Talk:Languages of Afghanistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Over to other.[edit]

Typo in page. I cannot edit it, but the word over should be replaced with the word other. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billyziege (talkcontribs) 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I fixed the typo you pointed out. Cheers.


The article stated that Dari is a "dialect" of Persian. Hazaragi is a dialect of Dari. Is it a subdialect, or is it correct to refer to Dari as a form of Persian? I've heard Afghan people use the words "Dari," "Farsi," and "Persian," interchangeably. I'm under the impression Dari is not as distinct a dialect from Persian as Hazaragi is from Dari, but I may well be wrong? Does anyone know? Thanks Bruxism 12:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point. Well yes those three words are synonyms and can be used interchangeably. We do have a distinct accent or dialect from the Farsi spoken in Iran or Tajikistan, but that's not what the term Dari refers. We would call our dialect by our province or city... such as "Kabuli dialect", or "Hazara dialect" (which is a very distinct dialect spoken in Hazarajat). -- Behnam (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted edits by an IP anon and restored the last verssion by User:Kingturtle. Tājik (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Dari-Tajik-Persian are one and the same language. The emphasis on the differences as well as the different names can be attributed to the rise of nationalism. Just imagine that German is spoken as an official language in 3 countries: Germany, Switzerland and Austrian. There are dialectal differences and if you asked me Bavarian is as far as incomprehensible from a speaker of Standard German as is Swiss German. Chartinael (talk) 14:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Native speakers of Dari and Pashto[edit]

CIA talks about "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.

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Iranica was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dari-language was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ "PASHTO, SOUTHERN: a language of Afghanistan". SIL International. Ethnologue: Languages of the World. 2005. Retrieved 2010-09-16. 
  4. ^ "Pashto". Retrieved 2010-10-25. Pashto is the first language of between 40% and 55% (11 to 15.4 million) of the people of Afghanistan. 
  5. ^ Brown, Keith; Sarah Ogilvie (2009). Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world. Elsevie. p. 845. ISBN 0080877745. Retrieved 2010-09-24. Pashto, which is mainly spoken south of the mountain range of the Hindu Kush, is reportedly the mother tongue of 60% of the Afghan population.  Cite uses deprecated parameter |coauthors= (help); More than one of |pages= and |page= specified (help)

--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. [1]
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) 01:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The first list is for "Languages Spoken" in Afghanistan (CIA) and the list below that is for the percentage of "Native Speakers". The "language" section of the article "Afghanistan" in Britannica [2] is only talking about "Languages Spoken" (same as CIA). We have to include both of these since it deals with how languages are handled in Afghanistan, and list all academic works.--Lagoo sab (talk) 02:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
You are interpreting too much. Or maybe you want to interpret. It is clear that both Britannica and the Factbook are talking about native speakers, otherwise the numbers wouldn't make any sense. As for the article "Dari language": you should not use it because it does not mention any numbers. Tajik (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
The rule of Wikipedia is to include information provided all reliable sources, meaning you don't choose and ignore a source based on your own personal feelings or satisfaction. The "Dari language" article in Britannica is about the dialect of Persian, officially called Dari. But the "Languages" article in Britannica speaks about "Persian" which includes several dialects. It tells us that besides Dari there are other dialects of Persian but only Dari (along with Pashto) is considered one the official languages. Therefore, the Dari article is more explicit and precise.--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Please do not continue to put in juxtaposed figures for different languages using different citations. This is WP:original research. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I will also remind you to maintain civility in your behavior towards me. Your version is also juxtaposed figures[3].--Lagoo sab (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
It is a violation of civility to go around accusing people of incivility where there has been none. The paragraph that was there before said expliciotly that the various sources differed in their values and gave ranges, it reported the difference in the sources. You did not say they differed and stuck in different references for the different languages together. That is original research and synthesis. I haven't checked closely but on a quick look what you have in now is much better as it separates the sources and reports on them rather than mixing things together according to your own unknown criteria. Dmcq (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Let's not get into making up own rules here. 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 reverting and 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) 05:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
You should stop accusing other users, Lagoo sab, only because they do not support your POV and OR. It has been explained to you by now that the way you present things is wrong. It is against the rules of Wikipedia. In fact, I did "adjust" your edits, I kept your sources, but tried to neutralize your POV. But you instantly reverted to your own POV and OR version, and then you jumped from site to site, accusing me and others of "rioting" and "vandalism" - that is uncivil behavior. And you have proved it again here. Tajik (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
The survey, where things stand, is in fact nice as it states that 70% of the interviewed folks thought themselves first and foremost afghanistanis and not of themselves as belonging to any ethnicity. Chartinael (talk) 14:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with CIA estimates for languages of Afghanistan[edit]

In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s all the major sources explained that Pashto is 50-55% and Dari 25-35% in Afghanistan.[4] 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 an explaination why that happened, click every year below for details.

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) 19:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

We don't know CIA Factbook has a major flaw. That is original research or your part. And I already said to you about mixing different sources in a single column according to your own criteria. Please don't start doing that again. Dmcq (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Dmcq, do you agree that the pre-1992 sources gave the percentage for Pashto 50-55% and Dari 25-35%?
Is there a guidline that percentage/figures be specifically placed in columns in such way? You should take it easy a little, I feel that you are being hostile towards me because usually when someone finds info put wrongly in a column they just fix it without criticising other editors, especially when the other editors are new to Wiki. Anyway, we can re-name the "Others" to "UCLA" and so on. The article must also make note about that the pre-1992 estimates. It should mention in the Intro or in the Overview that "Pashto and Dari are the two major languages".--Lagoo sab (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
It is WP:original research to use different sources for the different cells in the column without some good overall rationale - and all we have here is your own pick and choose. And sticking in a 'reportedly' figure of 60% into the same table to push some agenda of yours is [[against WP:neutral point of view. I was unable to fix the table and remove the column because the article is protected from editing due to the edit-warring. And exactly why should old estimates be put in together with more modern values? If there was a section about changes there might be soime point but all that has happened is that there wasn't any good statistics in the past so one can't say anything much useful about it. Dmcq (talk) 10:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, you're still being aggressive and hostile, maintain some civility towards me. Either you're not in a good mood or you just don't like me for whatever reasons that may be. I'm telling you that I want ALL scholarly sources to be included but you accuse me of cherry-picking sources, now I don't understand it why are you doing this? If you don't agree with the 60% then why don't you go and call that group of people who are claiming this in their book? Do you think they are Pashto-speakers who want to make their percent higher? They are westerners and I don't think they have any agenda. Sorry to say this but your argument doesn't make any sense to me. I know now that this isn't going anywhere so I'm going to start a discussion in the admin board and let knowledgable editors find a way to fix this problem we're having here. This is what I suggest:
Name of language Pre-1992 1992-present Mehrdad Izady UCLA Concise Encyclopedia
Dari (Persian) 35 % 50 % 50 % 25 % n. a.
Pashto 50 % 35 % over a quarter 50 % 60 %
Uzbek and Turkmen 11 % 11 % n. a. n. a. n. a.
Other 4 % 4 % n. a. n. a. n. a.
This is accurate information, it includes everything so that nothing is left out.--Lagoo sab (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no need to include outdated information. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And the reason I object to your proposals is that they would promote confusion rather than presenting the best current figures. I wouldn't suddenly start liking them if I could only just be jolted out of being 'aggressive and hostile'. If you want to go to some admins please do so. My guess is they won't be any more knowledgeable but will object on policy grounds just the same as me. Just make up you mind in advance to take advice rather than start arguing with them too or you're liable to get blocked. Dmcq (talk) 17:24, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That´s the reality[edit]

That´s the reality. Pashtu is spoken at the most by some 35% of the population. And at least 5%-7% of Pashtuspeakers are not ethnic Pashtuns (Laghman, Kunar, Khost, Nangahar, Urgun, Farah) but counted as such because they live somewhere surrounded by Pashtuns. The government of Afghanistan which was always Pashtunic added always to their actual numbers 20%-30% more and claimed Pashtuns as dominant group and the original inhabitents became minorities. The languages of Afghanistan represent very well the ethnical expansion of the different nations living there. And when the Pashtuns make around 35% and are the single largest ethno-linguistic group within Afghanistan., what are non-Pashtuns than, specially the Tajiks? They claim at least the same numbers as Pashtuns do. Can someone explain the claimed assumptation with this fact?-- (talk) 10:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I took out a weird link to "sociolinguistics" and patched the sentence in the paragraph about "lingua franca". Also fixed a typo. (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Whatever about reality I've put in the figures that the surveys cited actually have in them and which can be verified by clicking on the links and following them. Peoples own ideas about reality are not a reliable source for the encyclopaedia. Dmcq (talk) 08:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Restructured intro[edit]

Pulled out discussion of official languages to a new section and rearranged the intro. Not totally happy with opening with "is a multilingual country," but the facts that the country has many languages of which two dominate (in terms of speakers and legal status, which are two separate, if often coinciding factors), seem most appropriate to lead the article.--A11n-research (talk) 08:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

More edit-warring on the languages[edit]

The Afghanistan page lists the official languages as Pashto and Dari, and the Dari (Persian dialect) page states that "Dari is the official name for the Persian language in Afghanistan". So why is Dari continually being replaced by Persian on this page? And why is Hazaragi also being removed as a regional language? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

  • Use Dari - @Aristophanes68: - Glancing at this quickly, it does seem like Dari is the right language. Also, I think the person changing it to Persian is a sock. You may want to report him/her. NickCT (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Use Dari - per above. Kingsindian (talk) 06:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Use Dari, and if they're sourced, re-add the deleted languages like Hazaragi. This sort of thing should just be reported to the editwarring and/or NPOV noticeboards; this isn't really an RfC kind of thing.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  07:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Update: The editor is now making the same changes over at Afghanistan. I'm about ready to report. I placed a level-2 warning on user's talk page, but would prefer someone with more experience with sockpuppet and/or editwarring reports to handle those.Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
More: Just looked at user's contribs: User has been removing Dari from about a dozen pages; I have reverted them all and reported using ARV. Should I do anything else? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • No doubt; use Dari. This probably did not need to be an official RfC. I say shut it down as a WP:SNOW. VanIsaacWScont 02:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion: Dari it is. Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Competing images in lead[edit]

Part of the edit-warring has been to replace one graph with another, which resulted in parts of one template being left in place at the top of the page. I restored that image, and I suggest the following: Unless there is serious reason why these two images cannot co-exist on the same page, let's just leave them both up. Thoughts? Aristophanes68 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Overview table is confusing[edit]

I'm not sure how to read that table. Are the commas being used as decimals, like in Europe? Or do the two numbers in the middle column suggest a range? Or are they two different estimates? And from which source, since there are four listed in the column header? Help! Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)