Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 5

message: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Princeton University's WordNet are also both authoritative.
*The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "AfghaniAf·ghan·i       (āf-gān'ē, -gä'nē)  Pronunciation Key 
adj.   Of or relating to Afghanistan; Afghan. n.   pl. Af·ghan·is
A native or inhabitant of Afghanistan" (LINK)
*WordNet: "Afghanistani: adjective 1. 	of or relating to or characteristic of Afghanistan or its people [syn: Afghani] noun 1. 	a native or inhabitant of Afghanistan" (LINK)
-- Behnam (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, there should only be a single demonym listed in the info box, because that is not the place to make it clear that Afghani and afghanistani although used, are done so in the severe minority of instances, and are not the preferred terms. --Bejnar (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I acknowledge they are not the preferred terms. In a manner of compromise, would you be open to a footnote that mentions this? My complaint is simply that Afghani has a reputable source, so it should not be completely ignored; if it's in the Am. Heritage Dictionary I don't think its appropriate to call it an affectation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

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

text: Stop bringing up the July "discussion" please. There was no discussion. All the sources that have been provided here where not provided in that discussion. If it was, the result would have been different. Regardless, preferences doesn't matter. We have them sourced by authoritive sources and that's all that matters. And I don't buy your so called "compromise". These terms are as valid as Afghan and should be mentioned in the infobox, not hidden where no one will ever see them! You have something personal against those terms and keep making up bad excuses to remove them. They are sourced by authoritive sources and after considering that there shouldn't even be a problem.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, Bejnar. I think your edit satisfies both facts: that Afghan is by far the most commonly used term, but the others are documented as well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Carl, putting them at the end where no one will ever see them is hardly "documenting" them. They should be in the infobox listed in order of most commonly used to least commonly used. If Bejnar has a personal problem with that, that's not good enough reason to just hide these denonyms (which again are sourced by authoritve sources).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The infobox is a summary.  It is not the article.  The primary use of the word "Afghani" in English is for a monetary denomination. --Bejnar (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

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

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

text: Footnotes are not hiding places. The info is still in the article, and that's all that matters. This is the most sensible solution that has been offered. Footonotes are where extra information is added, as well as references, which you can see from almost any article in a scholarly journal. 1/3 of the page in those are often taken up by footnotes. If people are too lazy to read footnotes to see what they say, that's their own problem. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carl, Bejnar knows that 99.99% of people who read this article won't bother to go look for other denonyms in the footnotes. Considering this, Bejnar is basically hiding this. There is no reason to put well reference denonyms in the footnotes where no one can see them. And now the issue is, who says one is preferred over the other? According to who? Bejnar? There is scholarly source that says one is preferred, it's a personal preference. If Bejnar wants those two in the footnotes, then we should also put Afghan in the footnote and in the place of denonym have "see footnote". Having Afghan there and not the other two is Bejnar's personal preference. Don't let him push you into agreeing with his preference. He's an Afghan (Pashtun) nationalist and has his own POVs.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.252 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an example of a footnote that is explanatory in the article; see what foonote 5 says. Do you think that should be included in the article? Footnote 5 is precedence for having a footnote for Afghani and Afghanistani. It shows what footnotes are used for. They include information that is interesting but not of such prime importance that it goes in th body of the article. He is not hiding the other demonyms. Its a practical solution. Seriously, google Afghan Afghani and Afghanistani. Afghan is the preferred, ie common/most-used term. I have said several times that I myself use Afghan; I also think that people should use Afghan, simply because it is the most common. The fact that Afghan is in the OED but Afghani [as demonym] and Afghanistani are not yet is demonstrative of the fact that Afghan is the 'normal' term in English. A footnote shows that the others are also used. Don't tell me he is pushing me into agreeing with his preference. My only interest here is having sourced content maintained, which has been done with the footnote. I could care less that both he and you may be POV-pushers, so long as sourced content is maintained--and this is done with the footnote. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is not the body of the article. There is no harm in mentioning them there other than there might be harm to Afghan nationlists like Bejnar. Afghan might be most common, I'm aware of that. But it also incorrect. Just take a look at the Etymology section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Etymology) within this article and you'll easily realize that it's a mysnomer. Bejnar just doesn't like it because it hurts "Afghan nationlism" and is a threat to the "Afghan state". Wikipedia shouldn't be concerned with maintaining a country's nationalism and should take the neutral stance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.218.184 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)