Talk:Afghanistan

Languages

Based on population and the percentage people speak specified language, Persian (Dari) must be first and then followed by pashto and other languages. This is a rule and does not relate to favourism. Zaki Frahmand, 13 May 2022, 22:22 UTC

I think the difference here is that Pashto is definitely an official language of the government, while it is unclear if Persian has that status. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 12:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I follow Afghan news frequently, and I will say yes. Both Persian and Pashto have equal status, same as before. The headers of all official letters published by Taliban are bilingual. The texts are either Pashto or Persian (or Both) depending on the Wilayat. Same with public posters and stuff. Examples here Link The small poster on the right is in Pashto. The one on the left is Persian. The big one behind the guy is in Pashto. BasilLeaf (talk) 17:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

If you have government examples of them consistently using both, then I'd say go for it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 06:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

current leader:

Mullah Abdul Ghani Brader Baheer Pathaan (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

He is only the first deputy prime minister. You will see this at Afghanistan#Development_of_Taliban_government. He ended up much lower in the chain of command than most media outlets were predicting in August. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Egregious source misrepresentation

WatanWatan2020, who previously inaccurately stated that "Afghanistan has been described as one of the most wealthiest countries in the world," is now insisting ([1], [2], [3]) that "The nation has raised and had maintained one of the most powerful militaries in the world throughout its history, at one point, having the Royal Afghan Air Force infamous for being as large and as capable of its time" (whatever that is supposed to mean), citing Small Wars Journal. Unfortunately, Small Wars Journal does not support a statement even remotely resembling WatanWatan2020's proposed addition.

For starters, the cited article only addresses the Afghan Air Force (formed in the early twentieth century), not any other branches of the Military of Afghanistan, as one might have expected given its title ("The Afghan Air Force: A Harsh Lesson in the Expensive Game of Airpower Reconstruction"). Furthermore, the cited article makes clear that the Afghan Air Force was not a significant regional power during the reign of the Kingdom of Afghanistan—directly contradicting WatanWatan2020's proposed addition—has been historically dependent on foreign assistance, and was reduced to a "feeble" shell of its former self by the Afghan Civil War (1992–1996) following an unprecedented expansion during the era of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (subsidized by the Soviet Union). To wit:

First formed in 1924 by King Amanullah Khan with British and Soviet assistance, the Afghan Air Force would not reach the height of its power until the 1979 Soviet invasion. At one point, the AAF consisted of 400 aircraft and 7,000 active personnel, making it one of the largest air forces in Asia. After the Soviet withdrawal in 1989, the AAF, still heavily dependent on foreign support, lost its leading supplier of parts and maintenance personnel. During the ensuing civil conflict, the warring factions scavenged most AAF assets. By the time the Taliban took over in 1996, many of the remaining aircraft were useless, lacking spare parts and people with the skills to maintain them. In the early days of Operation Enduring Freedom, American airstrikes destroyed what was left of the feeble air force.

Notably, the rest of the cited article is devoted to chronicling a huge litany of problems with the Afghan Air Force under the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The author concludes that the U.S. totally failed to rebuild and modernize the Afghan Air Force:

Between 2008 and 2021, the United States spent approximately $8 billion to train and equip the Afghan Air Force. Unlike Iraq, where the U.S.-trained Iraqi Air Force is on a slow rise back to regional prominence, the U.S. has little to show for its investment in Afghanistan, even before the Taliban takeover. ... The United States should consider Afghanistan a case study for what not to do in any future attempts to rebuild or modernize partner nation air forces.

Having examined the cited article in context, it is clear that WatanWatan2020's assertion that "[Afghanistan] has raised and had maintained one of the most powerful militaries in the world throughout its history" is inaccurate if not utterly surreal. This user's continued edit warring over such a clear-cut violation of WP:V in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions is alarming, and calls into question the user's competence and fidelity to Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreAChanging: There is no claim more obviously false about this country than that it is not a least developed country. This conduct should be reported to WP:ANI, where an uninvolved admin can issue a topic ban under WP:ARBIPA or block the user.

However, their edits regarding language are less problematic. For example, in this edit to Maymana, they removed an Uzbek-language translation which was wrong because Uzbek does not use an Arabic alphabet, though the rationale they gave is somewhat questionable since Uzbek is commonly spoken in this part of the country. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Their talk page is littered with warnings and block notices. Such edits therefore shouldn't come as a surprise. - LouisAragon (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

You may want to go to ANI now. Language POV-pushing based on OR at Herat (1793–1863). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, with the amount of complaining that is taking place, especially by @TheTimesAreChanging, you can put that effort into using your time to deal with a specific matter that you take issue you with in the paragraph, instead of deleting an entire paragraph with links and sources. I have seen your edit history, and it seems that you go around undoing mass edits because you do not put in the effort to deal with one specific matter. You do not reserve that right, nor the other editor, @LaundryPizza03 of doing such a thing. This is violation of multiple wikipedia rules for you to remove cited information, with links. It is outrageous and uncalled for that you remove cited information, but more than that, an entire paragraph, because you take issue with one sentence in it. That cannot fly. The citation is in there. You can propose how it is to be reworded. The Afghan Air force was indeed one of the largest and most capable air forces of its time, as the source mentions. and by extension the military overall was one of the most equipped and capable, in other words, most powerful. To point out again, one does not have that right to remove an entire paragraph because of an issue with a sentence within it. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 03:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I have re-worded that sentence, although it was fine previously as well. This should come as a lesson to the @TheTimesAreChanging that you may not go around and undo mass paragraphs and edits because you are not capable of dealing with one specific sentence. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

"The Afghan Air force was indeed one of the largest and most capable air forces of its time, as the source mentions. and by extension the military overall was one of the most equipped and capable, in other words, most powerful." Again, we've literally gone through the source that you provided, paragraph-by-paragraph, and demonstrated that it does not say anything of the kind. You have not provided a quote from that source (or any other source) to substantiate your claim that "The nation has raised and had maintained one of the most equipped militaries in the world throughout its history," probably because no sources exist for such a ludicrous assertion. Continuing to reinstate this inaccurate content in violation of Wikipedia's sourcing policies in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions will almost certainly result in a block or ban.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Your ego is quite out of control. Did you go ahead and address the idea that you do not reserve the right to delete an entire paragraph because you take issue with one sentence within it? It is actually a better time to start enforcing your edits, that you take pleasure in of undoing across a mass of pages throughout wikipedia. Do not undo edits with links and citations. You have been doing that across multiple pages that includes sources and citations, just because it seems to you that you do not like it. All other information within the paragraph is accurate also. Why delete all of that as well? It will not go unchecked. WatanWatan2020 (talk) 06:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@TheTimesAreChanging, you will be taken to the administrative board the next time you disrupt this article, undoing citations and links. I see that you are trying to push for an excuse to try and place me into violation by deleting edits, then opening a discussion and then reporting to the board. A formula and tactic that is very obvious. You are in violation of WP rules by deleting such information, and even went and deleted cited information in the etymology section as well. You are avoiding responding to this discussion as well. A report may be in order against you for disruptive and uncalled for edits.WatanWatan2020 (talk) 07:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 May 2022

I request for a change in the flag of Afghanistan. This is Afghanistans flag🇦🇫 and it should be respected, thus it should be put in the picture for Afghanistan and it's inhabitants. 2A01:C23:7587:3C00:A528:CEF8:4D39:C9C1 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: It was the flag but it looks like the Taliban came up with a new one Cannolis (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)