is no consensus about this. He sided with you, cab sided with me. That is perfectly evenly split. You seem to have no idea about what consensus is. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cab did not side with you. He was fine with my poll but he changed the wording a little, which I accidentally reverted. I told him after I changed it back to his way and he is fine with it (my poll with his modification to it).

(The above three comments refactored for legibility)ThuranX (talk) 05:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow guys, I don't know what the big argument is. "Afghani" is obviously used as a demonym by many people, regardless of what dictionaries it may or may not be in. As for "Afghanistani", I've never heard that personally, but I could see it's use in distinguishing ethnic Afghans from citizens of the country or whatever. Considering that all three see some level of use I see no reason not to include all three in the info box. QVanillaQ (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Poll

Considering that Afghani is defined as people of Afghanistan in the dictionaries listed above and that there are 3,080,000 Google search results for it, shouldn't Afghani be listed as a demonym?

Please sign underneath which one you want to see with four tildes (~) and if you vote no please provide a reason.

• Yes, Afghani should be in the info-box

1. --Anoshirawan 05:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Shervink (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• No, Afghani should not be in the info-box because...

Poll crossed out by User:Carl.bunderson

Poll

Please vote in support of one of three possible positions on the demonym issue:

1. mention all three terms in the infobox

--Anoshirawan 05:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

2. mention Afghan in the infobox, and footnote Afghani and Afghanistani

Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

3. mention only Afghan

This poll is invalid on its' face, as the editor posting it crossed out a previous poll, then ONLY presented the options he already supports. THe poll needs:

1. Mention Afghan only
2. Mention Afghani Only
3. Mention Afghanistani Only
4. Mention Afghan/Afghani
5. Mention Afghan/Afghanistani
6. Mention Afghani/Afghanistani
7. Mention all Three.

Only this, a comprehensive set of options, will show real consensus, as it offers people ALL possible permutations, without biases or omissions. ThuranX (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I crossed out the previous poll because it was poorly worded. And I'm not sure what you mean by he "ONLY presented the options he already supports"; I only support one option, so your meaning is unclear. Please bother to look at the context of this debate though. Any option that does not include Afghan is untenable--this is by far the most common demonym. The others are hardly used--this is why the debate started in the first place. The others are so rarely seen, that some consider them to be spurious options. So that cuts down the possible permutations to Mention Afghan only, or mention all three.

Also, you've ignored the context by ignoring the issue of the footnotes. Afghani and Afghanistani were put in the footnote, rather than directly in the infobox, because they are not used by very well-established and even comprehensive dictionaries, i.e. the OED. But they do have sources, so they must be included in one way or another. Ergo, Mention Afghan only is not an option. With hindsight, I should not have included it in my poll--I did it merely because the poll had precedent in this talk page.

So, the only option we are left at is mentioning all three. They must all be included, because they are sourced, in one way or another. The only question that has been raised is where they are to be located. All three in the infobox, or the two less common ones in a footnote. If anyone can offer substantial reasons why these are not the only two valid permutations of the poll, please offer away. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox: “Persian” i.o. Dari not pertinent

Hi SwatiAfridi!
In the article about Afghanistan, you changed the name of one of the official languages of this country atop the infobox, from Dari to “Persian”.
Despite your claim that «this language is known as Persian in English»,

1. Dari is a Persian language, but certainly not Fārsi as spoken in Irān;
2. Even English-speaking people do know what Dari and Iranian Fārsi dialects are, especially when they are aware of Afghan most prominent features.
   

If you speak one (or more) Persian dialect(s) or language(s), you may share this view, which is largely disputed, but please, do not put it forcibly on others .
Otherwise, you may know that there are enough differences between Iran's and Afghanistan's Persian dialects to cause full or partial incomprehension between most inhabitants of both countries.
I noted this fact by myself a couple of years ago, and I was not alone to do so. There is even a short passage in a documentary by Mohsen Makhmalbāf, الفبای افغان (The Afghan Alphabet), the young Herāti girl, a “Fārsīwān”, does not understand what Iranian people — them being Fārsīwānān too — from the Refugee village (some 30 mi. from the border) say… This example and my repeated experience are only two among many others.

I have been careful enough to avoid “all” delicate points about this country and others — I could not imagine this relatively tiny spot could become controversial… I would be grateful to you to respect the undid revert.
بیش از این مزاحمت نمی شوم. عجالتاً خدا نگهدار
✓ Kanġi Oĥanko (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

NB: Same message left at SwatiAfridi's talk page too.

Actually it is "Dari" that is a politicized term. The Encyclopaedia Iranica writes: :

“ Darī (q.v.) is a term long recommended by Afghan authorities to designate Afghan Persian in contrast to Iranian Persian; a written language common to all educated Afghanis, Darī must not be confused with Kābolī, the dialect of Kabul and surrounding areas that is more or less understood by eighty percent of the non-Persian speaking population and is fast becoming the nation's koine. [...] The revival of the ancient term Darī was intended to signify that Afghans consider their country the cradle of the language. Hence, the name Fārsī, the language of Fārs, is strictly avoided. ”

("Modern literature of Afghanistan" by R. Farhādī, Encyclopaedia Iranica, xii, Online Edition, LINK).

The language of Eastern Iran and Western Afghanistan (traditionally known as Khorasani) is indeed identical, but also significantly different from the dialects of Eastern (Kabuli) and Northern (Mazari or Balkhi) Afghanistan. The fact is that there is neither an Iranian dialect of Persian, nor an Afghan dialect of Persian. The so-called Iranian dialect is the standard dialect of Tehran and different from the dialects spoken in Mazandaran, Khorasan, Kerman, or Isfahan. The dialect of Herat and Farah is different from the dialect of Kabul. The Khorasani (or Herati) dialect still uses older Persian expressions, for example bostāndan for "to get" instead of the standard gereftan in Kabul. They also use more archaic pronunciations, for example vakhēz! ("stand up!") instead of the newer bekhēz as used in standard Kabuli. There is also a significant difference in the vocalic sound. While the Kabuli dialect uses most of the time (correctly) an -a or -ā, the Herati dialect (or Khorasani in general) uses, similar to Western ("Iranian") dialects -o, -ū or -ü (for example in the word nūn/nün instead of the standard nān, "bread"; the -ü is pronounced as in German or Turkish, but blending into a -u). The -kh ([x]) is also softer than in the more eastern dialects (in total contrast to Tajiki (Bukhari)), sometimes blending into a harder h.

I do not understand why these different dialects are supposed to be categorized under "Dari", although the Kabuli dialect of Afghanistan is much closer to certain "Iranian dialects" (for example teh dialect of Shiraz) than Khorasani.

Naming the dialects of Afghanistan "Dari" was a political move of the Muhammadzai ruling family who wanted to create some kind of new "Afghan identity" by breaking all historical ties to Iran. This was, in part, also motivated by the political alliance with Kemalist Turkey (the powerful Afghan politician Mahmoud Tarzi was educated by the Young Turks; his daughter married into the Ottoman family; another daughter was married to Amanullah Khan, king of Afghanistan, and the first among all rulers in the world to visit Atatürk), and continued into the era of Zahir Shah in which all political leaders were students of Tarzi. While before the 20's Persian books in Afghanistan were known as "Farsi" books, the name was changed to "Farsi-e Dari" in the 20's and 30's, and then finally minimized to "Dari" in the 60's (the Afghan constitution of 1964 only recognizes "Dari" as the name of the Persian language).

Since Dari refers specifically to the variant of Persian spoken in Afghanistan, it seems that Dari is more appropriate here. And Tajik007, please sign your posts. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

In writing, both variants are the same. It is only when we speak that there are differences, like Irish-English and American-English for example. Both are English, we do not call one "Irish" and the other "American". Especially in this case, we would say Jamhūrī-ye Islāmī-ye Afġānistān the exact same way in both variants. The final say on this is by Encyclopedia Iranica, as they are the most authoritative source on Iranian studies (by Iranian I mean Iranian peoples, not just citizens of Iran), and their say has been quoted above.

Can some more people comment on this? I hesitate to take the word of a possible sock that this is true? Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to take anyone's word for anything. You can go to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/v1f5/v1f5a040a.html and read for yourself what Encyclopedia Iranica, the most prestigious and reliable encyclopedia on Iranian studies, has to say.

It seems like the situation of Swedish and Norwegian...though they are substantially the same language (ie, mutually intelligible) but they are nonetheless separate languages because they have separate contexts. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the languages are the same here. This is like the variants of English spoken around the world (eg. American, Irish, Australian, Scotish, etc... all are known as English). Please just read the Encyclopedia Iranica's article instead of speculating. Go down to "Languages".

One way you could have easily proven this to yourself is by going to the Iran article. You can see in that article's info-box Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Īrān, which is exactly the same as this.

It has long been the way it is, and the opinion of one potential sock is not a change in consensus. Kangi had a well-reasoned explanation for reverting the blocked sock SwatiAfridi's change. I am defending consensus from someone (Tajik007) who holds the same position as a banned sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop lying, anyone can see themselves that for years and still the language throughout this entire article and other related articles has been referred to as Persian. I am the one defending this article's consensus from a user who has doesn't even know this language and ignores scholarly sources and common sense (see Iran's infobox).

Look at Archive 6 of this page--a question about Dari vs. Dari (Persian) is demonstrative that the status quo on the page has been Dari (Persian) rather than Persian or Dari. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Well Tajik007 has been indef blocked as a confirmed sock of Beh-nam. So that about clears that up... Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that this discussion has died down with no consensus to change the status quo, I'm unlocking the article so that other portions can be edited. To avoid edit wars, please discuss any future changes to the official languages list in the infobox here on the talk page, before making them. Thanks, Beland (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The Afghanistan article has a section on culture but nothing about the plastic arts. Specific sites (Bamiyan, Balkh) have architecture, sculpture, painting but I have not found a place for the arts of Afghanistan. Am I missing it? Does a section need to be created? I bring this up today because I was searching for an appropriate place to add a note about the item on the Wikipedia News Box--the LA Times article on the discovery of evidence of oil painting at Bamiyan. Will (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Afghans are not a "Persian tribe"

I removed the following:

A Moroccan traveller, Ibn Battuta, visiting Kabul in 1333 writes: "We travelled on to Kabul, formerly a vast town, the site of which is now occupied by a village inhabited by a tribe of Persians called Afghans. They hold mountains and defiles and possess considerable strength, and are mostly highwaymen."

The source is a nice read, but this part is inaccurate. Afghans are an Iranian tribe, but they are not a Persian tribe. There is no such thing as Persian tribes. Also I doubt that during this time there was any people called Afghans in Kabul since Encyclopedia of Islam says during this time they lived south of Kabul. CyrusTheGreat2 (talk) 06:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Al-Biruni, who was himself a Persian, referred to Afghans as various tribes living on the western frontier mountains of the Indus River, which would be the Sulaiman Mountains. So obviously Afghans are not a Persian tribe (there are no Persian tribes) and they were not in Kabul yet.

Source:

• Morgenstierne, G. (1999). "AFGHĀN". Encyclopaedia of Islam (CD-ROM Edition v. 1.0 ed.). Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

a user saying claiming that: جمهوری اسلامی افغانستان - Jamhūrī-ye Islāmī-ye Afġānistān is not Persian

Your edit has been reverted. If you look at the difference, you made a change in the infobox of Dari (Persian) to Persian. This is unacceptable. This is a contentious issue , as you can see from the banned sock with whom I last dealt on this page. Your explanation here of your edit is entirely removed from the actual edit. Please be sure to do what you intend to do, or be sure not to intentionally mislead others. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Of coarse I did. Please read the first sentence of the article: Afghanistan, officially the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Pashto: د افغانستان اسلامي جمهوریت, Persian: جمهوری اسلامی افغانستان), is a landlocked country that is located approximately in the center of Asia. -- CyrusTheGreat2 (talk) 06:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, you did not. I have looked and re-looked at the differences between our edits, and you have not removed the section you talked about. The only difference is a change between Dari and Persian. This is not what you said you did: you said that you removed a section on Ibn Battuta. Moreover, issues of Persian/Dari are not to be changed on the page until there is consensus for it, because it is such a contentious issue. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're trying to be funny or not claiming that I don't know my own language. However, in case you're serious, simply look at the first sentence of the article (Afghanistan, officially the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (Pashto: د افغانستان اسلامي جمهوریت, Persian: جمهوری اسلامی افغانستان), is a landlocked country that is located approximately in the center of Asia.) and compare it to previous versions... and you will see it has never been contested. If you are trying to be funny or just vandalizing for kicks, please stop. CyrusTheGreat2 (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the discussion above. The person taking your position was a sockpuppet. I realized that Dari and Persian are essentially the same thing. But the Afghan form of Persian is called Dari, and that is the consensus this page has come to. Read the points that were made by Kangi. If you want to change consensus, you are free to make your case. But editing the page the way you have been doing is in a strain of vandalism that I am not going to put up with. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not a one man show. Kengi has given us his POV. If Kengi gave some sources then I would have argued against him. However, I will not bother wasting time with WP:POVs. One user's POV does cannot change the long established consensus that was already there. I've checked earlier versions and the language has always been referred to as Persian in this article. If other users come along and agree with Kengi and provide some sources making this claim, then I will argue with them. Though I know no one will since they won't find any such sources. Until then Kengi's POVs can be ignored. CyrusTheGreat2 (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to revert to the way it was before you made your edit. Persian and Dari will be mixed through the infobox and lead, the way it has long been. But it is obvious from the talk archive as well that that version is the way it has long been, and that that is consensus. Trying to make all references to Persian instead of Dari is nationalistic POV-pushing on your part. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not ok. That looks very inconsistent and it has always been referred to as strictly Persian in the lead. As for your accusation, on the contrary it is pushing for Dari that is nationalistic as pointed out by a source mentioned above. CyrusTheGreat2 (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sources provided by blocked socks should certainly be trusted... Carl.bunderson (talk) 10:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, he was another sock of Beh-nam. Contentious changes to the issues of language or demonym will be reverted, with extreme prejudice (i.e. ruthlessly), as vandalism, by me. If anyone makes changes without first discussing them here, and establishing clear consensus, they are vandalizing. Discussions here are more than welcome. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness, dʒʊmhur and ɪsläm are not irɒni words. DJ1AM (talk) 05:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Misleading sources

The sources for Middle East actually said Central Asia. Middle East can be added back but with proper sources. Also, I added more meaningful pictures and removed the previous ones where politics are eating lunch and the vise president appearing as police commissioner.--Bistiks (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just leave it as is for now, and I will review the sources over the weekend. If Bistiks is right, that the sources don't support the text in the article, we will change it. If they do, we will keep the text as is. Does anyone has a problem with him changing the pictures, and if so, why? Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed these sources:

• [1] (doesn't mention that Afghanistan is in the Middle East and leads to CIA factbook, which actually says "Southern Asia")
• Afghanistan is a republic in southwestern Asia (That does not say "Middle East"]
• [2] (Does not say Afghanistan is in Middle East)
• [3] (does not say Afghanistan is in Middle East)

We don't even need so many sources for this, just CIA is fine because they deal alot with geography of countrys. CIA says Southern Asia but many other reliable sources (including Afghanistan's government related sites) also say "Central Asia" so we can leave both and that's what I did. It's easy to read South-Central Asia than Central-South Asia or Central Asia, South Asia, etc. It makes no sense to fight over this. To say it is part of Central Asia, South Asia, and Middle East would be stupid and not making sense. The persons (Tajik) and (Beh-nam), who are pushing for Afghanistan to be added in Middle East are extremely ignorant pro-Iranian Shiites, wanting Afghanistan to be close to Iran because Iran is Shiite just like them and is part of the Middle East. That's their purpose with all this edit-wars they do on Afghanistan related articles and I'm very sure of it. Evertime when there is edit-war it's them again. One idoit is from Germany and the other stupid one is from Canada. They are even giving Germany and Canada a bad name.--Bistiks (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe the pictures that I added are what needs to be in this article.

• The inside parliament house, which is the main government body that decides on everything for Afghanistan
• I removed the police pic because the Afghan police are accused everywhere as corrupted. In other words they have bad reputation. That's not the reason though, the picture's quality was bad and not very meaninful. Afghan vice president appeared in it like some police commissioner. The Afghan National Army is better looking because they are "National" (countrywide) and the pic's quality is very good.
• In the Edutaion section I figured this one is better because the other one already exists inside Kabul University. Since there are many pics available we should use other ones than seeing the same one everywhere. Plus in my pic the girls look sexy than the other one. If someone is not satify with my reasoning then explain why.--Bistiks (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Since a blocked sock was the only person objecting to your edits, I am fine with maintaining them. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey I noticed this discussion seems to have died and the article still lists Afghanistan as being "located within Central Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East". The Middle East claim has 3 references, however I read all three of them, all of them cite Afghanistan as either in South Asia or Central Asia, none of them mention the Middle East. I think this common misconception stems from Afghanistan being an Islamic Republic, when most of the Islam dominated countries are located in the Middle East. It's similar to many people refering to all Muslims as "Arab", Arabs are strictly from Saudi Arabia, it is not nearly as general a term as many people seem to think. Anyway, unless someone objects, could we please remove the Middle East reference? Thanks, Rodwa4 (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I would tentatively say, remove saying it is located in the Middle East. The first and third references implicitly say Afghanistan is in the Middle East. The National Geographic obviously says nothing of the kind. So I would support removing "Middle East" absent an objection. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Carl, I think there is a reason this section is titled "Misleading Sources", the person who is using those references clearly is hoping that you will not actually read what is on those websites. The first site does not say anything about the location of Afghanistan, it doesn't say Middle East or Central Asia, but your assuming that it means it is in the Middle East because the website is titled "The Middle East Network Information Center". Well like I noted before, people like to confuse the geographic Middle East with Muslim countries. If you look at that website more closely, you will see it has 29 countries listed including Afghanistan, but included in those 29 countries are 9 that are Arabic speaking countries in Africa, and most of the rest with the exception of a few are either in Central or Southwestern Asia. So clearly that site is not dedicated to countries in the Middle East, but simply to Islamic, Arabic speaking countries. Now about your third source, it is also misleading: It's title is "The Middle East Institute", however, if you read what it actually says, the very first sentence begins with this: "Afghanistan is a republic in southwestern Asia", and if you search the page, in no place does it say anything about Afghanistan being in the Middle East. So I can understand your confusion, but please actually check the sources before stating that they "implicitly" support someones claim. Rodwa4 (talk) 04:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I was right to say they were "implicit". That is precisely what implicit means. They do not actually, explicitly say "Afghanistan is in the Middle East". But the page titles imply that it is. And as for the third page, saying it is in southwestern Asia does not preclude its being in the Middle East. It is a fallacy to say that because X is in A it cannot also be in B; it is certainly the case that regions can overlap one-another. I did check the sources...how else could I have made my comment without having done so? Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Carl, I didn't mean to sound rude like that. That was my bad on being dumb and not knowing what that word meant and also just having a bad tone in my response. I apologize.Rodwa4 (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to clarify, do you agree that the part about it being in the Middle East should be removed or do we need to further discuss it? Rodwa4 (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem, really, but ty for the apology. I do appreciate it. And yes, I agree that the part about it being in the Middle East should be removed. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please remove "and the Middle East." from the second sentence of the lead, ending the sentence at "South Asia." Per the discussion above, the provided references do not say it is a Middle Eastern country. Thanks. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Behnam wanted me to go through the talk archive to see how this was discussed before. Looking at it, it does seem there is at least one RS which says Afghanistan is in the Middle East, here: http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/cmenas/info.htm. So maybe we should replace the existing refs for "Middle East" with this one? What does everyone think? Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've now done this. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Afghan military numbers are not listed but police are.

Afghan National Army: 76,000

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-05/11/content_8146907.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rasmasyean (talk • contribs) 21:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cuisine

It has been suggested that we add something about Afghanistan's cuisine to this article. I opted to add a link in the see also to Cuisine of Afghanistan, but what do others think? Do we need to put a couple/few sentence into the culture section? My only hesitation is that the article is plenty-long enough as it is. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

separate sections for the Soviet occupation, and the civil war?

The Soviet forces in 1989, leaving a puppet regime. The anti-communist militia continued to fight that puppet regime.

Didn't the anti-communist militia's overthrow the communists circa 1991? Didn't the loose coalition lead to a new President, who unfortunately only controlled Kabul, initiating several years of civil war in the rest of the country?

The article currently implies that the Soviet Union's puppets continued in power until they were overthrown by the Taliban in 1995. But, that's not right, is it?

Shouldn't there be separate sections for the Soviet occupation, and the civil war that followed it, during which the Taliban rose to power?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes Geo Swan you are right, when the Mujahideen overthrew the Communists in 1992, there was a disagreement over which factions of the Mujahideen would take power, and the result was a devastating civil war which may have caused as much or even more damage then the Soviet invasion did. Then the Taliban overthrew the Mujahideen faction that was in control of Kabul in 1995/1996. If I get the time I will try to rewrite this section and cite some good sources. Rodwa4 (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Alefbe, it is clear to me that you do not understand phonology through your edits. Please do not make further edits unless you are certain that they are correct. I will explain, though, that [æ] does not represent the front open vowel as well as [a]. For proof, say the English word "man" with an American accent; and then say the pɒrsi word for "me".--DJ1AM (talk) 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[a] doesn't represent that vowel in Persian (it is [æ] without any doubt). You can check any book related to Persian phonology (for example, references that are cited in Persian phonology). If you insist on changing it, first cite a reliable source. Alefbe (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Those phonology books are wrong. [æ] was created as a part of the IPA vowels specifically to accomodate American English; notice that it is not representative of one of the four major vowel heights. pɒrsi does not have this sound. [a] is a more accurate and general representation of that vowel. -- DJ1AM (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Cite a reliable source. This Persian vowel is pronunced as "a" in the English words "cat", "hat" and "man" (it is definitely [æ]). Alefbe (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is definitely not [æ]. Just because some book says that it is does not make it so. Anybody can read a book and decide to edit wikipedia. Let the people that have read the books and understand the subject edit the subject matter. -- DJ1AM (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

DJ1AM, do not change sourced material. Azalea pomp (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The OED gives Afghanistanism as "æf{sm}gæn{shti}st{schwa}{smm}n{shti}z({schwa})m" and Afghan as "{sm}æfgæn". It seems obvious that [æ] reflects sourced material, while [a] does not. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

While it is great that you know how to copy text out of a book, I doubt that you have an understanding of what is written. Your lack of understanding is shown through the use of phonological brackets in your edits rather than phonetic ones. Your transcription would be closer to being correct if it were in phonetic brackets. For an introduction to the subject matter, read David Odden's book Introducing Phonology.-- DJ1AM (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And Carl.bunderson, your source is not of much use as it uses a nonnative pronunciation, using [æ] instead of [ɒ]. -- DJ1AM (talk) 21:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I'm not terribly good at understanding IPA, but for the matter at hand, I am able to distinguish between ae and a. And the matter of "nonnative pronunciation" is not one of importance. The English WP is concerned with the pronunciation of "Afghanistan" in the English language, not the native languages of Afghanistan. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that anyone is interested in the foreign pronunciation of a name. It is much more useful to include the native pronunciation as that is the one that would be informative to most users. -- DJ1AM (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Does Cowan and Rakusan actually say that that is the pronunciation of Afghanistan? If so, you need to provide a page number. And if not, the reference needs to be removed because it is misleading. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have looked at the Cowan source (page 50) and he uses [æ] for Persian short "a" and no Afghanistan is not listed in the source. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, this is the Persian pronunciation of the name. Since this is English wikipedia, the English pronunciation should be included as well as the Pashto pronunciation. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

See this is my concern...we can't use Cowan as a source for the pronunciation of "Afghanistan" when Cowan does not show the pronunciation of Afghanistan. This feels like a novel synthesis. Since there was never a source provided for the pronunciation, perhaps we should omit the pronunciation until someone provides a RS for it in IPA notation. Though I do wish this elusive pp 50 would show up on the Google Book preview. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree Carl.bunderson. Azalea pomp (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Straightforward synthesis, based on reliable material, should be fine. The problem with DJ1AM's edit was that DJ1AM didn't provide any source for the basis of his/her synthesis and his/her synthesis was not consistent with reliable sources. Alefbe (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

So we'll revert to the last edit by Kozuch, which includes no pronunciation? Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Until, we can all agree and have some academic sources, I say no pronunciation. We could include the pronunciation in English as this is English wikipedia. This is from the American Heritage Dictionary: [æfˈgænɪstæn], page 23 fourth addition. Azalea pomp (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with including that American Heritage pronunciation now, and as other clearly sourced pronunciations are found, to add those in addition. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's put the English pronunciation on the page and wait to do more research to find the exact pronunciations in Dari and Pashto which are sourced. Azalea pomp (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I added the pronunciation you provided, and cited the 4th edition of the Am.Heritage dictionary. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The identification of the Persian low vowels as [æ], [ɒ] comes straight from the IPA Handbook. However, that's for Tehran dialect. kwami (talk) 06:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this will be helpful to this debate, but I learned Dari from teachers who all formerly lived in Kabul, several of which taught at Kabul University, and they taught me to pronounce Afghanistan with each of the "a"s being pronounced like the vowel in the English words "on" and "frog". I know nothing of phonology, so I don't know how those vowels should be represented, but that is how it should sound if you are looking for the native Afghan sound. Also the "gh" in Afghanistan representes the Persian letter "ghayn" (غ), which is a sound completely non-existent in English, so I don't know how you want to deal with that. I hope this information is helpful. Rodwa4 (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Languages

The source cited for languages, the CIA World Fact Book, says: "Languages: Afghan Persian or Dari (official) 50%, Pashto (official) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%, much bilingualism." --Bejnar (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The Ethnologue lists 47 languages: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=Afghanistan Azalea pomp (talk) 03:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Errors in this article

The name Afghan-stan comes from sanskrit, It was orginally ashva-gana-sthan, in sanskrit ashva=horse, gana=people and shtan=land. Beacuse of the numerous horse riders it was named so. If we apply normal phonetic rules of this area, we realise that 'f' ans 'shv' are commonly interchanged and replaced by each other.

Ashok Harsana freewebtown.com/ashokharsana —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashokharsana (talk • contribs) 08:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this article is locked, I cannot make any edits, but I have noticed two erros in this article: Under the "Demographics" section, there is a reference to the "Afghani" population. I don't know if it is a typo or just ignorance by the author, but Afghani is the currency used in Afghanistan, the population should be refered to as "Afghan" (no "i"). Also, directly below that in the "Languages" section, it is written that the two official languages are Pashto and Persian (Dari dialects). This is also wrong, the official languages are Pashto and Dari, and Dari happens to be a Persian language, but Persian itself is the official language of Iran, not Afghanistan. Rodwa4 (talk) 23:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Afghani can refer to a person of Afghanistan, as well as the currency. It is much less commonly used than is Afghan, though, so I would support a standardization of the use of 'Afghan' in the article. And I suggest some more people take up th Dari/Pashto issue. It's been something of a hot potato on the page. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well let me just say this, in Dari and Pashto both, both "Afghan" (افغان) and "Afghani" (افغانی) are used, however "Afghan" is used to refer to people, and "Afghani" is only used to refer to inanimate objects, such as an "Afghani rug" etc, but even in that capacity it is much more common to say "Afghan rug". In any case it is better for us to use "Afghan", because nobody will argue that "Afghan" is not a proper term, but the use of the term "Afghani" on wikipedia inevitably generates protests and conflicts. Rodwa4 (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we're agreed then that within the article "Afghan" should be used exclusively as the demonym (excepting of course the single instance in the footnote to the infobox). If an admin wants to change "Afghani" to "Afghan" in the demographics section, that would be great. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

In the first sentence of the Demographics section, please changed "Afghani" to Afghan, per above discussion, as well as other demonym discussions. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In the Transport section a sentence reads, "one is between Heart and the Iranian city Mashad." I believe the Afghan city should be changed to Herat. Friedpez (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for spotting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit protected

{{editprotected}}

Update Infobox with the following:

• GDP (PPP) / 2007 estimate
  • Total: $19.84 billion (114th)
  • Per capita: $724 (172nd)

Source: List of countries by GDP (PPP) and List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cheers, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protect

I don't think a month old edit war is enough to merit full protection on a mainspace page. Semi-edit and sysop-move would be a better idea. Just voicing my opinion. --Boss Big (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, it wasn't a single edit war. It is a history of repeated disruptions by a single sock. I don't think semi is a bad idea, but there was more to the full protection than one edit war. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

More precisely, it was a sock war lasting over one year, with two sock masters appearing with fresh socks daily. The amount of disruption we've seen here was mindboggling. I'm strictly against lifting the protection until we know they've both actually given up. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How will we know they've given up? The last time Beh-nam appeared, he was not tendentious as usual, and I haven't encountered him since 29 June. How long of a non-appearance would you say is necessary before we can return to semi? Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know. But I'd give it some more time, at least a month or so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove reference scrolling

Please remove the scrolling capability (the div tags) of the references section. Basically, the scroll box cuts out all of the references not shown when a user prints the page. See this discussion for more details: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 11#Template:Scrollref. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Also add this disclaimer right before the {{reflist|2}}:

<!-- Please DO NOT use a scroll template or form/table for the reflink, please read warning on the scroll template page [[Template:Scroll box#Warning]]. Thank you -->

− Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed, thanks for reporting. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Early U.S. Involvement

I'd like to take issue with the wording of one of the sentences in the Republic section. According to the article:

The U.S. saw the situation as a prime opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union. As part of a Cold War strategy, in 1979 the United States government (under President Jimmy Carter and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski) began to covertly fund and train anti-government Mujahideen forces through the Pakistani secret service known as Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), with the intention of provoking Soviet intervention, (according to Brzezinski).

The sentence in question cites this source as a reference. However, the source doesn't really confirm that the U.S. intended to provoke a Soviet intervention. Indeed, the following portion of the interview seems to disagree with this assessment:

Interviewer: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?

Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.

Based on the interview, my impression is that the Carter administration was primarily concerned with overthrowing the Soviet-allied government of Afghanistan. They were aware that their strategy could potentially lead to Soviet intervention, and did not view this as a drawback. However, Soviet intervention was not the primary goal. If I could edit the article myself, I would simply remove the last phrase of the sentence.

By the way, the interviewer cites Robert Gates's memoir "From the Shadows" as a the primary source revealing early U.S. involvement in Afghanistan. I think the article should probably cite this book as well as the interview. Most Americans aren't aware that U.S. involvement began this early, so more sources (and more information if possible) would be helpful.

Afghanistan Topics

I have now made a Template of Afghanistan-related topics:

{{Afghanistan topics}}

Please if you can add to it. Also, can someone put this in the article.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 01:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC) And could you also add a link to the Afghanistan Portal. Cheers.Ardeshire Babakan ^{اردشیر بابکان} (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Misleading petroleum and gas reserve figures?

The figures in the article for petroleum and gas reserves seemed way high when reading the article 22 August 2008. Knowing that the U.S. Geological Survey had been rather active in-country (I did a lot of development work in Afghanistan 2006-7), I poked around their site. A March 2006 USGS report on undiscovered reserves in the north is at http://afghanistan.cr.usgs.gov/downloadfile.php?file=Oil%20and%20Gas%20Resources.pdf (11.2MB PDF; apparently non-conforming to older PDF standards as it is finicky as to which reader will open it). It appears that the the author of this portion of the article used this report's optimistic "F5" values, meaning an estimate of reserves having only a 5% chance of being met or exceeded by the actual hydrocarbon deposits. It seems that the "F50" or mean values would be far more realistic; the "F5" values are out near the end of the statistical tail. What does the community think about changing the figures to reflect USGS' "F50" values (and it goes without saying properly referencing the source)? Best regards, Darwinianphysicist (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afghan British. Badagnani (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ibn Battuta described distorting

Ibn Battuta did not describe afghans as a tribe of persian..!! this is the original text from arabic he said:

"ثم سافرنا إلى كابل وكانت فيما سلف مدينة عظيمة وبها ألان قرية يسكنها طائفة من العجم يقال لهم الأفغان ولهم جبال وشعاب وشوكة قوية واكثرهم قطاع طريق وجبلهم الكبير يسمى كوه سليمان"

tranclation:

and then We travelled on to Kabul, formerly a vast town, the site of which is now occupied by a village inhabited by a range of Ajam called Afghans . They hold mountains and defiles and a position of strength, most of them are highwaymen and their largest Mount is called Koh Solomon

--Bayrak (talk) 22:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If you find RS supporting your translation, it will be discussed and the article modified. Until you find a RS, this is OR and we have to have the article reflect what the RS says. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

yes I have this [4] an page from the full text of Ibn Battuta book show his sentence --Bayrak (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We need a RS for the translation, not the original Arabic. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

this is the original text.. --Bayrak (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware it is the original text. However, an Arabic text does us next-to-no good without a translation on the English WP. We have a RS giving us a translation of it, and a translation submitted by a user is not verifiable. It will not be included in the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

you have the original text now..this is my Maximum effort --Bayrak (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"questionable" court rulings, NPOV

The article says "The previous court, appointed during the time of the interim government, had been dominated by fundamentalist religious figures, including Chief Justice Faisal Ahmad Shinwari. The court had issued numerous questionable rulings, such as banning cable television, seeking to ban a candidate in the 2004 presidential election and limiting the rights of women"

Doesn't it violate the the NPOV policy to call these decisions "questionable"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web wonder (talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes; I've fixed it so that it is now npov. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the unilateral changes by User:Banigul. Tājik (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Name

I've removed the large copy and paste text from the "Name" section. The etymological origins of the word "Afghan" are quite irrelevant for this article, because the modern nation "Afghanistan" does not have its name from the ancient Ashvakas. The country got this name in the 19th century, during the Great Game. In it's modern usage - and that's what's important for this article - the word "Afghan" is synonymous with "Pashtun", the founders of Afghanistan. Tājik (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Trade in antiquities

See here: Talk:Economy_of_Afghanistan#Trade_in_antiquities --Zaccarias (talk) 00:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

"Land of Afghans"

In the first portion of this article Afghanistan is translated to Land of the Afghans. This is correct however, somebody decided to link the word Afghans in this part to an article on the Pashtun people. I believe this is inappropriate and misleading to do so as Afghan refers to citizens of the state of Afghanistan who are not all Pashtun (e.g. Tajik, Aimaq, Turkmen, Hazara). Kouroush12 (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)Kouroush12

No, that is actually correct. The original meaning of "Afghanistan" is "Land of Pashtuns", and that's also how it was used originally. The meaning has changed recently, since 1964. See the name section for more information. A survey by ABC/BBC/ARD shows that still 1/3 of the country does not identify as "Afghan". Tājik (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please do not try to refight this battle. The term "Afghan" in the Wikipedia refers to persons, places or things from the area or culture that currently exists as Afghanistan, whether it is Tajik, Pashto or other. Please see all of the previous discussions, here and elsewhere. Edits that may mislead readers from this editorial usage should be vigorously examined and restated to make them clear. --Bejnar (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not misleading, but simply a fact. In academic encyclopedias, such as Encyclopaedia of Islam, the term "Afghan" is only used for the Pashtun people, their language, and history. All other groups, such as Tajiks or Hazaras, are categorized independently. The article "Afghan" only deals with the Pashtuns and the Pashto language and has no association with other groups. I can send you the PDF-File, if you want.

As for the discussion, I think it is useless, because there is a very good etymology section. That one sentence should be removed from the intro. Tājik (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You may think that discussion is useless, but it is the Wikipedian way. We are not concerned primarily with academic jargon, but with how words are used in English. We respect academia for its insights, but the Wikipedia is not an academic journal. The Encyclopaedia of Islam is not the final authority, in fact, while it is a respected resource, the "point of view" of its individual article authors must always be considered. Please read the "useless discussion" that resulted in the consensus discussed above. Don't make edits just to prove a point. Discuss things with other editors. If you think the existing consensus is incorrect about English usage of the word Afghan, then propose a change at WP:CFD. --Bejnar (talk) 05:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What the communists did in Afghanistan

Afghan related articles needs more information about what the communist did in Afghanistan. While most of its work has been forgotten thanks to its collapse in 1992 and Mujahideen and Taliban forces destroying much of the infrastructure they buildt. It must be understood that the communists did many great and good things for Afghanistan. For example, during the Daoud's Republic of Afghanistan their were only 5 kindergartens in the whole country, in 1991 there were 400 kindergartens in Afghanistan. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/26/afghanistan.comment) The DRA and PDPA had many other accomplishments, such as when it came to education, law enforcements etc.... They did a great deal and its not mentioned thanks to this American and Afghan anti-communist biaz.

Just as this is clear, i'm not a communist. But my point is that we can't forget all the good things they did for this country, they did alot. They accomplished much more then what the Afghan government did from 1919-1973. Can we please discuss this? --Im a Socialist! What Are You (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Any such information would need to meet our standards for verifiability and reliable sources. Discussion of the topic is premature until you've cited sources which can be reviewed. Thanks, Doc Tropics 17:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that an editorial column like the one you linked to is not considered RS for factual content, only opinions, even if the newspaper that publishes it is normally considered RS for other purposes. Doc Tropics 17:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well the man, Jonathan Steele has reliable sources on his side, and their are many existing sources other then the Guardian. Just take a look at the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan page which has a tone of references or any other page if you want to which has a tons of references. I have alot more reliabe sources that sais that communist Afghanistan wasn't a screw up. --Im a Socialist! What Are You (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If you decide to rewrite and put these sources within the article, I will support you. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The book here gives a completely different picture. The scale of the fighting and destruction caused by the very fact that "there was a war with a 20th century superpower" makes it clear that here facts are speaking. No need to consider Guardian seriously.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Differentiating between the government and the invasion wouldn't exactly be inaccurate. The government survived for a time even after Soviet withdrawal. As I said before, let's see what sources he can come up with; to me that makes the biggest difference. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 02:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the infrastructure was destroyed by the Mujahideens and later the Taliban!! This is Kabul in 1993 after the fall of the communist regime. The mujahideens came to power and fought against them selfs which eventually destroyed the infrastructure in Kabul and other big cities.

Xashaiar, i'm not saying the war didn't happened. My point is that the big cities in Afghanistan were safe houses of a kind, it was the country side which was ravaged by the war the big cities were virtually untouched!(http://books.google.com/books?id=cd85ioPsz6cC&pg=PA101&dq=Revolutionary+Council+PDPA&hl=no#PPA108,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=v0THAAAAIAAJ&q=Abdul+Qadir+Dagarwal&dq=Abdul+Qadir+Dagarwal&hl=no&pgis=1 http://books.google.com/books?id=-cYOAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA128&dq=Chairman+of+the+Revolutionary+Council+PDPA&hl=no#PRA1-PA129,M1 http://books.google.com/books?id=e5Az1lGCJwQC&pg=PA63&dq=Revolutionary+Council+PDPA&hl=no#PPA64,M1 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/feb/26/afghanistan.comment) The government had full control over the cities. An example of this is that the rebels never attacked Kabul, while they mananged to destroy some houses before the Soviet invaded the country. With help from the Soviet Union they managed to build Kabul and hold it safe til 1992. It is importent to note that the Kabul government didn't fall because of the Mujahideen, it fell because of unrest within the party much thanks to the two factions Khalq and Parchams.(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD1231F935A25751C0A96F948260&scp=4&sq=Afghanistan%20Soviet%20Union&st=cse&pagewanted=2)

With help from the Soviet Union they were able to build up infrastructure in the country in the biggest cities. One of the first thing the Soviets did, was to build a road through the country. This comes from the Fall of Kabul, 1992 section Library of Congress Country Studies "Kabul ultimately fell to the mujahedin because the factions in its government had finally pulled it apart. Until demoralized by the defections of its senior officers, the army had achieved a level of performance it had never reached under direct Soviet tutelage. It was a classic case of loss of morale. The regime collapsed while it still possessed material superiority."(http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/aftoc.html)

Following bit from the DRA article: For several years the government army had actually increased their effectiveness past levels ever achieved during the Soviet military presence. But the government was dealt a major blow when Abdul Rashid Dostum, a leading general, switched allegiances to the Mujahideen in 1992 and together they captured the city of Kabul.(http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEFDB133AF93BA25757C0A964958260&pagewanted=1 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1563344.stm)

I have much more sources supporting the build up of Afghani infrastructure during the the communist regime. --Im a Socialist! What Are You (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Note i have many more references Many of them are used on the DRA and the PDPA articles among others.

Move the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan to Republic of Afghanistan!

Why, well after National Reconciliation talks in 1987 they came up with the agreement of removing "Democratic" from their officiall name. So after the NR talks the countries offical name was the Republic of Afghanistan! --Im a Socialist! What Are You (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation 2

The current cited source is for American English and the readers should be reminded that its the common American pronunciation (not necessarily a universal English pronunciation). Alefbe (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not even normal to add a cite in a pronunciation guide; the fact that it is cited to an American dictionary doesn't mean that it is only an American pronunciation. since you are attempting to make a change, please provide a Reliable Source that another pronunciation is in common usage amongst English speakers. Absent compelling evidence, the change isn't appropriate or possible within WP guidelines and policies. If you are not familiar with our policies, the most pertinent to this situation is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks, Doc Tropics 20:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Idk if you saw it earlier on the talk page, which I'm going to archive in a sec I think, but the cite is there because Alefbe added an unsourced pronuncation, or something to that effect some time ago. We had to add a ref because it raised such a tiff. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Doc's rationale on your talk page, the existing situation is fine. There is nothing to indicate that it is an "American" (ie, as opposed to other Anglophone) pronunciation of the word. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Carl. When I saw that this section was labeled "Pronunciation 2" I naturally found and reviewed the original discussion. Normally it's fairly easy to see another editor's point of view, understand their concerns, and work towards article improvement together. In this case tho, I'm having real trouble understanding the possible motivation. I'll continue to watch both of these pages for further developments. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The Persian pronunciation is useful, so I restored it. It would be nice to also have Pashtun. We just need to give the English pronunciation first (assuming we include it), and clearly mark all non-English pronunciations for which language they are. kwami (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The pronunciation is definitely American. My Oxford Hachette English-French dictionary (which uses British English first) shows the current pronunciation as an American variant. Plus, as an RP speaker, I can tell you that I don't pronounce it in the way in the article. If you listen to the pronunciation on this BBC documentary clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmRUJkgRy50 you can tell it's not the same as the pronunciation provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.169.195.252 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Pashto/Farsi

Pashto is spoken by many pashtuns in rural areas. However the survey can not find them and it's hard for them. So I think thet statistics of pashto should be higher. Infact I think I should do my own survey :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.98.153 (talk) 06:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Do that and insha'Allah publish it and we can cite it. --♥pashtun ismailiyya 00:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Download the PDF and read it. At the end, it is stated how and where the people were asked. It is a representative survey, comparable to surveys before elections. The numbers are pretty accurate and reflect the scholastic numbers of the Encyclopaedia Iranica from 1960s/70s. Tajik (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009 image overhaul

Before adding an image to the article consider that Wikipedia is not an image repository. The gallery tag is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article. There is an article for that purpose at Wikimedia Commons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilder Kaiser (talk • contribs) 15:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed Weather section

The Weather section seemed not very informative or well written, with information that is really an aspect of geography, so I removed it, slightly expanded the climate information in our Geography section, and added a pointer to the much more complete Geography of Afghanistan#Climate. I hope someone can improve what I wrote, to make it more representative of the country as a whole. It seems to me that detailed climate information is better maintained in one place, the Geography of Afghanistan article. Peter Chastain (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic groups

I removed the material that was added from "Glossary: Pashtun, or Pakhtun" by Pierre Tristam at About.com as a copyright violation. --Bejnar (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Haseeb Naz (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I would like to add my link to this page related to Afghanistan Rulers and some of their coins in my collection. It can be viewed at: http://www.chiefacoins.com/Database/Countries/Afghanistan.htm

The population of Hazaras in Afghanistan is not 8 or 9 percent. It is 19 - 25 percent.

vandalism

I have restored an older version of the article, because the entire article had been vandalized by certain users (Kabul --> Terror Comap, emblem --> gay flag, etc.) Tajik (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

New link for the "External links"

I would like to insert a link for Afghanistan under "General Information"; I think it could be interesting to have a country profile linking to the FAO of the UN.

http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/index.asp?lang=en&ISO3=AFG

Thank you.

--MontseBL (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Eradicated Opium

How much they have eradicated it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentagonshark666 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I've modified the wording in the article, so that it more clearly matches the source. Clearly it wasn't really eradicted, though, as can be seen in the economy section of this article or through searching "opium afghanistan" on google news. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to delete the external link to "how hemp could save afghanistan", it's a sort of promotion of drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.7.131.40 (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

It's possible. I wouldn't recommend it, though. It's a perfectly valid viewpoint, and wikipedia has an obligation to maintain a neutral position. I wouldn't say it's a promotion of drugs either; by that standard, wikipedia would be promoting an awful lot of drugs. 74.78.127.28 (talk) 01:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan Province Map

Image: Provinces... does not agree with numbered text of province names. They are incorrect.

Fixed it. --MarsRover (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead section not giving a picture of what Afghanistan means as a nation

The sentences at the end of the lead section about a U.S.- Afghanistan partnership and aid money seemed too detailed for an introduction; the sentences also lacked any further development later on in the article, therefore they have been removed. In fact, the majority of the lead section seems far too focused on giving an overview of Afghanistan's war history. The lead section would be better off detailing some early dates marking the origins of Afghanistan, and the diversity of peoples who live and have lived there, and some explanations of their customs and culture, as opposed to a list of invasions by outside forces.

I propose that the second and third paragraphs be rewritten to give information about what it means to be Afghani, specifically linguistically, religiously, culturally, and historically.

--Baumgaertner (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

CIA fact book

This currently gives the population as 33,609,937 (July 2009 est.). And urban population: 24% of total population (2008). This is a larger and more recent figure than is given in the article. -https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/AF.html93.96.148.42 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

list of languages

the phrase: "30 minor languages, primarily Balochi, Nuristani, Pashai, Brahui, Pamiri languages, Hindko, etc." is confusing because it lists the name of a single language, then the name of a group of languages, then two more names of single languages, then another name of a group...etc. That would be like saying "languages spoken in Europe include Portuguese, Germannic, Italian, Hungarian, Slavic...." Anyway, please try to make the list a litle more orderly. tashakur! Jakob37 (talk) 02:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect summary of a news survey

I removed the statement "According to the survey "Afghanistan: Where Things Stand" (average numbers from 2005 to 2009), 69% of the interviewed people preferred Persian, while 31% spoke Pashto", because that is not what ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD POLL – AFGHANISTAN: WHERE THINGS STAND, February 9th, 2009, p. 38-40 said. That survey only reported two items: 1) language of interview, that was 70% in Dari and 30% in Pashto; and 2) percentage which can read language that was 40% for Dari and 29% for Pashto in the 2009 survey (down from 51% for Dari and 43% for Pashto in the 2004 survey). Neither of these items support the statement which was removed. MassaGetae(talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhmm ... saying that "69% of the interviewed people preferred Persian, while 31% preferred Pashto" (average numbers) is exactly what the poll is describing. See page 39. Tajik (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement and the section was about languages spoken in Afghanistan. MassaGetae(talk) 01:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The report didn't say why they were conducted in Dari or Pashto. It is really a stretch to include that kind of data in a section dealing with percentage of population that are native speakers. --Bejnar (talk) 02:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the name

"Afghān" is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan (and the non-Paštō-speaking ethnic groups generally) designate the Paštūn. The equation [of] Afghan [and] Paštūn" the word Afghan should be replaced by the word Aoghan where we are talking about Pastouns. There is difference between the two words. reding the book by Daivajna Varāhamihira it does not equal the two words (Afghan and Aoghan) The word Aoghan describes ethic background pastuns the word Afghan the people of Afghanistan. The article is very deceptive as it implies that Afghanistan is land of pastun’s. Also the Khushal Khan Khattak poet who is written in Pasto he does not say Afghan in his poets but it says Aoghan in translation so please change that too. comment added by Spf108 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

US response to the Soviet invasion

This article suggest that US involement began after the Soviet invasion but many sources suggest that the US may have helped instigate that invasion. I think this is of important historical relavance. For instance: A 1998 interview in the Le Nouvel Observateur mentioned that Robert Gates stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In that same interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski he stated:

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul.... That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war."

Source:www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html and [Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan#1979:_Soviet_deployment] 172.165.240.132 (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The US involement before the soviet invasion is clarified in the wiki article on Zbigniew Brzezinski: "...the arming of the mujahideen in Afghanistan[3] to fight against the Soviet-allied Afghan government to increase the probability of Soviet invasion and later entanglement in a Vietnam-style war..." This article presents the missleading and incorect "after invasion involvement" and should be corrected. Administrators: Please either correct or unlock this article. Thanks. 172.134.81.176 (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The statement in this wikipedia article is wrong because it definitly implies that the US had no involvement until after the Soviet invasion and was then only involved following occupation. There is no hint of the contradictions as elaborated upon in the Zbigniew Brzezinski article. Please change "In responce to the Soviet occupation" to read "Prior to the Soviet invasion". The references sited in the Brzezinski article should be added, or other similar refreference could be sited.172.165.4.21 (talk) 23:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AFGHAN BOY

• File:Http://www.facebook.com/home.php?

Population of Afghanistan

The article says 28 million. But this news article http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/08/18/afghanistan-presidential-election-nato471.html, as of this writing, mentions "50 million Afghan voters". Henjeng55155 (talk) 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up. I was able to update the article with the CIA World Factbook's latest info, which indicated 33,609,937. This still doesn't match the news story's claim of 50 million registered Afghan voters, but the Factbook is generally considered very reliable for these purposes, so I stuck with that figure. Maybe the whole country is like Chicago and has a big "graveyard vote". Doc Tropics 00:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't think that CIA World Factbook is so reliable, in many cases it is in severe contrast to the national founts, the UN or the simple good sense. For instance, the CIA Factbook estimates year after year wrong datas for Italy (total population and crude birth and death rates), that are openly in contrast with the National Statistical Institute of Italy. In my opinion, the CIA gives provisional figures that are absolutely not accurated and we should use the UN estimates (28 million). In 1979 the Afghan population was 13,051,358. It's improbable that after 30 years of war (2,000,000+ dead in 1979-2009) the population is tripled, even considering the conutry's high birth rate. Have a good day.--Conte di Cavour (talk) 15:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

UN's estimates are indeed much more reliable. Most of the population data CIA World Factbook are either outdated data or rough estimates based on outdated data. Nonetheless, its economic data seem more reliable. Alefbe (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've seen the Factbood used so extensively in "Country X" articles that I simply took it to be a standard reference. I'm certainly willing to accept that the UN's number would be more accurate and up-to-date, and everyone seems to agree that the figure of 50 million has no real merit. I actually suspect that "50" was a typo and it should have been reported as "5 million registered voters". Thanks to both of you for such useful responses. Doc Tropics 18:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

CIA's 31 million estimate includes the roughly 3 million Afghan refugees who are residing in Pakistan and Iran on a temporary bases. The Afghan refugees are citizens of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran does not grant citizenship or Permanent resident status to them. CIA and UN work together, they share information.--Jrkso (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Global role of Afghanistan

For anyone interested on the global role of the Afghan people and its relationship to the world at large, I would like to contribute with this image. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of planet earth afghanistan.svg

Coat of arms of Planet Earth with the name of Afghanistan

The Name of National Anthem which is in Pashtu is Wrong

The Milli Tarana (National Antehm) Should be moved and renamed to Milli Surood. As the name is meant to be the translation of national Antehm in Pashto, as per constitution of Afghanistan which I am giving the link to in Pashto, it is called Milli Surood (national Antehm) There is no Such thing as Milli Tarana. http://www.afghan-web.com/politics/currentconstitutiondaripashto.pdf Muxlim (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

==I could not find the word "Milli Surood" in the constitution could u please inform me of the page. Otherwise please remove the word as it does not exists. Thank you. == comment added by Spf108 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Culture

Well this is unbelievable it is totally obvious that the "Culture" part of this article is written by an IRANIAN.

"Many of the famous Persian poets of the tenth to fifteenth centuries stem from Khorasan where is now known as Afghanistan", is one example.

Are you OK? HOW can this be in the article, this should be removed... it is not correct to refer to IRAN. TO make it short everything which is positive is NOT EQUAL IRAN so avoid the linking please.

Waiting for correction.

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.188.254.126 (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Strongly Agree

The geographical area which constitutes the modern state of Afghanistan has

a rich and indipendent history culture and heritage .

This is not to take away from the Persian heritage

or influence that the two neighbouring areas have

had on each other .

Unfortunately Afghan influence , political , cultural , spiritual on Persia as well Iraq is invariably undermined

This needs correction and a restoration of balance in this as well as other article relating to Afghanstans history

Intothefire (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Falsification

I have removed falsifications and propaganda by User:Larawbar. Tajik (talk) 12:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is their hardly any mention of Afhgnaistan being part of Ancient India?

If you click the article that says History of Afghanistan their is mention of Afghanistan's connection with the Indus Valley Civilization, which has to do with India. And in this article, and other articles, their is mention how Afghanistan has Aryan heritage. And has a history of Hinduism and Buddhism. Their are articles about Khandahar and maybe other places that have note how these cities may have some connectinos with something to do with India in temers of religion, ethnicity, and or culture. I mean some of this can be found here on WIkipeida then. But for some odd reason, their is little mention that Afghanistan has a ethnic and cultural connection with the history and culture of India? It doesn't make sense. I mean if it has all these ties that I have mentioned, doesn't that mean that Afghanistan has connections to the history and culture of India? I am not saying it was part of the country. Because in those days their were no boarders. But wasn't it apart of the local Aryan people? Before Islam werent many people Hindu and Buddhist then here water? So wouldn't it be easier to just say, that ancient Afghanistan has a connection to Ancient India? And before you say no, remmeber something, when you click history of Afghanitan it mention's the connection with the Indus Valley Civiliazation. So that is a connection with Ancient India isn't it? So would anyone object to me making some change's? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 04:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You should not change the article based on your own assumptions and your own conclusions that you reach from your own observations and from your own reasoning as you have presented above. That would be original research and synthesis of other information into your own conclusions. You should only change the article based on facts that are known to you and that can be supported from reliable sources that you can cite and that make those facts explicit.

I'm not sure I understand your comments anyway. Simplifying my understanding of what you said, you say first that the articles say that all these connections exist, and then you complain that the articles don't mention that these connections exist. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So you question what im saying and then you say you dont understand....well how can you question if you dont understand?.......anyway.......to make it simple.....Afghanistan has a cultural connection with Ancient India, in term's of ethnicity, (Aryan heritiage) religions (Hinduism and Buddhism before the arrival of Islam) the name Afghanista itself might have been derived from Sanskrit, an Indian language, Afghanistan has connections to the Indus Valley Civiliazation, which also has to do with India, and is right next to India (including Pakistan), the city of Afghanistan called Khanahar was mentioned in Hindu scripture, and some cities themselves in Afhganistan might have come from partly Indian languages.........and.......most of these thing's that I just mentinoed....are things that you can find here on wikiepdia articles (their scattered all over. Some are in this article itself. Some are in other artilces like the History of Afghanistan. Or the article of Khandahar. Or maybe articles in general that might have to do with Afghanistan then.......so......wouldn't it be easier to just start the historical part of this article by saying Afghanistan has historical and cultural and religous ties with Ancient India, The Indus Valley Civilization, and India then? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not just Afghanistan, even Kazakistan had Hindu temples. I think it is during Kushans. Facts are there, but some editors need to write them with refs. Doorvery far (talk)

Well so why is the history section so vague? I mean it should say how Afghanistan was part of Ancient India. Their were no boarders back then but it was part of a sphere. Even the History of Afghanistan page refers to this. But this article doesn't really capture that as much. I would change it but their is no thing that let's me edit then. Who is in charge of it then? Then? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

No information is better than wrong information. Borders were there, and Indian border had expanded farther at that time. If you have good third party ref telling both fact and importance, you can insert into article. If you are unsure, post the proposed edit or ref here in talk page, and I will put it into the article. Doorvery far (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok thank you.....You seem very nice then.......Ok so here is the proposed information. I think at the start of the article, or somewhere near the start (doesnt have to literally be the start) it should say something like this:........Afghanistan shares a cultural, historical, and geographical tie to that of then Ancient India, South Asia, and the Indus Valley Civilization......Now I can give you the evidience. But I can't source it. And much of my evidence can be found right here on wikipdiea. Is this ok? Should I continue? Thank you then!....hey by the way then.....are you in charge of this article? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 05:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

ISAF is not only composed of Nato- troops

The article says that ISAF is composed of Nato- troops. However there are non-Nato participants also such as Finland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.143.220.156 (talk) 08:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

you forgot about Poland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.201.221.2 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There are 43 countries in ISAF, including several non-NATO countries like Australia, Singapore, Finland, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. See the ISAF website: http://www.isaf.nato.int/en/troop-contributing-nations/index.php --Theboondocksaint (talk) 23:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

...killings of between six hundred thousand and 2 million... -- grammar

I believe it would be standard to say, 600,000 and two million. I will likely change this, but please respond to this if you disagree.Fotoguzzi (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Changed it based on the rule of thumb that two words are spelled out and more than two are in numeral form.Fotoguzzi (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan 2001–present

There is a quote with five references: "She said, 'Accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.'" Unfortunately only a few of the references even refer to the quote, and none give any tangible details concerning the origin of the quote. I will soon tag these [not in citation given], but I will wait to see if others have comments. Thank you,Fotoguzzi (talk) 13:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The alleged quote is hearsay at best. I've looked into this quote and the best I can come up with is that it originates from two french authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. The claim was apparently made during an interview with the two authors. I've been unable to track down a copy of this interview. Since this quote damages the reputation of a living person, and is poorly sourced, I feel that it should be removed. 213.255.229.99 (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

---

I agree. I read this and was slightly skeptical given the conspiratorial tone of the writing.

I checked the sources. The Salon.com article references a July 2001 meeting with Ambassador Simons "another" person. The direct quote is: "Another participant reportedly said the Taliban's choice was clear: either accept a "carpet of gold" riches from the pipeline or "a carpet of bombs," meaning a military strike." As the caveat is "reportedly", we cannot decisively argue that this was said.

The Guardian article cites a BBC article where former Foreign Secretary Niak says a representative spoke of military action, but then cites Inter Press Services and substitutes "carpet of bombs" as the conversation, when in fact the subject and object of the sentence are not Niak, Rocca, or Ambassador Simons. Thus, this article cleverly tries to imply that Niak claimed that was said to him at the July 2001 meeting.

The CommonDreams aritcle (which I think we can all agree is not exactly the pinnacle of journalistic achievement nor an unbiased source) cites a book by two Frenchmen, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, claiming that the quote was made. Though I acknowledge they are intelligence professionals (albeit in the private sector), they provide no sourcing. Moreover, they do not mention Rocca, Simons, or Niak.

The Centre for Research on Globalisation cites the same book by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. This is circular citations.

The History Commons article just shows that Christina Rocca met with Taliban representatives in 2001. Nothing else.

Thus, I agree that it is heresay by two French Authors. None of the citations offer any more than that. I think it should be removed. --Theboondocksaint (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Please see updated sourcing of this information.

Thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Note:

Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie are internationally recognized experts on intelligence and global terrorism. Briscard authored a study of the financial network of the Bin Laden organization for the French intelligence community which was published by the French National Assembly. He testified on his work before the US Congress Joint Inquiry into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and before the US Senate Banking Committee. He also provides training to the French authorities on terrorism and terrorism financing. 66.159.183.69 (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The Asia Times article has nothing about Rocca and carpets. I believe the Asia Times citation should be pulled.

I do not have a copy of the book. There is a website that is obviously hostile to the book authors, but the website does purport to quote the book from the same page as the current wikipedia citation. The website claims the book claims the meeting took place in England in July 2001:

"[Niaz] Naik recounted that a US official had threatened, 'Either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold or we bury you under a carpet of bombs.'" - FORBIDDEN, pp. 42-43 http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/gold.htm

The same website offers this footnote to the page 42 quote:

"Testimony of Niaz Naik, former foreign Minster of Pakistan, obtained by Pierre Abramovici for a television program on the French channel France 3. Naik also repeated these allegations to the 'Guardian' newspaper in London, see 'Threat of US strikes passed to Taliban weeks before NY Attack,' Guardian, September 22, 2001. See also David Leigh's op-ed. 'Attack and Counter-attack...' Guardian, September 26, 2001." -- FORBIDDEN, p. 236

The Guardian articles http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/22/afghanistan.september113 and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/26/afghanistan.terrorism4 contain neither the word Rocca nor carpet. I have not found the France 3 footage. An interview date would have made this a bit easier.

The website (again, hostile to the authors) does not show Rocca's name attached to this quote. I believe the sentence needs to be pulled or altered.Fotoguzzi (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Based on additional (late night!) reading, I concur that the evidence for the Rocca statement is not clear enough. Thus, I will remove the sentence.

Regards - Danieldis47 (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Thanks, all for looking into this.Fotoguzzi (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The mention of the Sikhs...

Why in the world does it say "The Sikhs struck terror in the hearts of the Pashtuns" and "Despite the paucity of troops and the death of the valiant general, the terror of Hari Singh Nalwa’s name alone kept the entire army of the Kingdom of Kabul at bay for over a week"???

This has obviously been done by fanatical Sikh editors. This is an insult to Afghans and should be immediately removed. This must be done because it is simply not true and biased. Whoever put those sentences were cowards, and wikipedia must remove them and it should be done, unless wikipedia is run by Sikhs.

Pakhtunallmighty00 (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

agriculture?

howzabout some discussion of major non-drug crops, etc ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.248.11 (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Major removal of information

This edit: "Jrkso (talk | contribs) (129,033 bytes) (Some information updated) (undo)" removed signifiant sections of the article. It also replaced other sections/sentences (scattered throughout the article) with un-sourced material... With no explanations for the changes provided.

When I try to undo this major revision, I am told: "The edit could not be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits; if you wish to undo the change, it must be done manually."

Can anyone provide advice on how to restore the article?

Thanks!!Danieldis47 (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have figured it out - thanks! Danieldis47 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You're edit-warring again. I improved the article by cleaning it and updating information then you reverted my edits and now asking for sources, sources to what? You appear to be very busy on this Afghanistan page placing too many of your POVs.--Jrkso (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso,

Good afternoon!

In line 76 of this article, you removed numerous sentences, all properly sourced, and gave no explanation.

In line 294, you removed entire paragraphs, all properly sourced, and gave no explanation.

In line 315, you removed virtually everything, and gave no explanation.

Many of your additions are un-sourced. Some, such as your claim that the Afghan National Army now has 10,000 soldiers, are obviously wrong.

Can you explain exactly what your are doing? Are you trying to add constructively to the article?

Thanks! Danieldis47 (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso,

In the absence of a response from you, I am going to undo your mass edits.

Be well,

Danieldis47 (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked you nicely to stop edit-warring but you have continued to do so again. You have to write here what in particular is troubling you, donn't state line numbers. I didn't remove the stuff but just placed it in proper section, follow my edits slowly and you'll see. All information is sourced and I didn't add anything new, just updated some information. All the articles have sources provided, if you want to know how many Afghan National Army there are why don't you click on that ling and see the source provided there? If you're still not satisfied this here says that Afghan army is now 100,000[5] and this here says Afghan National Police force is 81,000 with goal of 160,000 by 2013.[6] Sorry but anyone can edit this page so don't act like you own it.--Jrkso (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for Administrator assistance

Could an Administrator please look at recent edits to this article and the concurrent discussion (above)? I am not sure how to proceed.

Thanks,

Danieldis47 (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Inquiry

Jrkso,

Could you explain on what grounds you deleted the following:

"The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom)."

Also, why does the article include no sources for your estimates of 100,000 Afghan soldiers and 81,000 police?

Thank you. Danieldis47 (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed that sentence because it is a very awkward statement in the lead intro. Why mention this? The number of soldiers are in most cases found in the infobox of their pages, and all you do is make one click to see and verify. Besides, the number of Afghan army and police are growing every year, and it's reported in 100s of media sites.--Jrkso (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Danieldis47 (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent additions

Jrkso,

Good morning!

Under the section "Police" you added/changed the bolded words:

Afghanistan currently has more than 90,000 national police officers, with plans to recruit more so that the total number can reach 160,000. They are being trained by and through the Afghanistan Police Program. In many areas in the past several years, crimes have gone uninvestigated because of insufficient police or lack of equipment. Afghan National Army soldiers have been sent to quell fighting in some regions lacking police protection. Many of the police officers are illiterate due to the 30 years of civil unrest in the country. Approximately 17 percent of them test positive for illegal drugs. They are widely accused of demanding bribes, which is not surprising to see in most developing countries.

As I noted when I tried to revert these edits, none of them are supported by the source provided. It's not clear where the ideas come from. Could you source them, or revert them?

Thanks.

Danieldis47 (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are NPOV statements by me as an editor, you don't need sources for that because the article makes it clear that Afghanistan has been in a state of war since 1979, that schools were destroyed since then, and most males were involved in a bloody civil war, and etc. I think you need to learn the rules of Wikipedia, you come here almost everyday write stuff in here as if Wikipedia is your personal blog. I travelled to a number of poor countries and bribery is a normal business. I don't understand why this surprises you. I find your edits biased, you only present the negative side.--Jrkso (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso,

Thanks for the response.

Per Wikipedia policies, my edits are statements of facts as found in reliable sources, which I provide for review. Are there specific edits I have made that you feel are biased? If so, please list them and explain (specifically) how and why you believe each one is biased. This would be helpful to all. Regarding your edits: Adding a conclusion that "the article makes clear" to you is certainly not "NPOV" -- the article may "make something else clear" to another editor, and so on, and so on, and we move further away from accuracy. Also, what you say you have learned in your travels is certainly your own research and does not belong in Wikipedia. For example, you claim that bribes are common in most developing countries. I ask: 1) According to what expert source? and 2) Why is what may or may not happens in other countries relevant to this article?

I again ask you to revert your edits.

Be well,

Danieldis47 (talk) 21:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts from other editors about this discussion? Reasons that the edits described above should not be reverted?

Note: This is the source for the section under discussuion: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121559123&ps=cprs

Thanks - Danieldis47 (talk) 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are biased, you are only focusing on the negative side. Why don't you mention the number Afghan police that are killed every year in line of duty? There is no mention of any of that. You have to change the way you edit, and why do you sign your name different from everyone else?--Jrkso (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso,

After I attempted to discuss this matter with you on this Talk page, and you failed to respond, I reverted your edits of the “Police” section (for reasons explained above).

Now you have re-inserted your language.

Your edits are un-sourced, POV and use original research (again, see above).

In addition to your edits, you write to me:

“Your edits are biased”

> Despite my requests, you again fail to provide any particulars for this claim of my ostensible “bias.” Which specific edits of mine are biased in what specific way? Absent that information, there is no way to respond to you on this topic.

“You are only focusing on the negative side.”

> I stick to the facts as closely as I can. They speak for themselves. Of course, you are always free to add properly sourced information that you believe to be “less negative.”

“Why don't you mention the number Afghan police that are killed every year in line of duty? There is no mention of any of that.”

> No one editor can be comprehensive. Of course, you can always add this and any other information, following Wikipedia guidelines.

“You have to change the way you edit”

> I don’t think you’ve established a basis for this demand.

“And why do you sign your name different from everyone else?”

> I honestly don’t know what this means.

I have no desire to engage in an editing war.

Yet you persist in making edits that diminish the quality and accuracy of this article.

Can any other editors/Administrators provide assistance here?

Thanks.

Danieldis47 (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso,

You have added this un-sourced statement to the "Police" section:

"Every year many Afghan police officers are killed by militants, and in some cases by NATO forces due to friendly fire incidents."

"Wikipedia:How to Edit a page" states: "If you add information to a page, please provide references, as unreferenced facts are subject to removal." (at: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page)

Per Wikipedia rules, please provide references for your addition or remove it.

Thanks,

Danieldis47 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My intention was not to get you blocked but for you to neutralize your edits. Although you add references, your edits are only making readers look at the bad side, this still makes you a POV pusher. As for me and my edits, I don't need to add a news report after every sentence, most nicely written articles don't do that because the information is believable. If you have doubts about my statements just add a citation needed tag, don't revert my edits. I stated that many Afghan police die in Afghanistan by militants and sometimes by friendly fires, and this is not a POV. See List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan About 800 Afghan police die every year in a country of 28 million, that is considered a very high number and it should be noted. That's like if about 8,000 police officers are being killed every year in USA. For you to ignore this and rather write about Afghan police smoking pot, taking bribes, not able to read or write, it means there is something wrong with you.--Jrkso (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

AFGHAN LANGUAGES - AFGHAN PERSIAN not Persian

The CIA World Factbook is used as a source. So when you use it, make sure the proper language titles are used:

Afghan Persian, NOT Persian

I get the feeling there are some Iranians / Persian descendents on here not writing the correct info.

It is AFGHAN PERSIAN, NOT Persian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.65.115.196 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Links corrected; deletions can be restored

The following sentences under "Government and politics" were deleted due to bad links. I have fixed the links, so the sentences can now be returned to the article.

The sentences are below (in italics) with corrected links:

In November, 2009, Afghanistan slipped three places in Transparency International's annual index of corruption perceptions, becoming the world's second most-corrupt country ahead of Somalia.

In January, 2010, President Karzai reinstated Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum to a top army post despite Western demands for sweeping reform. Dostum is among Afghanistan's most notorious warlords, accused of widespread abuses including the massacre of thousands of Taliban prisoners.

Thanks,

Danieldis47 (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation Spam -- "Afghanis-tan"

There is certainly no need to disambiguate the nation of Afghanistan and a cartoon of similar name. To put it charitably, the "Afghanis-tan" disambiguation link does nothing more than promote the cartoon, and in an inappropriate place. To put it rather uncharitably, it seems that over-active manga fans or a wall-banging script have defaced this article.

I'd like to remove the disambiguation.

Haakondahl (talk) 05:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danieldis47 (talk • contribs)

Citation needed for "Taliban refuse to hand over Osama bin Laden"

Under the topic "War in Afghanistan 2001-present", it is stated "The U.S. military also threatened to overthrow the Taliban government for refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden and several Al-Qaeda members." I believe this statement needs qualifiers because Taliban agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden in October of 2001 as reported by "The Guardian" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11 . The Taliban also came very close to handing over Osama bin Laden in 1998 also reported by "The Guardian" http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/nov/05/afghanistan.terrorism3

Therefore the statement that U.S. overthrew Taliban for refusing to hand over Osama bin Laden is incorrect and needs modifying. Or at the very least the statement needs verifiable citation for the supposed Taliban's refusal. I believe addition of the fact that Taliban agreed to hand over Osama bin Laden is crucial in fully appreciating the fact that American geopolitical interest in the current war is not just dismantling Al-Qaeda network but also Taliban government. 24.190.6.199 (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any way to varify that the "American geopolitical interest" is that? Sounds pretty assumptive of you. Cheers Netsquall (talk) 18:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of sourced information without reasonable justification

Jrkso,

You went ahead and again deleted sourced, significant info about the Afghan election without reasonable cause.

You write, "Danieldis47, Abdullah said that but others are saying that he realized he had no chance to win from Karzai and decided to quit, let's not go into this"

What "others?" What are your sources? Can you share them with us?

Until you do, please do not make deletions that certainly appear to be POV (that is, you don't seem to want readers to know why Abdullah says he quit...).

(I reverted the edit)

Thanks,

Danieldis47 (talk) 20:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality, War in Afghanistan 2001–present

Hello, someone needs to flag this entire section for its neutrality. I'm new to wikipedia and was very shocked at how one-sided this part of the article is. Personally, I feel it should be removed and completely re-written within the confines of Wikipedias standards. It completely attacks one side of the view.

I cannot flag it for neutrality probably because I'm too new. Someone needs to now. Netsquall (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding that there is currently a perfectly good article on the Afghanistan War 2001-Present. Being a newbie here I don't know how to link it. Perhaps, instead of making an entire large article on the country of Afghanistan a minor summary should be made, and the rest be placed in this article? It seems redundant otherwise, and due to the current inflamed edits/re-edits I feel this is probably the best solution, no? Netsquall (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Netsquall,

I urge you to add information to the section so that you no longer feel that it is one-sided.

Thanks,

Danieldis47 (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Netsquall is right, the section also needs to be made shorter. This is Afghanistan article and every section should be explained briefly. Details belong in the main articles.--Jrkso (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso,

If you believe Netsquall is right, then I encourage you as well to add information to the section so that you no longer feel that it is one-sided. In short -- do the work.

I am not clear about what criteria you are using to determine the correct length of articles and their sections. Could you share it? I am also not clear on why you have focused on one or two sections in the article for your "shortenings." Do you plan to delete content from the other 14 or 15 sections as well? If so, on what basis?

Be well,

Danieldis47 (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Danieldis47, you are trying to defend your biased position by claiming they are facts. They are most certainly facts, and are most certainly sourced. Just because they are facts, does not mean they are unbiased. Telling others to do the legwork and locate 'less negative' source material is a very weak defense. A good editor would do it themselves, or alternatively avoid writing it at all. Please explain to how this section is good, or within Wikipedias standards when the first sentence begins with "The United Nations did not authorize the invasion of Afghanistan". Please explain how this is even relavant to the country of Afghanistan as a whole. We know that the invasion and current events certainly play into Afghanistans history and are very relavant, but the facts behind how it came to pass should be, and in fact ARE in one of many other articles on the topic. They DO NOT belong in the primary article about the country of Afghanistan. This doesn't mean they are not relavant facts, merely they are in the incorrect place.Netsquall (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I cannot make edits myself due to lack of registered time, I urge the editors that can to make an appeal to flag this section for its neutrality, or refer these inflamed parts to the correct article. Should the editors not do this, an administrator should get involved. This is atrocious otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsquall (talk • contribs) 18:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Content deleted to "shorten the article"

Jrkso,

In the "Government and politics" section of this article, you just deleted content (see below) in order, you write, to "shorten" the article.

In doing so, you eliminated significant, well-sourced information.

I ask:

1) There are many ways to edit writing to make it briefer without changing its content and meaning. Why did you not edit in such a manner?

2) How did you choose which content you would delete in the name of "brevity?" Your edits seem clearly to change the meaning of the sourced content.

3) You wrote, "... this article is about Afghanistan so keep this as short as possible." How do you decide the correct length of articles and article sections? Is not the state of the Afghan government a topic appropriate for the "Afghanistan" article?

I am concerned about these deletions (deleted text in bold):

"The 2009 presidential election in Afghanistan was characterized by lack of security, low voter turnout and widespread ballot stuffing, intimidation, and other electoral fraud. The vote, along with elections for 420 provincial council seats, took place on August 20, 2009, but remained unresolved during a lengthy period of vote counting and fraud investigation. Two months later, under heavy U.S. and ally pressure, a second round run-off vote between incumbent President Hamid Karzai and his main rival Abdullah Abdullah was announced for November 7, 2009. On November 1, however, Abdullah announced that he would no longer be participating in the run-off because his demands for changes in the electoral commission had not been met, and a "transparent election is not possible." A day later, on November 2, 2009, officials of the election commission cancelled the run-off and declared Hamid Karzai as President of Afghanistan for another 5 year term."

Thanks,

Danieldis47 (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case the well sourced information is meaningless and copying exact words from news articles is copyright violation, in general you are not allowed to use any part of published articles. I follow the general rules of Wikipedia and you should too. You may quickly read how articles about other countries are written and then you'll understand my point. There was only one challenger remaining with Karzai so why put "his main rival"? We don't need to add Abdullah's reasons why he quit the race. More likely he ran out of funds, elections are not for free and I hope you know, and the Afghans are considered very poor people. Widespread ballot stuffing, intimidation, and other, is all election fraud and you don't need to explain it to the reader.--Jrkso (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso,

Your point about copyright is a good one and something I can pay more attention to. Thanks for that.

I don't understand why you say that the well-sourced information is "meaningless." What do you mean?

At your suggestion, I will take a look at other articles about countries.

I would think that any reader who reads that the challenger to the president in an election quit the race would naturally expect some explanation of why that signifiacnt event happened. (BTW: I have not heard/read anything about lack of funds being a factor. Do you have a source(s) related to that suggestion? Thanks.)

I agree that, in this case, the types of fraud can reasonably be summarized as "election fraud."

Take care,

Danieldis47 (talk) 11:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You forgot where I said "In this case". The 2009 Afghan presidential election article contains 250 sources given as references. [7]--Jrkso (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute [War in Afghanistan 2001–present]

I've never actually completed a 'formal dispute process' before, but I'll certainly try my best. I also agree that a few more editors are definitely needed on this matter. More than one or two (or three for that matter) editors should review this article in its entirety.

An overiding policy of wikipedia that apply here are wp:consensus, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are processes to help drive that consensus around these issues. The first step was asking for a third opinion, one that you got. I've made my suggestion. I think we can build wp:consensus by focusing on just one section, with a view towards cutting down the discussion to a summary. You/we can go to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal or Wikipedia:Requests for comment if we feel that won't work.--Work permit (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem 1, this section is lead into immediately with this: "One day before the September 11 attacks in 2001, on September 10, the George W. Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.[72]" It is normal policy for an administration to discuss these types of topics. The editor by applying this as the first comment on the section gives the impression of bias right off the bat. The article quoted for source material itself states "The report pointed out that agreement on the plan, which involved a steady escalation of pressure over three years, had been repeatedly put off by the Clinton and Bush administrations, despite the repeated failure of attempts to use diplomatic and economic pressure." -- if you are going to quote source material from an unbiased source (the entire article doesn't focus on the Bush administration but also on the failures of the Clinton administration to pressure the Taliban during the USS Cole bombing crisis) the editor needs to make sure this information is included. This leads into problem #2. Why does this quote belong here, in an article about Afghanistan as a country? It has no relevance to the topic and should be discussed further under the primary article War in Afghanistan (2001–present). There is no way to make this comment unbiased and neutral without explaining furtherly why the United States lead coalition invaded. All of this detracts from the primary subject matter of the article (Afghanistan as a country) and leads into the section very jarringly.

Problem 2 "Many noted that of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September 11, none were Afghans (fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon).[73] None lived in Afghanistan (they lived in Hamburg). None trained in Afghanistan (they trained in Florida). None went to flight school in Afghanistan (that training occurred in Minnesota).[74]" Wonderfully sourced material, but completely irrelevant to the topic at hand once more. This implies to the uneducated reader that the United States invaded the country with no reason because the terrorists were trained in the United States. Blatant POV bias. It fails to point out that the ringleader did get training in Afghanistan. Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article656440.ece). It once again has no place in an article about the country of Afghanistan as it doesn't further the subject, focusing instead on something completely different (a controversy on the initial invasion, which should be discussed in another, completely different article.)

Problem 3 "The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.[75]" The editors sourcing here doesn't help much. When you click the source link you're slapped with a massive essay. Quoting the essay, "this article discusses the issue of state-sponsored terrorism and the use of military force in combating terrorism in the context of the UN Charter regime on the use of force."... you'd need to spend hours to find what the editor is trying to use as source material. My suggestion here is to find better source material. The next problem with this statement is it is once again biased and irrelevant to the total article on the country of Afghanistan OTHER than to put blame on the United States for invading the country in the first place. While this comment might be true, it isn't balanced by, for example, explaining how many countries supported the United States in its efforts in Afghanistan either by financial or military means. (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force). Once more, to properly balance this section you would further inflate it, and detract from the primary goal of the article as an overview of the country as a whole.

These are the primary three parts that truly show biased POV. There are many other parts, for example "In early December, 2009, the Taliban offered to give the U.S. "legal guarantees" that they will not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries. There was no formal American response.[89]", which is quite relevant but once again biased with nothing to show the other side of the story.

In closing, this entire section, I feel, should be rewritten. I do not have the time, or the know-how to do so, but certainly feel it to be biased as it stands. An expert on the subject should review this. Netsquall (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree The section section should be rewritten. I believe the issues around wp:pov are driven by issues of wp:recentism. See my comments above. I suggest we first agree to limit the size. After agreeing on the size, we can agree on the wording.--Work permit (talk) 05:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Section War in Afghanistan 2001–present

I suggest we limit the section on War in Afghanistan 2001–present to a set number of paragraphs. I believe this will solve issues of wp:npov which are driven by wp:recentism. Please comment agree or diasagree below. I suggest it should be three paragraphs. If you believe it should be another number (for example four) please state so. If you disagree with setting a fixed number of paragraphs, state so as well. After we agree on the number of paragraphs, we can then agree on the wording for each paragraph. I'll show agreement with my own proposal to indicate the preferred format of response:

• Agree Section should be limited to three paragraphs.--Work permit (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• agree Thank you for reviewing and taking the steam out of any bubbling dispute between editors. Forgive my novice ways, I don't feel I can fully contribute further as an editor to this article other than bringing forward this concern. Three paragraphs would be great for this section, allowing the reader to follow links to other articles listing much of the information given in this section Netsquall (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agree Section should be limited to three paragraphs. And thanks for your help! Danieldis47 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Frustration with repeated deletions and un-sourced additions by Jrkso

Jrkso,

I would like to think that you are editing in good faith - but you make it hard! You seem to just pull ideas out of your head, delete well-sourced facts (repeatedly), and replace them with your personal concoctions - sources be damned.

Latest of many examples (for more, see Talk page, above):

You have now decided that the Taliban killed Sitara Achakzai, so you just plopped that into the article in the "Government and Politics" section. You provide no sources for this "new discovery", no explanation. You just went for it (adding bolded words, below):

"Women in public life in many parts of the country are subject to routine threats and intimidation, according to a December, 2009 report by Human Rights Watch. Several high profile women have been assassinated, but their killers have not been brought to justice. When Sitara Achakzai, an outspoken and courageous human rights defender and politician, was murdered by the Taliban in April 2009, her death was seen as another warning to all women who are active in public life."

Do you honestly believe that you are contributing in a worthwhile way to Wikipedia with these methods? You seem to be intent not so much on re-writing the article, but on trying to re-write history itself. No sources, no explanations, no sense.

And it gets worse. On the edit page, where you again deleted facts, you seem to be explaining a deletion with this comment: 'Danieldis47, such a statement ... a "transparent election is not possible." is POV ... how can that not be possible?)"

Man - It's a quote from the candidate himself. It's HIS explanation for why he quit (not mine). That's why it is in quotes. Would you delete an excerpt from Lincoln's Gettysburg Address on Lincoln's page because it's his point of view (POV)?

I am entirely frustrated here.

I suggest we seek third-party mediation.

Danieldis47 (talk) 02:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI -

I went ahead and formally asked for a third opinion.

Danieldis47 (talk) 16:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Danieldis47, you are not innocent in this argument. All of your information, while sourced, is focused too much on one side, or another. I will not argue which side you stand on as this is irrelavant, it is the fact you are not putting a neutral point of view in the article. Nor is Jrsko for that matter. I am glad you've applied for third party review, but do not claim innocence in this matter. Netsquall (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Netsquall,

Thanks for your feedback.

The truth is - for every fact I add to the article that you might view as "negative," there are at least a dozen that I don't add (no need to...) If you become knowledgeable about the present government of Afghanistan, and its army, and its police, you will quickly learn that the overwhelming consensus among unbiased experts is that all three are shot through with corruption and incompetence. You might not like these facts, but facts they are. I must assume that this reality is why you and others have not added what you would consider "positive" (but still sourced) info to the article (as I suggested to you) - you can not find it.

Indeed - if these genuine "positive" stories do exist, I would love to read them and see them as part of the article and be happy for the people of Afghanistan.

It is not "biased" to describe the truth.

Nor is it "neutral" to deny, or to delete, the truth.

ALSO,

I see you have flagged the "War in Afghanistan 2001–present" section for neutrality.

According to Wikipedia guidelines (see: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVD#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F), this is what you are supposed to do now:

"Then, on the article's talk page, make a new section entitled "NPOV dispute [- followed by a section's name if you're challenging just a particular section of the article and not the article as a whole]". Then, under this new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article."

Thanks,

Danieldis47 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Danieldis47, I appreciate where you come from on this. I make no denial that many of what you have applied to this article is truth. As you have noted, I will most certainly engage in this discussion. Unfortunately I'm at work right now and cannot focus enough time on the matter. However, it HAS to be noted that there is most certainly neutrality problems IN THAT SECTION ONLY. The remainder of your concerns and those of jrsko I'm not privy to, only the very blatant POV about the bush administrations decision to invade Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11, the fact that the hijackers were not Afghan, etc. These are all facts yes, but are facts applied to further an argument, thus are point of view and neutrality problems. I'll be happy to elaborate later.Netsquall (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"You have now decided that the Taliban killed Sitara Achakzai, so you just plopped that into the article in the "Government and Politics" section. You provide no sources for this "new discovery", no explanation."

There is plenty of sources that the Taliban claimed responsability. The Huffington Post was the first that popped up on Google. Also, the Wikipedia page on her states repeatedly this, including quotes from The Gov Gen of Canada. He was well within his right to add that piece. This is yet another mark showing your biasedness.Netsquall (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Netsquill,

Greetings!

Are you going to complete the formal NPOV dispute process you started for the "War" section, as prescribed by Wikipedia? Or should we remove the tag you placed?

(Actually, I am a bit confused. Your comment when you added the NPOV tag referred to an "edit war." I am not aware of any contested edits at all in this section of the article. What edits and "edit war" are you referring to?)

As for your most recent accusations under the "Government and politics" section - I thought you had already agreed with me that the formal third-party approach (which I have started) was best. So why the new attacks?

(BTW - I'm fairly sure there is no word "biasedness"...)

In any event: Jrkso (per his style, apparently) provided no sources, references, or explanations when he made his addition regarding the Taliban and murder. That would seem to violate both the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. Now you/Jrkso are making after-the-fact explanations. Why did you wait until now? Yet even these are explanations appear weak: 1) You provide no actual links to the sources you describe; and 2) Even then, you just state that the Taliban claimed they killed Achakzai -- yet somehow, this distinction didn't make it into your un-sourced addition to the article. Hmmm...

Look - For all I know, the Taliban did kill her. But such claims, about murder and all, should be well-documented, wouldn't you agree?

So why don't we call a truce on the accusations and wait for the third-party process in these matters. That would seem like the most civil approach.

Take care,

Danieldis47 (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hi. I'm no expert in the field, have never edited this article, and am just here to help. Strictly speaking, you don't need a "third opinion" because more then two editors are involved in the discussion. But I'm happy to provide a 4th opinion.—Work permit (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this last edit by JRSKO [8], I agree it should be sourced. I suspect the right wording is "suspected of being murdered by the taliban" or "some claim murdered by the taliban". Regarding the election, the right wording (from what I gather from the sources) is "because his demands for changes in the electoral commission had not been met, and claiming a transparent election would not be possible." But these are just minor issues. There are far more significant issues with this article.

I think the sections on recent events are way too long, and are an extreme case of wp:recentism. If you haven't read wp:recentism, please do so. From the lede, Ahmad Shah Durrani created the Durrani Empire in 1747, which is considered the beginning of modern Afghanistan. Its capital was shifted in 1776 from Kandahar to Kabul and most of its territories ceded to neighboring empires. To put this article and these recent events in perspective, look at the article United States, a country founded at roughly the same time. Clearly sections on Government and politics should be cut in half,with recent history a paragraph. The section on War in Afghanistan 2001–present should be a paragraph or two (three would be a stretch). I think by cutting recent history to a minimum, you can solve a lot of problems. Less is more. Let the main articles on recent events address the details. If editors agree, I suggest we create a discussion on one of these sections (for example, Government and politics). Clearly Danieldis47, JRSKO, are quite knowledgeable about Afghanistan. Clearly working together we can create a great article.

I can add more specific observations, but I think I'd like to first hear from others.--Work permit (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think other sections need trimming as well. It may be helpful to work together on another section first. For example, Soviet invasion and civil war. To be generous, it should be 4 paragraphs max. I would suggest: 1st paragraph They came. 2nd paragraph They fought. 3rd paragraph They left. 4th paragraph The aftermath. --Work permit (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Sitara Achakzai article fully explains that the Taliban forces claimed responsibility. So why put "suspected of being murdered by the taliban" or "some claim murdered by the taliban"? This would unnessary make the section longer, and you're arguing on the other hand to trim the sections. I noticed about Danieldis47 him trying to act as an advocate for warlord Abdullah Abdullah. Danieldis47 is critisizing the Afghan government with his edits.--Jrkso (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The Sitara Achakzai article cites no wp:rs for the statement it makes She was assassinated by the Taliban.. So its hard for me to know what the precise wording should be. Statements need to be backed up by wp:rs. I would also suggest removing "an outspoken and courageous", as these are wp:peacock terms. In any event, as I say these are minor observations. I feel the entire section needs to be dramatically trimmed. --Work permit (talk) 18:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't read the entire article. Did you not see this:

“ We were equally distressed to learn of the assassination of Sitara Achakzai, a courageous and proud activist for the rights of her countrywomen, who was gunned down at point-blank range. The Taliban were quick to claim responsibility for this unprecedented violence, fiercely dedicated to hindering all efforts to further development and stability in Afghanistan. ”

Further sources: http://news.indiainfo.com/article/0904131354_taliban_claims_responsibility_killing_female_politician_kandahar/337451.html

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/taliban-claims-responsibility-for-killing-female-politician-in-kandahar_100178904.html

http://www.newspostonline.com/world-news/taliban-claims-responsibility-for-killing-female-politician-in-kandahar-2009041349868

Are you and Danieldis47 trying to hint that the Afghan government might of assassinated her?--Jrkso (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is any implications. The entire section needs to be rewritten anyway. There is currently a discussion on the War in Afghanistan 2001-Present section. Once that section is fixed, I think the next focus will be on the Government and Politics section. Netsquall (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan 2001–present

I've outlined three paragraph section for the War in Afghanistan 2001–present. The outline is at User:Work permit/sandbox The wording definetly needs some tweaks, the first two paragraphs needs sources. But I thought it could be a good base to start discussion. Is there anything significant that has been missed, or anything in there that doesn't belong?--Work permit (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello work-permit! I like how the paragraphs focus on the generic facts. 'Coalition invaded, Taliban retreated, Taliban insurgency, coalition talks of pulling out and making peace.' - Definately focused on the broad perspective instead of back and forth controvercial specifics. I believe a bit should be added about the International Security Assistance Force, and it should also lead into issues with the current Government which is then focused on in the next part (IE: The widespread corruption problems, and what the U.N/NATO is doing to stop it.) I'm not sure on the wording though. Maybe Danieldis47 has some ideas there. Netsquall (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure where we were supposed to leave comments - I will have some feedback shortly. Work-permit - thanks for putting up the draft!

Danieldis47 (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to leave them here, or edit the page itself. Including ISAF information is good. Not sure where to put the issues of corruption, perhaps it belongs in the Government section? I'm no expert, so I can follow your leads--Work permit (talk) 01:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that the draft section is fine for the article.

Danieldis47 (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Being new, I'm unfamiliar with the 'draft section'. Looking up info I can't find anything. Should we be making edits in work-permits sandbox then? Sorry for newbieness :)Netsquall (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I put it in my sandbox. Its here User:Work permit/sandbox

Help me out here. Am I supposed to be keeping a straight face? Because it's really hard. Our "newbie" wrote this?:

Problem 1, this section is lead into immediately with this: "One day before the September 11 attacks in 2001, on September 10, the George W. Bush administration agreed on a plan to oust the Taliban regime in Afghanistan by force if it refused to hand over Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.[72]" It is normal policy for an administration to discuss these types of topics. The editor by applying this as the first comment on the section gives the impression of bias right off the bat. The article quoted for source material itself states "The report pointed out that agreement on the plan, which involved a steady escalation of pressure over three years, had been repeatedly put off by the Clinton and Bush administrations, despite the repeated failure of attempts to use diplomatic and economic pressure." -- if you are going to quote source material from an unbiased source (the entire article doesn't focus on the Bush administration but also on the failures of the Clinton administration to pressure the Taliban during the USS Cole bombing crisis) the editor needs to make sure this information is included. This leads into problem #2. Why does this quote belong here, in an article about Afghanistan as a country? It has no relevance to the topic and should be discussed further under the primary article War in Afghanistan (2001–present). There is no way to make this comment unbiased and neutral without explaining furtherly why the United States lead coalition invaded. All of this detracts from the primary subject matter of the article (Afghanistan as a country) and leads into the section very jarringly.

Problem 2 "Many noted that of the 19 men who hijacked planes on September 11, none were Afghans (fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon).[73] None lived in Afghanistan (they lived in Hamburg). None trained in Afghanistan (they trained in Florida). None went to flight school in Afghanistan (that training occurred in Minnesota).[74]" Wonderfully sourced material, but completely irrelevant to the topic at hand once more. This implies to the uneducated reader that the United States invaded the country with no reason because the terrorists were trained in the United States. Blatant POV bias. It fails to point out that the ringleader did get training in Afghanistan. Source (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article656440.ece). It once again has no place in an article about the country of Afghanistan as it doesn't further the subject, focusing instead on something completely different (a controversy on the initial invasion, which should be discussed in another, completely different article.)

Problem 3 "The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.[75]" The editors sourcing here doesn't help much. When you click the source link you're slapped with a massive essay. Quoting the essay, "this article discusses the issue of state-sponsored terrorism and the use of military force in combating terrorism in the context of the UN Charter regime on the use of force."... you'd need to spend hours to find what the editor is trying to use as source material. My suggestion here is to find better source material. The next problem with this statement is it is once again biased and irrelevant to the total article on the country of Afghanistan OTHER than to put blame on the United States for invading the country in the first place. While this comment might be true, it isn't balanced by, for example, explaining how many countries supported the United States in its efforts in Afghanistan either by financial or military means. (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/International_Security_Assistance_Force). Once more, to properly balance this section you would further inflate it, and detract from the primary goal of the article as an overview of the country as a whole.

These are the primary three parts that truly show biased POV. There are many other parts, for example "In early December, 2009, the Taliban offered to give the U.S. "legal guarantees" that they will not allow Afghanistan to be used for attacks on other countries. There was no formal American response.[89]", which is quite relevant but once again biased with nothing to show the other side of the story.

In closing, this entire section, I feel, should be rewritten. I do not have the time, or the know-how to do so, but certainly feel it to be biased as it stands. An expert on the subject should review this. Netsquall (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)'

I don't really have time for these games. Cheers! Danieldis47 (talk) 18:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets be constructive. No one likes the intro--Work permit (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the apparent "sleaze" factor here makes me believe that it's not really worth the time. Work permit seems genuine and serious about writing a good article. That's cool. However, by all evidence, Netsquall/Jrsko is one or two or ten people getting-off on playing "good editor"/"bad editor"/"psycho editor" with a subject - Afghanistan - that deserves much better. Nothing that has happened on this page since Netsquall mysteriously appeared a few days ago (the "Newbie without the know-how"), including his most recent comments, leads me to believe that this process would be anything more than one of misdirection, juvenile insult, and attrition. I care deeply about this topic, but who the heck needs that?

Hey - it's Saturday. Get out of the house and party!

Danieldis47 (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Danieldis47 I can't prove I'm not JRSKO or anyone else and sorry that you seem to think I'm trying to pull the wool over your eyes. You are passionate about this article and hopefully you'll find a way to present the article better, with the help of other more experienced editors. Fare well! Netsquall (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added statements on the ISAF. If other editors could find references for the sentences, and of course tweak the wording or fix any errors, it would be much appreciated.--Work permit (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping it on topic, Danieldis47 is most certainly more educated and devoted to this article than I am. The primary motive I had here was to make sure that the enormous bias was fixed, Danieldis47 managed to do this by requesting your input anyway, so I feel I might be intervening where I shouldn't anymore.Netsquall (talk) 08:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

We need sources for the outline at User:Work permit/sandbox. Please help--Work permit (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello again work-permit, I added some references I could find to correspond with it. I also changed a bit of wording. I'll keep poking at it but can't invest large amounts of time all at once to just do it all sorry! Thank you for keeping the editors focusedNetsquall (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. I can't invest too much time either, but between the three of us we'll get it done in a few days. No rush, the article has been in a bit of a mess for a while--Work permit (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, reading it, it seems like we need a couple of more sentances to cover 2004-2008.

I've added a bit more, please give it a read if you like it. Should we be looking at applying this to the article now? Netsquall (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks very good. Great job. Much much better then what is in the article right now. Ideally, we'd find sources for each sentence, but that can be done after posting. It is better referenced then what is in the article now, and clearly neutral. However, it would be constructive to get input from Danieldis47, or any other editor. I've posted Danieldis47 and Jrkso‎ on their talk page. Shall we give it a day?--Work permit (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, stan. Netsquall (talk) 05:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Lets give everyone on more day. It would be so much easier to fix this entire article if the all the involved editors get involved in finding real sources for npov summaries. If there are no comments by tomorrow, I'll just move the edits and take the heat. Then we can go on to the other sections, if you or at least someone else is willing to work with me.--Work permit (talk) 07:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I'm following your lead here so when you decide, I'll support the change as it definately improves the quality of the article. Netsquall (talk) 15:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ahmed shahi's edits

Please don't start an editing war. You are putting the disputed tag next to the points which already have a reference. I can see that you cannot find the exact paragraphs in the references I provide, so let me quote them all for you.

For the point "Samanids of Balkh", I provided the reference Kamoliddin, Shamsiddin S. "To the Question of the Origin of the Samanids", Transoxiana: Journal Libre de Estudios Orientales, [9] and it clearly states: "The family name of the Samanid dynasty was connected with the name or title of the ancestor - Saman-khudat, who was a founder and owner of the settlement named Saman, situated, according to sources, in the region of Balkh".

For the next point which you put a disputed tag is the argument that "the periods of Ghaznavids and Timurids were some of the brilliant eras of Afghanistan's history". The reference to Ghaznavids is the following source (Ghaznavid Dynasty, 962 - 1186 CE, Iran Chamber Society, [10] ) which says "Ghazni, Centre of the Islamic civilization: Ghazni played a centre role politically and culturally in Islamic civilization. Until then unknown and insignificant, it became one of the most brilliant capitals of the Islamic world. The Ghaznavids carried the Central Asian architectural style to the eastern part of their empire. In Bukhara, Merv and other places on the left bank of the Oxus, from Charjuy to Sarakhs, one could still find some anonymous tombs of brick with the dates falling within the Ghaznavid period. Great mosques and sumptuous palaces, surrounded by carefully rendered gardens, rose to be adorned with the gold and gems of India. Here the era's most illustrious poets, artists, architects, philosophers (Ibn Sina was born in Balkh in 1080 CE), musicians, historians, artists and craftsmen gathered under the keen patronage of the court.

As for the Timurid era, it is even mentioned in the same reference that you yourself have provided i.e. John Ford Shroder, University of Nebraska. [11]. It says "The period from the Ghurid through the Timurid dynasty produced fine Islamic architectural monuments. Many of these mosques, shrines, and minarets still stand in Herāt, Qal‘eh-ye Bost, Ghaznī, and Mazār-e Sharīf. An important school of miniature painting flourished at Herāt in the 15th century.".

I also provided three other references to the books written by well-known Afghan scholars. If you cannot verify them because you do not have those books, then that's another issue. We don't have to always provide online references. You can go buy those books and check them by yourself. But the references are reliable and accurate. Now please stop putting the disputed tag next to the arguments which are already supported by the sources/reference.Ariana (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My reply:

You didn't present the complete sentence, which states: "The family name of the Samanid dynasty was connected with the name or title of the ancestor - Saman-khudat, who was a founder and owner of the settlement named Saman, situated, according to sources, in the region of Balkh, or Samarqand or Termidh."[12] That says that there is a dispute going on so we should avoid putting disputed items in that list in this article, should only have the undisputed empires listed. So why did you try to hide Samarqand and Termidh?

On the second issue with the 3 books which cannot be verified, if you believe that you have those books or have read them then you should be able to provide to us the page numbers where the "Ghaznavids era being brilliant" is mentioned. Saying stuff like I have that book and it says this and that is Original research and not allowed in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence Anyone can put information in the article and cite any book as a reference but if the information cannot be verified then a dispute will rise. I'm sure there are books which may back the claim but those particular books that you cited are unreliable since they can't be verified. I placed the information on Ghurids and Timurids which is properly sourced (according to John Ford Shroder), but he doesn't mention Ghaznavids and this is where the the conflict begins. Why doesn't he mention this and why can't you provide reference to a source which can be verified?Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Iranian Arachosians or Arachoti [13] were of the Aryan tribes (Indo-Iranian languages and their speakers, viz. the Iranian and Indo-Aryan peoples...)

Ahmed shahi (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that John Ford Shrooder forgot to mention Ghaznvaids in his article does not prove the contrary to our argument. Saying "he doesn't mention Ghaznavids and this is where the the conflict begins" is logically null. Check once again (Ghaznavid Dynasty, 962 - 1186 CE, Iran Chamber Society, [14] ) and it says Ghazni played a centre role politically and culturally in Islamic civilization. Until then unknown and insignificant, it became one of the most brilliant capitals of the Islamic world. In addition, I had read those books a few years ago in Kabul, and I don't have them with myself now (where I live) so that I can find you the exact page number.

As to the Samanids, if you are still not convinced, please check the following scholarly sources:

• Iranica "ASAD B. SĀMĀNḴODĀ, ancestor of the Samanid dynasty" [15] which says: "Sāmānḵodā seems to have been a local landowner (dehqān) of the village of Sāmān in the district of Balḵ.
• Britannica [16] or [17]. In the reference note in the article of "The Samanids", it says: Their eponym was Sāmān-Khodā, a landlord in the district of Balkh and, according to the dynasty’s claims, a descendant of Bahrām Chūbīn, the Sāsānian general.

Now, I hope you will still not push your POVs and let's be honest to the historical facts while editing. Thank you.Ariana (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

My POVs? All I asked was for reliable sources instead of putting books as references without providing the page numbers. I already told you that saying stuff like "I had read those books a few years ago in Kabul, and I don't have them with myself now (where I live) so that I can find you the exact page number" is Original research and not allowed in Wikipedia. I'm not saying that you're lying but here things work by rules.--Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if you even know what an Original Research is. I am not the author of those books so that I could promote them here in wikipedia. I was citing to a book by providing its complete reference information. And they weren't even primary sources. But yeah, if you had said better to give references in English, then you had your point.Ariana (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Let us not get into personal attackings, next time you add information in Wikipedia just have a way to verify the source you use.--Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I ask User:Ahmed shahi to provide proofs/sources for his claim that Arachosians were "an Aryan tribe". So far, he is just posting the Iranica-link on Arachosia which only describes the land and its name, but does not support his claim at all. That is clearly WP:OR and falsification of sources. Tajik (talk) 22:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

My reply to User:Tajik:

The Iranica article states: Arachosia, province in the eastern part of the Achaemenid empire around modern Kandahār, which was inhabited by the Iranian Arachosians or Arachoti. [18] Aryan is an English language loanword denoting variously

• in historical or dated usage,
  • the Indo-Iranian languages and their speakers, viz. the Iranian and Indo-Aryan peoples, collectively known as the Indo-Iranians

Why are you removing them from the list? There are many sources which states that Arachosians lived in the Afghanistan region in ancient time. See the map it also shows it. Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I had missed that sentence. Tajik (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Tags

I have tagged this article because:

• I think it requires a clean-up
• it contains factually wrong information, ethno-centric POV, and WP:OR and falsification and misquotations of sources.
• especially Ahmed shahi (talk · contribs) is inserting false information and OR, he is giving wrong quotes and he adds a lot of interpretation to it which is not supported by scholarly sources.

Tajik (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

My defense to this:

• I don't think the article needed a clean-up such that it gets tagged to attract 2 nationalistic edit-warriors, but even if so removing my edits which are all sourced is not cleaning up but vandalism.
• I'm being falesly accused of ethno-centric POV by the above nationalistic editor (Tajik), I have already stated that I'm not concerned about ethnics or linguistics, but if you see Tajik's contributions that's all he edits. Everything I edit is backed by reliable sources, and nobody has disputed my sources. I also think that the above user (Tajik) has a problem with reading because he misintrepreted this line in the article ("They formed a nation which became known as Ariana or the Land of Aryans.[34][38][39]") by believing that the line is saying Afghanistan was recognized as modern nation-state called Ariana. This is Tajik's personal problem for not being able to comprehend edits made by others.
• If someone accuses me of inserting false information and OR and etc., let them to point out the false information so I can refute them and challenge their knowledge.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

RV

I have reverted an unexplained and misleading edit by User:Ahmed shahi: a) the Safavids were not Persians, b) the Persian were not "invaders" but are - in the form of the Tajiks and Farsiwans (and even Hazaras) - natives of the region ("Tajik" is just another word for "Persian"), c) the Hotaki dynasty was neither powerful nor important, their reign was very short. The case of the Abdalis/Durranis is different for they created a powerful Empire. Tajik (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

This is your personal view buddy, the fact is Safavids were Persians by nationality (from Persia, which is now Iran), read their article for more details. The Hotak Afghans ended the mighty Persian Empire and you're saying that doesn't make them powerful. In any case, they were native Afghans who invaded lands outside of Afghanistan and that's the issue being explained there. You keep removing "They set up a nation which became known as Ariana.34", which is properly sourced, and saying things that makes no sense, read what nation is.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 22:20, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

"Nations" did not exist at that time. The Safavids were Kurds by ethnic origin and Azeri Turkish by language (Azeri was their first language). And the Hotaki did not end the "mighty Persian Empire". At that time, the Safavids were already weak due to internal and external factors. "Afghanistan" did not exist at that time, the Pashtuns and their lands were devided between the Safavid and Mughal Empires. The Hotakis invaded Isfahan and de facto ended the Safavid dynasty (de jure, the dynasty still continued). Officially, they were defeated by the Safavid Empire a few years later since Nadir Shah was offically a general of the Safavids (hence his title "Nadir Quli Beg" which in Turkish means "Nadir, the slave of the king"). Your claim that Persians are not native to the region is just ethno-centrist propaganda, since to this day, Tajiks who make up ca. 30% of the country's population are just that: ethnic Persians and the descendants of those Persians who lived in this region as far back as 1000 years ago. The part about "Ariana" is totally false. It's because you have a wrong definition of "nation". And you also misinterprete and misquote the source you have added above. In fact, the link (your link does not work; take this one) says:

• After 2000 bc successive waves of people from Central Asia moved into the area. Since many of these settlers were Aryans (speakers of the parent language of the Indo-European languages), a people who also migrated to Persia (now Iran) and India in prehistoric times, the area was called Aryana, or Land of the Aryans.

That is NOT the same as claiming that they "created a nation called Ariana". You are pushing for WP:OR and you misquote sources. Tajik (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about ethnics, yet you added tribal chief of Pashtuns before Ahmad Shah Durrani in the lead introduction of Afghanistan article. Thanks for your explanation of history through your eyes but I can read for my self. If the part about "Ariana" is totally false then you should discuss that in the talk page of that article, and, the mention of creating a nation by the Aryans was already presented in the article before I began editing. Lasty, about the Persians being natives or what not, that needs to be cited with a reliable source.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

For now, I have tagged the article. Your edits inclure WP:OR and misquotations on purpose (that Persians are native to the region can be read in the article "Tajiks" in the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam; it has been cited in the Wikipedia article Tajiks which explicitly states that "Tajik" and "Persian" are synonyms and that to this day, "Farsi" (= Persian) is an alternative name for the Tajik population of Afghanistan (who make up ~30% of the population). So far, I have not seen a valid source on your side proving the claim that Persians were "foreign invaders" - keeping in mind that Persians ruled the region for 1000 years and that their language and culture is still the dominant culture and language in the region. Your nonsense about "Aryan nation" is just pseudo-scientific and unsourced nonsense. You are using a quote that does not support your nonsense at all. Tajik (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I'm not concerned about ethnics or linguistics, and what do you mean by "region"? This article is only about Afghanistan but region may include neighboring states. Who are these Persians that ruled Afghanistan for 1000 years? The first Persians who invaded Afghanistan was the Achaemenids and they were crushed by Alexander the Great in around 330 BC. After that many different non-Persians ruled Afghanistan. How is Aryan nation pseudo-scientific and unsourced nonsense? There is an article written about Ariana, which states: Ariana... was a region of the eastern countries of ancient Persia, next to the Indian subcontinent,[3] included in present-day Iran, Afghanistan, and northwest Pakistan.[4]... Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Persian rule began in 400 BC and ended in 600 AD, it began again at 800 AD and lasted - through various Persianized Turkish and Mongol dynasties - until the fall of the Safavids and Mughals, both Persianate in culture and language. In contrast, the Pashtuns whose origins remains speculative arrived in southern Afghanistan much later. The Encyclopaedia of Islam writes (articles Afghān and Afghānistān):

• ... The Afghāns are first referred to (in the form Avaghāna) by the Indian astronomer Varāha Mihira (early 6th cent.) in his Brhat-samhita. A little later is the probable reference to them in the Life of Hiuen-Tsang, which mentions a tribe A-p'o-kien (*Avagan?) located in the northern part of the Sulaymān Mountains (see A. Foucher, La vieille route de l'Inde de Bactres à Taxila, ii, Paris 1947, 235, 252 note 17). ...
• ... there is little to record in the history of Afghānistān during the time it was divided between the Mughal and Safawi empires. The Afghān tribes were steadily increasing in numbers and influence, and it was probably in this period that the Abdālis and Ghalzays spread from their mountains over the more fertile lands of Kandahār and Zamindāwar and the Tarnak and Arghandāb valleys. The decline in the position and influence of the Tājik race which had borne the brunt of the Mongolian invasions, and the occupation of their mountain fortress of Ghur by a semi-Mongolian population gave the Afghān race the opportunity of rising into prominence. ...

So if Persians and a few others are "invaders and foreigners" only because their original homelands lay outside of modern Afghanistan's borders, then the Pashtuns ("Afghans") are just as much "foreign" and "invaders", for their original homelands - the Suleman Mountains - are also located outside of Afghanistan's borders. As for Aryana: it does not matter what kind of articles exist in Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources by Wikipedia standards. The Encyclopaedia Iranica, for example, does not have an article about "Aryana" or "Ariana". In any way, your edit was totally false and misleading. Therfore, I have changed it by directly quoting the original source. Because that does not speak of a "nation", but correctly explains that they region became known as "Aryana" because most of the new settlers belonged to Aryan tribes. The name, as you can also read in the Wikipedia article, was not limitted to Afghanistan's modern borders, but described all lands that were inhabited by Aryan tribes. It still survives in the names Iran, Iron, Oriya, etc. Tajik (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Provide reliable source that states Afghanistan was ruled by Persians for 1,000 years, and, provide a reliable source that states Pashtuns invaded Afghanistan. Don't waste my time with your theories on history and ethnolinguistics.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not my job to provide sources for YOUR claim, that Persians invaded Afghanistan. It's your claim, so you should provide sources. As for Persians being native: I already quoted the Encyclopaedia of Islam, the most authoritative reference work in oriental studies. Nobody is wasting your time and you are not wasting anybody's time either. If you are not interested in discussions, then simply don't read it. That's what others do with your postings. If you continue to remove valid sources without any good reasons (your own POV which is based on Pashtun nationalism and anti-Persian agenda is not a reason), you may get banned. Tajik (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Buddy you're exposimg your Tajik nationalism, your biased views and anti-Pashtun feelings, and now we can see that you're also unable to find anything which agrees with your view on the Afghan history. You started this edit war to get me banned so you have the freedom to add Tajik/Persian propaganda in the article. What are you going to do with the so many history articles and books written about Afghanistan?

The Persians did invade Afghanistan in around 500 BC, when they conquered the Medes territory, this is well documented and I can show you a number of links to verify it, and you can find that in any article or book about Afghanistan's history. I'm not surprised why you want to disagree with this because you want to claim that Persians are the natives of Afghanistan while the Pashtuns are the invaders as you stated. These are childish jokes said by Afghans to one another when experiancing inferiority complex.

The fact is that almost all the Persian-speaking people living in Afghanistan today, *except the Qizelbash group who arrived to Afghanistan in 1738, are of unverified origin just like the Pashtuns and Hazaras are. The reason is that this particular land (today's Afghan state) was the main crossing point of so many different races of tribes or people moving back and forth between South, Central, East and Western Asia, which included invading armies, and short term seasonal settlers. We can only assume that they are all natives, the Persians are natives of the North, Hazaras are of the Central area, and Pashtuns are natives of the South and West.

The article already mentions Aryans, Arachosians, Bactrians, and others, as the natives. We don't know where these natives went and so we allow the readers to make their own conclusion. You are either having trouble with understanding the history of Afghanistan or trying to steal it all for your own Tajik people. In any case, you are wasting your time with the edit war when you can be doing something more useful instead.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 07:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sfn100, 20 April 2010

{{editprotected}} afghanistan population <is 37,500,000 - SFN Statistics- End request --> Sfn100 (talk) 00:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Not done Every source I just found on Google (World Bank, UN, CIA World Factbook) all pegged it at about 29 million, which is about what the article has it at. Can you provide a link or full source information with the 37.5 million number? --CapitalR (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

edit request from Userofsite1

It says under Republic of Afghanistan that the PDPA moved to permit freedom of religion, but actually Once in power, the PDPA implemented a socialist agenda. It moved to promote state atheism. (http://www.vfw.org/resources/levelxmagazine/0203_Soviet-Afghan%20War.pdf The Soviet-Afghan War:Breaking the Hammer & Sickle) Men were obliged to cut beards, women were banned from wearing the burqa, and mosques were placed off limits. Can someone fix it up?--Userofsite1 (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I support your argument.Ariana (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I never heard about PDPA passing a law to ban beards, women from wearing burqas, or people going to mosques. This is original research and not allowed in Wikipedia. The source you have provided in this regard only states: "The Mujahideen were defending their country against an atheistic ideology, an oppressive government and a foreign invader."

Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the point is not weather it banned beard or not. The point is "PDPA moved to permit freedom of religion" which is not quite accurate. Even prior to the PDPA, Sikhs and Hindus were free to practice their religion. PDPA did not make any primary initiation for the freedom of religion in Afghanistan, nor did it issue a new law on freedom of religion. Ariana (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Gggh, 23 April 2010

{{editprotected}} IMF has recently published new World Economic Outlook Database (April 2010). Current source is outdated (October 2009). Link - [19]. --> Gggh ^talk/_contribs 08:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected ^Avicenna_sis @ 20:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong version of the article is protected

The current protected version is biased, which removes from the introduction the names of the famous empires that were centered in Afghanistan (Saffarids of Zaranj, Samanids of Balkh, Ghaznavids of Ghazni, Ghurids of Ghor, Timurids of Herat, Mughals of Kabul, Hotakis of Kandahar, Durranis of Kandahar). This information is very important to mention in the lead intro because it is what makes Afghanistan unique and stand out in the region but the nationalistic editors removed these empires because it bothers them to know that all these kingdoms had their capitals inside Afghanistan instead of Iran. They want to push their Iranian view point by trying to write that Afghanistan's history starts with the creation of the Durrani Empire in 1747, and anything before that is not really important to mention in the Afghanistan article, and that it should only be mentioned in Iran's or Persia's history.

These Iranian nationalists and POV editors get very angry when you remind them that Iran was created as a nation state in 1935, they all quickly respond by saying things like "no, no, no, that's untrue, Iran existed for many many thousands of years", but there isn't a single reliable source which mentions a country called Iran before 1935. All the famous conquerers who conquered Persia, from Alexander the Great in 331 BC to the British in the 1900s, not one of them reported of any Iran country. These nationalist Iranians need to be reasonable and stop trying to fool us because we're no fools. They also removed Hotaki dynasty from this line in the history section of Afghanistan ("On the other hand, native entities such as the Kushans, Samanids, Saffarids, Ghaznavids, Ghurids, Timurids, Mughals, Durranis and others have risen to power in what is now Afghanistan and invaded the surrounding regions to form own empires."). The reason for this is purely hate, because the Hotaki dynasty destroyed the Iranian Persian Empire in 1722 and naturally Iranians don't like to even see Hotaki name being mentioned any where in the article. This kind of behavior by these nationalists is giving Wikipedia reputation as a very unreliable source and causing alot of edit-wars.

I wish the administrators revert the current biased version because it's missing the important information from the introduction, and has a removal of the well documented native Afghan Kingdom (Hotaki dynasty) that destroyed the Persian Empire (Safavid dynasty) in 1722. Thanks,Ahmed shahi (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A) You have not provided any sources

B) There is no need for double-entries, i.e. mentioning the same list of dynasties in the intro (which is supposed to be a short summary) and in the history section.

C) You are purposely misinterpreting and falsifying sources. I have corrected your wrong information by directly quoting the source. You, on the other hand, delete the direct quote and replace it with your own POV about "Aryan nation".

D) The Hotakis were a short-lived dynasty which did not have any further political or cultural significance. Of course, they play a major role in Pashtun national history, that's why you - as a (nationalistic) Pashtun - overexaggerate their role. The Hotakis did not "destroy the Persian Empire" either, as you claim. They removed an already weakened Safavid dynasty (a dynasty that had already become a vassal of its own warlords) and considered themselves successors of their thrown, i.e. part of the Persian Empire. The House of Safi-ud-Din still existed, as Shah Tahmasp (son of Shah Safi) organized a successful resistance against the Hotakis and send his general Nadir Shah Quli Beg Afshar to chase the Hotakis back to Kandahar, and that'S exactly what he did. The case of the Durranis is totally different, because they were far more successful and influential - both politically and culturally. That's why they are mentioned. The region now known as Afghanistan has seen far more powerful and more influential dynasties than the Hotakis.

E) Once again: the Safavids were not Persian. They were, by modern definition, Azerbaijani. Their origins go back to Anatolian Kurdistan. They were ethnic Kurds.

F) Your ethno-POV and propaganda against the Persian people (which unfortunately is very common among Pashtuns) is destroying the article. You try to "prove" that Persians (who in the form of Tajiks, Farsiwan, Hazara and Aimak make up some 50% of Afghanistan) are "foreign invaders", and that they have "invaded the country (of Pashtuns)" many times in the "past 2500 years". That is pure ethno-centric nonsense, bad-faith POV, and WP:OR. So far, you have not posted a single reliable source for your nationalistic claims. On the other hand, you continue deleting well-sourced information from authoritative scholarly sources, such as Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica. Tajik (talk) 08:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A. Provide source to what?

B. Mentioning of the empires/kingdoms that were centered in Afghanistan in the intro is very useful because most people in today's fast world don't have time to read the entire article.

C. I'm not doing what you're accusing me of, and, if I made errors in my edits just fix them without protesting.

D. Who cares if Hotaki kingdom was short lived or very long, they were native entity that have risen to power in what is now Afghanistan and invaded land outside of Afghanistan. The line ("On the other hand, native entities such as the Kushans, Samanids, Saffarids, Ghaznavids, Ghurids, Timurids, Mughals, Durranis and others have risen to power in what is now Afghanistan and invaded the surrounding regions to form own empires." in the article must have their mentioning with the other kingdoms.

E. The Safavids' capital was Isfahan in Persia and they represented the Persian Empire, and all the inhabitants of Persia are generally labelled as Persians in the English world. Remember this is the English Wikipedia, and their origin, ethnic stock, ancestry, and etc., is not important here.

F. My ethno-POV and propaganda against Persian people? I'm not editing their articles so why you accuse me of this. As a matter of fact, I don't see much difference between Pashtuns and Persians (including Iranian and Afghan Persians) except the languages, and most in Afghanistan speak both. I don't deal in ethnics, I only find history fascinating. I just got done explaining my view on the Afghan Persians, that they're not "foreign invaders" but natives to their particular region and Pashtuns are natives to their particular region of the country [20], but you're still accusing me of calling these people as foreign invaders. The first wave of Persians (ancient Persians of the Achaemenid Empire) who arrived to Afghanistan during 500 BC were invaders, but connecting them to today's Tajiks, Farsiwans, Hazaras or Aimaqs is purely speculative because there is no evidence to tie them together, and even their languages and cultures are way off.

You're making me jump from one thing to another, try to relax a bit and focus on one issue at a time. Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A) Sources for your odd claims and POV.

B/D) Mentioning empires and kingdoms of the past, some of them with limited cultural or political importance, is not the aim of the intro. The intro should give a short summary of the whole article, history is just a small part of it. Afghanistan's history begins with the Durrani kingdom. That's the reason why, for instance, the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam mention the history of Afghanistan from the mid 18th century onward (see [21]).

D) Whether they were a native entity of not, does not matter. The Turk-Shahis, Hindu-Shahis, Hephthalites, Karts, etc. were also native entities, but they are not mentioned either. Shah Abbas I, the most powerful ruler of the Safavid empire, was born and raised in Herat. He is not mentioned as a "local ruler" either. There is so much emphasis on the Hotakis, because "Afghanistan" began as a Pashtun state - as a kingdom where Pashtuns ruled over others (and to some extent still do). They were the forerunners of the Durrani. But, looking at it from a more international point of view, they had no significance at all. Their cultural importance was virtually zero, their political importance is also very limited because the Safavids were already almost dead at that time. And when facing a real organized central army (that of Nadir Shah), they had no chance and were defeated in every single battle.

E) Yes, the Safavids represented the Persian Empire, but so did the Hotakis. Mahmoud and Ashraf Hotaki officially ruled as "Kings of Iran", they considered themselves part and rulers of Persia. And they had the support of some Persian nobles (those who were opposed to the Safavids, or those Qizilbash families that wanted to get rid of their rivals). In that case, they were not any different from the Safavids or previous rulers. The only difference was that the Hotaki played no important role in Persian's history: they ruled less than 20 years, plundered the capital and were defeated - on the battlefield and politically (by giving their rival Durranis the opportunity to become the new dominant tribe of the Pashtuns).

F) Your opinion regarding the Achaemenids may be true, but it is irrelevant. Most of all because all others were also "invaders" - prior to the Achaeminds and also after them. Whether modern Persians have anything in common with the ancient Persians or not is also irrelevant. Going by the same argument, modern Pashtuns are also much different from their ancestors and from those whose tribal names they have inherited ("Ghilzay" from Turkic Khiljis, "Abdali" from Central Asian nomads knows as Hephthalites, etc.) As late as in the 17th century, Pashtuns were still a tiny minority in the region that is today known as "Afghanistan". As late as in the 18th century, Kandahar, for instance, was a Persian- and Turkic-dominated city (read the memoires of Kamran Mirza, ruler of Kandahar and son of Babur). It was in the 16th century that Shah Abbas the Great granted Pashtuns settlements in the Arghandab Valley, in exchange for their help in battles against the Mughals. Pashtuns in northern, central, and western Afghanistans were moved there by the central government in the mid. 20th century (see Iranica article about Hazaras). So your edits in which you portay one single ethnic group as "foreign invaders" is simply wrong. Going by that logic, the region has only one single native group: the Brahui who are Dravidian and descendants of the original Non-Indo-European population who were conquered by invading Iranian and Indo-Aryan tribes. Hence, your edits are just POV and factually wrong. Tajik (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You got to be very specific with me, what odd claims and POV that you're accusing me of?

This article is about a nation whos every city was once the capital of an important empire, this is significant information to be mentioned in its introduction.

I'm not preventing you from adding other entities, I'm against you removing the native Afghan Hotaki dynasty from the list.

The Safavids are irrelevant to this dicussion.

Achaemenid era is when Afghanistan's history began to be written, and prior to that the Medes whos origin is not known ruled Afghanistan, they are mentioned in Quran thought. The local people who lived at that time in what is now called Afghanistan were Arachosians, Arians, Bactrians, Sythians, in clock wise, but there isn't much to be said about all these people until they're territory was invaded and tooken by the Achaemenid Persian army, who came from Parsi (Persia). People migrating from one place to another isn't invasion, the invaders are only armies like Darius and his Persian army or Alexander and his Macedonian army for example. I've mentioned only the known invaders in Afghan history, such as ancient Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and British. There were others invaders such as Indians, Sikhs, and possibly more, but I didn't add these because there isn't much written about them.

If you believe that Pashtuns originate from Khiljis and Hephthalites, then who were the Pactyans that lived in the Pakhtun region and were mentioned by the 5th-century BC Greek historian, Herodotus? Before the mid-19th century, Afghanistan was undisputably a much larger territory that included what is now the state of Pakistan, and the Pashtuns were a major ethnic group in Afghanistan. They were politically divided by the 1893 Durand Line border between the two nations. They are natives of the region that is referred to as Pashtunistan, which sits inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their history is unique because not much of invasions or conquering took place in their region, unlike the regions of the Afghan Persians (Tajiks, Farsiwans, Hazaras and others) which were invaded and conquered by a number of armies, such as the Achaemenid Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, and many others. So, it is very difficult to try claiming that the Afghan Persians are natives because there is no indication that they are, they are likely to be a "mixed race" of natives and invaders from far away lands. For example, Genghis Khan and his Mongol armies annihilated Persian cities in the 13th century and large tribes of the Mongols settled in the region north of the Hindu Kush. Where did these Mongols go? And, just because a group of people speaking the Persian language it doesn't make them ethnic Persians because Persian has been the dominant language of the region and all invaders began adopting it. I don't wanna go further with this irrelevant discussion because this is not the topic at the moment.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

A) The origin of the Medians is well known. They were a northwestern Iranian tribal union, originating in what is now Iranian Azerbaijan, Caucasus and Anatolian Kurdistan. They built the first "Aryan" Empire - the Median Empire - and conquered all the lands from Kurdistan to the Hindukush. It was Cyrus of Anshan, himself half-Median, who took over the empire and extended it far beyond its old borders: to Central Asia, India, and Egypt.

B) Your ethnocentric POV about the Pashtuns is factually wrong and only destroys the article. Claiming that "Afghanistan was a much larger area before the 18th century" is also pure nonsense, because there was no "Afghanistan" at that time. And the Pashtuns were as much conquered by others as were the regions Persians, Turks, and others. The ancestors of the Pashtuns and their ancestors were defeated, conquered, and forcefully converted to Islam by various successive Islamic dynasties, later by Turko-Mongol kings, and finally by the British.

C) Once again you claim that the Persians are not natives - and that is ethno-centric POV. The ethnogenesis of the Persians is irrelevant. Of course they are mixed, like all others. The Pashtuns are also a mixed race, much more than the Persians. In fact, they do not even have a recorded history, everything about them is speculation. And unlike the Persian-speaking population whose settlements in the region are known at least from the time of the Sassanians (when Persian had already become the dominant language), there is no sign of Pashtuns. The first mention of "Afghans" (whether these were Pashtuns or not is totally unknown) is in the 13th century. The first "Pashtuns" - the ancestors of modern Pashtuns - are recorded in the 16th century in what is now Pakistan, then part of Mughal India and far away from the borders of modern Afghanistan. Many elements of their language, for instance ergatives and retroflex sounds, prove an origin further south in India (i.e. by a strong Dravidian-influenced Indo-Aryan component, since Indo-European languages lack retroflex sounds). The first settlements in the valleys of modern Afghanistan is recorded from the time of Shah Abbas the Great onward who granted them permanent settlements in the Arghandab valleys (--> Ghilzay) north of Kandahar. Later Shahs granted them settlements near Herat (--> Durranis). All the rest was conquered by military force in the 18th and 19th centuries. As such, Pashtuns are just as much "invaders" as all others. And more than that: they are more "foreign" than the Persian or Turkic population, since Pashtuns settlements are recorded only from the 16th century onward while Persians are known to have inhabited the region since at least 200 AD and Turks since at least 600 AD.

Just stop your ethno-centric and Pashtun nationalist POV. Tajik (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

All I'm telling you is don't remove the empires whos capitals were based in Afghanistan from the introduction but you're ignoring that and instead calling me names, and, all of these theories you are sharing with me are not supported by any historian. About Persians being natives, provide a reliable source which says this. As for Pashtuns being natives, the US based Library of Congress Country Studies states: The Pashtun Rulers: In 1504 the region fell under a new empire, the Mughals of northern India, who for the next two centuries contested Afghan territory with the Iranian Safavi Dynasty. With the death of the great Safavi leader Nadir Shah in 1747, indigenous Pashtuns, who became known as the Durrani, began a period of at least nominal rule in Afghanistan that lasted until 1978. The first Durrani ruler, Ahmad Shah, known as the founder of the Afghan nation, united the Pashtun tribes and by 1760 built an empire extending to Delhi and the Arabian Sea. The empire fragmented after Ahmad Shah’s death in 1772, but in 1826 Dost Mohammad, the leader of the Pashtun Muhammadzai tribe, restored order. http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/profiles/Afghanistan.pdf

There are other sources which say the same. Ahmed shahi (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I did provide sources. Maybe you should read them! I gave you quotes from Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam which are ignored by you. As for the "source" you have given above: a) it is not scholastic, and b) it does not support your ethnocentric POV. Of course by the mid 18th century, the Pashtuns had become "indigenous" - just like Hazaras, Uzbeks, and the rest. Persian presence in the region has a much more detailed history and includes celebrities such as Ibn Sina, Rumi, Jami, etc etc etc who were all ethnic Persians and natives to the land. At that time, there was no Pashtuns in the region. In fact, the Pashtuns invaded the region of modern Afghanistan from the south (modern Pakistan) in the couse of the past 500 years. As the Encyclopaedia Iranica explains, cities such as Gardez are still a testimony to that, for they are "belonging to a network of old isolated Tājīk settlements in southern Afghanistan that are remnants of a time when Pashto had not yet reached the area" [22]. Tajik (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

*The name Afghan has been used in reference to the Pashtun people. There is mentions of the Afghan name in a 10th century book, which states: "Saul, a pleasant village on a mountain. In it live Afghans (Source: Willem Vogelsang, The Afghans, Edition: illustrated Published by Wiley-Blackwell, 2002, Page 18, ISBN 0631198415, 9780631198413)

*The above Library of Congress Country Studies article on Afghanistan is a work put together by the US Federal Research Division in collaboration with Craig Baxter, Nancy Hatch Dupree, Thomas E. Gouttierre, and Richard S. Newell, who are people that are expert on Afghanistan's history. I've met Nancy Hatch Dupree, who has written five books on Afghanistan's history. [23]

*Ibn Sina was not born in Afghanistan, he was born in Uzbekistan, and Rumi's place of birth is unverified. The ethnicity of these people is disputed and unverified.

*Tajiks are a Persian-speaking ethnic group of variety mixed background but calling them ethnic Persians is wrong. Just because a few dozen Tajiks lived in the Afghan town of Gardez it doesn't make the Pashtunistan region Tajikistan. Your theory about the Pashtuns invaded Afghanistan from Pakistan in the last 500 years is false. This and everything else you claim is considered original research which is not allowed in Wikipedia. I've read all written works by the British when they were exploring Afghanistan in the 19th century and not once did they mention any Tajiks living in Afghanistan.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A) The word "Afghan" is mentioned in the 10th century. But the equation of "Afghan" and "Pashtun" at that time is not known. It is your own POV. As the Encyclopaedia of Islam explains (in the article "Afghan"), there is a difference between Pashtun ethnogenesis and the origin(s) of their name(s). For the Pashtuns themselves, the name "Afghan" is a heteronym - it's how Persian-speakers call them, not how they call themselves. The "Afghans" of the 10th century (as well as the Ashvakas of antiquity) used the name for themselves. So there is a considerable difference between modern Pashtuns and historical tribes who called themselves "Afghans".

B) The link you have posted does not support your POV at all.

C) The origins of Avicenna, Rumi, Jami, Abu Ma'shar al-Balkhi, Kamāl ud-Dīn Behzād, Khwaja Abdullah Ansari, etc. are UNDISPUTED. They were natives to the land, and they (and the people they belonged to) lived in that land a long time before "Afghanistan" was created or before Pashtuns were recorded living in that land.

D) I have backed up my comments with 1st class academic sources. The northward migration of Pashtuns into what is now Afghanistan is well-documented. Pashtuns arrived in the region later than Tajiks/Persians or Turko-Mongols. Cities such as Gardez or Kandahar were Persian-dominated and were slowly overtaken by Pashtuns, other cities, such as Ghazni, are still Persian-dominated and a testimony to the fact that a few centuries ago, the region was overwhelmingly Persian - a time when Pashtuns and Pashto hat not yet reached the area. As for the ethnogenesis of Tajiks: they are a mixed people like all others, Pashtuns are no different. Be it so, the word "Tajik" has always been a synonym of "Persian" (see respective articles in EI and EIr), and modern Tajiks share the same history, language, and culture with the Persians of Iran. It is not up to you to decide who is Persian and who is not. The Pashtuns are also a mixed people with many different origins, how come you do not differentiate between them?! And, btw.: if you have read "all the works witten by the British" (which is certainly a lie, but let's assume that you are telling the truth): why can't you come up with a real source?! Tajik (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

All this you assert is original research and not allowed in Wikipedia. You're making things up as you go along, in the Afghan (name) and many other articles you have been pushing your POV that the term "Afghan" is synonymous with "Pashtun" [24] but in this discussion you decided to change your mind by saying it's not.

I'm not interested in reading more of your theories, and, I want you to not remove the list of empires from the intro whos capitals were based in today's Afghanistan nation, especially the Pashtun Hotaki dynasty.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You can delete academic sources and call them "original research", but your ethnocentric and mostly anti-Persian POV will be reverted anyway. Tajik (talk) 17:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I've got nothing against Persians in general, and, I'm not acting to put Pashtuns superior over other ethnic races. I'm the one who provided the academic source which states that Pashtuns are the indigenous peoples [25], and on the other hand, you haven't provided anything which mentions Pashtuns being invaders as you believe. You wrote: Of course by the mid 18th century, the Pashtuns had become "indigenous" - just like Hazaras, Uzbeks, and the rest. This indicates that you probably don't know what "indigenous people" means. It is commonly believed in and beyond Afghanistan that Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmen migrated from former Russian Turkestan [26], and, Hazaras are believed to be left over of Mongols who arrived for the first time to Afghanistan in the 13th century so that doesn't make them indigenous but invaders.

“ tajiks An ethnic minority group migrated from former Russian Turkestan, ethnically and linguistically Persian, residing north of the Hindu Kush and around Kabul.[27] ”

“ uzbeg/uzbek A minority ethnic group migrated from former Russian Turkestan, mainly inhabiting the northern areas.[28] ”

“ hazaras A non-Afghan minority ethnic group living in Afghanistan: racially Mongoloid, Shi'ite Muslim in religion; mainly inhabit the Hindu Kush.[29] ”

Ahmed shahi (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Every one of your postings is ethnocentric POV and is aimed to defame Non-Pashtuns. And, as it seems, you have no idea what "academic source" means. Claiming that Tajiks, Uzbeks, or Hazaras - whose existence in the region of modern Afghanistan has been recorded a long time before any Pashtun was known living there - are "immigrants from Russia" only proofs your ethnocentric, Pashtunist POV and that's the reason why your edits will be reverted and removed. Wikipedia is not a place where you can post and propagate ethnocentric or racist POV. I have given you sources from two of the most authoritative sources of oriental studies, namely Encyclopaedia of Islam (which for example explains in the article "Afghanistan": "... The Ghurid [q.v.] dynasty was probably of Tajik origin [...] After Uguday's death the Mongol empire was divided and Afghanistan fell to the lot of the Ilkhans of Persia. Under their sovereignty a Tajik dynasty, named Karts [q.v.] came into power and ruled for nearly two hundred years over the greater part of the country ..."; the article "Afghans" is even more specific: "... Al-Biruni mentions the various tribes of Afghans as living in the western frontier-mountains of India. This points to the Sulayman Mountains as the earliest known home of the Afghans. It is uncertain how far they extended towards the West, but no Afghan settlement West of Ghazni is mentioned by early authors. There is no evidence for assuming that the inhabitants of Ghur were originally Pashto-speaking ..." - G. Morgenstierne/L. Dupree) and Encyclopaedia Iranica. I have quoted directly the articles about Tajiks (which clearly mentions that "Tajik" and "Persian" are synonyms and that they have inhabited the land from at least the 2nd century AD) from both of these encyclopedias. I have also given you other quotes from other articles. You deleted them, then you post tertiary non-scholarly websites, and claim that you are the only one with "sources". Just check the links you have posted. As I have already explained: your ethnocentric POV will be removed. Your only aim is to defame Non-Pashtuns (especially Persians/Tajiks) and claim some kind of "natural right to rule" for Pashtuns who you call "indigenous", ignoring the most important sources and works of oriental studies by the most important scholars of oriental studies. Tajik (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources you're presenting do not mention anything about Tajiks being the indigenous people of Afghanistan. You quoted Encyclopedia of Islam ("Afghanistan": "... The Ghurid [q.v.] dynasty was probably of Tajik origin [...]) but it doesn't prove anything. In any case, a ruling dynasty made up of one family of a certain ethnicity doesn't mean their ethnic group is the indigenous people of the area that they rule over. This is where you have gotten confused because you're only focusing on the ruling families. Many of the dynasties in Afghanistan were foreigners until 1709 when local tribes became rulers.

The origin of Pashtuns is unknown, but many, including you, make up own theories about their history and origin. Depending on languages, they may have been known by many different names. Please realize that "Afghan" is only the Persian and Arabic "word" used in history to describe these tribal people, "Pathan" is the word used for them in the Indian subcontinent, and "Pashtun" or "Pakhtun" is their own self-recognized local Pashto word which means someone who practices the Pashtun culture or speaks the Pashto language. The mention of Afghans living in certain areas by historians in the 10th or 11th century don't prove their homeland or how wide their territory was expanded and/or where their borders come to an end.

I agree with you that Wikipedia should not be a place for those who post and propagate ethnocentric or racist POVs. It shows from your edit history that all your edits are dealing with ethnolinguistics, where you are promoting Persian ethnicity and Persian culture. I said to you that I'm only interested in history, and, I'm not making Pashtuns better than others because I believe that all humans are equal.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You are twisting the sources, Ahmed shahi. Anyone who is familiar with the subject and with the sources provided - and those who can differentiate between good and bad sources - understand the message: the "Tajik" or Persian population is native to the land since at least the 2nd century AD when the Sassanids finally established Persian culture and language in the region. The ancestral lines of the Tajiks go back to the first Iranian tribes who migrated to the land some time around 2000 BC and mixed with the REAL indigenous population (the pre-Aryan population). These "Tajiks" were later Islamized and founded powerful ruling dynasties. They were the ones who Islamized and Persianized Turkic ruling dynasties (Ghaznavids, Seljuqs, etc.), and it was them who build the important cities of the region: Kabul, Ghazni, Herat, Balkh, etc. The Afghans (or Pashtuns) were not known in the region. The name "Afghan" - in its modern form - is recorded from the tenth century onward. Prior versions (which is uncertain) may have been known or mentioned earlier, but ALWAYS outside the present borders of Afghanistan and centered in what is now Pakistan. The Pashtuns are not more indigenous or foreign than others. Your stubborn anti-Persian and Pashtun-ethnocentric POV is factually wrong and is contradicted by the most authoritative sources of oriental studies. That is the reason why you can not come up with a single reliable source, that is the reason why you cannot support your POV with quotes from Iranica or EI and instead google some nonsense from some websites. If your POV were factually correct, you would be able to find a scholarly quote in the Encyclopaedia Iranica or Encyclopaedia of Islam without any difficulties. But you can't, because you are just pushing for POV and ethnocentric propaganda. You delete 1st class sources, you revert quotes of scholars, and replace them with unreliable tertiary websites. That'S why your ethnocentric and partially racist comments will be reverted and removed. Tajik (talk) 13:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Everytime you write ethnocentric you're describing yourself. I'm not calling the Tajiks of Afghanistan as immigrants, I only quoted what the British Library says about them. Please realize that Afghanistan is the land which saw many invasions by many different people since the time of the Aryans. The Sassanid Empire included Afghanistan and was ruled by Sasanian Dynasty with its capital at Firouzabad in western Iran, they were one of the foreign rulers. Around that time, Afghanistan was a land of multi-ethnic, multi-lingual, and multi-religious society. You are ignoring the 13th century Mongol invasion of Central Asia which brought a major change to the population of Afghanistan, especially the Persians and its all documented.

I don't know why you keep repeating for me to come up with a reliable source. It's you that needs to come up with a reliable source which explicitly states that Tajiks are the indigenous people of Afghanistan, other wise end this discussion please. You see I have already provided a reliable source which explicitly states that Pashtuns are the indigenous people. [30] I created this section of the discussion to make a request to add back in the introduction the empires which were based inside Afghanistan's territory, including the re-adding of the Pashtun Hotaki dynasty that you removed because of your biased view. You are just ignoring all this, but instead, you're attempting to lead the discussion to promote and popularize your Tajik ethnic group as well as put down Pashtuns by making them Pakistanis. This is your anti-Pashtun / Tajik-ethnocentric POV.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that you have absolutely no idea what "reliable sources" means. As long as you do not back up your claims with real scholarly sources (books, publications, etc.), your POV will be reverted. You have been asked more than once to quote from reliable scholarly publications (for example Encyclopaedia Iranica or Encyclopaedia of Islam), but you fail to do so because none of these academic sources supports your POV. Your biased slanders against the Non-Pashtun population of Afghanistan will not be tolerated. Tajik (talk) 16:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by your statement As long as you do not back up your claims with real scholarly sources (books, publications, etc.), your POV will be reverted.? I know what a reliable source is, and, this link to the pdf version of Afghanistan article found in the Library of Congress Country Studies website is undisputably a reliable secondary source. Please note that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources ([31]). The primary sources are Craig Baxter, Nancy Hatch Dupree (wife of Louis Dupree), Thomas E. Gouttierre, and Richard S. Newell. Try to learn about who these people are before you start commenting. Encyclopaedia Iranica writes about Louis Dupree, American anthropologist who specialized in Afghan studies... Majority of Afghanistan related articles found in Encyclopaedia Iranica are written by Dupree.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That is not an authoritative source. And you should look up the meaning of "primary source". None of the modern scholars can be a "primary source", but only a secondary one. A primary source is, for example, and autobiography (such as Baburnama) or archaeological findings. Scholarly publications, as in the aforementioned encyclopedias, are secondary sources, because they are written by renowned scholars and are based on primary sources. The ones you have posted are TERTIARY sources and such the weakest of all. It does not even name its authors. (BTW: the PDF also does not mention the Hotakis. So if you are so convinced that the PDF is such a reliable source, why do you not follow it and accept that Hotakis are not even worth being mentiond?!) And do not pretend to know anything about Dupree. I have quoted Dupree twice in this talk page, but you ignored the message, saying that it is "not reliable". See my quotes above: it is a direct quotation of Dupree. Tajik (talk) 19:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

What you say isn't important and doesn't make any sense. I already explained that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources ([32]) and you calling this a TERTIARY is really stupid. Dupree used original sources as references, including the Baburnama that you mentioned and many other books. The archaeology and anthropology work was done by the people I named above. That's why you find their mention in references everywhere the history of Afghanistan is presented, including in encyclopedias such as Britannica, Iranica and many more. You're wasting my time with your dead end argument. I challegened you to find any work that mentions Tajiks being the indigenous people but you failed completely. On the other hand, I presented a reliable secondary source which states Pashtuns are indigenous. The British never mentioned Tajiks during their 70 years exploration of Afghanistan from 1840 to 1919. Search the entire collection on Afghanistan at the British Library. The only thing they say about Tajiks is this:

“ tajiks An ethnic minority group migrated from former Russian Turkestan, ethnically and linguistically Persian, residing north of the Hindu Kush and around Kabul.[33] ”

Ahmed shahi (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)