Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 2

message: Whenever an image is replaced/removed, please place it here in case it is needed again in the future. Also, we should always have a section open for this. So when this is archived, please make a new section for this purpose. Thank you. Behnam 04:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''IMPORTANT NOTICE''': Please place removed/replaced images here. 

message: IMPORTANT!!!
Last week the Italian secretary of state of Foreign Affairs D'Alema said at an interview at Italian newspapers that the militairy ISAF-strategy doesn't work. They will organize a conference, about what they can change at this situation. The Italians think the unilateral attitude of the US is a wrong attitude. This I also discussed with NisarKand, see below. I think this is a very important topic, because the last months the number of casualties became 4 times as high as it was. And at my opinion, every casualty is a casualty too much, of course. Rob van Doorn 12:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  QUESTION 

message: I have now twice edited an incredibly biased, conspiratorial (anti-U.S.) version of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The author calls the Soviet aggression an "intervention" which they were forced to make because the United States wanted them to fall into a trap. Give me a break, people, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan.  Was the U.S. guilty? Yes. But let's be fair here. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, let's use the proper terminology. This would be sort of like a pro-German writing that Hitler "was forced to intervene" in Poland in 1939.
:I don't think that anyone removed your edits on purpose the first time. From looking at the history of the article] I guess that it was a mistake. I don't like the soviet bias but I think that your edit makes it a little too much American bias. I'm not really sure how to word it myself and I don't know much about Afghan history either. Jeltz talk 18:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hussain 11:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Anonymous 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let's be fair, people 

message: On very quick observation, it seems to me that the cuurent Islamic Republic of Afghanistan should be a seperate article (it currently redirects here), just as the Republic of Ireland is a seperate article. That said, I have very little knowledge of Afghanistan, so for all I know there could be a specific reason that it is all one article. Canaen 04:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only reason Republic of Ireland is a separate article is because the island of Ireland is split between two countries. Just as Hispaniola and Haiti are different articles. In our case, the name of the country outweighs the name of the region; Ireland is somewhat of a unique case, since there are two countries there which both have Ireland in their name, and it's a political issue. --Golbez 04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Republic of Afghanistan 

message: I found a link to the national anthem here  but I don't know how verifiable it is. -LichYoshi 13:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Anthem 

message: Some sections in the article are extremely too large and should be shortened and moved to the relevant articles which directly discuss the matter. Plesae notice that in this article we should not write any thing on Afghanistan in details but a fine introduction on various sides of the country such as its economy, history, politics etc. Thanks. Diyako Talk + 13:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long sections

message: The article claims, the Jewish origin were a "myth". Large parts of the article are copied from one linked source. And frankly, I think it should not simply brushed away as a myth. The reasoning is very weak. Just because racist arguments were used in the time of the Moghuls does not mean they were invented. And it is EXTREMELY arrogant to simply discount a people's own history records as myths. Is there any precedent for a country inventing its history?!? Why would the Afghan Muslims want to claim to be of Jewish descent? Is the name Afghanistan also an invention? What about the traditional Jewish behavior, clothing that was noticed until by many visitors at least until a century ago? This should not be debunked as a myth without sound proof, so I changed the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.137.149.6 (talk • contribs) .
:If people have a lot of arguments for and against this particular theory, maybe they should all be laid out in a separate article (I suggest calling it Bani-Israel) that would be linked from this one?...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish Origin

message: I added the  template to this page, because this article does a good job of covering its topic.  However, in its current state, the references are a mess.  All works used to write the article included in a "References" section at the bottom of the page, not in the middle of the prose.  Inline citations can be used within the text itself to refer to specific references in the list, but full bibliographic information does not belong in the text itself. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA / References 

message: Hello all. I noticed that this article has rise to good article status and could be a featured article if we make some changes. iyako makes some valid points regarding the length of some sections. Also, regarding Afghanistan's neighbors, Iran failed to become a featured article, while Pakistan made it. from what I can gather, Pakistan's sections are shorter and more succinct. Also, there is nothing on Afghanistan's widelife (including plants etc.). The references should all be at the end of the article (thus economic references should be moved) and the constitution should be placed within the government and politics section rather than having its own section. The pictures section as part of the View of Afghanistan should be removed as a section as the pictures could simply be placed in appropriate parts of the article. I wanted to talk about this before I started making any radical moves. What are some of the opinions? Thanks. Tombseye 18:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also move that we create an article for the Origin of the name Afghanistan as a separate article and give a brief explanation of it in the opening segment as is the case with the Pakistan article. Any objections? Tombseye 16:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to improve this article to make it a featured article 

message: In the culture section, there is a picture of a women wearing a picture and is titled, "Afghan woman wearing a cultural Burqa".
The Buraq is NOT Afghan culture. It was imposed by the Taliban in the 1990's. Things that people are FORCED to do are NOT culture.
This picture should be replaced by a picture of real Afghan culture. I will remove it for now. And I will add a picture showing real Afghan cultural/traditional clothing.
:It still reflects the history of Afghanistan, how women were forced to wear it during the Taliban regeme - I find it to be quite fascinating. How about if we change the caption to "During Taliban rule, women were forced to were buqas"? --Khoikhoi 20:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burqa is NOT Afghan culture 

message: It should be under Taliban rule or Taliban oppression.
The excuse that it is part of the history does not make it a part of the culture.
Should we put pictures of of Iranian people holding Americans hostage and say that it is a part of the Iranian culture because it was an important part of Iranian history?
Come on!!
We're taking it off and it can be placed under a different category, NOT culture.
Sorry, but it is not culture, but oppression. You cannot take a couple of years of oppression and put a picture so horrible, to sum up Afghan culture which is thousands of years old.
Sorry.
:Calm down, I'll move it to history, ok? --Khoikhoi 03:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Burqa picture will NOT be under culture.  

message: I checked other countries with periods of oppression and other countries that did not have less than a decade of oppression, but decades of it, and there are no pictures of such htings. We may speak of the oppression of the Taliban, but there is no reason to place a picture on the main page or on the history of Afghanistan page.
Like I said, 1,000's of years of history and culture and someone wants a picture from a period of less than 7 years?
I don't think so, and anyone that knows anything about Afghanistan will agree.
:Removing the picture would be like removing this from the Holocaust page. Yes of course it's painful, but it's a part of Afghanistan's history and just like all the other events, cannot be erased. --Khoikhoi 03:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No, it is not ok. 

message: The Burqa picture does not belong on any page accept one specific to the Taliban.
In no way shape or form is that going to be on the Afghanistan page with millions of other things to exemplify Afghan culture and / or history with.
Once again, it's the same old groups trying to place words and pictures without really knowing what they are really doing.
Everyone, should read the discussion two or three above, where one says that it is a "fascinating" part of Afghan culture. It goes on to say the woman wearing a cultural burqa. Anyone who places that on the page should have the authority to place anything else on that page.
Come on and let's be equal selectivity on country pages.
If it's done for Afghanistan, than it has to be done for Iran and everyone else with many dodgy things in their recent past.
Thank you.
:I disagree. It's a part of Afghanistan's history, no matter how much you don't like it. --Khoikhoi 03:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Totally Agree 

message: There is a large picture of the burqa on the Taliban page.
Why repeat yourself? It is under the treatment of women. Check it yourself unless someone takes it off. The picture depicts a man beating a woman on the street. Not enough huh? you need it on the Afghan page too?
I think the picture on the Taliban page is sufficient and the entire section on that page dedicated to treatment of women under them is good.
Thank you.
: Full Burqas are still used today even after the fall of Taliban. This is part of there culture. Chaldean 13:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture & explanation 

message: If you read the above discussions, you would understand that their is already a picture of the oppression of women under the taliban on that page specifically.
It is not a picture that should be used to sum up the history and culture on the main page. When you only have limited space, it is necessary to place pictures that encompass the 1,000's of years of culture, not just a period of a little over 5 years.
Thank you.
The excuse that some still wear them does not suffice to have it as one of the main pictures on the front page.
Should I have a picture of men stoning women after she has been found to have been raped on the page for some Muslim countries because a few still do that? No, of course not. It may possibly be mentioned but not made a feature on the main page. One must place pictures that encompass the 1,000's of years of history when you have limited space.
Come on get real, read the above discussions before you change things you may not understand.
Recent parliamentary election has shown that pashtoons make almost 65% of the total population
Someone vandalised this page!!! And (s)he also vandalised Holland, Zimbabwe and other articles. --Anis1 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to think it's good faith, if perhaps misguided. The problem with removing the comment in this instance is that while the US may have invaded to help (which is debatable) even a "helpful" invasion is still an invasion. Ahwell. ~Kylu (u|t)  03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please read the above discussion before changing items on the page wantonly. 

message: This section is just asking for POV claims (there are a few there), and seems to be, in my opinion, a violation of WP:NOT.  Editing may help, but I really think the section should be removed. -- Scientizzle 00:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future of Afghanistan section

message: Can we please come to a consensus on the country's name in the infobox and in the intro? The official name, as per the current Afghan constitution, current government, and CIA World Factbook, as well as pretty much every other official source, is the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Islamic State of Afghanistan was the government of mujahdeen that 'ruled' the country from 1992-1996 and then again for a month immediately after the fall of the Taliban. The Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan, which someone keeps listing in the infobox, was the transitional government led by Hamid Karzai from 2002-2004, when the current constitution came into usage. Again, can we please get a consensus here? If something as basic as the official name is being reverted over and over, this article will never become featured. -Helmandsare 08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The correct name is Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. End of story. —Sesel 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Name 

message: Greetings,
I have made an Asian repository of images, similar to the one that exists for Europe. Please complete the part pertaining to this country as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:
Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia
Thanx.--Zereshk 14:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repository of images

message: WikiProject Central Asia has finally been created! If you're interested, please consider joining us. Aelfthrytha 21:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Central Asia 

message: the Burqa is a very painful memory to Afghans, just like the gas chambers are to Jews, we do not want to see it and it should be replaced with another image.
I just searched for Israel and Jews.
and NEITHER of those articles had images of the Holocaust or anything even slightly relating to that.
So we want the same. We do not want painful memories of our oppression.
I will delete that image, and get another image of Afghanistan's history.
But ofcoarse, the information will be there about our oppression and about the Burqa.
But images are VERY painful.
Please do not insult us or hurt our feelings again by putting this picture back up.
:Aren't you over-reacting a bit comparing clothing with genocide?  If you have picture of typical clothing then post it but according the media reports I read people still wear the burqa. You can't just delete stuff because it isn't the way you wish it was. Also, please put your username at the bottom of your statements. It helps with keeping track of who said what. --MarsRover 09:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you post a picture of typical Afghans wearing a Hijab? and hopefully not just people in Kabul? Also, like a said previously, you should sign your comments. People generally don't trust anonymous comments. --MarsRover 20:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Burqa image is unacceptable 

message: I changed 1286 to 409 deaths. As you may read oin the official ICRC document concerning landmine victims: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/nairobisummit_res/$File/C-ASIA%20FS%20ENG.pdf
The number of new victims of anti -personnel
mines recorded each year has dropped
dramatically in recent years.Data collected by the
ICRC through some 450 medical facilities in
Afghanistan has shown the number of deaths and
injuries caused by anti -personnel mines dropped
by some 50%,from 409 in 2002 to 205 in 2003.
[ICRC ]
Sorry, first editing for me!!!
Luk
--physicq210 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landmine deaths 

message: This cannot be true, because the poorest country in the world is East Timor, which is in SE Asia, if one goes by per capita GDP.  If one goes by the UN Human Development index, then this statement is also incorrect, because Afghanistan wasn't included in the rankings.  I'm going to remove this unless the statement is clarified or cited.  Cheers!  --Chuchunezumi 22:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at WP:DR instead of "reporting" people, please. Debate the information here, not air your grievances in nonexistent places. --physicq210 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And sign your edits on talkpages. --physicq210 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It was me who deleted your sources. I thought they were vandalism. Sorry. You can add the info back again. --physicq210 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, sign your comments, please. --physicq210 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, what are the "editorial comments" you mentioned? I apologize if I sound rude. --physicq210 01:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *No worries, I was just really taken aback, since I've never reverted any of your edits and your message seemed pretty hostile.  I appreciate your removing the comment, which read "[stop taking off the citations, BBC is plenty reliable]".  I promise I have no agenda, but the addition of that fact seemed questionable, given the reasons I stated.  I apologize for the confusion.  Cheers!--Chuchunezumi 02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Poorest country outside Africa"

message: The 'official' name or 'long' name, according to all UN documents (and a committee meeting published paper located here[] as of 2002), is "The Islamic State of Afghanistan". So I was incorrect with the older adaptation of "Transitional". The name "Republic" does not belong in the title. Thanks! Rarelibra 21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAME 

message: It is ok to mention Iran's ties to Afghanistan, but that does not mean that every single section has to have something linking everything to Iran or "what is now Afghanistan". Once again, the page has been used to push Iranian this and Iranian that.
Enough of this.
: This areticle is mostly sourced, and so are the articles linked to this site. Modern Afghanistan (mainland Afghanistan) used to be part of Iran up to the 18th century, the Western parts of modern Afghanistan (Herat, Farrah, Ghor) were Iranian provinces up to the middle of the 19th century, and Iranian control and influence on these territories was eventually stoped in 1919 (less than 100 years ago), when Afghanistan was finally recognized by the international community as an independent nation.
: There is nothing wrong with those parts of the article. Tājik 13:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY SO MUCH ON IRAN? 

message: The third King in Qajar dynasty was Fath Ali Shah's grandson Mohammad Shah, who fell under the influence of Russia and made two unsuccessful attempts to recapture Herat. When Iran's King "Mohammad Shah" died in 1848, the kingdom passed to his son Nasser-e-Din. In 1856 Britain prevented Iran from reasserting control over Herat, which had been part of Iran during the ages, but had been ruled by native Afghans since the mid-18th century. Britain supported the eastern part of Khorasan incorporation into Afghanistan; therefore the current borders of Afghanistan would not be determined until the coming of the British.
This text does not have any special importance to be mentioned in Afghanistan's main page. While, it can be a very significant and important point to be mentioned in Qajar dynasty's article. Or even more, it can be added in the sub-article of History of Afghanistan, because the main article is getting too long.
If one mentions the history of the Afghan-Iran border called "Fakhri" (the same border lying between Herat and Iran, and which the above text is talking about), so he must also mention the history of other borders i.e. Afghan-Iran border called "McMahan" (the border was created during the ruling of Abdur Rahman Khan by the interfence of British empire in the dispute between Afghanistan and Iran over the late regions of Hilmad River, in which Afghanistan lost its south-western regions for Iran), Afghan-Russian border (created during the ruling of Abdur Rahman because of a Russian attack over Panjdeh village, and Afghanistan lost its Northern territories) and then the Durand Line which does NOT have any importance either to be mentioned. Ariana310 12:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, a brief section defining the modern day borders of Afghanistan and how they got there would be appropriate in this article.  Although this one paragraph could be edited down to one sentence.  There could be another article that goes into depth on Afghanistan's borders through history, and the borders should be defined from the Afghan perspective, while the other countries' perspectives should be the focus in their country articles.  KP Botany 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant texts

message: I've just made recent edits and I will explain them in here, and give full details on why. Before I proceed...your latest responses to me are not related to my arguments...meaning you are arguing with own selves. Because I am here trying to explain exactly how AFGHANISTAN came to existence and when, while keeping in mind that Afghanistan's government records are the most trusted and official source than any other source. I am not into all those detailed ethnical disputes, and those long details on how many different tribes or short dynasties of unpopular people existed, prior to the existense of Afghanistan. However, we may mention those accordingly but not go too deep. It's Afghans who created Afghanistan in 1747, and that's the most important thing. What more source of information do you need to prove that Afghanistan existed as a nation or empire since 1747??? It's a clear contradiction to mention first that Afghanistan was founded in 1747, and then write that it began in early 1800s or 1919 because documents say so. For example...if a man gets born in 1747, but register's his birth certificate with the government in 1780...what would this persons proven birth date be? The answer would obviously be 1747 but if he can't remember then it's whatever year he claims. This is the case with Afghanistan. It was born in 1747 but the article is trying to ignore that fact. 
After the death of Nader Shah (Iranian) in 1747...Ahmad Shah Durrani (Afghan) became the ruler over Khorassan (Iran), entire Afghanistan, including entire Pakistan and some smaller parts of India (Delhi). This occurred approximately 3 years after he took power (1750). Then, in late 1700s and onwards...Afghanistan slowly began shrinking until finally 1893, when the Durrand Line was created between Afghanistan and Pakistan, by the British. Prior to that in 1837-1838...the Border of Iran (Khorassan) and Afghanistan had been officially made and settled already, also by Britian. "Afghanistan" was written in English language and kept as records by the British ever since. This clearly means that Afghanistan existed prior to that but had lost some of its territories to its neighbors. The country did not ever change its name since 1747. If Britian intervened in 1747 between Iran and Afghanistan...obviously the name "AFGHANISTAN" would have been written and recorded by the British government. So therefore, we can't just rely on English records. We have to consider the actions that were taken in the country to determine when was the birthdate of Afghanistan. 
About the ethnical stuff...I believe it is not a good idea to mention different tribes of Pashtuns, as this will confuse many and it is something people don't want to know. So I will only write....Afghans....Pashtuns....Tajiks....Uzbeks...Hazaras and others, no reason to define these groups of people in this article. Anyone interested may do it their self by mouse clicking.
Now I will explain about my recent edits at Afghanistan....."NAME"....I did not like the way it was prepared...unimportant plus not verifiable. Like I stated before...Alexander the great used the name "Afghan" way before Islam. "Afghanistan" means land of the Afghan in more than one language so no need to mention Persian. Last... Afghanistan was NOT part of Iran before 18th century...it was part of Moghul Empire...prior to that Timurid Empire prior to that Mongol Empire...prior to that Ghaznavid Empire prior to that Ghouri Empire and so on. It is 100% false to state that Afghanistan was always part of Iran before the mid 18th century. So I delete that and will not want to see it again. Most of those rulers I mentioned were Afghans themselves and they adopted their ethnicity to Afghans. Ghaznavid was from Ghazni...Oh one more thing....Safavids were Shias I am fully aware....in fact they started the Shiah sect of Islam....as the Afghans were all Sunnis. So the battle was strictly over religion I know that, Sunnis vs. Shiahs. At the end, Sunnis won and kicked the Shiahs back to Iran and then the Sunnis captured Khorassan (Iran) by killing all the Safavid Mullahs or whatever they were. That is the precise reason why Afghanistan and Iran have differences, because of religion sects. Iran is a nation of Shias while Afghanistan is a nation of Sunnis. ~Nisar NisarKand 11:56 October 11, 2006 (UTC)
: I have (again) reverted most of your latest edits, because you do not provide ANY sources. Besides that, you use confusing wording (you diffenciate between "Pashtuns" and "Afghans" when it is not needed, and then you do not differenciate between these two words when it is needed).
:* Your claim that "Alexander used the term Afghan" is POV and totally baseless. Do you have ANY sources for that?!
:* You claim that "Afghanistan was part of the Mughal Empire" is onyl true when the term Afghanistan is limitted to its historical meaning: Pashtun-inhabited areas to the south of Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan (especially modern Western and Central Afghanistan) was mostly part of the Safavid Persia. Small portions of the north were part of the Uzbek Khanate. 
:* The Timurid and Ghaznavid empires are regarded part of the History of Iran, and represent the same cultureal domain: Persian culture. In fact, it were these dynasties (Ghaznavids, Ghoris, Seljuqs, Il-Khans, Timurids, Safavids) that ensured the domincance of the Persian language and culture in the Eastern domains of the Islamic world (while Arabic became the major language of the Western lands). Until the creation of Afghanistan, even Kandahar was part of Safavid Persia. You very obviously confuse the terms Historical Iran and modern Islamic Republic Iran (click on the links). 
:* Your claim that "Safavids started Shiism" is totally baseless and POV - it may even be regarded as very offensive! (see Safavids and Shiism for more info). The region of modern Afghanistan was always home to a large Shia community. Many famous scholars and scientists of that region, including Avicenna, Ferdousi, or Rumi, were Shia in faith. The war between the tribal Ghilzai chiefs and the Safavid central government was an extended fight between the Sunni Ottoman Khalifs and their long-time Shia rivals in Persia. Before Mir Wais Khan Khotak attacked the Safavids, he went to Mecca (back then an Ottoman colony) and asked the leading Mufti for a fatwa to "declare all Shias infidles" (in fact, this was the beginning of the Shia-Sunni confrontation in Afghanistan that is still going in the shape of Hezbi Wahdat fighting Sunni fundamentalists, such as the Taliban). Keeping in mind that the Grand Mufti of Mecca was a loyal servant of the Ottoman Khalif, Mir Wais' ask for a fatwa was the same as asking the Ottoman for direct support against the Safavids. 
:* Your claim that "Sunni Afghans kicked Shias back to Iran" is pure offensive POV. You probably have forgotten that still 20% of Afghanistan (or maybe more) is of Shia faith, most of them being Hazaras. You also forget that cities in the west, such as Herat, have a Shia population of up to 40%! You also did not mention that the very first kings of Afghanistan, like Ahmad Shah Abdali, were extremly Shia friendly and appointed Shia Kizilbash to high governmental positions. 2 of Afghanistan's kings were born to Shia Kizilbash mothers. Before the reign of Amir Abdur Rahman Khan and the systematic massacre of Shias and Nuristanis, the Shia population of Afghanistan was much larger. The percentage of Shias in Afghanistan was much more than the present 20%.
: And PLEASE discuss your edits FIRST, BEFORE changing the articles. Otherwise your changes will be reverted.
: Tājik 22:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nation began 

message: As of 2002..over 4.5 million Afghan refugees were repatriated to Afghanistan...most of them from Pakistan and others from Iran...and....the majority of those were Pashtuns. Therefore, the 4.5 million (mostly Pashtuns) returning back to Afghanistan makes a huge impact on the % ratio of the Pashtuns, which means the number of Pashtuns would rise dramatically in Afghanistan in the near future. Another fact...many Dari speakers in Kabul, Herat and other cities are Pashtuns by ethnic but simply speak Dari language. The real and official figure of ethnic Pashtuns is in the 70% area. This will be researched and will be shown in the near future. The same goes in Pakistan...many Pashtuns are used to speaking Urdu language there but are Pashtuns by ethnic. One example out of many is Imran Khan, who speaks Urdu only but is Pashtun by ethnic. There are large number of Pashtuns who speak different languages but are ethnically Pashtuns. It is errelevent to use language as someone's ethnic. According to the CIA world factbook...Pashtuns are 52% while Tajiks are 12 to 15%....this is acceptable for the time being until a more clear census is made in the country in the near future. But the real figure is that ethnic Pashtuns are in the 70% area. ~Nisar NisarKand 12:AM October 14, 2006 (UCT)
: Now, this is called pseudo-scientific and ethnocentric POV ... Tājik 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The national census would not be in a near future. It would be in 2015, acccording to the Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan. And things will do change, especially the concept of "majority". Ariana310 11:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pashtuns above 52%

message: I've disambiguated the same Persian wikilink to Persian language three times in the past two days.  Please stop putting it back to Persian.  There should be no links to disambiguation pages; see WP:DPL. -- Jeff3000 15:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dismabiguation 

message: Im not sure what the reason was for removing these pictures. Farhad Darya's picture and the Herati dance picture are relevent to the culture section, yet they were deleted while the picture of Abdul Ahad Mohmand doesnt really have anything to do with the culture section. And why is Ahmadshah's Massouds picture replaced with Maylala Joya's? How is she more important to the history than him? These changes dont make any sense. Parsiwan 00:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were the Farhad Darya, Ahmadsah Massoud, and Herati dance pictures removed? 

message: Hi,
I have added another source (Britannica Afghanistan)    
for the ethnolinguistic groups, which gives a slightly higher percentage for Pashtuns, and lower for Tajiks.
*Pashtun: 49%    
*Tajik: 18%    
*Hazara: 9%    
*Uzbek: 8%    
*Aimak: 4%    
*Turkmen: 3%    
*Others: 9%   
Also Sunni/Shiite breakdown has been modified according to Britannica (89.2% Sunni, 8.9% Shiite).
I hope this helps in improving the quality of the present article.Heja Helweda 01:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnolinguistic Groups  

message: Under the "NAME" section in Afghanistan's article...I notice these false statements made by User:Tajik
Later, the English word "Afghanland" that appeared in various treaties in the 19th century, dealing with the Pashtun territories of Kandahar as well as south of Kabul, were translated as "Afghanistan" by Afghan authorities[citation needed] and was extended to the entire kingdom during the reign of Abdur Rahman Khan[citation needed]. It became the official name of the country in 1919, [citation needed]after Afghanistan gained its full independence from the British, and was confirmed as such in 1964 by Afghanistan's first national constitution[citation needed].
I see errors here...if not...I want to know where is this English word "Afghanland" written so I can read the treaties of the 19th century. I also would like to know about how the Afghan athourities translated the name "Afghanland" as Afghanistan...unless this is someone's point of view and that it did not happend this way but rather British translated "Afghanistan" into "Afghanland". 
Next...How did Afghanistan get extended to entire kingdom during Abdur Rahman Khan? I am very confused and there is no sources to show all this. If Afghanistan became the official name in 1919....what was the name of that country before 1919? I have a copy of the "1893 Durand Line" agreement, which was written by Afghanistan's king in 1893 with British India and the name "Afghanistan" is clearly written on it. Does this mean Afghanistan as a nation did not exist in 1893 or it did? 
And the last part..."it was confirmed as such in 1964 by Afghanistan's "FIRST" national constitution...that has to be false because here is Afghanistan's 1923 constitution ------> LINK
Finally...I also want to know who says that the last part in "Afghanistan's" name (-istan) comes from the Persian language...is this a wild guess or there is information on this? If so....then what's so hard about sharing it with readers? I believe this is what they call POV. "istan" may have originated from India...because India was formerly known as "Hindustan"....and the name Hindustan existed before any other country that ends with "istan". I'm amazed at how some people (example:User:Tajik) love spreading false information to people around the world. NisarKand 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputing [[User:Tajik]]'s false statements again 

message: It should be something like, "Malalai Joya, an MP in Afghanistan's parliament who has strong positions on women rights and bringing former war criminals to justice." Parsiwan 21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malalai Joya picture needs better description 

message: I've protected this article to interupt the current edit war. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, and once you have all reached consensus and believe protection to no longer be necessary, I will unprotect. Note that my protecting the current version is not an edorsement of that version--I just protected what was up when I got here. Khoikhoi 23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: I would need help with expanding 2006 German troops controversy. Thanks. --Striver 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: The link to Afghan Northern Alliance needs to be fixed. it should link  to United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan thnks!Is it Steak?<Xiaden's Homepage> 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  (m)page issue 

message: This article is excessively linked, even ridiculously so, it's like a huge purple and black splotch.  You only need to link to another Wikipedia article the first time you mention a topic, not every time.
"Main articles: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context
Make only links relevant to the context. It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user’s experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by “(see:)”. Hence, the links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read."
WP:MOS
KP Botany 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excessive linking = linksmog 

message: While these improvements will help rebuild a strong basis for the nation in the future, for now, the majority of the population continues to suffer from insufficient food, clothing, housing, medical care, and other problems exacerbated by military operations and political uncertainties.
I'm not so sure if this is NPOV, since making positive predictions about a country like Afghanistan is definitely a point that would be contested by a lot of people. Maybe reword it somehow?
ManicParroT 03:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV predictions 

message: Instead of removing my map below from the demographics of Afghanistan section...I suggest you remove your old outdated map and instead add below my map about what you think should be correct information. For example...clearly explain about each ethnic group instead of using that large space of the outdated map. That will help make the article look more professional and I can also help in this by searching to find the latest information from sources online.--NisarKand 19:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solution for demographics of nation 

message: Hi.
I saw this: " is a landlocked country at the crossroads of Asia and the Middle East. " But isn't the Middle East in Asia, anyway? 70.101.147.224 06:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for pointing that out. I'll change it to something like: "is a landlocked country at the cross roads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East." Parsiwan 06:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, much of the Middle East is in south-west Asia, so that could be mentioned as well. One point it said, "at the crossroads of Asia", which seems better. 70.101.147.224 22:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, thats an even better idea. Thank you. Parsiwan 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does this mean? 

message: The following was removed from the article:
In the Middle Ages, up to the 18th century, the region was known as Khorāsān.Ghubar, Mir Ghulam Mohammad, Khorasan, 1937 Kabul Printing House, Kabul)Tajikistan Development Gateway from The Development Gateway Foundation - History of Afghanistan LINK Several important centers of Khorāsān are thus located in modern Afghanistan, such as Balkh, Herat, Ghazni and Kabul 1.
Why? Khoikhoi 21:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Khoikhoi, you are always defending User:Tajik and his many alias names User:Ariana310, User:Tajik-afghan...this makes you look bad. The region of Afghanistan in the Middle Ages, upto the 18th century was NOT known as Khorasan...you know this very well so don't pretend dumb. Those references attached are just websites, without explaining anything. One of the reference clearly explains the opposit, that Afghanistan was made up of many different provinces using different names, and that only "one out of many districts" was called Khorasan. That does not mean the entire Afghanistan was known as Khorasan. From the Middle Ages to upto the middle of the 18th century, Afghanistan was never a one single country, it was made up of many smaller districts and each district was governed by its own ruler or king. This is what all the historians of the world say. Whoever placed this false information about Afghanistan being known as Khorasan needs to show convincing evidence or I will bring Wikipedia administrators here to help resolve this dispute.--NisarKand 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It's well referenced, that's for sure. I've restored it. --Mardavich 05:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is well referenced? You think a website from Tajikistan, a sentence that says....Afghanistan was known as Khorasan...by an unknown writter or unknown person is reliable source of information? That's the same as if someone from Afghanistan would say that India was known as Afghanistan in 1700s, simply because a small part of India was part of the Durrani Empire. I know the Indians would dispute this all the time because to them India was never known as Afghanistan in the past. By the way, Tajikistan is a country that was created in 1992, so what do they know about past history?--NisarKand 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Ariana310 A.K.A. User:Tajik...the only thing you know is how to accuse people. You are also obssesed with me, I don't even like you. Why do you bother wasting time with me when knowing that I don't even like you? Every Wikipedia users have multiple alias IDs, especially you. You sockpuppet of User:Tajik and User:Tajik-afghan. This is not a basketball match, why you keep saying you made points when you made "zero"? You can't show one single Encyclopedia references about Afghanistan being Khorasan before the 18th century. If this was true, I would not object or dispute this in anyway. Because it is false and that's the only reason I dispute it. Look at all my edits, I've added the most trustful sources...straight from encyclopedias and well known historians.--NisarKand 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. I think the point is simply that to some people Afghanistan was part of Khorasan, while local groups may not have referred to it as Khorasan. It's a large geographic term and is not meant to denote solidity or historical continuity. For example, during the Abbasid period Kabul and Qandahar were not part of Khorasan whereas in later years these Pashtun regions became associated with the area. These are, of course, Iranian (and Arab) perspectives as they named regions and used this terminology which has continued to be used by Western academics who read Persian and Arab texts. I believe a more accurate view would be that most of Afghanistan (outside of Kabul and Qandahar) was considered part of Khorasan and then, at variuos stages of history such as Safavid rule, it was extended further east into Pashtun areas. Locals may have simply used city names or tribal names to denote their respective regions and that's fine too. I'm not sure there is any need for an argument here though. Would it be suitable to say that much of Afghanistan was referred to as Khorasan by the Persians and Arabs then? Whereas at various times, under expanding empires based in Iran the terminology was expanded to include areas as far east as Peshawar and Baluchistan and as far north as Transoxiana (or a sizeable proportion of it at least including what is today Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan etc.). We can surely agree then that some of Afghanistan was considered Khorasan then yes?Tombseye 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: If you are not sure about something...don't write false information in the article as facts. Here is the map from the University of Pennsylvania and tell me if Afghanistan was known as Khorasan before the 18th century? 
I am aware that some people are born naturally stupid, while others like me are born with extra knowledge. I never make claims unless I am not 100% sure about something. My claim is that Afghanistan was not known as Khorasan before the 18th century, which I've been saying over and over... scroll up in the discussions and you see.NisarKand 07:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Im sick and tiered of people labling Afghanistan as south asia...isnt the indian subcontentent labeled as south asia...I know for a fact that Afghan people are not Indian or south asian. and dont south asian's reffer them selves as desi which I know Afghans,Arabs iranians are not desi for a FACT. becuase they look diffrent and are from diffrent orgins. Afghanistan should be labeled either middle-east, central asia which makes more sence, or southwest asia which completely makes sence. Im not Afghan but I deffently know my geography , I have books on world countries from the 1970s and Afghanistan was never called south asia it was called CENTRAL ASIA and Iran was labeled Central asia too, plus a couple of my friends are afghan and they do not look like anyone from pakistan or india, so afghanistan out of the south asian equation I know my Afghan freinds would agree and so would the rest of the afghan population.
From :observer
:Yes, we have labeled Afghanistan as Central Asia first, then mentioned that sometimes it is also Middle East or South Asia. But someone vandalized it. I will now correct it again. Thanks for bringing it up. Behnam 19:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am Afghan and I placed Afghanistan part of South Asia. According to all the top sources (CIA Factbook, United Nations, BBC news and others, Afghanistan is part of South Asia first, then Central Asia and last the Middle East. This is not about the people and even if it was, the Pashtuns (major ethnic of Afghanistan) are not Central Asians because they don't have oriental look. Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan are the same people...totallying to about 50 million. Anyway, this encyclopedia goes by what the major sources say...not what each one of us think or say.--NisarKand 13:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  User: Nisarkand, NONE of those sources you just listed are academic sources! I will soon provide you with several academic books clearly describing Afghanistan as a Central Asian country. Also, Afghanistan is a ALREADY a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Central_Asia and so obviously this has already been discussed and agreed that Afghanistan is first Central Asia, then South Asia or Middle East. That alone should be enough to put Central Asia here. Behnam 11:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, here is a reliable SCHOLARLY source clearly labeling Afghanistan as Central Asia . I think that settles that dispute. --Behnam 11:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is Afghanistan in labeled as south asia

message: Looking at this source , the date for the "Ethnolinguistic composition" data was the year 2000. But how were such data acquired in that year when the Taliban were in power and did not allow any surveys to be conducted or any demographic to be researched research at all. I believe that this data cannot be from the year 2000. It must be from an earlier version of Britannica. We should look at earlier version of Britannica and see if they had they same figures. If they do, then this data could be outdated depending on how old it is. So lets try to find that out. --Behnam 11:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numbers from Britannica for the Demographics section could be outdated 

message: The pictures there are looking real good now so I think we should make them more visible rather than having them hidden all the way at the bottom. So I suggest putting under the Geography section. Does anyone disagree with this? --Behnam 03:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about putting the ''Views of Afghanistan'' section under the ''Geography'' section'''?''' 

message: There is an error in the article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan
has a wrong link.
The correct link is:
Library Fundraising in Afghanistan 
http://featurepics.com/PressReleases/Afghanistan-Photos.aspx
(no "/" at the end)
How can I change it?
It would be even better to link to: 
http://www.featurepics.com/Fundraising/Kids-Can-Read-Program.aspx
Any help you can give me is greatly appriciated.
:I corrected the link (I kept it pointing to the press release). Thanks for spotting it!-- lucasbfr talk 09:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link error

message: I have just blocked three parties to the latest round of revert-warring (NisarKand, Beh-nam, and Ariana310). Other admins might have preferred solving this through page protection instead. But protection "punishes" the good users together with the bad and prevents uninvolved outsiders from improving the article. With the current participants of the edit war, I have the feeling that intransigence and stubbornness on both sides is equally at fault, but I still didn't want to give up the insane hope that some fresh neutral editor might step in some day and take the matter in their own hands, so I'd rather leave the article unprotected. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert wars continue