Talk:Afghan American/Archive 1

Self referential
Afghans call themselves AFGHANi or AFGHAN not Afghanistani, this term doesn't exist and the article must be changed.

Pashtun's are sometimes called "Awghan" which doesn't mean that other ethinic groups are not Afghans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.214.204 (talk) 23:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Article disputed
I agree, there is no such thing as the term Afghanistani. - PullMyFinger409

There is no such thing as a Afghanistani. It is Afghan and Afghan only.

The usage of Afghanistani has never been used internally or externally and has no historical justification.

I would also like to protest the use of the word "afghanistani" which is totally stupid - no such word exists. It does not belong on wikipedia. Once again, i would also like to say that, like the middle eastern americans article, this also has material which is obviously only the perecptions of the author. you cannot include such material in an encyclopedia! for example:

Afghanistani Americans reserve their ancestral languages of Persian (natively known as Farsi), Pashto for intimate setting while using English as a medium for status related conversations.

says who? you cannot apply that to a whole people...


 * "afghanistani american" is far less common:


 * "Afghanistani American" - Google Search 149 hits
 * "Afghan American" - Google Search 74,400 hits


 * if you check "afghan american" on yahoo search, it will show that the name "afghan american" has been used in 33 million places, while "afghanistani american" has only been used in 56,000 places.


 * None of the links Behnam provided even attempt to assert the term is preferred by the group itself - all are Western or Indian news stories, blog comments or "free dictionary" entries, which is same thing as searching names on googles.


 * The term Afghan: a native or inhabitant of Afghanistan" clik here for merriam webster dictionary, in antiquity, has been synonymous with Pashtun. However, since the establishment of the modern state and the ratification of various versions of the Afghan constitution, all individuals within the borders of Afghanistan are referred to as Afghans and are bound by the same rights and responsibilities under the law: "Article Four of the Preamble: The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan. No individual of the nation of Afghanistan shall be deprived of citizenship."click for constitution of afghanistan here


 * Article Four, of the constitution of afghanistan:

National sovereignty in Afghanistan shall belong to the nation, manifested directly and through its elected representatives. The nation of Afghanistan is composed of all individuals who possess the citizenship of Afghanistan. The nation of Afghanistan shall be comprised of Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkman, Baluch, Pachaie, Nuristani, Aymaq, Arab, Qirghiz, Qizilbash, Gujur, Brahwui and other tribes. The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan. No individual of the nation of Afghanistan shall be deprived of citizenship. The citizenship and asylum related matters shall be regulated by law.


 * the cia factbook on afghanistan uses Afghan, see here >>>CIA


 * this article needs to be called "afghan american", and in it, there may be mentioning of "afghanistani american" as a name seldomly used by foreignors who are not familiar with the afghan culture or the afghan people. this is the best solution i can think of, if not then i am absolutely sure there will be many afghans coming here to complain in the future. it serves no purpose to leave it as "afghanistani american".Mirrori1 07:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I think it's case closed. SamEV 09:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Asian
It's come up again, so I'm posting the link to the US Census race codes for interested users: (PDF). SamEV (talk) 00:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Changing this to Afghan American
I will be changing the name of this article to Afghan American as per the July 2007 consensus and as per the Constitution of Afghanistan, which states "The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan." That Constitution was not created by a dictator or a cabal, but was approved by consensus by the 2003 Loya jirga. Kingturtle (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If there's to be a move, I propose Afghani American as a compromise. SamEV (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There really is no question what the generally accepted usage is. Kingturtle (talk) 04:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Afghan American" -wikipedia = 71,400 google hits
 * "Afghanistani American" -wikipedia = 2,060 google hits
 * "Afghani American" -wikipedia = 806 google hits

Kingturtle, you're right (I googled them last week, too). But I'm saying that if there's no consensus for either of the two main choices, well, that's why I propose Afghani American as a good, third possibility. SamEV (talk) 05:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This problem was created with the advent of the Nation State. Ethnicities lose their identity to the State. Surely it can be argued that there is no such thing as an Iraqi, but Iraqi American is still the catch-all term. And although China has 50+ ethnicities within its border, the catch-all term is Chinese American. Kingturtle (talk) 14:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Anoshirawan, at least "Afghani" means the same as "Afghanistani", not "Pashtun only". I mean, the Afghani is not the currency of the Pashtuns only, is it? SamEV (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Afghanistani may be a better term. However, the commonly used term in the English language is Afghan. Wikipedia is not a conduit for social or political change. As far as I can tell, we must use the commonly used term and wait for the media and English speakers to change their usage to Afghanistani. Once that happens, Wikipedia can follow suit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that culls information from other sources. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. In other words, Wikipedia cannot take the first step in changing language usage. We cannot be the ignition, catalyst, precident or pusher of a change in language usage. Wikipedia is merely a refection of culture. Wikipedia should not force a point-of-view onto culture. Kingturtle 13:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I find the July consensus compelling. "Afghan" is the common English term. Anoshirawan and Beh-nam's sock puppets should leave it alone. --Bejnar (talk) 01:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Repeating my point about Afghan vs. Afghanistani
Afghanistani may be a better term. However, the commonly used term in the English language is Afghan. Wikipedia is not a conduit for social or political change. As far as I can tell, we must use the commonly used term and wait for the media and English speakers to change their usage to Afghanistani. Once that happens, Wikipedia can follow suit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that culls information from other sources. Wikipedia is not a place for original research. In other words, Wikipedia cannot take the first step in changing language usage. We cannot be the ignition, catalyst, precident or pusher of a change in language usage. Wikipedia is merely a refection of culture. Wikipedia should not force a point-of-view onto culture. Kingturtle (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not move this page
Aside from Anoshirawan and banned editor Beh-nam, there is consensus that "Afghan American" is the correct title. Anoshirawan does not accept the July 2007 CfD consensus, nor the consensus reached on the Afghanistan talk page, see Talk:Afghanistan et seq. --Bejnar (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Many in this article use Afghanistani rather than Afghan and they refer Afghan as an ethnic identity not a national identity. Afghanistani is a more correct term for this article than Afghan which has always been synonymous with Pashtun.--Anoshirawan 08:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Usage by non-native English speakers is not the issue. This is the English Wikipedia. If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article. --Bejnar (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Banning users does not solve the problem. According to the two most authoritative sources on oriental studies (Encyclopaedia of Islam and Encyclopaedia Iranica respectively), Afghan is synonymous with Pashtun. The problems connected to the word "Afghan" are comparable to those connected to the word "Turk". Like in case of Turkey, the constitution of Afghanistan nationalizes the identity of one ethnic group. That also means that countless other ethnic groups are that way forced to identify themselves with the name, history, and identity of a foreign group (i.e. Kurds are forced to be "Turks", Tatars are forced to be "Russians", Uyhurs are forced to be "Chinese", Tajiks and Hazaras are forced to be "Pashtuns"). At the same time, some people who were not citizens of Afghanistan but were of Pashtun ethniicty are also claimed as "Afghans" (i.e. Khushal Khan Khattak, Sher Shah Suri). I have no problem with changing "Afghanistani" (though it is a much better word) to "Afghan", but the meaning should be clarified! And, btw: the citizens of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are known as "Uzbekistani" and "Tajikistani" (see CIA Factbook). It's only Afghanistan that persists on the equation of "Afghan" = "Pashtun" = "all citizens of Afghanistan". This is rooted in the extreme Pashtun nationalist political positions of the 20's, 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's which aims to stabilize Afghanistan under a strong and nationalist Pashtun identity. However, this attempt has totally failed and has lead Afghanistan into 4 decades of civil war and racism. --unsigned comment by 82.83.129.208
 * I have no doubt that for you Afghan is synonymous with Pashtun. But the Encyc. Iranica says different (to be colloquial). "AFGHAN: In current political usage, any citizen of Afghanistan, whatever his ethnic, tribal, or religious affiliation. According to the 1977 constitution of the Republic of Afghanistan (1973-78), all Afghans are equal in rights and obligations before the law. In an attempt to alleviate the inevitable tensions and conflicts of an ethnically diverse state, the republic discouraged reference to ethnic or tribal origin and prohibited the use of personal names that evoke an ethnic group ..." --Bejnar (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The same article also says:
 * From a more limited, ethnological point of view, "Afghān" is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan ( and the non-Paštō-speaking ethnic groups generally ) designate the Paštūn. The equation [of] Afghan [and] Paštūn has been propagated all the more, both in and beyond Afghanistan , because the Paštūn tribal confederation is by far the most important in the country, numerically and politically. [...] The term "Afghān" has probably designated the Paštūn since ancient times. Under the form Avagānā, this ethnic group is first mentioned by the Indian astronomer Varāha Mihira in the beginning of the 6th century CE in his Brihat-samhita.
 * This should be mentioned in the article. Otherwise it is falsifying information and ignoring authoritative sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.131.214 (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Population number
I can't believe how some people think and express their views. Since 1979, Afghans have been coming to USA as refugees from wars. Most landed in New York City, the same way how refugees came from other countries. Considering all those still coming and the ones born in USA for the last 30 long years.... they grew to about 9,000 people? I believe that the 300,000 number by the Afghan Embassy is more believeable than the other nonsense numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.1.98 (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The largest Afghan American community is said to be the East Bay area (Oakland, Cal.), the suburbs of Fremont, Hayward and San Leandro have a total of 50,000 Afghans in the early 2000's. They have been publicized after 9/11 as an example of new Americans restarting their lives as war refugees from the Soviet-Afghan conflict in the 1980's. I doubt about the "9,000 people" statement is factual or accurate, did they mean 9,000 arrived this year? Afghans are notably concentrated in Washington DC, the northern half of Virginia attracted newly-resettled families and let's not mention the Inland Empire of Riverside-San Bernardino, Cal., therefore we have a large trend of Afghans' relocation into suburban areas. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Religious Background
Important note: Within the U.S., there is a strong tendency to implement a perceived ratio over Afghan Americans as the current U.S. estimates for their ethnoreligious makeup are based largely on statistical observations of the population dynamics of Afghanistan. Thus, at present, since no actual study or figures exist, this section of the article only serves as a very coarse and grossly-generalized estimate that ultimately echoes more so the reality of Afghanistan than it does the U.S.'s Afghan population.

I am proposing a revised wording to the current text that is in that section, which, aside from the actual content, is poorly written on a structural and grammatical level. Please see these edits below:


 * New:
 * Most Afghan Americans are Muslim, the majority of whom follow Sunni Islam, while a sizable minority practices Shi'a Islam, reflecting similar statistics as in mainland Afghanistan. While Shi'a Muslims in Afghanistan are generally ethnic Hazaras and Qizilbash (a smaller number of Tajiks follow Ismailism), it is difficult to determine the exact ethnic background of the Afghan American Shi'ites beyond the extrapolation of trends observed in Afghanistan, since no such census actually exists in the U.S.


 * There is a small community of Afghan Jews in New York City, numbering about 200 families.[12]

v.s.


 * Old:
 * '''Afghan Americans are often Muslim, majority of them follow Sunni Islam. Those who practice Shi'a Islam are usually the ethnic Hazaras and Qizilbash, while a smaller number of Tajiks follow Ismailism. There is a small community of Afghan Jews in New York City, numbering about 200 families.[12]

'''

The note on the Afghan Jews should be in its own line, as this is a separate idea from what is being discussed in that paragraph; this makes for a much cleaner and well-organized section.