Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 6

Archives: 1, 2

Troops in Afghanistan.

Hi,

This sentence should be modified.

In December 2001, the United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of an International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). This force, composed of NATO troops,

---> Should read: (NATO and coalition troops), because there is Sweden and other countries who don't belong to the NATO but are contributing troops for ISAF.

Here is a intresting page listing the Coalition dead, wounded, disabled and war-maytars if it is of help to any one-[[1]]

70.134.103.78 (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC) I know this is not about troops in afghanistan, but there was no where else to write this. - I have noticed in the etymology section that afghan has its 'a' written as a long a, such as in 'table'. I speak the Afghani language Dari and know 100% that it is actually pronounced like the 'a' in 'father'. Posted by Greg. dec. 21, 2007 70.134.103.78 (talk) 21:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Pashtu

Hello,

I recently used the search engine to see what Wikipedia says about my country's (Afghanistan) diversity and culture. I was disappointed to find that it is stated..."Pastu is an Eastern Iranian language..." Actually, Pashtu, is an ancient language, much older than the Farsi spoken by Afghanistan and Iran. Pashtu has never migrated to or from Iran. The only other region of the world that speaks Pashtu, is Western Pakistan, which is inhabited by the Pashtun/Pathan people. Also, the Farsi spoken in Afghanistan is known as Dari, the purest form of Farsi. The author also incorrectly stated that people of Afghanistan are descendants of Eastern Iranian people. If that is the case, Iranian people are descendants of Afghans. I make this statement because, the Persian Empire, was once made up, and ruled by both countries. Each country still retained and cherished their unique differences in language and ethnicity.

lol, go and get education cave boy!! Pashtu is a SOUTH-EAST iranian language (iranian=aryanic) which is full of turkish, drawidic, dardic and foreighn vocabulars beside those real pashtu words, plus Pashtu is the most strong influenced language by persian..f. expl. instead calling lawardey or izid in pure Pashtu you people say khoda to god or the pashtunized form is khwday ;)) . Do Pashto have the words dev and ahura like in german, latin, greec and english?? NO!!! HOW CAN PASHTU BE THE OLDEST LANGUAGE; THAN??? YOU AND YOUR LANGUAGE IS A JOKE. DUPREE AND FRY´S CALLD YOUR LANGUAGE AS THE MOST BACKWARD LANGUAGE OF IRANIANS BESIDE OSSETIANS. If Pashto would be the oldest iranic language why didn´t it influence other language but other language infleunced Pashto?? LOLL : THERE IS NOT A LANGUAGE LIKE DARI YOU CAN SPEAK. DARI IS PARSI; THE WRITTEN FORM OF PARSI WHILE YOU SPEAK PARSI YOU WRITE IN DARI, BUT INSHALLAH WE WILL CHANGE THE BOOKS BACK; INSHALLAH...never should have pashtunizm a chance in afghanistan, more!

YOUR DREAM OF PARSI looool IS WASHED AWAY WITH PASTHUNS looool THERE NEVER WILL BE A PARSI, FARSI IN AFGHANISTAN. EVEN THE PASHTUNS HAVE RIGHTS TO DARI and now in the modern times have DIGITAL RIGHTS and cannot be taken by anybody looooooool Pashtun786 (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Pashtun786

Pashto is just 2500 years old, if it is a language which have deep roots otherwise Pashto is not older than 1000 years old like it is written in iranica.com while PARSI have a root which is 2700 years old and is the next development of Avesta!! PASHTO HAVE EITHER A DEVELOPMENT NOR THE LANGUAGE HAS IT´S ROOT IN THE AVESTA; MAYBE IT IS JUST RELATED AS AN SOUT-EASST-IRANIAN LANGUAGE, not more: I TOLD YOU INJ AVESTA IT IS WRITTEN AHURA; KHODAWAND AND KHODA NOT IZID OR LAWARDEY!! ;))

Ok, you just proved to us the level of your ignorance by starting your discussion with the words "go get an education caveboy", If you cant respect the viewpoints of others than dont post. On the topic at hand, i would have to say that i agree with the first guy. Pashtoons have lived in that part of the world for a long time. Afghanistan is influenced more by the ancient people of central asia than the persians. Furthermore the whole structure of the pashto language is different than persian as farsi has not masculin or feminin aspects to any words or phrases whereas pashto has masculin and feminin forms for its words. If the language is structured differently then how could it be influenced. If anyone wants to explain that to me please do so because i am in need of some answers. And please refrain from making any ignorant or offensive comments.

Who ever wrote this uneducated meaningless BS up there ^^^^^^^ saying that pashto is a backward language???? HAS NO CREDIBLITY with me or anybody else......FIRST of all Dari comes from pashto, Second Pashto is more than 6,000 years old language. Third, Pashto has more grammer than your Dari. And u know what they say about Dari??? loooool Dari is an Incomplete language, It has Completely no grammer,no word for anything and borrows from arabic extensivley, does not have a differential for Gender. And ur saying that Pashto is backwards??? U IGNORANT DUMB F***!!! Pashto is a Complete language which has word for everything from Radio, horse, fast horse...ext Pashto has a Gender system, Also the word Khar as in donkey in which u are is from pashto as many other words from dari. Even im a Dari Speaker who knows good pashto. Even i will tell u that. Pashtun786 (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Pashtun786

Posted January 22, 2007--Upperwali 17:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)hm--Upperwali 17:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

(dropped here from somewhere else completely unrelated Matt Whyndham 17:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Please read Iranian languages. The usage of "Iranian" here is related to a linguistic group and has nothing to do with the modern country of Iran. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Most of pashtun afghans hate iran so I think there is a need to change this linguistic term iranian with some other term which would be acceptable to pashtun afghans. Pashtu being called east iranian language is an abuse towards pashtuns. The better idea would be to call pashtu an Avesto-aryan language rather than iranian language which is unacceptable to pashtuns of Afghanistan. When indic languages are called indo-aryan languages then I think the time has come to call iranian languages as avesto-aryan languages.

As a Kurd, I prefer Tajiks to some Pashtuns, coz Pashtuns are far away from civilization (like supporting Taliban). Iranian peoples is not a term just meaning Persians or Farsi speakers of Iran, there are many other Iranic people many of them living outside of today Iranian Borders, like Kurds, and most Azeris as well as Lurs, Tajiks ....... . Also a guy made a strange suggestion, that was , becuase some Talibanist Pashtuns hate Shia Iranians, (and I've found Iranians mostly even don't know people as Pashtuns to hate them!!!)let's change the name of the ethnic groups (it's like a british suggest to romve the term Germanic Peoples coz brits( as member of Germinc Peoples)perhaps hate Germans! what's going on Afghanistan that people with backward ideas have a chance to make these odd comments! Barzan, Kurdistan.

I am a indian, working in afghanistan since last 5 years, i came a bit near to the afghan culture, after reading the conflicts regarding languages, i would just like to comment, pasto and dari, both are equally respected languages, after so much blood shed, we should now understand, every group has a place and need to be respected by other group to take respect, so live peacefully and let this country people live like a free bird as she is. Afghanistan is not made of different language speaking peoples, but is made of bold and honest people,thanks

HELLO AND GREETINGS TO U ALL THE ORIGIN OF AFGANISTAN IS LONG BACK SINCE THE TIME OF MAHABHARAT, THE MATERNAL UNCLE OF DURYODHAN WAS THE KING OF GANDHARA(SEE GANDHARA) WHICH IS NOW CALLED KANDHARA AND THE LANGUAGE PASHTU HAS MANY SANSKRUT(LANGUAGE) WORDS MIXED WITH ARABIC WORDS.WHICH MAKE PERSIAN AND OTHER LANGUAGES. THANKS —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pratikthakore (talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

doingbusiness.org external link

This link: Doing Business in Afghanistan

Was added by an editor whose only contributions have been to promote the World Bank Group (Doing business is a World Bank project). We have recently uncovered significant edits promoting this organization (see this WikiProject Spam discussion). In the interest of our neutral point of view policy and conflict of interest guideline I've moved it here for other editors to consider. If you decide it is appropriate for inclusion, you may wish to consider wikilinking to Wikipedia's article on the project - Ease of Doing Business Index - instead. Generally wikilinks are more appropriate than external links. Thanks. -- Siobhan Hansa 13:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a indian, working in afghanistan since last 5 years, i came a bit near to the afghan culture, after reading the conflicts regarding languages, i would just like to comment, pasto and dari, both are equally respected languages, after so much blood shed, we should now understand, every group has a place and need to be respected by other group to take respect, so live peacefully and let this country people live like a free bird as she is. Afghanistan is not made of different language speaking peoples, but is made of bold and honest people,thanks

300% Worsening?

Deleted paragraph referencing a 300% increase in Taliban activity due to lack of citation.Nf utvol 14:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Restoring paragraph with updated cite. It is not hard to find this news report, there is enough text cited. A search on Google turns up no fewer than 240+ matches. NN 18:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Ethnolinguistic map

The new Ethnolinguistic map posted by User:NisarKand in the Languages section, is more an Ethnic map rather than Linguistic. I suggest that it should be moved to the Ethnic Groups section replacing the old BBC/CIA ethnic map. Ariana310 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was not a Language map. I fixed that. Thanks for pointing it out. Behnam 01:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the BBC chart with this new map. The BBC chart, as you yourself had stated first, is inaccurate. It mixes up Tajiks, Hazaras and Aimaq, and plus it shows Pashtuns in Herat province. The new map is much accurate and very authentic. Please do not remove it. Ariana310 11:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

This map has an even more important mistake. It shows Kabul as being a Pashtun city. That is a critical mistake and because of this the other map takes priority right now. Kabul is a mixed city with Tajiks the largest group, certainly Pashtuns. Behnam 12:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh and I reported User: NisarKand's sock-puppet. Next time he does that report it every time. This is totally unacceptable. I don't what this guy's doing here. Behnam 12:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Despite its inaccuracy, this map will have to stay for now since have no other map right now. Behnam 12:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the authentic maps bring Kabul under the Pashtun areas, I know it is totally incorrect. The major group is Tajik, and then Pashtuns and Hazaras are equal nowadays (especially after the civil war an important number of Hazaras moved to the western areas of Kabul such as Allauddin and Dasht-e Barchi). But I think they all rely on the fake informations published by the Afghan government. And oh yeah, this map has an error between Uzbeks and Turkmens. It calls the proportion of Uzbeks as Turkmens and vice versa. Nevertheless, we can keep this one untill Tajik gets those two maps prepared. Ariana310 16:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have asked a professional map-creator to create two maps for this article, based on all information available - most of all the license-protected government-maps. He needs a few weeks to finish them ... so just wait and see ;) Tājik 12:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thats so great. Now I was planning of making maps for languages and ethnic. Now I don't have to spend time on it and best of all a PROFESSIONAL be doing it! We're all looking very forward to this! Behnam 15:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wildlife of Afghanistan

Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 13:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

afghanistan and iran

hi i just wanted to know how the relationship with iran and afghanistan was. are they allies or what? do they like eachother. are they cool with eachother and all? can anyone tell me plz. i would really appreciate it.

Afghanistan and Iran have a mutual relationship based on culture , ethnicity , and being apart of the former Persian empire. The Relationship was far better during the time of Zahir Shah king of Afghanistan and Reza Shah king of Iran, but since the two countries have been through wars and political ups and downs. The two nations have always tried to respect each others sovernty, especially now with the treaty of co-operation Afghanistan has signed in dec 2006 with Iran...basically stating that Iran is an allie of its sister nation Afghanistan and both will contribute and help each other militaraly and economicaly. So the relatioship is good for now. ( Iran has always been suspicious of Pakistan who mess around in Afghan politics and Iran has accused and told pakistan to stop meddling in Afghan politics) Abdul916 04:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you this but Afghanistan and Iran will never be as friends the way you view it. Iran should help itself first and at the same time keep outta Afghan affairs. America signed a long term strategical partnership with Afghanistan in 2005, committing USA to help rebuild Afghanistan for no matter how long it takes. Since America and Iran are not friendly towards each others and Afghanistan being on USA's side, Iran should step off. I've visited Iran on several occasions, most people in Iran don't even know where Afghanistan is located, you call that having good relations with Afghanistan? Iranians naturally envy Afghans, Pakistanis also envy Afghans. That's been the case for a very long time now and Afghanistan's people are very well used to this. If you like Iran so much, go live there because nobody is stopping you. Afghanistan is doing fine, slowly rebuilding by the help of the western countries, especially USA. I'm very much sure Afghans don't need Iran or Pakistan for help right now, except in trying to make them stop the insurgents from crossing over to Afghan territories. At the same time, Iran and Pakistan need Afghanistan's help in trying to stop drugs from being smuggled to their countries. Iran has the world's highest heroin users, that could permanently cripple Iran. Pakistan also has the same problem with high drug use.

iraq is cool i like iraq and chicken balls

Afghanistan and Iran have had a love-hate relationship. But nowadays, ever since the Taliban left, Iran and Afghanistan have become close allies. Whoever wrote the above, I don't know who you are, but saying that most people in Iran don't know where Afghanistan is... that's not only ludicrous, but also besides the point. It is not the people of Iran that decide Iran's policies towards Afghanistan, but rather the current government. Same goes for Afghanistan. America's stooge, Hamid Karzai, is friends with Iran because a lot of Afghanistans trade is done with Iran. You mentioned heroin, and that's true, a lot of drugs in Afghanistan end up in Iran. But they also end up everywhere in the world, since Afghanistan produces most of the heroin of the world. Afghanistan, a landlocked country which has been in continuous war for decades, is not "doing fine". Please see War in Afghanistan (2001–present), where it lists how many people have died as a result of US invasion. Kabul may be safe, but currently most of Afghanistan is ruled by either Taliban or corrupt Northern Alliance leaders.--Kirby♥time 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kirby and Abdul, WP is not a discussion forum. Please see: WP:NOT#FORUM. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan is made up of two rival ethnicities or let say "tribes" first one are Tajiks(Persians) the other(Pashtoons). the former has more ties with Iran, whilst the latter finds, Pakistan (where Pashtuns are one of main tribes) a better ally, so it depends whose idea you are asking about Iran, if a Tajik, s/he will very probobly likes it and is postitive, but when it goes to pashtoons, they mostly dislike Iran, coz Iran means the power of their rival tribe......... Andranik

Vandalism and semi-protection

I've only recently had this page on my watchlist, but it does seem to get a good deal of vandalism. Does anybody think it warrants semi-protection from unregistered editors? Perhaps I'm being too extreme. Liamshaw 21:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Given the lack of reply to the above, I have removed the semi-protection. If someone wants to add it back, say at least here why you do so. AugustinMa 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's still protected until April 5. (Adding or removing the {{protect}} tags doesn't actually do anything to the page.) If you'd like the protection removed early let me know. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please put a protection over this thread. Theres many people that come and change things like putting "Afghans" as "Afghanistanians", the latter is not even a real word

"Afghanistan Calendar Project" http://www.nongnu.org/afghancalendar/

Hi, I found following interesting Website:

  "Afghanistan Calendar Project"
  http://www.nongnu.org/afghancalendar/

The site overs free (GNU GPL) afghan calendars in different languages. The site is hosted at the GNU Savannah project.

The Mission Statement sound quite interesting: "This project is not bound to any political, ethnic, social or religious groupings. The aim of this project is to provide free available multilingual Afghan calendars, that are accessible on all major platforms and provide access to all functionality via free tools. The calendars are released under the GNU General Public License."

I suggest to add a link to this website to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.51.218.180 (talk) 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC).

Historical Photo and Video Archive

In the External Links section, under Other, could you add a link to

   The Williams Afghan Media Project, http://drm.williams.edu/wamp

The Williams Afghan Media Project (WAMP) is an online resource for the study of Afghanistan. In addition to helping to preserve and make available resources related to Afghanistan, WAMP also provides a site for exploring Afghanistan's cultural legacy, historical development, and present situation.

Three photo collections that document in image and sound Afghan history and society from the late 19th century through the Soviet occupation represent the heart of the WAMP website:

• The Khalilullah Enayat Seraj (KES) collection of photographs taken between the late 19th century and 1930,
• The Louis and Nancy Hatch Dupree collection of slides taken between 1949 and 1987, and
• The Afghan Media Resource Center (AMRC) collection of photographs and slides taken between 1987 and 1992. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gbarton (talk • contribs) 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Administrative Divisions

The administrative divisions as shown are incorrectly numbered. In the list province 24 has been missed, and the subsequent province numbers do not match the actual province positions. 203.55.231.107 23:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out.Ariana310 09:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

New Ethnic Map

The new ethnic map had many inaccuracies. Ghazni province was shown with majority of Hazaras, while the majority are Tajiks. The Ghor province was shown with the majority Tajiks, while Aimak people form the majority. Plus, Tajiks were shown excessively to be the majority in many northern provinces, where Uzbek people are the majority ethnic group. Please check THIS and THIS, also this. Even the linguistic map is incorrect. The province of Helmad is highlighted for Pashtu, while it must have been shown for Balochi.Ariana310 09:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen all three of those maps. But my numbers are from www.aims.gov.af. If you go there click on Distric Profiles and then you can check the breakdown for each district of each province. Doing this you'll find out which is the largest ethnic group in each province. And the result will be this map. The only questionable one was Logar. I am not sure if that is Tajiks or Pashtun. It could be either one. If its Pashtun then I'll correct it. But the rest is correct according to these numbers which are from the government of Afghanistan itself. So it is authorative over whatever numbers National Geographic or the CIA (which is old) have. Also, for Ghazni, I added up all the numbers of each district and it turned out that Hazaras were the largest group. And that is what this map shows, the largest group in each province. Yes Tajiks are the majority in Ghazni city, but the whole province Hazaras are the largest group. It is ofcoarse not saying that only this group makes up that province. Also for Ghor province the numbers show Tajiks to be the largest group. Aimaqs might cover the largest territory, but they are nomadic so it makes sense that there numbers aren't as high.So please just go to www.aims.gov.af. Also, if you know anything about Logar please let me know. --Behnam 09:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I am going to double check the numbers on Konduz. I think I might have made a mistake there. But I'll check it tomorrow and fix it if it is wrong. I remember the numbers were very close. Also, the language map has a few mistakes. I'm also going to correct those. For now it won't hurt to leave the language map. And about Helmand, it is by far a Pashtun province. That is what the numbers say. --Behnam 10:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In Ghazni province, Pashtuns, Hazaras and Tajiks have almost the same proportion. However, in all cases Ghazni remains dominantly Tajik. In Ghor province, in aims.org website 1, only three districts out of 10 have been shown. So the figures are incomplete. It cannot let us conclude the real proportion from only 3 districts. And about Qunduz province, aims.org does not give the figures for the Qunduz district. And according to other districts figures, you can see that Tajiks come at first, Pashtuns in second and Uzbeks come in third. And Sorry, I meant Nimroz province. I mistakenly wrote Helmand. Yes Helmad is dominantly Pashtun, but Nimroz is mostly Balochi.Ariana310 10:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

And I think Pashtuns are the majority in Logar province.Ariana310 10:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now Ghazni is Tajik, Logar is Pashtun, and Konduz is Uzbek. I did not change Ghor yet because in other maps I've seen they show Tajiks and on aims.gov.af they don't even mention Aimaqs. I'll have to look into that more before I change it. --Behnam 23:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Also I fixed the Language map, let me know if there is still any problems with it. --Behnam 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine now. Just about the linguistic map, you have added Wardak province for Persian. Are you sure that Persian is the dominant language in Wardak? As far as I know, Wardak is completely Pashtun. Tajiks form about 10 to 20 % of Wardak Province. So would you please correct that as well?

Regarding Ghor, I mentioned that AIMS does not give the statistics for all districts. It has given the statistics for only 3 out of 10 districts here. So we cannot estimate the proportion of Tajiks or Hazaras out of only 3 districts, for the entire province. The major ethnic group in Ghor is Aimaq or Chahar Aimak. They resemble to both Tajiks and Hazaras, and sometimes they are called as Chaghatai. The Hazarajat stretches even to Chaghcharan, the capital of Ghor. And there are even significant number of Aimaks in Badghis province as well. Here are some sources for Aimaks in Ghor province: 1, 2. I think these are the last errors in the maps.Ariana310 20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

'Aim cleary shows that Ghazni, Kabul and Wardak are Pashtun provinces so why forge Aim facts with false info here? Whoever has put the language and Ethnic map remove it or we Afghans will take action against these forgery lies.'I'm not sure how to post message here so I clicked on edit...Afghan'

1. Wardak is already colored as brown (largest group is Pashtun) 2. Kabul's largest group is Tajiks, not Pashtuns. Go check the numbers and ADD them all up. 3. For Ghazni, If you add up all the numbers it actually Hazaras are the largest group. But those were only 3 districts out of 10 so as Arian310 explained it is neither Hazara nor Pashtun largest group. In Ghazni all 3 of them are almost equal. 4. The language map is based on this, NOT aims, since aims does not have language statistics. 5. You're NisarKand and you were banned and still keep disturbing things Wikipedia with even more of your sockpuppets --Behnam 20:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done my math and it cleary shows Pashtuns as majority, but you will not admit it. Ghazni is multi ethnic province, but the majority comes out to be Pashtuns. WE are not talking about cities but provinces and your coloring is based on cities not provinces. There are so many inaccurate informations being posted onto this website that without question one of these days it will be taken to court for its forgery and falsification of information. I have been following Afghanistan's information and I have noticed everything has been posted according to ethnicity, by showing Tajiks to be superior and others minority. If we follow Aims than we need to look at the presidencial election which showed clearly who is majority in which province since every vote was done according to ethnicity. One more thing don't play this hyprotical game of me bieng NaserKand this just proves how illiterate you are and what type of people running here. You must be Troy or Gul Agha fininaced by Iran to creat disunity among Afghans and forge of FACTS AND HISTORY. This site will be sued and you will officially be left without a job and watch within months this place will be closed and your agents will whine forever....AFGHAN

No one is showing Tajiks as majority. There is no majority in Afghanistan. We have shown Tajiks as 27% and that based on CIA World Fact Book and they get their info from the government of Afghanistan. Also IF you've done the math then you'll get that Hazaras are the largest group in Ghazni according to the numbers from AIMS. And initially I had colored as a Yellow, but there were objections to it. Go do the math and you'll get these numbers fro Ghazni, unless my Microsoft Excel can't add up numbers.

Hazara: 400572, Pashtun: 362071.5

And if you're not NisarKand then how would you know who he is?

Also why would we use numbers from an election when we could use real numbers of demographics? No offence, but that is very silly to suggest anyone who votes for Karzai is Pashtun. In America there could be a Black candidate soon, everyone that votes for him will not be black. So your suggestion is very silly, especially considering that we alread have numbers for ethnic demographics. And the rest of what you've said is laughable and has no place in Wikipedia. There are rules one etiquette here. --Behnam 22:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are following a source which has no credibility nor does it hold any important facts which can be used in terms of population or ethnicity. I can show you CIA facts which in 1991 showed Pashtuns majority but the following year it flip floped. Tell me what sort of fact and credibility it holds? Even on the news it was mentioned that the voting which took place everyone voted for their own ethnicity. Ofcourse a country which has seen war for decades and have been disunited by foreigners will not trust anyone but thier own ethnicity. What makes me believe this fact is that WAK an organization in Pakistan had taken census of Afghanistan and it shows Pashtuns majority the same provinces Karzai won the voting. This census was done before Presidential election. I can provide you the information if you are willing to read it. Now regarding NaserKand it's so abvous after coming to this website for a year in I've been noticing so many LIES, FORGERY of FACTS that I saw Arain and NaserKand argue about whats credible or what isn't. Both posted here and thats how I know. If you think we are one then I think you are only fooling yourself. Now the only time someone would disregard opinions of others is when they can't defend it or debate to break out the truth. In that case calling my answer laughable shows your emotional side. Now leave Afghanistan related facts to Afghans and you concentrate on your own country. We don't need PRO IRANIANS OR PAKISTANIS CREATING FALSE INFORMATION!

If this is not a credible source, the what is? This is www.aims.gov.af. The .gov.af means it is from the GOVERNMENT of Afghanistan itself. The AIMS stands for Afghanistan Information Management System (of the Government of Afghanistan). If you don't think that is a reliable source, then I really don't know what is. I have not seen a more reliable source than this. And actually I am from Afghanistan, I am from Iran or Pakistan. But on Wikipedia it does not matter. If you don't like these statistics then contact the Government of Afghanistan and ask them for a recount. --Behnam 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

'I was refering to CIA Facts which you have been using mostly and even you mentioned it for the census of ethnicity. But since you are claiming to be using "www.aims.gov.af" then either you are making mistake with your calculations or you are putting down your own numbers. It cleary shows Kabul as Pashtun province whereas you have put it as majority Tajik. This proves it all no need for further discussion. We Afghans will close this topic since its being used as a personal purpose rather than for proper Afghan information. So many falsification of information and forgery and puting down Afghans as Iranians is an Insult to AFGHANISTAN. Afghans will contact the owner of wikipedia and if they won't agree than we will take further action which will cause closer of this place for its lies and forgery.

You're forgetting something very important and obvious thing. AIMS does not show the numbers for Kabul City. Kabul City's population is 2,994,000 according to this source, and according to this source 45% of Kabul City is Tajik. 45% of 2,994,000 is 1,347,300. That alone makes Tajiks the largest group in Kabul province. So sorry to disapoint you, but that is what the sources and numbers say. And it doesn't matter on Wikipedia that as a Pashtun you don't like the numbers. No one here cares about that, we don't base demographics on POVs. And again, I myself am from Afghanistan and I find your threats very humorous. --Behnam 04:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you but mixing two different sources to get one information does not make sense not only to me but everyone else. Using AIMS for provinces and then using another source for Kabul is the most ignorant hypocrite nonesens comment I have ever read. Now can you answer following of my questions kindly..

Who conducted the information which you mentioned Kabul City 45% Tajiks?

In what year was this censuse taken? Provide its full information.

Every day the population of Kabul grows either from refugees coming

  Pakistan,Iran or other parts of the country either thos that used 
  to live or for jobs. So now can you tell me which ethnicity is majority or minority?

I am not threatening you or anyone but asking to remove your lies about Afghanistan and forgery of facts. There is no humour in this neither is there any nonesense. Forgery/lying/falsification of facts are crime and against the law which will be dealt accordingly. Now you are either creating your own maps using paint and photoShop and putting it up on wikipedia for Language and Ethnicity. You have no proper proof to back your claimcy for your lies. Until you have true facts and information outside of Iranica, CIA and AIM you can't put someting which has no truth. If AIM had any truth they would have used it for national census while ago when the government was being formed, but it wasn't for a reason.

Please stop your confusing statements. WAK foundation is based in Peshawar, a Pashtun foundation. It published some reports presenting the books like "Afghanistan in the course of history" of GHUBAR, and "Afghanistan" of DUPREE as the sources; which is totally absurd. These are text and historical books, not a census report! In addition, NO CENSUS TOOK PLACE AFTER 1996 IN AFGHANISTAN as WAK foundation stated. So all its reports are fake and incorrect.

Afghanistan Information Management Service (AIMS) works extensively with AREU (Afghanistan Research and Evaluation Unit), United Nations, and Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan (CSA). All its reports are based on true researches and campaigns. Your claims regarding Ghazni and Kabul provinces, are not justified by any reliable source. However, there is a mistake for Wardak province in linguistic map, and I already asked Behnam to fix it. There are only significant numbers of Pashtuns in Kabul city, while in other districts except Paghman, almost all people are Tajiks. So please stop your wrong accusations.Ariana310 06:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well anonymous person, if you actually went to the link I gave you and clicked on the larger version, you'd see that at the bottom-left corner it clearly says: SOURCES: THOMAS GOUTTIERRE, CENTER FOR AFGHANISTAN STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA MATHEW'S BAKER, STRADFOR. So if you didn't get that, the info that Kabul City is 45% Tajik is from one of the leading experts on Afghanistan. University of Nebraska has a CENER FOR AFGHANISTAN STUDIES, and they know more about Afghanistan than anyone else. And they obviously didn't just make these numbers out of a hat. These are scholars and researchers, they went and did research on this, that is what researchers do. Also that source was from 2003, again it says that clearly. Next time please read the source yourself before asking me. --Behnam 06:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

== Ariana310, So you are stating that census was taken place in 1996 so where is your information and for calling WAK a Pashtun foundation can you provide your information in this regards? How about I say AIM is run by bunch of foreingers will this be accepted? Your claim for Paghman being the only majority district in Kabul province then my friend since you follow AIM you need to refresh your mind and go back check and see carefully. You will realize there are more majority Pashtun districts than any other group. I am currently gathering some informations which will be presented soon and don't blame me if I proof you and your friend wrong. Beh-nam you claim that mathmatically Ghazni is majority Hazara yet I have checked AIM MORE THAN ONCE PROVES PASHTUNS MAJORITY AND EVEN YOUR OWN WIKIPEDIA SHOWS THEM MAJORITY. If you are saying these are scholars and research that did thier research then no problem when I represent my information who are scholars and researchers than you will have to accept it and remove the maps which have been created on PhotoShop or Paint. Don't play this foolish game with me you are in no position to prove me wrong neither will your fake informations and forgery. That link you have provided only takes me to a page with numbers no census or any information for Kabul majority Ethnic which is laughable. ==

We've already given you several sources. Sources from non-neutral organizations like a Pashtun organization is not credible on Wiki due to bias. On Wiki we avoid any possible bias in articles and prefer to use neutral sources. Using a source from any one ethnic group is out of the question. This is after all an encyclopedia. Anyone wants to go read a organization from one ethnic group's numbers on demographics can do so. But on Wikipedia opinions are not accepted. Again here is the source that clearly shows Kabul City as 45% Tajik and if you look there it will show you they got the numbers from research by Center for Afghan Studies, University of Nebraska. I've put this source several times, this is the last time: http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0311/feature2/images/mp_download.2.pdf.

Also please stop writing in bold and sign your discussions with 4 ~ . -- Behnam 07:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So now that I have proven you wrong you have deleted my comment to hide the truth. What a shame that we have bunch of ignorant and foolish people who hate the to speak the truth run this encyclopedia. --74.104.234.130 21:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)shikab

You haven't proven anything wrong, user: NisarKand. We have already stated that Kabul is a very diverse province in the Kabul article. The map does not show the diversity of each province, it simply shows which group is the largest. Also, you are banned already and should accept your ban. --Behnam 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all stop getting all emotional and claiming that I am Naser whatever his name is. If you can prove it go ahead if you can't don't hide your true face by claiming I am him. In that case you must be Gul Agha the same person that goes forum to forum and posts falsified information or Troy. Talk with "Intelligence and Logic" not "Emotions." I didn't post any map nor did I make up any information. I basically posted information from "GOVERNMENT WEBSITE (Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development)" which you deleted to hide the truth for your own personal agenda. Now stop being so ignorant and accept the truth and accept your humailation. Once again I will post the information and I will save the information through screen save and show it to everyone to embarass you further more and show your true face.

Kabul city is home to a mix of 3 million people belonging to diverse ethnic groups, the largest being Pashtuns and Tajiks, that settled in the region hundreds of years ago. Bilingualism (Dari and Pashtun) is common in the capital and is a result of large population movements from other provinces. [2]

Accept the truth and accept it that every map and information that has been put has been due to personal opinion and personal agenda. --Shikab 23:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Shikab Only 36% pashtuns in Afghanistan and 33% tajiks?? what kind of crap is that...and the cite is from some Iranian source?? I'm sorry but wikipedia needs to stop letting Pan Iranian supporters vandalise a thread about Afghanistan. Check out any other online source and it will till you Pashtuns makeup more than 50% of the population. Damn Iranians...stop ruining our profile!

Grammer Error

Under the Education headline, there is an error, tho i could not fix it. 4 lines from the title, it says " an estimated 40% had adequate sanitation. Education for boys was and girls were a priority." if someone else could fix this that would be great thx 206.116.96.207 06:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)maestro master

done.--Kirby♥time 06:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The population

Hello,

the population of Pashtunes are between 11 and 12 mio. while the populatiopn of Tajiks are between 9 and 10 mio. plz correct your informations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tajik-Professor (talk • contribs) 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Also, the total population estimate on this topic (31,500,000) does not match the total population estimate on List_of_countries_by_population where it is referenced as being 27,145,000. Alexkreuz 22:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

First I do not believe the population of afghanistan is more than 23 million. 30 million is completley bogus and unreal. Pashtuns are more than 45% of the population which means thats 14 million, how is the population of tajiks 10 million when they are only no more than 30% of the country and that means there only 5 million thats more than the population of tajikistan. Also the SOUTH of afghanistan is more populated than the north of afghanistan by more than 50%. all estimations is only an educated guess, So take these things into consideration. 71.139.48.99 (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Pashtun786

Too much "Etymology" material?

Do we really need so much material at the beginning of the article regarding "Etymology"? Compare how much text is in this article compared with neighbooring countries. Could this be summerized into a nice little paragraph since we already have a full article about it? --MarsRover 03:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik-Professor has added the new text without discussing it in here. They are all redundant (already mentioned in other paragraphs), un-sourced and not compatible with encyclopedic tone (e.g. the usage of expressions such as "God Knows", "Don't Call it", etc.). I reverted his edits twice, but no one else is reviewing his edits. It is getting way too long. Most of his added texts have nothing to do with the section of "Origin of the term Afghan", they must be moved to other sections. Ariana310 09:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Marsrover,

i think informations about Afghanistan is very important on every side which is written about Afghans. We need old books like Timurnama and baburnama and sources from very old scholars like herodot to expalain their origine. And for this section or article these sources are very important because it´s going about the ORIGINE OF AFGHANS even some of them are in some other articles. We have to compize the informations.

User:Tajik-Professor, your edits are completely un-sourced, you have to provide the reference to the work/book. Please discuss your edits in the Talk page (here) first, before you bring any critical edit to the article. Plus, I tried to copy-edit your edits, and you reverted them all. If you continue to do the same, I will report you to the wikipedia Administrators board.Ariana310 20:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Tajik-Professor, I wasn't questioning the importance of the subject but rather the amount of material included in the article. There already is an specific article about the Origins of the name Afghan so the amount of information here seems excessive. If you read previous discussions or the article's history you can see which topics are hotly debated (demographics, history, etc.). If you insert information regarding those topics without a reference other editors will likely revert them. Even with a reference you may have to defend your additions. Also since this is wikipedia, others may edit your additions to make the article clearer, less redundant or just to summarize (usually that involves deleting something) and hopefully you do not take offense. Cheers, --MarsRover 21:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

-baleeted. where not in the third grade people, if you guys want to e-fight, do it somewhere else.

Again personal attacks and direct insult!

I think you are not getting the point. Did you read the message that I put in your talk page? It seems I have to rewrite it:

• What you had written in the section of "Origin of the word Afghan" was completely irrelevant and had nothing to do with it. For example, you wrote/copied 3 long paragraphs about the Kalnari people, Nuristani, Pashais, the people of Kamboja, but it had nothing to do for explaining the real meaning of "Afghan". Or probably, you did not explain the relation of the word "Ashvakan" with "Afghan". If anyone had read it, would find the whole text irrelevant. While your other paragraph dealing with Ghilzais was kept. I did not remove it!
• You further copied a text from the article of "Origins of the name Afghan". There was no need for it. In the main article of Afghanistan, we should try to be short while the details are already explained in the original sub-articles. And thus, I did not remove your newly added texts in the article of Origins of the name Afghan.
• I do not reject the text of Baburnama, but all what I say that you were making it too long. The whole point was: "Babur called the region south of Kabul which were inhabited by Pashtuns as Afghanistan", but you copied 3 long paragraphs from Baburnama just to explain this short point. And this point was already mentioned in the article.
• Plus, when I asked you for source, you have to write the complete reference list: Name of the book, Author, Edition, Place and Date of Publication. Please read the wikipedia links which User:Beh-nam provided you in your talk page.Ariana310 15:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

ABOUT KHILIJ-AWGHANS IN BABURNAMA

The History of India, Volume 2, chpt. 76

... took place in the year 621 H. (1224 A.D.) One year and six months after, the chiefs of Ghor through this irruption of the infidels, joined Násiru-d dín. Towards the end of the year 623 H. (1226 A.D.), the army of Khilj, consisting of all the forces of Khwárizm, under the com­mand of Malik Khán Khilj, invaded the lands of Mansúra, one of the cities of Siwistán. Malik Násiru-d dín marched to expel them, and a battle ensued, in which the army of Khilj was de­feated and the Khán of Khilj was slain. Malik Násiru-d dín then returned to Multán and Uch. In this same year, the compiler of these leaves, Siráj Minháj, came from the country of Khurásán, via Ghaznín and Mithán, and thence reached Uch by boat, on Tuesday, the 26th of the ...

... enterprising man, he used to make incursions into the districts of Munír (Monghír), and Behár, and bring away much plunder, until in this manner he obtained plenty of horses, arms, and men. The fame of his bravery and of his plundering raids spread abroad, and a body of Khiljís joined him from Hindustán. His exploits were reported to Sultán Kutbu-d dín, and he sent him a dress and showed him great honour. Being thus en­couraged, he led his army to Behár and ravaged it. In this manner he continued for a year or two to plunder the neigh­bourhood, and at ...

The Muntakhabu-’rukh, Volume 1, chpt. 180

... 495, 512, 525, 537. Khāwind Naqshbandī, Khwāja, con­temporary of Bābar, 446. Khazāinu-l-Futūḥ, known also as the Tārīkh-i-‘Alāī, 252 and n 1, 266. Khīlī, the betel in the form it is offer- ed for sale, 303 n. Khilj, the,—a Turkish tribe of Ghūr of Afghan people, 81 n 2, 86, 88 n 1, 191, 230 n 1, 231. Khiljī, son of Sulān Mu‘izzu-d-Dīn Muḥammad Sām Ghūrī, 69. Khiljī, Rāo, Governor of the fort of Bhaṭ at the time of Tīmūr's inva­sion, 355 n 4 Khiljī Sulāns, the, 475. Khiljīs, the. See under the tribe of Khilj. Khing bud, or the white idol, one of two enormous images in Bāmiān, 46 n 1. Khirad Nāma, one of the works of Maulānā Jāmī, 272 n 1. Khīrī, a flower, 173 and n 3. Khiā (Cathay), ...

The History of India, Volume 2, chpt. 98

... dín arrived at Ghazna', where he was joined by many bodies of his adherents, and assumed the pomp and circumstance of a monarch. When Yamín Malik heard, in Hindustán, of the Sultán's arrival at Ghazna, he hastened to meet him. Aghrák Malik, also, with an army of Khiljís and Turkománs, came from Pesháwar' to do him homage, and A'zam Malik brought a large force of Ghorians to serve under him. In all the troops now at his disposal amounted to twenty thousand cavalry. The Sultán went with these large reinforcements to Parwán, on the ...

... were unable to endure, and were reduced to great misery, so they abandoned the contest, and returned to their homes. When the winter was over, the nephew of the Rájá of Láhore returned to the attack with a fresh army. On this occasion, also, the men of Kábul and of Khilj brought up their reinforcements. The armies met between Karmáj and Pesháwar. Sometimes the infidels gave battle, and drove the Musulmáns to the hills; sometimes the Musulmáns took the offen­sive, and repulsed the infidels at the point of the sword. When the rainy season came on, the infidels were anxious about the rising of the waters of the Indus, so, without knowing whether they were victorious or defeated, they retired to their homes. The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were ques­tioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, “Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and dis­turbances.” ...

... Láhore and the infidel Gakkhars ended in war, the Gakkhars formed an alliance with their neighbours the Afgháns. The Rájá of Láhore made peace; and, to put an end to contention, he ceded to them some districts of the Lamghánát, and associated with them the tribe of Khilj, which, in the infancy of the Afgháns, had settled in that desert (sahrá). The conditions were, that they were to guard the frontier, and prevent the armies of Islám from entering into Hindústán. The Afgháns erected a fort in the Kohistán (mountains) of Pesháwar, which they called Khaibar; and they took possession ...

... Bin Aby Sufra. Kabul revolts from the Moslems, who are expelled. Sulim recovers Kabul, and appoints one Abdoolla to the govern­ment. Abdoolla superseded, and retires among the Afghans of the Soolimany mountains (A BIG MOUNTAIN RANGE IN MODERN PAKISTAN NOT IN AFGHANISTAN). Becomes the father of Lody and Soor, from whom two Afghan tribes derive their name. The Afghans make war on the Hindoo Prince of Lahore. The Gukkurs form a treaty with the Afghans. The Raja of Lahore cedes territory to the Guk-kurs to defend his territory from the invasions of the Afghans. 1 CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF THE KINGS OF ...

The whole Afghan history plays in modern Pakistan and India and not in modern Afghanistan which had first the persian name Khorassan. Is this a chance?? NON BECAUSE AWGHANS ARE FROM SULAIMAN MOUNTAINS AND PESHAWAR VALLEY...so called WESTERN GHAT and the pashtunes have the WORD GHAR FOR MOUNTAIN AND GHAT MEANS MOUNTAIN AS WELL!!!

BABUR WROTE HI HAD TO FIGHT AGAINST THE AWGHANS IN THEIR OWN LAND IN AWGHANISTAN THE KOHISTAN DISTRICT OF PAKISTAN!!!

... they retired to their homes. The men (MONGOLIC ARGHUNES) of Kábul (KINGDOM) and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were ques­tioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, “Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and dis­turbances.” Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows! When the peace between the Rájá of Láhore and the infidel Gakkhars ended in war, the Gakkhars formed an alliance with their neighbours the Afgháns. The Rájá of Láhore made peace; and, to put an end to contention, he ceded to them some districts of the Lamghánát, and associated with them the tribe of Khilj, which, in the infancy of the Afgháns, had settled in that desert (sahrá). The conditions were, that they were to guard the frontier, and prevent the armies of Islám from entering into Hindústán. The Afgháns erected a fort in the Kohistán (mountains) of Pesháwar, which they called Khaibar; and they took possession of the country of Roh. During the ascendancy of the Sámánians, these (Afgháns and Gakkhars) prevented them from doing any injury to the territories of Láhore. This is why it was that the incursions of the Sámánians from first to last were made by way of Sind and Bhátiya. Roh is the name of a particular mountain, which extends in length from Swád and Bajaur to the town of Siwí, ...

... Hasan Abdál to Kábul. Kandahár is situated in this territory. When the throne of Ghazní came to Alptigín, his general Subuk-tigín made several attacks upon Lamghán and Multán, and carried off many prisoners. Unable to endure these attacks, the Afgháns applied in their extremity to Jaipál, the Rájá of Láhore, and com­plained of Subuktigín's inroads. Jaipál was aware that the army of Hindústán could not continuously occupy those parts, in con­sequence of the extreme cold; so he consulted with the Rájá of Bhátiya, and by his advice he called to his presence Shaikh Hamíd, a man of great consideration among the Afgháns, and raised him to the dignity of amír. Shaikh Hamíd in this way obtained possession of the territory of Lamghán and Multán (two of three main capitals of Awghanistan), and carried on the government on his own behalf. Thus, at that date the Afgháns obtained an amír of their own, and became people of importance. When Alptigín was dead, and Subuktigín had succeeded him, Shaikh Hamíd thought it advisable to avoid war; so he sent to Subuktigín a message, saying: “You and I are both Musulmáns, and so ...

... army of the Mughals being firmly determined either to slay Dáúd or fall themselves, met him in the battle-field; where, after many valiant rencontres, the Kálá Pahár, or “Black Mountain,” who led the advanced guard of the Afgháns, was repulsed and slain. The Afgháns were then put to flight. Dáúd Sháh Kirání was brought in a prisoner, his horse having fallen with him. Khán Jahán, seeing Dáúd in this condition, asked him if he called himself a Musulmán, and why he had broken the oaths which he had taken on the Kur'án and before ...

... soon recovered his health at Dehlí. Whilst the Sultán was thus engaged in endeavouring to restore cultivation, the news was brought that Sháhú Afghán had re­belled in Multán, and had killed Bihzád, the náíb. Malik Nawá fled from Multán to Dehli. Sháhú had collected a party of Afgháns, and had taken possession of the city. The Sultán pre­pared his forces and marched towards Multán, but he had made only a few marches when Makhdúma-i Jahán, his mother, died in Dehlí. * * The Sultán was much grieved. * * He pursued his march, and when he was only a few marches from Multán, Sháhú submitted, and sent to say that he repented of what he had done. He fled with his Afgháns to Afghánistán, and the Sultán pro­ceeded to Sannám. From thence he went to Agroha, where he rested awhile, and afterwards to Dehlí, where the famine was very severe, and man was devouring man. The Sultán strove to restore cultivation, and had wells dug, but the people could do nothing. ...

READ MORE ABOUT THEM HERE: http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=03501050&ct=0 --Tajik-Professor 15:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so we cannot put all this long text in the article. Here's the resume and the main message of all this text, which you had written: In his Baburnama, Babur calls Afghanistan the southern territories of Kabulistan and north of Kandahar that were inhabited by nomadic Khilijs (Ghilzais) (Kuchis) who traveled from Sindh to Khorasan and from Khorasan to Sindh. Khilijs were also called "Afghans" by Babur. and it is there in the text, no one removed it.Ariana310 15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok! ...but can you add that the Khiljas of Ghazna were just a remnant of the Khilijas who moved to Delhi and Suleiman Mountains with their ruler? Timur wrote there lived in Ghazana around 2000 of them. Maybe you should write southern of kabulistan there was called as Afghanistan like the Kohistan district of Pakistan, you know. Because Khalajs self are turks who just identified themself with Afghans and their figure was not important enough (ca. 2000 souls).

Ps:hope you get my message + sorry for my words and hope you read just one time the quotes ;)--Tajik-Professor 16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Opium ref

Koko, I actually quite admire the additions that you made to the article. Your text was excellent and you are obviously knowledgable on the subject. However, I do still object to the deletion of a well-sourced reference about opium production. The source, which is recent, clearly states that opium production increased 60% last year. Regarding your edit summary, I don't see how we can possibly conclude that opium production has declined this year; given that it's only May it would seem like a premature assertion. I do support all of your additions and hope that we can compromise, simply by replacing the text and ref that were deleted. Thanks for your consideration. Doc Tropics 02:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

In the previous paragraph, it's already mentioning opium, then, in the economy section it further mentions opium for the 3rd time in a row. I think that's just not a good article. The subsection (latest on afghanistan -2007-) should not mention this stuff. The gov. of afghanistan this year destroyed poppy crop more than they have ever done in the past 5 years, so it is not correct to state that production has increased when in reality it is declining this year. One report says one thing and another says the opposit, it's not worth going by western news articles, most just speculate, we rather rely on afghan government reports, as they know what is going on in their country, and by now they do have very reliable information sources. I believe writing about the new Pak/Afghan tension over the border attacks is more important in the latest subsection, something never seen before.--KoKolicious 02:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it might still be too early to say that the production is down, but I would be very interested in seeing a cite if you can provide one. If two valid refs contradict each other, the proper thing to do would probably be to use them both, as opposing views. I know it bothers you that the opium production is being mentioned 3 times in relatively rapid succession, but the first and third refs are very closely linked. The first ref shows that production had indeed been down (under the Taliban), and the third (now deleted) ref, showed that it is up again. I think that the relationship between the two statements is important. Let me suggest this: Let's replace the text that got deleted, then we can add a new sentence like "As of 2007, production was down 30% due to government efforts" as soon as you can provide the ref for it. I'm trying hard to find a compromise and hope that this will be suitable.

BTW - I think that the subsection header "latest on Afghanistan" is very bad. That I plan to delete : ) Doc Tropics 03:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

literacy rate

I'm a little confused as to how the male literacy rate and the female literacy rate are BOTH larger than the total literacy rate (in the education section). Are there a whole bunch of illiterate hermaphrodites and transsexuals in afghanistan?

Phrenophobia 10:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out, someone has recently edited the correct literacy rate in the article. However, the total of Male and Female literacy rates being equal to the total population's literacy rate is NOT a necessary condition. The male literacy rate and female literacy rate are counted on base of male/female proportion in the population.

The most recent estimation about the literacy rate (as of 1999) is 36% for the entire population, 51% for male and 21% for female; according to the CIA world factbook. -Ariana310 13:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. But as a strictly mathematical point, it IS a requirement that the total literacy rate be no smaller than the minimum of the male and female literacy rates. The proof? Let there be M males and F females, who read at rates P and Q respectively. Then the total reading rate will be R = (PM + QF)/(M+F). If P >= Q, then evidently PM+QF >= Q(M+F) so R >= Q. Likewise, were Q >= P, then R >= P. Thus R is at least the minimum of P and Q. Phrenophobia 14:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The national census of Afghanistan will be held in 2008. They are preparing the work this year and the final outcome will be revealed next year. This was delayed because the UNHCR wanted to count all the Afghans living in Pakistan and Iran first, which was completed by March 2007 and now it's time to count all the Afghans living inside Afghanistan. So, we will learn next year about the official numbers of each ethnic group and the total number of people living in the country. The CIA numbers are not official but just rough estimates.--LloydKame 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

questionable court decisions

Doesn't it break the "NPOV" neutruality rule to refer to any of the Supreme Court's decisions as "questionable"?

Soviet invasion vs US conflict

Why "Soviet invasion of Afghanistan" and "conflict with the US" ? I mean, why is the Soviet one an invasion, and the US one a conflict? If this is to imply that the Soviet Union managed to invade successfully, and the the US got mired in fighting and never succeeded, I'd submit that this is not so, and that the US has actually had as much success in its invasion as the Soviets had -- really, even more success!

The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan on December 24, 1979, in a well planned "full scale invasion" with 100,000 troops. The United States on October 7, 2001, went to Afghanistan on a "special mission", with less than 5,000 troops, to help the Afghan people. As soon as this mission began, in December 2001, the United Nations ("world community") gathered and prepared an international "peacekeeping force" (ISAF) to help the new government of Hamid Karzai. This does not constitute an invasion but only a helping hand from the "world community". The United States and NATO forces are in Afghanistan "ONLY" for peacekeeping purposes, which has been done in many countries. As a matter of fact, the people of Afghanistan do not want the US and NATO peacekeeping force to leave their country. This was the opposite with the Soviet Union in the 1980s, nearly every Afghan wanted the Soviets to leave their country.--LloydKame 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, the US invaded Afghanistan. The difference between this and the Soviet incursion was the USSR was trying to add Afghanistan as a satellite country to the USSR, which they forcibly occupied and subjugated the country. The internal security and rebuilding of the country is an international effort, sure, but ISAF was created after the US well into its invasion. Shadowrun 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

So, "helping hand" is a diplomatic euphemism to keep the US propagandists from anger? Works for me :)

well if we gave away our plan to slowly and strategically rape the world of oil and kill anyone that stands in our way and replace their governments with drones who sellout their own people, then how could we get away with it? of course, if we made it seem like this was impossible, by pretending to be completely unprepared, sending troops into a warzone with minimum supplies and limited intelligence, then we could make it look like we didnt know what we were doing, when in reality, the whole thing was planned out and our pockets line with paper. dont be upset that you dont have a piece, just hold your sign, and keep telling yourself you can make a difference ;)

Afghan Calendar http://www.nongnu.org/afghancalendar

I suggest to add a link to the following online GPL Afghan calendar to the wiki article:

• Historical Afghan Calendar with Gregorian, Hejrah-e shamsi and Hejrah-e qamari dates

Any suggestions/ comments ?

External links

{{editprotected}} I wonder about the description of the book Afghanistan: The Genesis of the Final Crusade as "an insider's perspective of the war on Afghanistan". Apparently it is written by a Pakistani living in Cananda, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICSSA. Therefore, hardly an "insider's perspective". It is also clearly an extremely partial opinion in the debate, being published by a thinktank promoting an Islamic State. I would suggest either changing the description to "Afghanistan: The Genesis of the Final Crusade, the view of a conservative Islamic thinktank on Afghanistan and 9/11" or preferrably removing the link alltogether as irrelevant for the article.

This page is semiprotected; any username more than a few days old can edit it. There is no need for administrator assistance to edit this page. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Dilemma for Koreans in Afghanistan

Koreans in Afghanistan are in dilemma while South Korean Government have banned travel to certain places including Afghansitan since the abduction of 22 Koreans social worker. Read 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan. Hundreds of Koreans stayed in the dry country have given help to the Afghan people. But they were hard to differ the friendly Afghan and the bad Taliban. back to goguryeo 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Directions

This section sounds like original research. Also, isn't there another possible direction where things just stay the same? --MarsRover 21:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it seems to be original research. I also note that your {{OR}} tag was removed without sources being added. I'll remove the section.-gadfium 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One-Sided Speculation on Future

"The overall good news is the country has potential to quickly come out of poverty and become an economically stable country."

This sentence, in the Economy section, seems to be made within a non-critical framework. Since one can also argue and bring up historical evidence of what has most often happened during western political or economic intervention in a resource-rich, global south country, I believe that this statement is one-sided, and therefore should be changed to address this, or eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Demonym

The people of Afghanistan are called Afghans by both them and the rest of the world, the term Afghanistani is usually used by people who truly don't know what to call afghans, or to mock afghans (this term is mostly used by the people of Pakistan for this purpose), similarly Afghani is used to designate the currency not the people, although some Iranians do use the term Afghani which is almost always followed by some kind of racial slur. This error must be corrected.--Naseer n nasrat 00:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Afghan is synonymous to pashtun. its an ethnic identity.--Anoshirawan 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

That is completely incorrect, pashtuns are called pashtun. You probably have heard someone say Awghan, that is the name given to pashtuns by ignorant and racist elements in Afghanistan, I have heared it used this way many times, I have never heard an afghan call him or herself afghanistani, none of us do. I am not sure where you are from but if you ask the nationality of any citizen of the republic of Afghanistan they will respond Afghan. It is used in most if not all the literature. Listen and read all the news that come out of Afghanistan produced by both afghans and foreigners, Afghan is always used. Its AFGHAN it always has been. You must change this. --Naseer n nasrat 05:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. Afghan is a name since at least 7th century. These people who change Afghan to Afghanistani are school students, or school drop-outs, they come here and start thinking like history writers, while boogers are pouring down from their noses. Their parents used to cook and eat grass in Afghanistan due to lack of basic education, now they are living in the west as runaway refugees and from there they think Afghanistan is in their hands. These are typical people of modern age who have access to the internet, they can't see just like the Kafirs who provided them shelter in their countries. I have no idea what is their interest in doing these stupid things by spreading falsehood. According to Islam, each falsehood carries 85,000 years of punishment in hell.--Dilbar Jan 15:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dilbar, can you please leave the insults and gross language out of this discussion. It is difficult to take any of your arguments seriously with all that hate in your rhetoric. Kingturtle 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite the penalty for a grammar error. Now if we calmly look at the facts:

1. Wikipedia itself says "Afghan" (Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for nations)
2. The CIA says "Afghan" [3]
3. Most places you google say "Afghan" [4]
4. Several wp debates resulted in "Afghan" (Afghan people debate, Afghanistani singer debate)

Its clear it should be "Afghan".

--MarsRover 07:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No it is not clear, not even close. That term for a citizen for Afghanistan is a misnomer and incorrectly adopted by the West back in the 1800's. Read this article for starters: Origins_of_the_name_Afghan -- Behnam 07:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dilbar, I ask that you please refrain from your provocative language. We are trying to have a civil discussion about this. Kingturtle 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You won't find 'Afghanistani' in a dictionary, not even in the OED. That settles it. Carl.bunderson 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My change was changed back, and I wish to expand on my arguments. Having looked at some of the debates on this, it would probly be better for 'Afghan' to refer to an ethnic group, and have 'Afghanistani' be the national identifier. However, that isn't yet the case in English. I think it would be interesting to have a WP article on the matter. But back to my point...Wikipedia is positive, not normative. Our use of words must be the way they are used, not the way they "should" be used. And the dictionary is perfectly clear that 'Afghan' should be used for persons from Afghanistan; until that changes, we're obliged to follow that use. Carl.bunderson 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well now that Pashtuns are no longer in total control of the country, the term Afghanistani is beginning to be used increasingly. Here is one dictionary that uses this term. It's from dictionary.com but the original source is WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.-- Behnam 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And here's a source for Afghani Oxford Dictionary. So we any one of these 3 terms can be used as a denonym. Now please stop rv'ing. -- Behnam 04:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a list of dictionaries that use Afghani. -- Behnam 06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I did searches in BBC, CNN and CBC websites. Afghani is by far the most preferred descriptor. CBC never uses Afghanistani. BBC uses Afghanistani rarely, and usually when quoting someone or as a descriptor of the nation, not of the people. A google search of Afghanistani brings the result of "Did you mean: afghanistan?" Kingturtle 13:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, KingTurtle. I noticed you included all three choices, but that wasn't good enough so someone sorted it to list "Afghanistani" first (which is the least commonly used one). If the term "Afghan" is synonymous with "Pashtun" wouldn't "Afghanistani" translate to "Citizen of land of Pashtuns"? I still don't understand how it is a big improvement. But, unless someone funds a million dollar advertising campaign to explain the etymology of the word "Afghan" and how it a misnomer, your average English speaking editor will keep reverting it to the most commonly used word. --MarsRover 23:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to work out a solution for this soon. Afghan and Afghani are the common usages in the English language. There need to be some pretty strong arguments against them to change it all to Afghanistani. But I am willing to listen. Kingturtle 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no single correct denonym, it depends on who or what you're referring to. Any one of the denonyms can be found in dictionaries or used elsewhere. The solution would be to list all three of them. -- Behnam 03:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam this debate is not over. The concensus of the debate appears to be in support of just Afghan. Please wait until we get a decision. Thegreyanomaly 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The debate asked for sources, there are the sources and they are authoritative. -- Behnam 01:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Thegreyanomaly, you are playing a real dirty game with your buddy there trying to get me a 3RR violation! What's there to debate now? It's referenced know with two authoritative sources. THERE IS NOTHING to debate! YOUR opinion does not matter once a source is provided! Follow the rules of Wiki and stop playing games! -- Behnam 01:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would actually prefer to see the words mentioned or used in something other than a dictionary. Preferably something authoritative that directly addresses the issue. A few months back someone tried to change the general relativity article based on what his own notions and sourced it with a dictionary as well; it did not go over well. --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dictionary not good enough? Articles from major news networks not good enough? Then what else do we need? And that's not a good comparison, this is not general relativity, its just a denonym. -- Behnam 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer something of scholarly value(ie a journal entry), since this is a pretty heated dispute. I agree the GR article doesn't parallel strongly, but I don't think the dictionary is the best thing to fall back on in a dispute.—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't dictionaries good enough sources? I gave up once Behnam provided sources for Afghani and Afghanistani. My only problem was that prior to that, I hadn't seen any sources for those. But yeah, returning to your point, why aren't dictionaries valid sources? Is there a WP policy that addresses this? I've used the OED as a source several times in debates on here. Carl.bunderson 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I thought there was an issue with the other terms being possibly offensive, but if they are not then the dictionary is fine. I just worry that an English dictionary might not grasp such an issue, hence the request for another source. However if there is no such issue, then sure, they are fine for establishing that the terms are indeed used.—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 05:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As a national of Afghanistan, I assure you that Afghani and Afghanistani are not offensive terms. -- Behnam 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why the heck was there a revert war, and why has an rfc been set up? What is the issue here?—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 05:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Idk how it started originally, but we ended it in October I think saying that it should be 'Afghan'. Then I looked at the article and it had been changed to 'Afghanistani', without any discussion. So I began discussing it again. Carl.bunderson 05:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I haven't looked into this a lot, but the only time I've heard it asserted that the terms other than 'Afghan' are pejorative was by naseer. I'll google them and see what I can find, but absent any proof of their being used pejoratively I think we should include all three, and list 'Afghan' first because it is most often used in English. Carl.bunderson 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I can't find anything to suggest that either 'Afghani' or 'Afghanistani' are pejorative. Anyone who wants to say so, please provide sources. Carl.bunderson 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Carl, that's exactly what I did, I listed Afghan first since it's most common then Afghani then Afghanistani then I referenced Afghani and Afghanistani since a few users (who weren't from Afghanistan) complained that those weren't real words. And it Afghani is definitely not offensive and neither is Afghanistani (meaning someone from Afghanistan same way as Pakistani, or Uzbekistani, or Khazakstani, etc). -- Behnam 07:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you Behnam. You'll notice that after you provided the dictionary source for I think it was Afghani, I didn't revert your change. Best wishes. Carl.bunderson 08:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully this means that a new consensus has been reached and the RfC will not be necessary. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 08:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was born in Afghanistan and still have my citizenship. I said I was born in Germany as an example to make someone understand. I do live in Canada though. Now... how would you know of my edit from such long ago if you are a new user? You must be familiar with me and the only other user from Afghanistan that I knows me well on Wikipedia... is that you NisarKand? -- Behnam 11:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For those categories, Afghan was decided over Afghanistani because only one term can be used for a category and Afghan is used more common (even though many writers, poets, etc from Afghanistan on those lists are not ethnic Afghans). Whereas, here, we can list all three. These terms can be found in dictionaries as well as news articles and other publications. You are right that Afghan currently is most commonly used... but if you are from Afghanistan you should know that we use Afghani alot and we use it exclusively for certain things (eg. naan-e-Afghani, saz-e-Afghani, etc) and Afghanistani is also used inside Afghanistan and is increasingly gaining usage among non-ethnic-Afghans (eg. Latif Pedram, head of the National Congress Party of Afghanistan, prefers Afghanistani). So really, there is no just one correct denonym. Any one of these can be used and we have listed all three of them with an or meaning either one can be used and we've listed them in order of most commonly used (by Google search for them). -- Behnam 11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, it's funny that you tell the other editors here that as non-nationals of Afghanistan that they don't understand basic things... while you (as a national of Afghanistan) think we only use Afghani for currency? You need to interact more with the Afghanistani diaspora's community whereever you live or simply listen to some Afghanistani music and you'll easily learn that we use Afghani for much more than just our currency. Here, let me help you out, here's a new song that's really popular. The singer says Bacha-e Afghani (Afghani boy) not Bacha-e Afghan... listen. -- Behnam 11:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Once you read up on the Origins of the name Afghan, you'll realize Afghanistani is the most accurate term. It is not popular yet, but it is the most accurate. Afghan is the most common usage, but it is not an accurate term. Anyways, we are mentioning all three as a denonym. All three terms can be used and anyone has the option of choosing which term they wish to use. -- Behnam 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"The focus here is not the 'usage' of name but to determine the true and correct word or name which is given by the government and people of Afghanistan." Nope, WP:V, not true and correct. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes; ditto. WP is not to be used to advance linguistic agendas. If we have verifiable evidence that English speakers call persons from Afghanistan Afghans, Afghanis, or Afghanistanis, we need to include each in the demonym. We are not here to direct culture, and say how words should be used. We just report the manner in which they are used, good or bad as it may be. The way the page is now, there are references for the disputed terms, and that's the only requirement for inclusion in WP. -- Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have not mentioned this, but user: Anoshirawan touched on this. Indeed, the term Afghan is a synonym for Pashtun according to The British Library (an authoritative source), see here. This is yet an additional reason to include Afghanistani as majority of Afghanistani is not Pashtun (see Demography of Afghanistan). -- Behnam (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hate websites

Forum admins, please ban AfghanProfile.net from posting their link on the Wikipedia. It contains hate-speeches such as 'This site will provide information on just how barbaric and primitive these Pashtuns have been and still are. The Pashtuns have not offered anything useful or good to Afghanistan.' ... and: 'They do not have any kind of ties to civilization. Civilization is when you have a permanent settlement in a region, and clearly, the Pashtuns do not have this. And yet, as a minority themselves, they wish to control and dominate everything.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRiyadh (talk • contribs) 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Opium Production under the Taliban

I noticed the line, "Meanwhile, the Taliban managed to nearly eradicate the majority of the opium production by 2001.[53]" under the heading, "Soviet Invasion and Civil War." I have not read Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban but Ahmed Rashid's book Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia says in chapter 9 that under the Taliban Afghanistan rivaled Burma as the world's largest producer of opium. In fact, in 1997 Afghanistan supplied 80% of Europe's heroin and 50% of the world's supply. This book was published before 2001 so the line quoted above may be correct, but even if it is it gives the wrong impression. The Taliban used opium for much of their tax income and early on had no intention of stopping its trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.39.29 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I will set up a request for comment

User:Thegreyanomaly has stated tonight that "the concensus appears to support Afghan only" for demonym in the article's infobox. I am not sure if there is such a consensus. To help us through this, I am going to set up a "Request comment." Kingturtle 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. I am sending out two different requests for comment - one for History and geography, and one for Language and linguistics. Kingturtle 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a little frustrating. Two days and no comments on my requests for comment. Kingturtle 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit shocked that my requests for comments have attracted no responses. Did I set them up incorrectly? Kingturtle (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well when I've gone to them they redirect back to this page, so I think we just kept on talking aobut it here (i.e., a little bit above us). Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Language and linguistics: What is/are the acceptable terms to be used as the demonym on the Afghanistan article's infobox?

We've come to a new consensus, at least for this page. There are citations for Afghani and Afghanistani, so they should stay. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have achieved consensus on that point. See Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's freezing the article because of your edit warring. In addition to the previous extensive discussion, "Afghan" is still the most common term of the three in English, despite attempts to invoke political correctness by those pushing "Afghani" and "Afghanistani". --Bejnar (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We had consensus. It contained the three demonyms for about a week, until Hurooz decided to unilaterally change it, without discussing in talk first, even though he had been party to the discussion on the last day we brought it up (16 Nov). Cavalry's response to edit warring does not

mean there was no consensus. It just means that one editor was choosing to operate outside the avenues of the talk page like a civilized person, and I repeatedly reverted his changes. When the article was stable, as a result of discussion, for a week, and then was changed by one user, it shows that he is working against established consensus. Saying that 'Afghan' is "still the msot common term of the three" is demonstrative that there are three terms in English. We have reputable sources for all three, and so they must all be listed. If it's verifiable, we include it in WP. We don't include merely what is both verifiable and popular. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To further demonstrate that we achieved concensus on the 16th, please see here. Cronholm obviously felt we had achieved consensus, and Hurooz has done nothing to demonstrate that the sources for Afghani and Afghanistani are not reputable. He simply doesn't like them, so he wishes to act like there aren't (possibly ignorant) English-speakers who use the terms. It doesn't matter what Afghans like to be called. It sounds callous, I'm sorry, but it's true. WP isn't here to make people feel good, to be affirmative. It is here to record information, and like it or not there are people who call persons from Afghanistan Afghanis, and there are people who call them Afghanistanis. Unless the sources can be shown to be disreputable, they need to be included in our encyclopedia. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Given that Article 4 of the country's constitution states that The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan.[5], I think it's quite clear that Afghan is the preferred demonym. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but doesn't the very fact that it is preferred demonstrate that there are multiple options? You don't prefer A to B when there is no such thing as B; it doesn't make sense. "Afghan" should certainly be listed first, but the others are used as demonyms. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I really feel like appealing to the "preferred" demonym is trying to make WP normative rather than positive. I really don't think that is what WP is about. (And going for the normative comment) Nor do I think that is what WP should be about. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Carl. There was never a "new consensus." As see it, there was a bold initiative taken, which is commendable for being bold, but which turns out being incompatible with the July 2007 consensus. And yes, we should also take to quite seriously the Constitution of Afghanistan, which states "The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan." That Constitution was not created by a dictator or a cabal, but was approved by consensus by the 2003 Loya jirga. Kingturtle (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually the constitution written in 2004 was rushed, not reviewed, and also forged (several signatures were forged). Also, I have not mentioned this, but user: Anoshirawan touched on this. Indeed, the term Afghan is a synonym for Pashtun according to The British Library (an authoritative source), see here. This is yet an additional reason to include WordNet's Afghanistani, since majority of Afghanistan is not Pashtun (see Demography of Afghanistan). And if you don't believe that the constitution was rushed, not reviewed, and also forged... below is the transcript from a program on Tolo TV (Afghanistan's most watched TV channel):

Afghan TV discusses linguistic tensions, "forged" constitution

Saturday, March 17, 2007 Afghan TV discusses linguistic tensions, "forged" constitution Source: Tolo TV, Kabul - BBC Afghan Tolo TV discusses linguistic tensions and the prescribed use of Pashto names and titles in the media and government offices. A number of the participants allege that an article on the issue was "forged" and inserted into the constitution. A university lecturer argues that the language of the "majority" ethnic group should have national use and denies any tampering with the constitution. Guests are Zubair Shafiqi, editor-in-chief of Daily Weesa; Fahim Dashti, editor-in-chief of Kabul Weekly; Manjia Bakhtari, Kabul University lecturer; Jawed Farhad, writer and analyst; Esmail Yun, Kabul University lecturer and Ahmad Zia Rafat, Kabul University lecturer and head of the United National Council of Afghanistan. The following are excerpts from the roundtable aired by independent Tolo TV on 14 March; subheadings inserted editorially: [Correspondent] Welcome to our today's talk show. My first question goes to Mr Zubair Shafiqi. Mr Shafiqi, could you tell us about your article on the national expressions [Dari: Estelahat-e Melli, prescribed names, titles for national use,]? [Zubair Shafiqi in Pashto] Before I go into the main topic of discussion, I would like to ask Tolo television not to censor my comments. I have been watching Tolo television for the past one and half year. Some programmes aired on Tolo, especially the Goftaman [discourse] Programme, are not in favour of the current critical situation in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is emerging from several years of civil war and we are still facing foreign interferences. I believe, in the current situation and the current nation-building process, we vitally need confidence and trust. How can we have trust? The people of Afghanistan have always remained united against foreign invasions and aggressions, but when foreign aggressions and big crises are over, some people raise specific issues to harm the national unity. Is there a national language? [Correspondent interrupts] In your article, you have mentioned that the paragraph on the preservation of prescribed names has been added to the constitution. How can we accept prescribed names when we do not have a national language? [Zubair Shafiqi in Pashto] I believe we have a national language. I would not go into the technical side of the fact that we have or do not have a national language. It is clear. The constitution obliges us to preserve our nationally prescribed names. There were very long discussions during the Constitutional Loya Jerga on this issue. Some people were fuelling such talks. Negotiations and discussions are natural in grand assemblies, but once they make a decision after long discussions, then no one has the right to reject a decision. I believe the constitution has a paragraph asking for the preservation of the prescribed names and everyone should preserve it. It is in favour of our nation, and it will be in favour of our national unity. [Correspondent] But one sentence before the paragraph on the preservation of prescribed names says: Publications and radio and television broadcasting are free in all languages spoken in the country. Can one criticize a radio or television for broadcasting in a specific language? [Zubair Shafiqi in Pashto] Nothing like this has happened. No one has been stopped from doing so. [Correspondent] Zia Rafat, do you think there is any difference between official and national language? [Ahmad Zia Rafat] [Passage Omitted: Zia Rafat speaks about roots of languages and elements forming a nation.] There are talks that Dari is affected by other languages, more specifically by the so-called Iranian Farsi. There is nothing such from the view point of the philology. The language that the people in Tajikistan, Iran and Afghanistan use we know it as Farsi. From the academic point of view, no non-Persian society can impose their thoughts in terms of the use of other words in a Farsi-speaking society. [Correspondent] Can you specifically tell us if there is any difference between national and official languages? [Zia Rafat] Yes there is. We cannot speak of a national language unless we have a nation, but we can have official languages as our constitution has stipulated. But official languages cannot be considered as national languages because we still do not agree on a single language to be the national language. [Correspondent] Esmail Yun, the constitution speaks of official languages in different paragraphs, but there is nothing said about the national language. If we do not have a national language mentioned in the constitution, how can we have nationally prescribed names? No tampering with the constitution on languages [Esmail Yun in Pashto] You mentioned earlier that a paragraph on prescribed names has been added to the constitution [after its final approval]. I totally disagree with it. It is an attack on the honour and personality of the 552 Loya Jerga representatives who approved the constitution. I will tell you the story of who wanted to change the constitution. The people who wanted to bring changes to the constitution are themselves against the citizenship and identity of Afghanistan. They are against the word Afghan. Fortunately, I was present in both the emergency and constitutional Loya Jergas. I was secretary of understanding committee during the Constitutional Loya Jerga. There were different conflicts in the understanding committee. Those, who do not accept this article [article No 16] of the constitution today, they had proposed 13 articles for amendment. The points they wanted to change were that Pashto should not be the national language of Afghanistan, the national anthem should not be in Pashto, the word Afghan should not be used for citizens of Afghanistan and the people of Afghanistan should be called Afghanistani. They also wanted the name of Afghanistan to change. One of these people was Mr Hafiz Mansour who fuelled such issues. In order to bring amendments to the 13 articles, they needed 152 signatures of the Loya Jerga representatives. Changes to 13 articles of the constitutions were proposed by those who were against the identity of Afghanistan. Some Loya Jerga representatives from eastern and southwestern provinces wanted Pashto to be mentioned as the national language of Afghanistan in the constitution. According to the UN and Constitutional Loya Jerga secretariat, the representatives could only sign once to propose amendment to an article. When the signatures collected by those, who wanted changes in 13 articles, were checked, fortunately they had not managed to get the needed number of signatures. I say fortunately because it was in favour of the people that they could not change the articles. One of the people was Mr Hafiz Mansour who had signed twice for one article. Faking signatures in such an important and critical issue could be considered a political crime. Several of those who now launch and chant slogans had faked signatures. All those documents would still be available at the UN archives or other places. They therefore failed to amend the 13 articles through a legal process. [Correspondent] Which one is the final draft of the constitution that the people should act upon? [Esmail Yun in Pashto] The current text is the final one approved with the understanding of all the members of the Loya Jerga. There were people who introduced themselves as people's representatives in the Loya Jerga and came there from different channels, but they were themselves against their nation. They did not accept Afghanistan, Afghanistan's identity or the Afghan nation. When they failed to bring amendments to their proposed articles, they did not even accept to take part in the general Loya Jerga voting process. The Loya Jerga representatives made decisions about articles on the basis of understanding and discussions. When understanding or discussions did not work, then the option was voting. The Loya Jerga understanding committee decided to have the paragraph on preservation of the prescribed names in an attempt to protect Afghanistan from cultural and language aggression of other countries and to make a distinction between our languages and the languages spoken in Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The paragraph does not only speak about Pashto or Dari languages. I am not a language expert of Dari. As a university lecturer, I would say that Dari and Farsi are both the same language. But the constitution of Afghanistan mentions Dari, not Farsi. The sentence on prescribed names was added in the constitution to protect Afghanistan's Dari language from the aggression of Iranian Farsi. The Loya Jerga representatives said Afghanistan's Dari and Pashto languages have understanding and similarity. Afghanistan's Pashto has no similarity or understanding with Pakistani Pashto. Pakistani Pashto is an alien language and our people are unfamiliar with it. Iranian Farsi language is therefore not only unfamiliar to Pashtuns, but is also alien and unfamiliar to Dari speakers. They do not understand it. This article has been added in full understanding with all Loya Jerga representatives. It is just a few people who made fake signatures and wanted to change the articles. They failed and that is why they now claim that some paragraphs have been added to article No 16 of the constitution. [Correspondent] So you think there is a difference between Dari and Farsi. [Esmail Yun in Pashto] If we look at it from the view point of philology, they are the same. But all the people of Afghanistan prefer Afghanistan's Dari to Iranian Farsi. We also prefer Afghanistan's Pashto to Pakistani Pashto. If we believe both languages are totally the same and has no difference, why was Farsi not mentioned in the constitution instead of Dari? [Correspondent] I come back to the first question; is there a difference between official and national languages? [Esmail Yun] Yes, there are differences. We have examples in different parts of the world. The language of the majority tribe is considered the national language of that country. [Passage omitted: Esmail Yun describes examples of other countries with the language of majority tribe as national language]. [Esmail Yun continues] We do not have a 100 per cent pure nation anywhere in the world. We have different ethnic groups in Afghanistan and a collection of all these tribes makes a nation. Of course we do not have a 100 per cent majority ethnic group among all these tribes, but we estimate a partly majority tribe. [Correspondent interrupts] Why do we have to accept a native majority [Dari: Aksaryat-e Bomi]. Why should we not accept a language mostly used by the people? [Esmail Yun] I mentioned earlier that official languages can change, but native language does not change. Farsi was the official language during the Mogul Empire in India, but when the Mogul ended, the official language ended too. We therefore should consider a difference between official and national languages. Right now, the official language in India and Pakistan is English, but it is not their native language. No one in India or Pakistan would say that English is their national language. The language of the majority ethnic group is the national language. [Correspondent] Jawed Farhad, taking into account Mr Yun's remarks, do you see any difference between Dari and Farsi? For instance, in philology, the similarity of a language is considered from the way it is used and the alphabet that it uses. We cannot see any difference between the way Farsi is used in Iran or Dari used in Afghanistan. [Jawed Farhad] From the view point of historical philology, I believe that Farsi and Dari are both the same. I would give a very simple example. A person has one name at home, but is called with another name outside. But he is the same person. Dari and Farsi are not two languages, but are the same language with two different names. We do not know two languages called Iranian Farsi and Afghan Dari. We should differentiate between accent and the language itself. Most people in Afghanistan consider the accent as a language. It is only the accent that differs in different areas. The changes are not very significant though. Mr Yun mentioned something about the native majority and national language. It is very difficult to set standards based on which a language can be considered a native language. We cannot say what language has a deeper history and native roots unless we conduct very deep and close researches and surveys. The thought that any language with native majority is a national language is a totally personal and individual interpretation and assumption. [Correspondent] Manija Bakhtari, what are the standards based on which you can consider a language popular? [Ms Manija Bakhtari] Well, we usually say that we have a history of more than 5,000 years. This history goes back to a very big civilization, which has had a language of its own. We have documents and evidence suggesting the historic roots and use of that specific language by the big civilization. When we speak of the historical roots of our language, of course we have evidence to prove it. Farsi and Dari have no difference from the view point of grammar and word order. It is just a difference of accents. We cannot say Iranian or Afghan languages because they both come from the same roots and are the same. When we use the Farsi words for university [Dari: Daneshgah], lady [Dari: Banu], trader [Dari: Bazargan], it has nothing to do with cultural or language aggression. It has nothing to do with the independent identity of Afghans [Manija uses Afghanistanis rather than Afghans]. We have shared the same civilization in the past and now we share the same language. Another point which may not relate to your question is the constitution. Has any other paragraph been added to the constitution after it was approved by the Loya Jerga or not? I do not want to go into details about the first part because Mr [Fahim] Dashti might have more information about it. I personally believe that one paragraph, on preservation of national expressions, has been added to the constitution. Let us first speak about prescribed names and discuss what features the prescribed names should have in a society. If we need to have prescribed names in our society, why should they always have to be from the language of a specific group of people? When we speak about the national anthem, why should it be in the language of one specific ethnic group? [Correspondent] Mr Dashti, after the endorsement of the new constitution, there were rumours of counterfeit and addition of some paragraphs in the constitution. You were also one of the critics. What do you think was the need to add new paragraphs into the constitution after it was approved by Loya Jerga representatives? I will give you copies of the constitution. These copies of the constitution carry [Senate speaker] Sebghatollah Mojaddedi's signature on the top of the pages. We cannot see any paragraph about prescribed names in the end of article No 16. [Fahim Dashti] Unfortunately I was not as lucky as Mr Yun to be a member of the Constitutional Loya Jerga, but as a journalist, I have been there in almost all discussions under the Loya Jerga tent . Mr Yun spoke about the understanding committee. I was expecting him to also speak about the behind-the-scene committees and meetings that were held in the smaller tent, where all decisions were made. It is also a fact that most decisions were made in the smaller tent in the presence of Mr Zalmay Khalilzad, the then US ambassador to Afghanistan, and the UN special envoy to Afghanistan. Anyway, the paragraph that we are talking about in No 16 was not included in the first draft of the constitution approved by the Loya Jerga representatives [Fahim Dashti uses the Dari word for Loya Jerga as Majles-e Bozorg]. The copy was distributed among all Loya Jerga representatives by Sebghatollah Mojaddedi who was then chairman of the meeting. I also have a copy of the draft distributed among representatives. If I am not mistaken, there was a gap of 14 to 15 days between the approval of the constitution by Loya Jerga representatives and the endorsement of the constitution by the president. When the constitution was endorsed by the president, we could see this new paragraph in the president's endorsed copy. The paragraph says: The present national administrative and academic names in Afghanistan are safe. This sentence was not mentioned in the main draft of the constitution which was approved by the Loya Jerga representatives. When the constitution was endorsed by the president and rumours circulated, as a journalist, I was trying to find out what had happened. There is another copy of the constitution signed by Nematollah Shahrani, who was chairman of the Constitution Scrutiny Commission. It also carried the signature of Prof [Abdol Salam,] Azimi, who was then deputy head of the Constitution Scrutiny Commission, and is now the chief justice. There were two other signatures that I do not exactly remember who they belonged to. That copy also included Sebghatollah Mojaddedi's signature. This specific paragraph has been added in that copy too. When we asked the president's office for an answer about it, they said the president had endorsed the copy signed by Mr Shahrani and four or five other people. When we asked Sebghatollah Mojaddedi as chairman of the Grand Assembly, he rejected to comment. When asked for comments, Nematollah Shahrani, chairman of the Constitution Scrutiny Commission, said their job was complete when they had handed over the first copy of the constitution to the Loya Jerga. Even on that time I wrote, and I repeat again, that the president of Afghanistan is responsible for this counterfeit in the constitution. There are two assumptions: If the president had signed the constitution without reading it and cross-checking it with the copy signed by Sebghatollah Mojaddedi, then he is responsible. When the president endorses a law, he should first read it and make sure he fully understands it, he can then endorse it. If the president did read the constitution and noticed a change but still signed it, he is responsible. This is not the only case of forgery in the constitution. There are two to three other minor changes too. [Correspondent] What do you think are the causes for the forgery? [Fahim Dashti] Well, Mr Yun spoke about one group of people earlier, but he did not speak about the other group. There were two different groups of people with different thoughts in the Loya Jerga. One group wanted the national anthem to be in Pashto and wanted the so-called prescribed names to be safe, and several other issues. This was what one group wanted. But there was another group against demands of the first group. I think the first group had had more influence in the behind-the-scene games, in the smaller tent that I mentioned earlier, and succeeded to dismiss the thoughts of the second group. In spite of all our efforts, we could not get any clear answer from the president, Mr Shahrani or Mr Mojaddedi about rumours or criticisms of changes in the constitution. [Correspondent] Mr Shafiqi, do you reject or accept the copy of the constitution that I gave you earlier? [Zubair Shafiqi] Naturally, I accept it as the constitution of Afghanistan because it has been signed by the president of our country. "Forged" signatures? [Correspondent] So you think Mr Mojaddedi's signatures on the top of the pages are faked? [Zubair Shafiqi] The modern technology has made things very simple [speculating that the signatures might have been forged]. [Correspondent] Anyway, we come to the other point which reads: Publications and radio and television broadcasting are free in all languages spoken in the country. Is it a crime if a television or radio channel does not say Stera Mahkma or Pohantun [Pashto words for Supreme Court and university]? Is it a violation of the law to use Dari equivalents? [Zubair Shafiqi] To some extent it is alright. We should have constructive discussions. Unfortunately, I can see that sometimes discussions about the prescribed names and national values are very pessimistic. Sometimes people even reject our national prides and identity. Sometimes people in this programme speak on behalf of a nation that has, in a very short time, defeated big emperors, but unfortunately they forget their national values and prides and do not even confess what nation they represent. I do not think it is right to raise and discuss in television the issues that harm the national unity in Afghanistan . [Correspondent] Do you have any comments Mr Rafat? [Zia Rafat] Well, it became clear that there has been forgery in the constitution. Something that should not have happened has happened. I believe it has a historical reason. When a specific tribe or group has been in power and influenced other tribes for decades, it is natural that ethnic conflicts resurface. The ruling tribe is always afraid that other tribes or groups might stand against its interests. It therefore always tries to create obstacles for other tribes and tries to prevent them from gaining power. One of the obstacles that the tribe-in-power can create is to add a paragraph in the constitution under the title of languages or national names. It also has political reasons, there is no doubt. Awareness of rights War created awareness. If they say that other tribes had kept quiet about such issues before the war, their silence had never meant that they accepted everything imposed on them. Their silence has been a result of despotism. But during the war, other tribes also found the opportunity to develop their talents. When other talents emerge, positions change. When positions change, such conflicts occur. [Esmail Yun] First, I would like to comment on Mr Dashti's remarks. According to Mr Dashti, the president is criminal because he has forged the constitution. From the legal point of view, accusing someone is itself a crime. It is even not possible to think that it has been forged. It is a humiliation and disgrace to the Loya Jerga representatives. Why did those people not accept to vote? They simply sat there and warned others and humiliated them. The reason was that the majority of the representatives wanted understanding. When understanding did not work, voting was the last option. It is a principle of democracy. But they never agreed to vote. There are different copies of the constitution. The copy you are showing us is the third copy. When the constitution commission presented the first draft to the Loya Jerga, the Loya Jerga members suggested several changes. [Correspondent interrupts] So you think this is also not the final version of the constitution, right? Then why did Mojaddedi sign it? [Esmail Yun] Mojaddedi signed every copy of the constitution that was presented to the Loya Jerga representatives. This is not the final text. There was another copy before this text. [Correspondent] Who were members of the understanding committee? [Esmail Yun] The 552 members of the Constitutional Loya Jerga had been divided into 10 committees. The understanding committee was composed of representatives from the 10 committees. Heads, deputy heads and secretaries of the 10 committees were members of the understanding committee. They represented the 552 members. There has been no forgery. It is impossible. Speaking of forgery is a humiliation to the Constitutional Loya Jerga of Afghanistan. The president did not need to do so. [Correspondent] What has the government done to strengthen and develop the languages of other ethnic groups mentioned in the constitution? [Esmail Yun] Even if we tell you to observe this article now, than Tolo television might possibly complain. You said earlier that broadcasting is free. Yes, it is free, but within the framework of law. Broadcasting is free, but the contents of the broadcasts that harm the national unity in Afghanistan and are against the Islamic values and create division among the people of Afghanistan are not free. We say the people have approved this article of the constitution. I agree that some people might have been against it, but it is a result of voting. Majority people have voted for it. It is a principle of democracy. Promotion of languages guaranteed under constitution We do not say nothing should be done to promote and develop Dari language or other languages. For instance, Uzbek language is a majority in [northern] Balkh and Takhar Provinces. They can have radio and televisions in Uzbek in those provinces. It is their right and no one stops them. [Correspondent] We are discussing the legal side of the issue. Suppose the text of the constitution is right, but we can see that the government has done nothing to promote any of the languages mentioned in the constitution. For instance, we see that when job vacancies are announced by the Administrative Reforms and Civil Services Commission, the main condition of appointment is English language. Do you not think that the government has taken the first step to break the law? [Esmail Yun] We do not confirm all the activities of the government and we do not say that the government is like angels doing nothing wrong. There are several other problems. [Correspondent] But how can we criticize Tolo television? [Esmail Yun] We fulfil our responsibility. We should also advise the government to address problems and shortcomings. We cannot commit crimes because other commit crime or do something wrong. Another point, when we speak of nationally prescribed names, they are all proper names. You go to the city and ask a taxi driver to take you to Pohantun or Daneshgah [Pashto and Dari words for university] see where the taxi driver will take you [insists that the people do not know Dari words, such as Daneshgah or Dadgah-e Ali, and therefore Pashto prescribed names for these places should be used]. We have also accepted several Dari words in Pashto. If we talk about all these discriminations and separations in the government and among the people, several other problems will emerge.

[Correspondent] The government has not managed to establish specific academies or institutions to work on language enrichment and promotion.

[Esmail Yun] The government has not done several things. The government cannot ensure security inside Kabul. We should not expect all these things from the government. I am talking about people who raise such issues.

The government has not raised this issue, but the televisions have raised it. So it is for the televisions and academies to sit together and address the problem through negotiations. It is not the job of one journalist or one writer to change a language. Academies and universities should sit together to address the problem.

[Correspondent] Mrs Manija, what do you think needs to be done for a language to be naturally promoted without someone telling or ordering us or putting it in the law? How can we replace foreign languages with our own language?

[Manija Bakhtari] When we emphasize the use of Dari words in our language and when we say Pashto words should not enter or be imposed on our language, it is just because a group or a tribe wants to force us to use those words.

As you mentioned earlier, there is a high interest for English language in our society now because it is a language with which people can make a living these days. Those who speak English can have better privileges and live with good working opportunities. It goes back to poverty in our society and lack of employment opportunities for the citizens of Afghanistan.

We should have centres to make words and names for imported goods. Reading is one of the factors that can help improve our language.

Census, majority or minorities

Another point I would like to mention is that all the discussion we had today or all discussions in Afghanistan's intellectual circles today go back to some problems of years back or even decades back. Those problems have been caused as a result of forgery in the history of Afghanistan. If you go to schools today and see history books taught there, you can see that history has been forged and changed. This is what has caused the issue of minority and majority.

[Esmail Yun interrupts in Dari] There is a minority and majority. The Loya Jerga proves it. Why do you reject something so clear and natural?

[Manija Bakhtari] Even the number of representatives selected from different provinces for the Loya Jerga had also been based on discriminations. We can see how many representative we had from [northern province of] Badakhshan and how many from Kandahar?

[Esmail Yun] It is on the basis of population.

[Manija Bakhtari] We do not still have an exact population census in Afghanistan to say who is a majority and who is a minority. Democracy does not speak of minority or majority. It is the right of every individual citizen that is important in democracy.

[Fahim Dashti] I would like to make some very brief points. First, Mr Yun said that I called the president a criminal. I have never done so and will not do so. But when I said he had signed the constitution, he is responsible to the people for his signature.

Secondly, you say it is a humiliation to the representatives of the people when we say there has been a forgery. I also believe so. I have all the different copies from the first to the last. I have the whole collection. I even have the copy that was distributed in the last day of the Loya Jerga when the Loya Jerga ended. It was signed by Sebghatollah Mojaddedi.

I also say the same thing. When the Loya Jerga representatives approve a document after 22 days of long discussions, but then we see that document is changed during the gap between the approval and the endorsement. They worked for 22 days and finally approved something, but a person or a specific group changed it. It is of course a humiliation to the people's representatives.

[Esmail Yun] I reiterate that there has been no forgery in the constitution. Those who are against a paragraph of article No 16 of the constitution are also against the identity of Afghanistan. They were also against the name and citizenship of Afghanistan.

[Esmail Yun switches to Dari] I say the law is already approved and endorsed. The people of Afghanistan are obliged to obey it and accept it. You worked there as a journalist, but I was a member of the constitution commission. It says national expressions. Prescribed names do not necessarily have to be Pashto words or phrases. Why are people so sensitive to this?

Bank Melli Afghan [national bank of Afghanistan] is Dari and we use the same name. Pohantun and Stera Mahkama [Pashto words for university and Supreme Court] are also proper names. Why should the representatives of people forge? It is not possible.

[Correspondent] Dear viewers, thanks for accompanying us. Thanks to our guests. Ideas of our guests are their own and do not belong to Tolo television.

-- Behnam (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Another authoritative source, the Oxford English Dictionary (the most comprehensive guide to English), is also quite clear about the use of Afghan: "A native or inhabitant of Afghanistan". It includes Afghani only as a currency, and does not include Afghanistani at all. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Princeton University's WordNet are also both authoritative.

• The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "AfghaniAf·ghan·i (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" (LINK)

• WordNet: "Afghanistani: adjective 1. of or relating to or characteristic of Afghanistan or its people [syn: Afghani] noun 1. a native or inhabitant of Afghanistan" (LINK)

-- Behnam (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kingturtle and Number 57, can you tell me why the American Heritage and WordNet entries don't settle the matter? While I go to the OED first in matters like this as well [see above, when they were unreferenced and I didn't find them in the OED I wanted them out], I don't see why it should be the only source allowed. The sources provided seem good enough to me. I don't see how sourced info can be removed. Unless you can demonstrate to me that they don't meet the criteria for reliable sources, they need to be included. And honestly I don't think the constitution argument is strong. Yes, we can use that as a source for Afghan. But, I don't see how we can use it as a source for Afghan, to the exclusion of all other demonyms. I still do not think taht a country's constitution has jurisdiction over what words may and may not be used in a foreign language. Additionally, Hurooz's arguments on that basis struck me as POV. I can't really sort out what the deal is with him and Behnam, I'm not sure about either one of the. Also, how was there not consensus? Like I honestly thought it was over. Hurooz had taken part in the discussion, and then he dropped it for like a week. There was nothing to indicate that he had a problem with it. Also, I've cited somewhere that Cronholm explicitly stated he understood consensus as well. And you need no reminding I'm sure, but consensus can change. But the main issue: I do believe in keeping info once it is sourced. Thats the only deal for me. Show me the sources aren't reliable and I'll give up. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• The real point is what is English usage, and the answer is "Afghan", period. The others are affectations, as is shown by the OED, not compelled by the OED. Unless Carl.bunderson wants to take this to mediation, I suggest quietly removing the seldom used and depreciated demonyms. --Bejnar (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

In this case, there should only be a single demonym listed in the info box, because that is not the place to make it clear that Afghani and afghanistani although used, are done so in the severe minority of instances, and are not the preferred terms. --Bejnar (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge they are not the preferred terms. In a manner of compromise, would you be open to a footnote that mentions this? My complaint is simply that Afghani has a reputable source, so it should not be completely ignored; if it's in the Am. Heritage Dictionary I don't think its appropriate to call it an affectation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bejnar, so far I don't really see you providing a solid reason not to mention these terms other than that you don't like them and you don't think they are preferred. What does preferred mean? Preferred by who? Everyone has different preferences, some prefer one of over the ohter, and these don't matter. These two terms are sourced and also used and that you think they are not preferred isn't enough reason to remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HariRud (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The perference that I speak of is not mine, it is that of the overwhelming number of English speakers, and the overwhelming number of Wikipedia editors at the July discussion. Feel free to look at actual usage of the various terms. I agree with Carl.bunderson that a footnote is not inappropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the July "discussion" please. There was no discussion. All the sources that have been provided here where not provided in that discussion. If it was, the result would have been different. Regardless, preferences doesn't matter. We have them sourced by authoritive sources and that's all that matters. And I don't buy your so called "compromise". These terms are as valid as Afghan and should be mentioned in the infobox, not hidden where no one will ever see them! You have something personal against those terms and keep making up bad excuses to remove them. They are sourced by authoritive sources and after considering that there shouldn't even be a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Bejnar. I think your edit satisfies both facts: that Afghan is by far the most commonly used term, but the others are documented as well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl, putting them at the end where no one will ever see them is hardly "documenting" them. They should be in the infobox listed in order of most commonly used to least commonly used. If Bejnar has a personal problem with that, that's not good enough reason to just hide these denonyms (which again are sourced by authoritve sources). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary. It is not the article. The primary use of the word "Afghani" in English is for a monetary denomination. --Bejnar (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning 2 more words does not change it from a summary to an article. No the primary use is still as a denonym for Afghani. How many English speakers even know what the currency of Afghanistan is? Only a very small percentage. So you're claim is false. It's sourced by an authortive source and these other excuses to remove it are not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(1)The documentation is not removed, it is in a footnote. (2) The preferred term is listed in the infobox. The other two terms are not preferred and are listed in the footnote. You need to read all of the discussion here and the original referred to by Carl B. here. --Bejnar (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

So it should be a mere footnote that no one will ever see any just because of YOUR preference? You keep saying "preferrence", who's preference? Yours? I know that's not my preference and atleast 10 editors would prefer the other two not to mention thousands of people from Afghanistan. Do you actually have a source from let's say a university or other scholarly source that says that Afghan is preferred? If not, please stop removin content that is references just because of your preference or what you think is some other people's preference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.216.199 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Bejnar what good is it there where no one can even see it!? I am sick of you Afghan nationalists and your deceptions and lies! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.252 (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl, please don't fall for Bejnar's tricks. No one can ever see these alternative denonyms in the reference section. That's what Bejnar's trying to do. He can't remove them because they are referenced, so now he found a way to hide them within the article. Please continue to discuss this issue. You did a great job so far and it would be a shame to now just quit and let Bejnar (the Afghan nationlist) have his way by hiding them which is as good as removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.252 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes are not hiding places. The info is still in the article, and that's all that matters. This is the most sensible solution that has been offered. Footonotes are where extra information is added, as well as references, which you can see from almost any article in a scholarly journal. 1/3 of the page in those are often taken up by footnotes. If people are too lazy to read footnotes to see what they say, that's their own problem. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl, Bejnar knows that 99.99% of people who read this article won't bother to go look for other denonyms in the footnotes. Considering this, Bejnar is basically hiding this. There is no reason to put well reference denonyms in the footnotes where no one can see them. And now the issue is, who says one is preferred over the other? According to who? Bejnar? There is scholarly source that says one is preferred, it's a personal preference. If Bejnar wants those two in the footnotes, then we should also put Afghan in the footnote and in the place of denonym have "see footnote". Having Afghan there and not the other two is Bejnar's personal preference. Don't let him push you into agreeing with his preference. He's an Afghan (Pashtun) nationalist and has his own POVs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.252 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

There is already an example of a footnote that is explanatory in the article; see what foonote 5 says. Do you think that should be included in the article? Footnote 5 is precedence for having a footnote for Afghani and Afghanistani. It shows what footnotes are used for. They include information that is interesting but not of such prime importance that it goes in th body of the article. He is not hiding the other demonyms. Its a practical solution. Seriously, google Afghan Afghani and Afghanistani. Afghan is the preferred, ie common/most-used term. I have said several times that I myself use Afghan; I also think that people should use Afghan, simply because it is the most common. The fact that Afghan is in the OED but Afghani [as demonym] and Afghanistani are not yet is demonstrative of the fact that Afghan is the 'normal' term in English. A footnote shows that the others are also used. Don't tell me he is pushing me into agreeing with his preference. My only interest here is having sourced content maintained, which has been done with the footnote. I could care less that both he and you may be POV-pushers, so long as sourced content is maintained--and this is done with the footnote. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The infobox is not the body of the article. There is no harm in mentioning them there other than there might be harm to Afghan nationlists like Bejnar. Afghan might be most common, I'm aware of that. But it also incorrect. Just take a look at the Etymology section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Etymology) within this article and you'll easily realize that it's a mysnomer. Bejnar just doesn't like it because it hurts "Afghan nationlism" and is a threat to the "Afghan state". Wikipedia shouldn't be concerned with maintaining a country's nationalism and should take the neutral stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.218.184 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bring this up before, but have any of you seen the denonym for other ---istan countries? See their articles:

• Kazakhstan - Kazakhstani
• Kyrgyzstan - Kyrgyzstani
• Pakistan - Pakistani
• Tajikistan - Tajikistani
• Turkmenistan - Turkmenistani
• Uzbekistan - Uzbekistani

If we don't include Afghanistani here (and it is referenced) then Afghanistan would be the only ----istan country as an exception here on Wikipedia.

Poll?

Although I don't believe that polls are all that useful in general, I think now is the time to determine where we stand on the issue. As I see it, there are three options:

1. mention all three terms

2. mention Afghan only with a footnote for the other two.

3. mention only Afghan

There seems to be no one prevailing opinion, but eventually we need to make a decision, so let's try to aim towards a consensus rather than furthering individual arguments. Everybody is not going to be happy with the result, but the alternative is mediation, which I don't think we want. I personally think #2 has to best chance to be stable long-term. Thoughts? --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment The voting here is irrelevant as the terms are sourced. Voting does not remove the sources. It does not matter what the preference of a few editors is. If these terms were not from scholarly sources, then a vote would apply. However, in this case, the terms are sourced by scholarly sources, and voting does not apply.

Support #2 --Bejnar (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Support #2 Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Support #2 I know I haven't given any input until now, but I have been following this discussion closely. sdgjake (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Support #1 Kabul-Shahan2020(talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

(note: this user is a banned sock of Beh-nam—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Support #2 for consensus sake. Kingturtle (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment Consensus is for cases where there are no sources or the sources are questionable. Here we have, Princeton University's WordNet and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. There is no need for consensus when the sources are authoritative like these. --The preceding comment was added by 65.95.147.112 on 17 December 2007, believed to be Beh-nam.

You have to look at what is being sourced. Yes, the terms Afghani and Afghanistani occasionally appear in English publications, and that appearence has been documented. That does not mean that they are in regular usage, or anything else. --Bejnar (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason not to agree to #2, seeing as how it maintains all the demonyms in the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

According to that reasoning, there is no reason not to vote for #1 either. The fact is, #2 hides 2 of the denonyms in the references section where no one will see them anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.216.171 (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You're just being difficult and I expect no one is taking stock in what you're saying anymore. #2 does not hide the demonyms; they are still in the article. Please accept compromise. Not doing so makes you look like a POV pusher. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Just want to remind you all that the only person who supports the word Afghanistani is the banned editor Beh-nam. He is a great deceiver, he falsely changed Turmen to Turkmenistani on the Turkmenistan article. [6] The IP is 100% him (Special:Contributions/65.94.218.184). He probably also did it on the articles of other -stan countries. This person is either mentally retarded or is having fun with you guys by arguing with you over things like this since he probably has no real friends in life. He just want to feel important by being here trying to act like he knows something. All the IPs that are similar to 65.94.218.184 is him, from boring Toronto, Canada. He is just seeking attention.--Afghansuperior (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just as a side note, this person is also a sockpuppeteer, like Beh-nam. This page has attracted more socks than I have ever on any other article page. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 07:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My Discussion with user:Carl.bunderson

Have you ever read a footnote? That is what foonotes do, they give extra information. Look at the talk page. And that 3rr can go on ur page just as easily. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I have. I know what they do. But 99.9% of the readers will not think to go find needles in haystacks in the footnotes section. Yes, but I did not violate the rule yet... you did. I won't report you, but please stop being silly by calling it a "compromise". KabuliTajik (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

We should not pander to lazy-ass readers. If they don't bother to read footnotes, that's their own fault. And I am not being silly, seriously, go and read the conversation, I'm not the only one who thinks its a compromise. I wasn't even the one who came up with it in the first place. You should realize that the fact that you haven't bothered to participate in the discussion, and reverted without discussion first, makes you look like you are unwilling to be reasonable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You have to understand the audience of this encyclopedia. They are not professors, they are average people. Only a scholar would go and search the footnotes for additional information. Maybe you are a scholar, but 99% of people are not. If you didn't come up with this so called "compromise"... then please first of all stop calling it that and secondly stop blindly following it. The person who came up with it has certain POVs and is not a neutral editor. He supports Afghan nationalism, which should have no place on an encyclopedia. If you are dedicated to providing scholarly information that can be easily accessed, then switch sides please. I haven't participated in the discussion yet because so far a good enough reason to remove referenced content has not been provided. KabuliTajik (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

                   Look at the discussion. The people do not have POVs. They're don't have anything to do with Afghanistan. They just want to make a good encyclopedia. And you really can't spurn the discussion because you don't like it. Make a case that there isn't a good reason, and people will listen to you. Until then, you come off as a POV-pusher yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

                       I've been looking at Bejnar's edits and he clearly edits clearly support "Afghan nationalism". What POV? This is referenced content. It is Bejnar the is REMOVING sourced content because he claims it is not preferred. That is what is called a POV. KabuliTajik (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Looking at your contributions, both of you seem to have a particular, if not vested, interest in Afghanistan. But that doesn't change my belief. The majority of editors, who agree with tthe footnote compromise, are not removing sourced content. It is obviously still there. Footnotes do not remove content, they just move it. For the sake of something everyone can agree on, jut accept the footnote. And as I mentioned above, there is precedence on WP, even on this article, for footnotes such as this one. I believe footnote 5 is an example on this page. No one bitches about that information not being the article, seeing as how it is clearly still there. This situation is analogous. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Man do you have a problem understanding that the AUDIENCE of Wikipedia are NOT scholars? How many times do I have to tell you? 99% of the people reading Wikipedia will not go searching footnotes for additional info! Get that through your head! Look at Bejnar's contribs, the guy is an Afghan nationalist and he has manipulated you and others to his side.

NO ONE has still provided a good enough reason for HIDING sourced information in the footnotes? The only reason provided by Bejnar is that he doesn't think it's preferred. That is HIS POV!

Until Bejnar provides a source that states that Afghan is preferred, sourced material STAYS. End of story and no I will not accept Bejnar removing sourced material just because he feels it's not "preferred". KabuliTajik (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not hidden. Footnotes are not used to hide information. And that Afghan is preferred is not POV; it can be demonstrated by a simple googling of the three terms. Moreovor, Afghani and Afghanistani are not even used enough yet to warrant being in the OED, which is very inclusive. This show that it is not POV. Furthermore, in this very article there is precedent for this sort of footnote. Please address both of these points with substantive arguments. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please everyone note that KabuliTajik has been blocked as a vandal sockpuppet. All editors who have not been blocked as socks have agreed upon the compromise for compromise sake, as it retains the information in a footnote. If anyone disagrees with this idea of consensus, please say so. Changes to the demonym will be reverted with extreme prejudice by myself if they are not discussed here beforehand and clearly agreed upon by consensus. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

No, user: Anoshirawan disagrees strongly with user: Bejnar's so called "compromise" and there is no consensus. Don't make things up. A poll does not count as concensus. Check the Wiki guidelines here, it says,

“ This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD. ”

According to that, there is no consensus yet, except for Bejnar's POV pushing and source removal and a few editors who have carelessly voted in favor of Bejnar's POV pushing and content removal. AntiFascism (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The only users who don't accept this are socks. It looks as though you yourself are a sock, evading your block. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

user: Anoshirawan is not a sock. You are confusing him with user: Anoshiravan39 (sockpuppet of user: NisarKand). AntiFascism) (talk 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, he is a sock. He had sock on his user page, until you removed it a few moments ago. I have no reason to believe anything you say, seeing as how you are a sock of Bamyan, evading your ban. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying he is a sock of user: Khampalak? So he was disagreeing over edits with HIMSELF!? LOL! I removed that from his user page because it's obvious he is not user: Khampalak, check their contributions and you'll see they were arguing and were at conflict with each other. You should look into things more before jumping to conclusions. AntiFascism (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AntiFascism is yet another banned sock....what a surprise. Perhaps this page should be permanently semi-protected? Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Government site

Is there an issue here as well? What are the rationals for inclusion or removal?—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 18:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're supporting the removal of the main government site of Afghanistan? What's the purpose of removing this? I'm sure there is a purpose, probably that you want to hide it so to make people assume the country has no functioning government. Every article of nations has the official government sites so why should Afghanistan's be removed?--Hurooz (talk) 15:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No I am not. I am trying to understand whether or not there is a controversy. My question still stands; I have heard one argument to include the site and none supporting its removal. Why was it included in the revert war?—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 23:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan - what is life like for internationals operating in Country?

A good start is to look at all of the services that are available in country - that many people have no idea exist. Too many, Afghanistan is thought of as the fifth poorest and most conservative Islamic country in the world. However, to those internationals that have been or live there know, it is a Country that grabs your imagination and despite all of its difficulties has something that makes almost all visitors say they will return to one day. Daily life too many internationals, is far removed from what those see on the news and would expect - look at the restaurant listings on www.afghanguide.biz to get a feel for the unreported side of life that the public often misses. My suggestion is to add a section to the Afghanistan over view on what day to day life is like for an international living in Country - it may be surprisingly normal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.205.198.178 (talk) 09:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Excess section

The constitution of Afghanistan has no jurisdiction over the English language. There are sources for both Afghan, Afghani, and Afghanistani being used of persons from Afghanistan in English. Deletion of sourced content that is a product of consensus (see Demonym section above) is vandalism, Hurooz. The other things you did, I've no problem with. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I looked at the other changes you made, sorry I didn't notice before. The edit I just made maintained your changes to the article, changing only the demonym section to include what you want as well as the other sourced options. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any WP policy saying we have to use a country's constitution as the basis for our encyclopedia. Show me where that is. The references are from dictionary.reference.com. Where are you getting free dictionary.com from? On dictionary.reference.com, the entry for Afghani comes from the American Heritage Dictionary, and the entry for Afghanistani comes from WordNet, which is done by Princeton University. How are these unreliable sources? All I wish to do is preserve sourced information. You may not be, but you strike me as a pov-pusher trying to make sure that English-speaking persons call persons from Afghanistan nothing but 'Afghans' because thats what you want. If you want to do that, if the other terms are ignorant, please spend your time soapboxing somewhere else. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Click on WordNet, then on Semantic lexicon, then on Semantics and read the def slowly. You'r not understanding what WordNet is. It is a new system to help explain the meanings of certain complicated words that are not found in most dictionaries and afghanistani is one such word out of 150,000 words stored in WordNet.--Churra (talk) 23:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything on WordNet's site to suggest that the terms in it would not actually be words; and I was able to find simple words, such as cat. But the small size of the database, given the size of English, does seem odd. And WordNet doesn't call itself a 'semantic lexicon'; rather, a lexical database. If you could address those issues, I'd appreciate it. But I would be willing to concede to you on this word. Do you have any objections to the source for 'Afghani'? Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that Afghans only call themselves Afghans. It may make it the "proper" demonym, but it is not the only one. If there are reputable sources for Afghani and Afghanistani, they should be included. You grant that Afghani is used, sometimes, by foreigners. The vast majority of English speakers, who use the English WP, are foreigners by Afghan standards. If some of us use Afghani, it needs to be acknowledged. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess we have to change the name of the article Germany to "Bundesrepublik Deutschland", since that's the constitutional name of that country. Logically, the demonym should be changed to "Deutsch". I am sure that Hurooz fully agrees with me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.144.56 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hurooz and Bejnar are Afghan nationalists. It doesn't matter how you explain it to them, they are against any denonym other than Afghan because according to them it threatens the "Afghan state". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.252 (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is there no Pashto in the native-language section in the infobox?

Seriously, it's a crying shame. I'd do it myself (the way I rectified Morocco's atrocious infobox a couple of months ago), but obviously that's impossible now. There is NO REASON that the name of the country in the OFFICIAL LANGUAGE should be simply ignored in the infobox. For that matter, the first-line report of the native name in Pashto includes no transliteration--that's a serious problem, since not everyone can read Arabic script. Heck, I'm fluent in Arabic and I can only barely make out what it says, thanks to differences in the alphabet. Furthermore, what exactly IS the name of Afghanistan? There is consensus on "republic" for the translation, but is it "Jamhūrī" or "Dawlat"? The Farsi article has it as "Jamhūrī"/whatever in both Pashto and Dari, but the German article has "Dawlat" for Pashto and "Jamhūrī" for Dari, and the French article has "Dawlat" for both! I would personally regard the Farsi article as authoritative, considering that people in Afghanistan actually speak it (Dari being a dialect of Farsi, if that), but I don't know for sure. Thoughts? Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dowlat and Jamhuri are both Arabic words and have the same meaning. It does not matter. Both Jamhuri and Dowlat have been adopted in Pashto and Persian. I think the Pashto version should also be added to the info-box. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.144.56 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As a speaker of Arabic, I know that in Arabic at least, "Dawlah" means "state" (or sometimes "government" depending on context), while "Jumhuriyyah" specifically means "republic." Judging by the Wiktionary entry for "Dawlat", Farsi makes the same distinction. What is the name according to the Afghan government? Lockesdonkey (talk) 02:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Why has nobody addressed this? C'mon already! Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

many more sources for afghanistan being south asian

Thegreyanomaly (talk • contribs) 03:00, December 11, 2007

Afghanistan is without a doubt part of both Central and South Asia - the only evidence you have to provide is the fact that it is a member of SAARC. What we are all disputing is your inference that it is part of the Indosphere. Green Giant (talk) 15:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Image of girls

KabuliTajik, USAID Afghanistan labels the girls in that photo as being Afghan. On what authority are you using to call those girls Afghanistani? Kingturtle (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It shouldn't be changed without a source. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

The image source describes them as "Afghan girls." So does the article. What's the problem, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 10:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

{{Editprotected}}

N Edit declined. No consensus. Also, the image to be edited is not specified. Please note that the instructions state: "This template should be accompanied by a specific description of the request." Sandstein (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Military and law enforcement

Hallo! In this article it would be correct to describe the important GIAAC, the Anti Corrupion Authority, which is an independant body with Izzatullah Wasifi as its general director. As there is an article on his name, that article could also be completed with a link back to this part. Suggestion to add it as "4.2" Link to GIAAC: [7] Zoors (talk) 23:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoors (talk • contribs) 23:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

comment/suggestion

suggestions: I would like to say that you need to write on the right top of first page name as such in pashto( د افغانستان اسلامى جمهوريت),as it was written before in wikipedia.The name of Afghan government is written only in Persian mainly because of persian speaker influences at government due to Northern allaince which distorted the truth.Second,It is totally baseless and lies that Dari or persian is spoken by 70 pecent of Afghanistan's population,which clearly contradict with the true figures given in old Atlasses.If an irish or scottish write wrong information about UK and give misleading infos regarding UK, that Irish or Scottish is spoken by 70 percent of UK's Population or claim that 75 percent of UK's Population are irish or scottish, what will be your reactions? Third, A country could be recognised and defined by the original inhabitants of that country.Now a day every body knows that the so-called afghan government is occupied by Persian speakers of Northern Allaince which is getting direct and indirect support from Iran which is working very hard to distroy and ditort the afghan histry in order to establish irani thoughts,idealogy,language,culture etc,that is why the wikipedia is provided with false information. - posted in article by user 91.149.9.241. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingturtle (talk • contribs) 17:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Very amusing comments. Someone should let him/her know that this is not a forum. AntiFascism (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not, he/she has SOME point. As I noted above, Pashto IS an official language of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, and currently there is only Dari/Persian in the "native language" field of the infobox. Since I speak no Pashto, I cannot say what the official name is with certainty; I am guessing from my knowledge of Arabic, a dubious proposition. I would advocate that Pashto (with a suitable transliteration/transcription) be added to the top of the infobox alongside the current Dari (though not necessarily one on top of the other). So ADD IT NOW! Lockesdonkey (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias exhibited in display of image of US Humvee stuck in sand

I think it's pretty obvious what the original content uploader intended. The biased image should be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JR869 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Even though I'm Russian, I agree it is anti-American. I have changed it. RussianRoket (talk) 07:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back again. Let's discuss here first. No offence, I liked the older pictures better.--John (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake with the new picture. I'm putting this image from Commons but here it shows something else. How do I fix this? RussianRoket (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

THe images used should be agreed here first before they are added to the article. --John (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with RussianRoket, so I am putting his photo in back in. The Humvee picture is POV (yes, we all get the metaphor, ha ha). Either don't include a picture or include a picture that shows what is currently happening there. And, I don't think the US performing AAA duties in Afghanistan so this photo is misleading. --MarsRover (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

POV paragraph in Soviet invasion and civil war section

Someone should fix this paragraph to make it neutral:

The result of the fighting was that the vast majority of the elites and intellectuals had escaped to take refuge abroad, a dangerous leadership vacuum thereby coming into existence. Fighting continued among the victorious Mujahideen factions, eventually giving rise to a state of warlordism. The most serious fighting during this period occurred in 1994, when over 10,000 people were killed in Kabul alone. The chaos and corruption that dominated post-Soviet Afghanistan in turn spawned the rise of the Taliban. The Taliban developed as a politico-religious force, and eventually seized Kabul in 1996. By the end of 2000 the Taliban were able to capture 95% of the country, aside from the opposition (Northern Alliance) strongholds primarily found in the northeast corner of Badakhshan Province. The Taliban sought to impose a very strict interpretation of Islamic law.

Dupree3 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. Kingturtle (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

FASLE, LIES AND ALOT OF POVS

There is a tajik conspiricy here and it looks like there are a lot of pro-iranians in here. I would first like to say that everything close to 70% are lies here on Wikipesia written by people outside afghanistan. To say that Ghazni is Dominate of tajiks is completely untrue becausee of its proximty to pakistan and pashtuns this is untrue if not impossible. looool I wonder who is writing all these bogus facts and POVS. We have tajiks in here with no pashtuns in here maybe because pashtuns have a life. People who know the truth never question that manys things but people who are jealous and want to create FORGERY and cant always take in the truth, will question everything from its name to its exipration date. 71.139.48.99 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Pashtun786