Talk:Badakhshan Province

information source

The text was identical to this text: http://www.badakhshan.20m.com/ Danny 11:34 25 May 2003 (UTC)

To the contributor,

You are more than welcome to add information to Wikipedia, but it should be your own information, not material copied from some other website. I encourage you to rewrite the material in your own words so that we will have an article on the topic. Alternately, if you own the copyright to the site from which the text was taken, please state so here. Thanks, Danny

The article is confused between the Afghan province and the part of Tajikistan of the same name. Gorno-Badakhshan (which is simply a half-Russifed translation of Mountainous Badakhshan) is the eastern part of Tajikistan. Its capital is Khorog. FitzHugh 17:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Error

"The province was about to fall to the Taliban when the American invasion allowed Massoud and his allies in the Northern Alliance to reclaim control of the country with the aid of American military air power and assistance [1][2]."

Mossoud died two days before the September 11th attacks and the subsequent U.S. invasion.

Economics : "Massive Resources"

What are these resources? Are they being mined? I'm interested in knowing more about this. Brian Pearson 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Differendt gem stones, but mostly Lapis. Epecially the southern districts have a lot. and they are being mined, however much of is is being smuggeled into Pakistan. Lapis is the only other income in the area, the first one being opium.

removed that Chitral is a tribal area

Chitral is not a part of the Federally adminstered tribal areas in pakistan. The FATA areas in pakistan are pashtun majoirty, but in chitral district the khowar and Vakhana are dominant, who are not pashtun but of dardic(kashmiri) origin. there is not taliban here

confusion with the Badakhshan of Tajikistan

Please do not confuse the Badakhshan in Afghanistan with the neighboring Badakhshan of Tajikistan (Kohistan-Badakhshan Autonomous Province).

"Since ancient times, Badakhshan was the world's only source of lapis lazuli."

This sentence is confusing, since the English grammar is incorrect. You cannot use "since" with "was" in this way. It should be either:

"Since ancient times, Badakhshan has been the world's only source of lapis lazuli."

or

"In ancient times, Badakhshan was the world's only source of lapis lazuli."

The first sentence is clearly wrong, since there *are* sources of lapis elsewhere (eg the Chilean Andes), so I assume it is the second, and have edited. 86.158.191.125 (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Lapis lazuli was also produced in Russia in ancient times. See Deer, William A.; Howie, Robert A, and Zussman, Joseph (1963) "Lapis lazuli" Rock-Forming Minerals Longman, London, OCLC 61975619 and O'Donoghue, Michael (2006) "Chapter 19: Lapis lazuli" Gems: their sources, descriptions and identification Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, ISBN 978-0-7506-5856-0 . --Bejnar (talk) 02:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Pashto name for Badakhshan

At 07:10, 28 November 2008 PakistaniNisar removed the Pashto name for Badakhshan, saying in the edit summary "Badakhshan is a Persian word". I restored the Pashto name, indicating that whether a word is of pure Persian origin or not, the Pashtos are still allowed to have a word for it. PakistaniNisar seemed to disagree, deleting the Pashto name again, and saying in the edit summary, "rv, i've never heard of it, Badakhshan is a pure persian word, see the etymology". PakistaniNisar misses the point, it doesn't matter what the etymology is, or whether the Pashto name was derived from the Persian. The fact that there is a name in Pashto should be sufficient to list it, as Pashto is one of the languages of Afghanistan, even if in Badakhshan it is a minority language. Whether PakistaniNisar has heard of the Pashto name or not (a question of WP:OR) is simply not relevant. I accept, until proven otherwise, that PakistaniNisar has a noble motive in making these edits. It would be appropriate if PakistaniNisar could say just what harm is being prevented by deleting the Pashto name for Badakhshan. --Bejnar (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Bejnaar, kire Tajik takhta takhta da koss e Madar Jeet wa padar e Afkoonit :) --84.59.190.210 (talk) 12:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

No, you should provide a reason for your POV Pashtun nationalist edit. Badakhshan is not a Pashto word and neither is Pashto spoken there. There is no reason to claim Badakhshan is a Pashto word other than Pashtun nationalist POV pushing. Also the longtime consensus version of this article left never had Pashto in it, look at the history, an anon IP added Pashto.

I am puzzled; I don't understand how what you just said relates to the harm to be prevented by deletion of the Pashto name for Badakhshan. I am not saying anything about the origin of the word. You do understand that Pashto belongs to the Eastern Iranian branch of the Indo-Iranian language family, and that it shares many words with Persian which is from the Western Iranian branch of the originally common language? All that the inclusion was saying was that Pashtos and Tajiks use the same word for Badakhshan. It is not saying anything about the etymology. It is like saying that Italians and Englishmen both use the word "okay". By saying that, it does not mean that "okay" is originally an Italian word. The English word and the French word and the German word for the capital of France is "Paris". The statement that Tajiks and Pashtos both refer to Badakhshan as "بدخشان ", falls into the same type of statement. --Bejnar (talk) 02:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Badakhshan

Please add the common phonetic pronunciation of this word, and not the academic but obfuscatory IPA pronunciation.

As a native American English speaker, I'm guessing it's pronounced Baa-dack-SHAN.

I think there should be a wiki project to add what I'm calling common phonetic pronunciation for needed words. I think the IPA pronunciation guide is unhelpful...it requires learning an other language and is frustrating to many readers...altho both could be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.138.70.132 (talk) 05:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think your idea has something to it, but I think you need to start here with your proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals . There needs to be uniformity and consensus if all 3,000,000 plus pages on wikipedia will have a new method of transliterating foreign terms. Please keep us informed. David Straub (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)