Talk:Afghanistan

To Jrkso: Stop cutting pieces of Afghan history out of the article

The Soviet War, Islamic State and Taliban Emirate periods are three very important parts of Afghan history. You cannot belittle them by simply putting them as one section. Also, the information given by the version you keep restoring is heavily misleading (to say the least). The episode of the "Democratic Republic and Saur Revolution" is not that important like the parts you keep erasing and they make a huge part of the history section. Operation Enduring Freedom has an own section. Yet you concentrate only on the Soviet War, Islamic State and Taliban Emirate. The question that springs to mind is, why is that? JCAla 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Factor out detailed history

I'd have thought a lot the history section here was a bit too detailed and much of it should be factored out to the History of Afghanistan and History of Afghanistan since 1992 and what's here should mainly be the lead sections of those articles. Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• agreed! Tajik (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - The 1978 to 2010 history in this article should tell us the major events briefly, similar to this , this, or this.--Jrkso (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• Do not agree. I think the detailed history is of importance in the main Afghanistan article. The history part is not that long and gives a good overview. Also, it is not really that detailed considering the complexity of the history. If the history is shortened, then all of it including "Hotaki dynasty and the Durrani Empire", "Pre-Islamic period", etc. Jrkso, as stated above, obviously only wants to shorten the 1978-2001 sections in order to remove details he does not like.
• Comment - The pre-1978 history covers 1,000s of years so of course that needs to be little more than the 1978-2010 which is only 30 years. The section "Hotaki dynasty and the Durrani Empire" covers roughly 200 years and that could also be shortened a little.--Jrkso (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
• The more recent history is generally of greater importance to contemporary readers and is thus very often covered in more detail wherever information on history is being presented.JCAla (talk) 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive users Tajik and JCAla at it again

The disruptive User:Tajik is removing a dubious tag and the disruptive User:JCAla is making too many repeated Wikilinks in the same area of the section. The statement below found in Afghanistan#Etymology must be verified or removed. Tajik has argued last month extensively about needing verifiable sources for the Alexander letter but now he's trying to say that verifying things isn't important.[1]

• By the 17th century AD, it seems that some Pashtuns themselves were using the term as an ethnonym - a fact that is supported by traditional Pashto literature, for example, in the writings of the 17th-century Pashto poet Khushal Khan Khattak:

  Pull out your sword and slay any one, that says Pashtun and Afghan are not one! Arabs know this and so do Romans: Afghans are Pashtuns, Pashtuns are Afghans! Source: extract from "Passion of the Afghan" by Khushal Khan Khattak; translated by C. Biddulph in "Afghan Poetry Of The 17th Century: Selections from the Poems of Khushal Khan Khattak", London, 1890.

  Tajik also states that Hudud al-'alam is not a travel literature, then what is it?--Jrkso (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso, you are by far the most disruptive user in this article. That is the reason why everyone is opposed to your edits. The nonsense about Alexander was removed because it was pure nonsense and totally un-academic (the only person who was denying this was - of course - you, trying to disprove leading scholar by citing a Hollywood movie and violating WP:OR). The information about Khushal Khan Khattak is different, because it is a translation of his poetry. It is a primary source, and the source of that poem is given in the article. You can find the translation also here. The complete poem is:

Caravans of silk, beautiful lads, and sharp swords,

Are what a brave Afghan with pride hoards

When the swords of Afghans glitter,

The caravan and its merchandise shiver.

The camels moan and the riders groan,

As they near Khybar with their spirits blown.

Caravans and merchants whine and weep,

When onto the Pass mighty Pashtons leap.

If a Pashton extracts no tolls from a trader,

His tribe considers him a sellout traitor.

The Arab boys and the Frang women,

Crave the strength of Pashton men.

From Hindustan to the distant west,

Afghans have put all to this test.

O son one word I have for thee,

Fear no one and no one you flee.

Pull out your sword and slay any one,

That says Pashton and Afghan are not one.

Arabs know this and so do Romans,

Afghans are Pashtons, Pashtons are Afghans

Whether you like it or not is totally irrelevant. And next time you put a tag in the article, USE THE DISCUSSION and EXPLAIN why you did. You have been asked by so many users so many times to use the discussion BEFORE you edit the article. Ignoring that simply shows that you do not have good intentions, but only want to propagate your POV - no matter what it takes. As for the Hodud al-alam: it is NOT travel literature. It is a geography book, written by someone who had never visited the places mentioned in the work. He collected all information he knew and tried to give a detailed description of the geography surrounding his native place (Juzjan in modern Afghanistan), then the regions surrounding that area, and also places far away, such as Africa or Inner Asia. Why does it not surprise me that you neither know this nor understand it?! Tajik (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't waste my time please, provide a source that mentions the poem. I searched everywhere but was unable to find it. As for the Hodud al-alam, it should tell readers what it is. I didn't remove the quote, don't call me disruptive.--Jrkso (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The only one who is wasting other people's time is you. The source has been mentioned above. Not everything has to be visible on Google Books. It simply needs to be referenced correctly. It can be checked in any university, since universities usually have unlimited or better access to academic sources in the internet (again: if you are not able to check it, it does not mean that others can't do it as well). But that site used to be visible, that's where many others have copied the translation from, for example this Pashto forum dealing with Pashto literature. Tajik (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

Please see Wikipedia:Link rot for guidelines on dealing with links that no longer work. Removing them is not the automatic option. Dmcq (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Native speakers of Dari and Pashto

CIA lists "languages spoken in Afghanistan" but all other references are talking about "native speakers". Most sources, such as Encyclopædia Iranica, Encyclopedia Britannica, SIL International (Ethnologue), and others give the following estimates for native speakers of Dari and Pashto.

• Dari (Persian): 25-35%

  About one-third of the population of Afghanistan, i.e., about 5,000,000 people, speak Dari. It is the primary language of the Tadzhik, Hạzāra, and Chahar Aimak peoples.

• Pashto language: 35-60%

  Paṧtō (1) is the native tongue of 50 to 55 percent of Afghans...

  --Lagoo sab (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

This is source picking and selective quoting. The first sentence dealing with Persian is taken from the article "Dari" in Encyclopaedia Britannica. The sentence about Pashto is not taken from Britannica, but from the 1980's article of Encyclopaedia Iranica. In fact, the "language" section of the article "Afghanistan" in Britannica says: More than two-fifths of the population speak Pashto, the language of the Pashtuns, while about half speak some dialect of Persian. [2]

It is also POV to claim that "most sources" claim this or that, because we simply cannot objectively figure out what "most sources" say. Tajik (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the Britannica reference to the article "Dari language" with that of "Afghanistan: Languages", because the "Dari language" article does not mention any numbers. Next time you add sources to the article, please check them first, otherwise it's falsification of sources. Tajik (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lagoo sab, stop changing the article and DISCUSS it first. You change WITHOUT any discussion. Your interpretation that the Factbook is not saying anything about native speakers is ridiculous. Is here anyone else who sees things as you do?! But even if your interpretation was correct, why are you then using the article "Dari language" in Britannica as a source. Because it does not say anything about "native speakers" either?! I have tagged that section, and I have asked an admin for support. Tajik (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I will remind you to maintain civility in your behavior towards me and there's no need to get emotional about this. Actually it was you who changed the language info in the article without a discussion. Read the Factbook's languages definition [3] and tell me if it mentions "native speakers". The words used in Britannica's Dari language article [4], "about one-third", equals to "about 35%" and that interpretation is correct, but if you don't trust me then ask an expert. The 35% are "native speakers" of Dari who mostly belong to Tajik, Hazara, Chahar Aimak groups. Dari is actually the mother tongue or first language of Tajiks but may include Chahar Aimak and unknown numbers from other groups. The native tongue of Hazaras is Hazaragi but they speak Dari and others as second languages. According to Britannica:[5]

The people of Afghanistan form a complex mosaic of ethnic and linguistic groups. Pashto and Persian (Dari), both Indo-European languages, are the official languages of the country. More than two-fifths of the population speak Pashto, the language of the Pashtuns, while about half speak some dialect of Persian. While the Afghan dialect of Persian is generally termed “Dari,” a number of dialects are spoken among the Tajik, Ḥazāra, Chahar Aimak, and Kizilbash peoples, including dialects that are more closely akin to the Persian spoken in Iran (Farsi) or the Persian spoken in Tajikistan (Tajik). The Dari and Tajik dialects contain a number of Turkish and Mongolian words, and the transition from one dialect into another across the country is often imperceptible. Bilingualism is fairly common, and the correlation of language to ethnic group is not always exact. Some non-Pashtuns, for instance, speak Pashto, while a larger number of Pashtuns, particularly in urban areas, have adopted the use of one of the dialects of Persian.

I have quoted Britannica as my reference so that the Wikipedia community can understand my point. The mention of "larger number of Pashtuns, particularly in urban areas, have adopted the use of one of the dialects of Persian" is saying that many Pashtuns who live in cities use the Dari language, although Pashto is still their native tongue. These native Pashto-speaking Pashtuns are counted in CIA's 50% Dari, but in the other list it is showing percentage of native speakers of Pashto, not the numbers of speakers.--Lagoo sab (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to see that you finally have come to terms with the situation that not every pashtun speaks pashto as their native tongue. Darn (BK) you still misinterpret. I still don't understand the issues with the two official languages and the ew that surrounds them. Pashtuns are the larges ethnic group followed by Tajiks. Persian is the most widely used language. Who cares what the first language is. Important is what people use and can read and write and that is all in all still way to little. Analphabetism is high in war-torn Afghanistan. Chartinael (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It states "Some non-Pashtuns, for instance, speak Pashto, while a larger number of Pashtuns, particularly in urban areas, have adopted the use of one of the dialects of Persian." "Some non-Pashtuns" and "large number of Pashtuns adopted the use of one of the dialects of Persian" are ambiguous, indeterminate, vague figures hence we can't conclude anything on that. Explaining a little about the "first language" is relevant information, it doesn't mean that just because you don't care about this we have to delete and hide it.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

We can conclude that non-pashtun ethnic groups actually speak pashto as their primary language and that some ethnic pashtuns have adopted Persian. That is exactly what the source says. The source clearly states that there is no 100% congruency of ethnic and linguistic groups. Hence, although the Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group they do not have the largest speaker population.Chartinael (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The source doesn't tell us the numbers of non-Pashtun ethnic groups speaking Pashto as their primary language or the numbers of Pashtuns who may have adopted Persian. The rest of your argument is your own opinion. Let this be your warning to stop removing valid sourced material from the article.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

@ Lagoo sab: you are misunderstanding and misinterpreting the sources. Both Britannica and the CIA Factbook are referring to native speakers. "Adopting a language" means that that particular language has become the first language. Pashtuns who have adopted Persian are still being defined as "Pashtuns" in terms of ethnicity, but they are native Persian-speakers. You interpret sources according to your POV, you twist words, and you quote selectively. That is by no means in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Tajik (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

You are forcing your opinions on others. I am native speaker of another language but I have adopted English as my language, but that doesn't make English my first language so therefore you are wrong.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If your children grow up learning English as their first language then they will have adopted English. Anecdotal evidence is nice but does not suffice. Furthermore Tajik is not forcing his opinion on others but instead is helping you understanding the source you (mis)quote. Chartinael (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I had a look at that bit following 'Encyclopædia Iranica, Encyclopedia Britannica, SIL International (Ethnologue), and others give the following estimates for native speakers of Dari and Pashto.' and there is one thing that is glaring obvious. The Dari figure has citations for two publications after it, and the Pashto one has citations to three completely different ones. That is just a totally wrong way of dealing with figures, they should come from the same source if they are presented together, and if a couple of sources are shown their figures should only be amalgamated if they are pretty close to each other. What's there is is just synthesis and original research and a mess. As to this business of 'native speakers', that term is not referred to in the citations I read. The only two figures that normally matter are the primary language spoken - these should add up to about 100%, and the percent that speak a language which would add up to quite a bit more than 100%. The Factbook ones add up to 100% so they are obviously talking about primary or native language. Factbook is considered a reliable source but I'm a bit leery of its figures so I think it is good that other sources are quoted as well. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I am about to shorten this crappy section again. It is a wirrwarr of numbers and percentages. Chartinael (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shortened, please keep in mind this is to give an overview of the language situation. If more detail is needed, refer to the Languages in Afghanistan lemma. Chartinael (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dmcq. That's exactly what I was talking about when I said that he is selectively quoting and picking sources. Tajik (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Language Section

I am about to request a 3O again. Right now the section is a concise overview. All the additional sources, numbers and percentages are not needed as they differ not that much. Especially considering the last two surveys. If editors want to expand, expand in the main language lemma instead of here. If there is going to be constant reverting, I will again give two versions and request 3O. Please explain why you feel that there needs to be more in the section. Chartinael (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The sources clearly contradict one another so it's nessary to cite all reliable academic sources, especially Encyclopedia Irania which is more authoritative. CIA Factbook is not always reliable, which usually contains errors and outdated information but we still left that in the lead.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chartineal. And I once again state my opinion that Lagoo sab is violating WP:OR by selectively quoting and source picking. He makes a POV statement and then picks sources or twists words in order to "back up" that statement - he does not even care if there are 30 or more years in between of those sources. That is unencyclopedic and unscholarly. Tajik (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I will remind you one more time to maintain civility in your behavior towards me. Just because you don't accept sources such as the Encyclopædia Iranica, Encyclopedia Britannica, SIL International (Ethnologue), and others it doesn't mean you have to become so emotional and start rioting everywhere.--Lagoo sab (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil in my statement. May I remind you that you have been warned by an admin to maintain civility yourself? I accept all of these sources, but not the way you present them, because you only pick the sources and sentences you like, but reject them in other parts. That is POV and OR, and that's why I do not accept your edits. Tajik (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If you accept all sources than why you keep removing the Britannica's one-third figure from the Dari language article[6]? You are picking the sources and sentences you like but reject them in other parts[7]. And then you blame me for this sort of action. Your overall behaviour towards me is uncivil because you're excessively accusing me of wrong doing but without evidence. If you're talking about this, the admin didn't mention civility. He was just telling me that the deletion of sources by User:Chartinael was not precisely a vandalism, the admin later blocked Chartinael for another violation. If you don't like how I present something in the article all you need to do is adjust it to the way you believe is more appropriate instead of rioting everywhere, calling my edits POV, OR, this and that, and falsely revealing my intentions. This is uncivil behaviour and you do not own any of the Wikipedia articles. See W:Ownership of articles--Lagoo sab (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling something "vandalism" that is not vandalism, is uncivil. As for Dari, the article does NOT say "one third", it says "half": Britannica. You are falsifying sources. Tajik (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Calling something "vandalism" that is not vandalism, is uncivil? Hahaha, where do you get this from, nvm. The Britannica article was changed yesterday from "one third" to "half". UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages explains that Dari language is the native tongue of around one-third of the Afghan population.--Lagoo sab (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Here we go again. If Britannica is not enough anymore (meaning: if it does not back up your POV), you quickly come up with a new one (which is just a copy of the older Britannica version). Anyone can find all kinds of sources to back up whatever information. Do you think that there are no sources that say the opposite of what you are saying?! Let me show you one: Afghanistan: Languages Map, The Gulf/2000 Project, Columbia University, 2009: "Persian [...] serves as the first language of a majority of the citizens of Afghanistan [...] Pashto is spoken as the first language by over a quarter of the citizens of that country [...]". The source goes even further and explains: "[...] The most recent step [in the direction of Pashtunization] has been the composition [...] of the national anthem [...] solely in Pashto -- a language that at most only a quarter to a third of the population may speak or understand [...]" To sum it up for you: according to this source, Persian is the first language of more than 50% (= "majority") and Pashto is the language of some 25% ("a quarter"). I have so far not added this source to the article, because source picking and selective quoting is POV and OR. One can find all kinds of "sources" for everything - even sources published by universities. But that's not what Wikipedia is about. You still have to learn that ... Tajik (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me refer you to my talk page. Lagoo Sab has called me a vandal and was told my Magog the Great, he might read up on vandalism. However, reading isn't enough. Understanding is the key. What we have got here is a POV pusher, who quotes selectively and doesn't understand what he quotes. It is a major issue. BTW, Tajik, you are aware of the fact, that Lagoo Sab thinks, that you and I are identical? Chartinael (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of that. But honestly, I do not care. If he thinks so, he should contact admins and ask for an IP check. I have no problems with that. Tajik (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, just in case you care, here is he hypothesizing about my identity: [8]. And the ANI on Pashto: [9] Especially interesting how he changes stance on sourcing. Chartinael (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with CIA estimates for languages of Afghanistan

In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s several major sources explained that Pashto is 50-55% and Dari 25-35% in Afghanistan.[10] The CIA Factbook's estimates in 1990 and 1991 stated "Pashto 50% and Afghan Persian (Dari) 35%". Then all of a sudden the following year in 1992 this was changed to "Afghan Persian (Dari) 50% and Pashto 35%". Since 1992 to the current 2010 version it hasn't been changed back or provide with an explanation why that occurred, click every year below for details.

• 1990 - Language: 50% Pashtu, 35% Afghan Persian (Dari), 11% Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen), 4% thirty minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai); much bilingualism
• 1991 (same as 1990)
• 1992 - Languages: Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%; much bilingualism)
• 1993 (after this same as 1992)
• 1994
• 1995
• 1996
• 1997
• 1998
• 1999
• 2000
• 2001
• 2002
• 2003
• 2004
• 2005
• 2006
• 2007
• 2008
• 2009
• 2010

Since CIA Factbook has a major flaw, we need to cite all reliable sources (including this and this from UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages as well as this and this) in the article so it can be considered fair and balanced.--Lagoo sab (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing is WP:OR. It is not up to you to decide what's right and what's wrong. The Factbook is regarded a reliable source in all of Wikipedia. And it does not matter what it stated before 1992 (that was almost 20 years ago). The sources you use are not uniform either. For example: this one states in the intro that "roughly one-third of the population of Afghanistan" speaks Dari Persian. Yet, in the same text, it says later: "Dari plays an important role in Afghan society. It is one of the national languages of the country and is used by roughly 50% of the population. In addition, it represents the primary means of communication between speakers of different languages in Afghanistan." It is obvious that the article is contradicting itself. Yet, while you take the first part of it (which suits your POV), you ignore the other part. That is selective quoting, original research and POV-pushing. Tajik (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That source you mentioned is explaining that roughly one-third (around 33%) are Dari-speakers and that 50% of all Afghans use the language as lingua franca on daily bases. If you don't understand English very well that's your problem.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

UCLA, as we have noted before is not up to date. You said so yourself when we were talking about the Pashto figures. Take the recent survey. Latest figures dating to 2009. Pashtun and Tajik ethnic population is almost identical. Tajiks speak Persian as their mothertongue. Other ethnicities speak Persian dialects as well. This alone suffice to evaluate the figures as close to correct as possible. Chartinael (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The article should report their current figures. The statistics would only be updated when a good survey was done so it would change just occasionally, but I agree the change is suspicious. If you believe there may be a problem in the figures you could write to the publishers and ask about the rather abrupt reversal of figures, just be nice and you've got a good chance of getting them to investigate and give an explanation or point where they got the figures from. If they say the present figures are wrong you could reply here asking people to WP:Ignore all rules and put in the correct figure - or they might fix the figures on the web and then of course the problem disappears. Dmcq (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What's shown in the CIA reference is not current figures, it's from 1992. The current figures are from Ethnologue (here). The basic rule of Wikipedia is to help readers understand this situation, and to do so we must report the older and the newer estimates. Let readers draw their own conclusion. The CIA Factbook doesn't do their own independent researches, they find reliable sources and copy their info into its data. The CIA actually copied these figures from the 1986 Library of Congress Country Studies (LoC) on Afghanistan and LoC got this same info from Louis Dupree and Nancy Hatch Dupree, a husband and wife team who've done 20 years research while living in Afghanistan from 1960s to early 1980s. I don't understand why everyone here are aggressively making the percentage for the Dari language as high as possible and making Pashto as low as possible. They are also totally ignoring the academic sources but make up reasons to only cite sources that show higher percentage for Dari. Now this Dmcq is telling me to email the CIA agency in Washinton so they can explain to me why the 1990-1991 language info changed in 1992.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are supported by the most recent surveys. Chartinael (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The ethnologue figures are not current. Do you actually look at the sources: G. Buddress 1960; A. Farhadi 1967; A. Grjunberg 1968, 1971; T. Sebeok 1970; R. Strand 1973; G. Morgenstierne 1974; L. Dupree 1980; J. R. Payne 1987. Sunni Muslim, Shi’a Muslim, Hindu. Blind population 200,000 (1982 WCE).

The Data accuracy estimate: C. Do you know what "C" means? Chartinael (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't ask me these questions, of course I read every word. If you read up, you'll see that I had write "In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s all the major sources explained that Pashto is 50-55% and Dari 25-35% in Afghanistan.[11]".--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Obviously you do not. Otherwise you wouldn't have called the ethnologue current when most of its data is backed by pre-1980 publications. The ethnologue gives the data a "C" rating, which means: Needs extensive checking by linguists on the field and more research in published sources. Chartinael (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that Afghanistan never held a national census, it is the most least developed nation on earth, for the last 30 years it was in a state of war and the people haven't had education since 1980. In other words they didn't have the resources to collect this info (percentage of ethnic groups, percentage of languages, or even the number of the population). So it is an exceptional case for this country, and we can only find old figures from 1960s to 1980s, there is no current estimates. It is appropriate to add the sources that I've selected, which are the only reliable ones available for now.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The recent surveys support the figures. Chartinael (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But the surveys only involved 7,500 Afghans, not much help there, and still we presented them as additional info. What we now need is the presentation of what experts believe and that is the academic sources I selected.--Lagoo sab (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is the best there is at present. And it is recent. Chartinael (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But why are you wanting to only add the sources that show higher percentage for Dari-speakers and lower for Pashto? You don't call that "source picking" or "cherry-picking?--Lagoo sab (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Loagoo sab, writing that "In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s all the major sources explained that Pashto is 50-55% and Dari 25-35% in Afghanistan" is POV, because you and I do not know what "all" major sources explained. Your collection of sources is NOT "all major sources", it is YOUR collection. You actively looked for sources that back up your POV (i.e. to keep the number for Persian as low as possible and that for Pashto as high as possible), and you found them.

As for the Factbook: I do not know why they changed the numbers in 1992 and what these numbers are based on (or the pre-1992 numbers), but is not up to you and me to decide whether they're correct or not. In fact, the modern CIA figures are much much closer to the recent representative poll results than the numbers which put Persian at 25% and Pashto at 60%. And just for your information: 7500 people are enough to give a pretty exact distribution of the languages. Questioning 7500 randomly selected people from 30 provinces of Afghanistan in the course of 5 years and asking the same question every year is actually - by means of mathematics - a pretty safe way to figure out the distribution of languages in Afghanistan. Do you think that L. Dupree and others had any better sources?! Where did they get their numbers from?! What makes Ethnologue more reliable than the Factbook or the Asia Foundation? By the way: here is another evidence for Lagoo sab's POV-pushing and source picking. Tajik (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Tajik, you are always arguing over unnessary minor words. Let me correct my self, "in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s several major sources explained that Pashto is 50-55% and Dari 25-35% in Afghanistan". Do you now feel better? I have nothing against the polls in which 7,500 Afghans volunteered for, I didn't remove it. What I'm trying to explain to you is that we explain a little about the pre-1992 figures. We have discovered this so why should we keep this a secret from other interested readers? You may find sources that say Dari is spoken by every single Afghan and cite that, I will not remove it.--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Map is nice. It also states that about one fifth of ethnic pashtuns are not L1 pashto speakers. So, this now attributes a figure to the encyclopedia ref.ed by Lagoo Sab and certainly contradicts his assertion that all pashtuns speak pashto and thus ethnic and speaker population are congruent. In fact the map state they aren't. I am getting tired of trying to make an unwilling individual be a cooperative editor. Chartinael (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

But I never said all Pashtuns speak Pashto. In fact, I have quoted Britannica which says the opposite of that. I said we have no figure on how many Pashtuns speak Persian as a first language instead of Pashto. It will be alot better if you stop adding the unnessary lies, you aren't going to win any special prizes with this. I have nothing against the M. Izady map, only that it is made visible so readers can verify the info.--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Your memory has large holes: [12] Chartinael (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

This article should only have a summary. It should not be talking about differences with old figures. The languages article might have a history but it is totally out of place in this article. I do wish people would stop trying to stick everything into this article instead of the sub-articles. See WP:Splitting which advises articles should be split up if they are over 100K. This article is already 170K. There is a lot of variation in the figures so more han one set is okay to show there is problems, butr starting on aboiut figures from twenty or more years ago compared to now and wanting a whole spiel about it is just wrong. Please take all this stuff to Languages of Afghanistan. Chop down what's here to the most recent figures. And by the way 7000 people is quite enough people for a good survey to within a few percent. Dmcq (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree! Not only the language-section, but many other parts need to be shortened. Tajik (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The language section is pretty short now. It is I guess as concise an overview as possible at present. Chartinael (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the language section looks okay in size now. A small statement saying the sources differed considerably would explain why four different sets of value are given. If the history section could be chopped down that would be good. The history articles should be developed first and then this article should give a summary of them. The easiest way is to make the history sections here be mainly a rehash of the leader sections of the history articles. Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Lagoo sab

Lagoo sab, what is this about?! Can't you just stop for a while until the discussion is over?! Why can't you just be honest to yourself? At Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question you were told by others to keep cool and to try to find a consensus. Everyone agrees that your edits are POV and that you are cherry picking the sources that suit your POV. If you disagree, why can't you just tag the section instead of deleting reliable sources and restoring your own cherry picked POV version?! Your behavior is very unhelpful and very tiring! And I am sure that most of the users in here agree with me! Tajik (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I just cited three new sources [13] (UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages) [14] [15]. My edits are POV? I only added the sources that specifically deal with languages of Afghanistan in the appropriate location, if you call this cherry picking I don't know what to say. Isn't this the correct way to cite sources? If you believe that these sources are unreliable we can start another discussion at the board.--Lagoo sab (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

No, this is not only about the sources, but also about your unencyclopedic behavior. You are neither interested in nor willing to accept a consensus. You only want your POV in the article, and you are stubbornly pushing for it. The sources you have picked are in fact selectively quoted. I have explained to you 3 times by now that, for example, this one is contradicting itself. It says in one part that Dari is spoken by 1/3, while later in the text it states that Dari is spoken by 1/2. Be it so, you only cherry picked the first part that suits your POV - that is selective quoting! Not to mention the fact that you are vehemently rejecting and even insulting the Gulf/2000 Project by Columbia University, calling its author a "Kurdish nationalist" and "unreliable" only because that source does not support your POV. You are ignoring all current discussions, you are ignoring what other users tell you, and you are stubbornly pushing for POV. Why can't you just hold on for a while?! If you have a problem with a section, do not edit it automatically, hence provoking an edit war, but instead use tags and the talkpages! You and your sources are subject of so many discussions right now. Your behavior is very tiring and unhelpful! Tajik (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's wise not to reply to your accusations. I'll just explain my latest action one more time.... I noticed someone removed these 3 sources and so I figured that I just re-add them. If they are unreliable for whatever reasons take the issue to the board, and I'm sure they will prove to be ok. I also wanted to add this one from UCLA but the page is now protected, oh well.--Lagoo sab (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Which part of that source were you going to add to the articles? That the total number of Pashto-speakers worldwide is 17 million and not 60 million as you claim, and that it is spoken by 8 million in Afghanistan (out of reported 32 million)?! I am interested to know ... Tajik (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

By looking down at the references, I believe that the UCLA article on Pashto 50% is based on 1980s to early 1990s, when CIA claimed Pashto 50% and Dari 35% and when Iranica claimed Pashto 50-55% and Dari 25%. Do you also believe this?--Lagoo sab (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI - the next person in the locus of this dispute who makes use of an ad hominem or assumes bad faith for another editor (e.g., "You are neither interested in nor willing to accept a consensus" or an accusation of sockpuppetry) instead of talking about the content and/or a way to compromise, on this or any other of the Afghanistan-language related pages, will be blocked for violating WP:NPA. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Let us look at those sources again. Last time.

• Iranica is from the 1980s, way outdated.
• UCLA is also way outdated. This one from UCLA (which Lagoo sab wanted to add as he/she stated above) for example cites 9 million as being 13 % of the population of Pakistan. That would make a total population of about 69 million. But - the problem is - Pakistan has a population of over 180 million people.
• Omniglot - with all due respect to its author - is not a reliable source. It is a personal website with no references for information provided on the site regarding the percentage of languages spoken.
• Concise is - obviously - flawed. Doing simple math proves it. I am sincerely interested in where they got the 60 % from. But considering wikipedia rules (although I am not an expert on them) concise would probably nevertheless be considered a reliable source - although obviously it is not.

The following five sources should thus be included in the table:

• Afghan government estimates - considered a reliable source on wikipedia
• CIA World Factbook - identified as reliable source on WP:RS
• Encyclopaedia Britannica - considered a reliable source on wikipedia
• Columbia Gulf Project - identified as reliable source on WP:RS
• Concise Encyclopedia - might officially be considered a reliable source on wikipedia (although the numbers are certainly unreliable)

Agree? JCAla (talk) 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You have an interesting opinion. Give me one good reason why iranica's 1980s figures (PS 50-55% and DR 25%) would be affected by elapse of time? The same question for UCLA's 1992 figures (PS 50% and DR 35%)? If you believe Omniglot is unreliable for whatever reasons take it to the admin boards, but I think it's ok and the same goes for Concise Encyclopedia.--Lagoo sab (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We now have my interesting opinion and Lagoo sab's interesting opinion. Anyone else? ... so that an editor consent of some sort can be created.

Sources already agreed on WP:RS to keep are:

• CIA World Factbook
• Columbia Gulf Project

Sources generally accepted on wikipedia:

• Afghan government estimates
• Encyclopaedia Britannica

Sources to keep or not to keep are:

• Concise Encyclopedia
• Encyclopaedia Iranica in question because it stems from the 1980s
• Omniglot in question because it is a personal website thus may not comply with RS
• UCLA in question because numbers are far outdated (see Pakistani population numbers, in the language article in question UCLA puts them at about 69 million but as of 2010 they are estimated to be about 180 million)

For now I have said everything that I had to say about this issue. JCAla (talk) 23 December 2010 (UTC)

May I ask what's wrong with the current format of listing all of as many of the different sources as possible? Once we can agree on what a reliable source is, and (presuming there are no interpretation issues), can't we just hand pick them from there? Say, choose the outliers to represent the widest diversity of opinion, and maybe a few others. (PS. what I'm doing is trying to mediate, something which I have suggested several times for this dispute). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It's kind of frustrating to see one editor leaves but then another one comes with the same view in mind to remove the same valid sources just because they don't like. BTW, I'm not saying they are socks. I have to explain the same thing over and over to each one. Let me brief everyone about the Demographics of Afghanistan, specifically the two major languages.

• L. Dupree's [16] 1970 book called Afghanistan represents the only anthropological overview of the entire country[17]. Dupree along with other scholars who've done research on Afghan society in from the 1960s to the 80s have put the numbers for pashto c.50-55% and dari c.25%, which is presented in Iranic. The U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies (LoC) on Afghanistan (1986) states that Pashto is the mother tongue of about half the population; Dari (Afghan Farsi or Persian) is the first language of about 35%.... (4 mb original pdf, Introduction page) (or quick version here). This entire LoC info was transferred to and began appearing at the CIA Factbook since at least 1990[18]. However, in 1992 it was some how flipped or switched around from 50% Pashto; 35% Dari to Dari 50% and Pashto 35%[19]. Until 2010 this information has not been updated. All the other sources (news or gov. agencies, independent research groups, encyclopedias, and so on) base their language info on Dupree's or CIA's figures. What do we do now?--Lagoo sab (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I will remove Lagoo Sab's last addition as it mixes different sources in one column and puts in a 60% figure where the source just says its is reportedly 60%. Reportedly does not make a result of a survey. The figures should either be like they were at the very start where it explicitly said the figures disagreed and just gave the ranges and list of sources and left it to the languages article for more, or else be like this with explicit sources for each column showing the differences. The section is quite big enough for a summary without this messing around being stuck in again. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, the 60% is a scholarly estimate[20] made by a number of experts in the field. To support this, and article on languages of Afghanistan in Iranica states: "Paṧtō ...is the native tongue of 50 to 55 percent of Afghans; as a second language it is spoken by less than 10 percent of the population." 50-55% +less than 10% = around 60%.--Lagoo sab (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We also have the two polls which are the most recent numbers and the only numbers that are from Afghanistan and are representative. @ Magog the Ogre: it would be OK to add all sources, but Lagoo sab is source picking and removing the ones that do not suit his POV. For example, he removed the Gulf/2000 Project source, claiming that it is "unreliable" and that its author, Mehrdad Izady is an "unreliable Kurdish nationalist". See Dmcq'S comment above: Lagoo sab is cherry picking and mixing sources, hence violating WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. Tajik (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Please try to be sincere in your accusations and maintain civility in your behavior towards me. I accepted the "over a quarter" opinion of Mehrdad Izady[21]. I reverted your edit in the Pashto language article because of the fact that you mispresented the source[22].--Lagoo sab (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Great, I see its being edit protected with that rubbish in. Well I expect that's what they mean about it always being the wrong version that is protected. Lagoo sab, I said before about it being wrong mixing different figures and sources in one column and you corrected it before to something that looked fairly reasonable. Why have you gone back to the sort of stuff you stuck in now? And why isn't this all agreed in the languages article first rather than arguing in this article? Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, calling UCLA (one of the well known leading universities of the world) rubbish is inappropriate here. You are not my boss or the owner of Wikipedia articles for you to talk this way to me. The last time was something different, the colum clearly states "Others" at the top, meaning "other sources", which give the percentage numbers below/at the bottom. You may not understand the chart but others do, and if you have a better way to do this you go ahead but you're not suppose to remove sources you don't like or agree with. You may re-name "Others" as "UCLA" and so on. If you keep being aggressive or hostile towards me and removing essential info or sources then I have no other choice but to report you.--Lagoo sab (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to point out Lagoo sab's source picking: he claims that the Library of Congress Country Studies is backing up his POV. But as anyone can see on the official website of the LoC, there is a new and updated (yes, the website explicitly states so!) PDF file. And that PDF states that "Dari is spoken by 50%" and "Pashto by 35%". Since we have an official new and updated version, there is no reason why the old and outdated version should be used, only to give Lagoo sab's OR some kind of credibility. Tajik (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You missed the point of my argument, and Library of Congress Country Studies (LoC) and CIA are considered one source, the U.S. Federal government, based in Washingtong, DC. Before 1992 they showed Pashto @50% and Dari @35% but in 1992 this was flipped over or switched around and not have been updated and I've shown every single CIA Afghanistan reports from 1992 to 2010 as proof[23].--Lagoo sab (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys for being absent this morning, had to do some christmas shopping. Needless to say, I so agree with Tajik, JCLA and Dmcq. I disagree with Magog calling Tajik's statement a PA. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me, then, that we have four editors in agreement on one side (JCLA, Chart, Dmcq, Tajik), and one editor on the other (LS). That comes close enough to consensus I may consider unprotecting the page and blocking for any continued edit warring. Are there any disagreements here with my analysis? Anyone want to speak up for LS? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Ogre, may I remind you that this part of the discussion didn't start as a consensus, and also not to focus on me but rather on the 3 new sources I've added into the chart in the Language section. You warned Tajik to stop accusing me wrongly but he's doing this over and over and I'm getting sick of it. He's ignoring the main point here but repeating that I called a map maker a Kurdish nationalist, which Tajik thinks is insulting. Anyway, clarify what is this "agreement" you mentioned? JCLA, Chart, Dmcq, and Tajik, are collaborating against me for other unknown reasons.....? This is considered an inadequate and biased consensus if that's what you thought it was. I have provided accurate information but everyone here has ignored it, which explains that before 1992 all sources (leading experts) stated that Pashto was the mother tongue of 50-55% and Dari 25-35%[24][25] but inexplicably this was switched around in 1992 and never updated since. I don't see a point in trying to become blind to it, the least we can do is explain this to the readers otherwise its censoring significant information. As I said that the info on lang. listed sources in the chart (cia world factbook, britannica, ethnologue, encyclopedia iranica and the others) all lead to one source (L. Dupree).

Dmcq wants to avoid these 3 source (UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages [26], Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world[27] and Omniglot (writing systems & languages of the world)[28]). Calling them rubbish[29], Dmcq does not want to see them presented in Wikipedia. This is censorship and against the policy of Wikipedia. If these sources are removed from the article then I have no other choice but to involve admins who are more familiar with things like this.--Lagoo sab (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Surveying this thread, I can see no reason to support LS. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this discussion is not about me, it's about why we should avoid or exclude these 3 sources from the language section in the article. 1)UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages, 2)Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world and 3)Omniglot (writing systems & languages of the world)[30]). If you believe we should not include these give your reason or opinion please.--Lagoo sab (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I said how you presented them was rubbish. You again did what you did before of picking and choosing figures from different sources and mixing them up in a column. I haven't looked at the sources in detail except to see that the very first figure of 60% was a 'reportedly' figure rather than the result of a survey so taken together I see little reason for anything to be done with the column except for it to be completely deleted. The section is large enough already. Discuss this in the languages article first and if it really looks then as if more columns are needed here then come back. But at the moment the column should be removed. And yes I am annoyed that you keep on pushing this sort of thing again when you seemed to have taken what I said before to heart and was starting to edit fairly reasonably. Wikipedia is here to summarize what is written not to engage in original research or pushing of agendas. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair to LS, he seems to fervently believe this POV. The problem comes that he hasn't considered that his POV may be biased towards his own circumstances (e.g., he has communicated primarily with speakers of the language he is pushing - whichever that is, I don't even know to be honest). That is the very definition of WP:OR and why we discourage it. LS - if the sources are wrong, that is unfortunate, but we should include what they say in the article. If there are other sources that disagree, we can include them too, but if it's true that you're cherry picking for a column, then it appears you care more to push your own POV (per the OR note above) than to report on what the sources say.

If the sources are utterly wrong and improperly biased, then this discrepancy will certainly appear in other notable sources that have done their own research and found it to disagree with the first ones. In other words, if the CIA was basing its analysis off flawed information, then it will appear somewhere else that the information is flawed.

As for your comment about "censorship", it is utterly ridiculous. We report on verifiable fact, not just something that one editor says and who uses a patent double standard to support his own POV, no matter how ridiculous. See WP:NOTANARCHY. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we reach an consensus on the below table to be used? (Simply state "yes" or "no".) The most recent sources available have been used (all sources are from 2000+ - only Britannica I am not so sure of). All these sources will probably be considered reliable on wikipedia.

Language (most recent estimates)	Afghan Government Estimates	Library of Congress	Columbia University Gulf Project	Encyclopaedia Britannica	Concise Encyclopedia
Dari Persian	50 %	50 %	over 50 %	50 %	n. a.
Pashto	35 %	35 %	over 25 %	40 %	60 %
Uzbek and Turkmen	11 %	11 %	n. a.	n. a.	n. a.
30 minority languages	4 %	n. a.	n. a.	n. a.	n. a.

Sources not used are:

• Iranica (outdated because from the 1980s)
• UCLA (not reliable because of flawed numbers in the language article; the language article cites 9 million as being 13 % of the population of Pakistan; that would make a total population of about 69 million; Pakistan undisputedly has a population of over 180 million people)
• Omniglot (not reliable because it is a personal website with no references for information provided on the site regarding the percentage of languages spoken)
• CIA World Factbook (Afghan Government Estimates and Library of Congress which have similar estimates were instead used)
• Ethnologue (because unprecise and outdated)

In order to include Lagoo sab's point of view I propose a short text passage mentioning the historic numbers of a reliable sources, namely Encyclopaedia Iranica. The text could be something like: According to most recent sources today Dari Persian serves as the first language for a majority of Afghans. (see table) According to Encyclopaedia Iranica in the past Pashto served as the first language for a majority of Afghans. Encyclopaedia Iranica basing its estimates on research done in the 1960s and the 1980s stated that Pashto "is the native tongue of 50 to 55 percent of Afghans". JCAla (talk) 24 December 2010 (UTC)

JCAla, I think that the numbers shown by the Afghan Embassy are taken from the CIA Factbook and not the other way around. Therefore, we should use the CIA numbers instead of using the embassy website as source. Encyclopaedia Iranica is an authoritative scholastic source. But it also explicitly states that the article and its numbers have not been updated since 1983. Therefore, as you have correctly pointed out, it's not useful anymore for the demography section (the numbers in respect of the ethnic makeup of the country are already taken out).

All other sources, including the Gulf/2000 Project, are guesses. I think we should leave out all of them and use only 3 sources:

1) CIA Factbook

2) Encyclopaedia Britannica at best (not because I think the numbers are correct, but because Britannica is generally considered a respected and reliable source)

3) the 2 polls by The Asia Foundation, Kabul University, and ABC/BBC/ARD. Why? Because the polls are - unlike all other sources - NOT guesses and wild estimates, but actual numbers from Afghanistan. They are statistically representative. Even though people like LS will disagree: the poll numbers are by far the most reliable numbers currently available.

These 3 sources have numbers for all relevant languages, not just for one or two (like the one source cherry-picked by LS which only has a number for Pashto). Presenting the sources as they are - WITHOUT mixing them - is the most NPOV way to update the section. That, so far, is my opinion.

Merry Christmas to all of you. Tajik (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes agree that sounds very reasonable. The languages article might include more if there is some real disparity but those recent surveys seem to have been better conducted than some older surveys. It might be worth including the spcific question that was answered. The problem with single numbers like 60% is one doesn't know if it means people who use the language regularly or whether it means a first language. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Dmcq, you should respect an editor who has done extensive research in this. My agenda in this is to help Wikipedia's reputation in reliability and neutrality. There is no doubt that all of these percentages presented in the chart are made up figures (guesses)[31].

Experts in 1985 provided various estimates of the country’s population: all of these estimates were, of course, based on the earlier censuses. The Population Reference Bureau, a respected nonprofit agency in Washington, D.C., estimated the population at 14.7 million people, including refugees, whereas the United States Bureau of the Census used the same figure of 14.7 million but excluded refugees. The Population Reference Bureau’s figure is significantly lower than the Afghan government’s 1983 estimate of 15.5 million...

So let us not criticise or praise one source over the other. According to Afghanistan: a country study (1986), in which many leading experts on Afghanistan were involved and among them were Dr. L. Dupree, professor at Duke University, and and Dr. Jon Anderson, assistant professor of anthropology at the Catholic University of America. They state[32]:

...within the national society the term Afghan usually refers specifically to a Pashto (or Pakhtu) speaker who is recognized as a member of one of the several Pashtun tribes (see Ethnicity and Tribe, ch. 2). An estimated 50 percent of the population-and reportedly over 50 percent of the refugees-are Pashtuns. The royal families from 1747 to 1973 were Pashtuns, and Babrak Karmal, who was installed as president by the Soviets in 1979 and who remained in nominal power in 1986, was a Pashtun. Although the figures were actually guesses, some observers suggested that Tajiks account for about 25 percent of the population and Uzbeks and Hazaras for about 9 percent each. Baluch, Turkmen, and other small ethnic groups compose the remainder (see fig. 5). The mother tongue of about half the population is Pashtu; Dari (Afghan Farsi or Persian) is the first language of about 35 percent...

According to the 1991 CIA World Factbook:[33]

_#_Language: Pashtu 50%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%; much bilingualism

All of this was pre-1992 info, and when prominent scholars of today give us estimates on Afghan languages they do their own analysis, and of course they first study the prior researches done by the leading experts as I named (Dupree, Anderson and others). So, the results of the current-day academics are to be respected as scholarly guesses. And since all of them are just guesses (including the CIA and Britannica) why not just add in the chart all the scholarly guesses instead of only some?--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As you can clearly see that JCAL, Tajik and Dmcq cherry-picked all the sources that give higher Dari (Persian) percentages. It is proven with clear and convincing evidence that none of these estimates are current.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)