Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 1

opium
How does this entry not have any information about Opium production, forever a long historial staple to the Afganistan economy, which underwent an explosion after the Taliban was removed from power? --Howrealisreal 18:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I went ahead and did this. --Howrealisreal 17:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is easy to say, out of Washington or New York, what to do, but is it realistic? This can be to discuss frankly.
 * One of the conclusions of the Senlis Council is NOT to destroy the poppy fields of the south, because the people will turn against NATO and Afghan government, hunger can come to the people, and at this time the people over there need the money. Their advise is: try to chance the cultivation of it to medical use, because worldwide there is short of medical pain releavers. Also Canadian and British commanders at the ground decided not to destroy, otherwise the insurgent will grow worse.

History, Organisation of the article
One day somebody said the article became too long. But it is not longer than other country profiles. But maybe it can be a good idea to add some sub-paragraphs into the chapter about the history, and to re-organise this discussion page into subdivisions. It is just an idea to work on. By the way: the new picture of the painting is really beautiful! was it not a problem, at that time, to picture people?

A suggestion:

About the lead/introduction of the article
At the introduction is written: (...) "This force, composed of mainly US and NATO troops has protected (...)". But the US are a NATO country (So now it looks like a pleonasm, or tautology, or contradiction?). Maybe it is better to write something like: "composed of NATO troops and NATO partner nations?

It can also be a good idea to add the number of the UN Security Council Resolution? (with maybe a link to it?). (UNSCR 1386) Rob van Doorn 03:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N01/708/55/PDF/N0170855.pdf?OpenElement

1. Name
Etymology ...

3. British influence
Main aricle First Anglo-Afghan War lasted from 1839 to 1842.

Return of Dost Mohammad and The Second Anglo-Afghan War (from 1878 to 1880), 1843–1880 (main article: European influence in Afghanistan)

Third Anglo-Afghan War and Independence, (main article: European influence in Afghanistan)

Note: I don't know why somebody brought the Second Anglo-Afghan War below the article European influence in Afghanistan, because at a "new" article there is always the possibility to give further and more information about a topic.

7. Offensive against the Taliban
The taliban suck

8. Karzai government
And possible sub-paragraphes, and internal links ...

The BBC News gives some (very brief) profiles of the most influential figures in the struggle to shape Afghanistan's future. Maybe the source can be useful to other writers, or to start new articles? It is last updated by the BBC Tuesday, 4 July 2006. Hamid Karzai,Yunus Qanuni, Sibghatullah Mojaddedi, General Rashid Dostum, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Marshal Mohammad Qasim Fahim, General Atta Mohammad, Mohammad Mohaqiq, Gul Agha Sherzai, Ismail Khan, Masooda Jalal, Shahnawaz Tanai, Sayed Muhammad Gulabzoi, Abdul Rassoul Sayyaf, Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Zahir Shah, Foreign forces, Taliban. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3706370.stm)

(Much regards, Rob)

6. Economy
Suggestion)(Sub) Paragraphs about; trade, mining, industry, agriculture, transportation, (road, aviation, ...) banking, ... Rob van Doorn 03:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

7. People
7.1 Demographics

7.2 Languages

7.3 Religions

7.4 Largest Cities (can be below Geography chapter?)

Köningswinter
The afghan leaders did not meet in Bonn, but in the German town Köningswinter, near Bonn (Rob)
 * http://www.mail-archive.com/hydro@topica.com/msg00297.html

transition
Is Afghanistan still recognized as a transitional government or not now that Karzai has been inaugurated?

-No, Afghanistan is no longer recognized as a transitional gov't; they are now the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.

support
It looks like nobody wants to remember that Taliban was strongly supported by Pakistan and CIA when it took power in 1997. Since this is non-government project I would like to remind it in this Article.


 * Oh, I did put some refernce to it in; unfortunately, it got wiped out. Arno 00:42, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * Because that sounds a lot like speculation. The CIA officially ended all operations in Afghanistan in the 1991. We can discuss unofficial CIA operations in the country as well, but then again, those would be unofficial, and therefor unverifiable. And I believe whether or not the CIA supported the Taliban doesn't deserve a mention. The fact the Taliban was present in 1997 and they were there is canon.


 * Note about methods of research: unofficial facts can be, for sure, verifiable. Evidence on the ground, pieces of paper, interview, and so on. At an article it is also possible to give different opinions about situations.

The CIA certainly supported the Pakistani intelligence agency who where prime supporters of the Taliban but I am having trouble finding (of course) mention that the CIA directly helped the Taliban after the Soviets left. I would not be surprised if it were true but it needs support. --rmhermen

To spell the name
Of all countries Afghanistan comes first in the alphabet. It also has 3 consecutive letters ("fgh"), that are consecutive in the alphabet and in alphabetical order.


 * It only looks like it are 3 consecutive letters, but /gh/ is just one sound. It is the Romanisation of the Arabic "gayn", a sound which also exists in Dari and Persian. There is a better way to spell it, for example one /g/ with a dot on it: /غ/ = /ġ/.  (Rob).

dear rmhermen
dear rmhermen

Try looking through ZNet on West/Central Asia: http://www.zmag.org/terrorme.htm

e.g. http://www.zmag.org/aliqa.htm here's a cut-n-paste (which is why it's on talk)

''Meanwhile the United States decided to destabilise the regime by arming the ultra-religious tribes and using the Pakistan Army as a conduit to help the religious extremists. The Americans were laying a bear-trap and the Soviet leadership fell into it. They sent the Red Army to topple Amin and sustain the PDPA regime by force. This further exacerbated the crisis and the United States gave the call for a jihad against communism. The Pakistani military thought it would help the jihad if a Saudi prince came to lead the struggle, but volunteers from that quarter were not forthcoming. Instead the Saudi regime suggested Ossama Bin Laden to the CIA. He was approved, recruited, trained and sent to Afghanistan where he fought well. ''

hope this helps.
 * As I said before we know they supported them during the war with the Soviets but what about afterward. This quote is about the Soviet War. I will search the link some and see if there is anything there. Rmhermen 06:34 Aug 28, 2002 (PDT)

Removed from article: It was expected in advance that cutting off truck transport of food and making mass food transport to and in Afghanistan even more difficult by the bombing attacks would cause about 50% of 7.5 million starving people to die. According to the definitions of the International Criminal Court, this known action of killing millions of people defined by their national group is termed genocide. The final death toll by this genocide-by-cutting-food-supplies is poorly known, but "fortunately" estimated as maybe only about 1 million.

This is an extremely POV statement and needs to be backed up by a source. This was all I could find and it certainly does not agree. Afghans Still Dying by Ian Traynor "Guardian" February 12, 2000[]
 * &#8220;In a new study, Carl Conetta of the Commonwealth Institute estimates that up to 1,300 civilians have been killed by US bombs and at least 3,000 other Afghans

are dead because the American campaign worsened the humanitarian emergency.&#8221;

Genocide or Peace By George Monbiot Published in the Guardian 2nd October 2001
 * &#8220;The 19-day suspension of aid which came to an end yesterday&#8221; (Normal distribution did take a 2-3 months longer to be resumed, I believe.)

Rmhermen 06:48 Aug 28, 2002 (PDT)

I think the flag shoudl go for now as it has not yet been confirmed. Teh flags flown are of the 92 flag: [] and 73: []

--- Both Afghanistan and Politics of Afghanistan have As of 2002 links that need updating by someone familiar with the current situation than I.... (sorry, I just update links for the most part!) Catherine
 * oops, great minds etc - I was just saying that in the Politics talk ... Nevilley 18:37 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

---

"Zahir was returned as King, but has largely constitutional power. "

Is this true? I never heard of it. - Montréalais


 * That is not true. Afghanistan is a republic, and Hamid Karzai is President and Head of State.  The former king does play a role in the country, but I don't think he has any official role.  Perhaps it's comparable to France, where the late Comte de Paris frequently had roles on official state occasions. john 18:40 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

No there is no king of Afghanistan. -fonzy

It took a fair bit of work to enter what was said about the history of Afghanistan. It would be appreciated if it was not arbitarily deleted.

Arno 11:36, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)~


 * The history of this section should only give a brief overview. The more detailed history belongs at History of Afghanistan. See WikiProject Countries for a guideline on how to apply the country template. The history section goes first and should not be ridiculously long. --Jiang 15:43, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of this template until now. However, it is still a poor show to simply throw away a fair bit of research without warning or explanation. I'll have to integrate what I've written later - I'm too pressed for time now.


 * I will put back the earthquake stuff. Arno 06:57, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

- Is it in Central, or South Asia? Should Asia be wikified, or Central Asia / South Asia?

flag? coat of arms? controversy?

1911 Encyclopedia
Afghanistan (1911 Encyclopedia) was listed on VfD, but suggestions made that it be merged here instead. It currently redirects here, but from the page history, the original can be found if anyone wants to merge this information. It is also listed on Cleanup. Angela. 22:30, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

USSR intervened in the conutry not invaded, as reflected int he UN resolution A/RES/37/37 If we call "Invasion" we will need to call Invasion also to the intervention of USA in Vietnam. Milton 16:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What's the government called?
The article refers to the Afghan Interim Authority (AIA) but I don't know about that. I am reliably informed that at least a year ago it was called the Afghan Transitional Islamic Administration -- at least that's what was on the Ministry for Communication's letterhead.

Why... (Southwest Asia or South Asia or Middle East)
is Afghanistan considered part of Southwest Asia even though South Asia sounds more natural to me based on its geographical location?? 66.32.144.73 02:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

It overlaps in many ways and is sometimes also considered part of Central Asia. It is a Middle Eastern due to its relationship with Iran which goes back a long way.

Tombseye 9 July 2005 01:45 (UTC)
 * No, it's considered a Central Asian country. Like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyztan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan.
 * Yep, it is definitely Central Asian!

---But some consider it also as the east of the Middle-East. (Rob)

Afghanistan is officially part of SAARC (South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation). Sarayuparin 00:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan is predominantly Iranian, yes. But, that doesnt mean it's necessarily Middle Eastern. Iranian languages are not historically an exclusively Middle Eastern phenomena. Historically they were more or less centered in Central Asia and Eurasia, and only the Persians and Medes were to be found in the Middle East, an extension of a Central Asian people into the Middle East, just as the Turks of Turkey are a Middle Eastern extension of the Central Asian Turkic races. Afghanistan is a historically Pashtun stronghold. The Pashtuns are descendants of Central Asian Iranian groups such as the Scythians, Parthians, Sogdians, Bactrians and Hepthalites, with minimal genetic contributions from the Greeks, Arabs and Indo-Aryans. Therefore, Afghanistan could very well be considered a Central Asian extension. It does have ties with the Middle East through Iran, I agree with Tombseye here. This Persian cultural sphere is stronger in western Afghanistan and among the Tajiks, rather than in Pashtun-dominated eastern Afghanistan. Plus, western and central Afghanistan lie directly on the Iranian plateau (which overlaps between Central Asia, West Asia and, to some extent, South Asia). So, it can also be considered a West Asian extension as well.

I once was of the impression that Afghanistan had equally strong ties with the subcontinent, due to the overlap of political units between these areas such as the Mauryan Empire, the Gandhara Mahajanapada, the Indo-Greek kingdom, the Indo-Scythian kingdom, the Indo-Parthian kingdom, the Shahi kingdom, the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal Empire, as well as the various references to Gandhara in the Mahabharata, which, although a fictional epic, still describes actual Aryan migratory trends and a somewhat trustworthy description of the "Vedic" world and geography. I forgot to take into account or read that much of the early Indo-Aryan presence in eastern Afghanistan was still pre-Hindu and was pretty much wiped out by the more influential Iranian culture. Even more, the Indian religious systems and influences that dominated much of the area such as Buddhism and Hinduism were actually imported into the region by Iranian colonials returning from India and later Indian Hindu invaders. The majority of their practicioners were Iranian peoples such as the Scythians and the Sogdians who still retained their language. The Hindu Shahis, for example, were Sassanid Persians who converted to Hinduism. Therefore, those two religions didnt make Afghanistan any more Indo-Aryan than Islam made Afghanistan or Iran Semitic. Nevertheless, the Muslim culture of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh has roots among Afghan invaders and immigrants. The early Islamic movements in the subcontinent that spread the religion throughout old India came from Afghanistan and many of the monarchs in Delhi that upheld the faith were either Pashtun or Turko-Mongol Afghans. So yes, in terms of cultural influence, Afghanistan has some ties with South Asia, although not as strong as its ties with the Middle East and Central Asia. Their is also an ethnic factor, as Pashtuns are an equally prominent force in neighboring Pakistan.

So I guess Afghanistan is a regional overlap between the Middle East and Central Asia, with some influence and connections in South Asia. Afghan Historian 16:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Official Government Site
Why is the website of Mohammed Zaher Shah considered an "official government website?" Listed as site of the king, sure. But I don't think it counts as official. I'm not getting into a revert war --Golbez 15:14, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Last I heard the Afghans had been given their own top level domain but was being held by US/UN until the countries infrastructure was developed enough. Darthmalt 22:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * At Afghan News Network (http://www.afghannews.net/) they link at their navigation to this site as official site: http://www.af/  Rob van Doorn 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

10 million registered voters
Just read in one of Paul Krugman's columns that some experts think that the number of registered voters exceeds the numeber of eligible voters. (A large percentage of the country is not under the control of the US/U.N./whatever there is of the Afghan government, so this might well be true. Anybody want to check this out?)


 * I'm interested in hearing about that. Should we also add some details about how the election was held? I understand that voters had their thumb stamped to prevent double voting. It's certainly very different than what I'm used to here in the US. Anyone have the facts on this? Jgardner 17:19, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)


 * Any details should be minor, since there is already a full article on the elections. Afghan presidential election, 2004. --Golbez 17:59, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Suggest 3 possible wiki links and 3 possible backlinks for Afghanistan.
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Afghanistan article:

Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"): Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right. Feedback: I like it, I hate it, Please don't link to &mdash; LinkBot 11:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Can link nation-state: ...enghis Khan]] and Alexander the Great. The Afghanistan nation-state as it is known today came into existence in 1746 under ... (link to section)
 * Can link ethnic groups: ...he Northern Alliance, and a mix from other regional and ethnic groups formed from the transition government by the Loya jirga... (link to section)
 * Can link defense minister: ...trol of warlords. On March 27, 2003, Afghan deputy defense minister and powerful warlord General Abdul Rashid Dostum create... (link to section)
 * In Afghanistan timeline 1991-1995, can backlink Islamic State of Afghanistan: ...mes caretaker president on April 28. The country is renamed Islamic State of Afghanistan . When peace seems imminent, fighting among the various guer...
 * In Afghan Constitution Commission, can backlink Islamic State of Afghanistan: ...constitution-afg.com/ Official website] - "The Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan Constitutional Committee."...
 * In Bonn Agreement (Afghanistan), can backlink AFGHANISTAN: Officially the "AGREEMENT ON PROVISIONAL ARRANGEMENTS IN AFGHANISTAN PENDING...

counter-argument against "Pashtun majority because of recent elections" theory
The following article is taken from the "Washington Times":

The IRI conducted a one-day, public opinion survey on Afghanistan's election day. Over 450 Afghan volunteers interviewed more than 17,000 respondents at 177 locations across Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan where more than 700,000 refugee voters also cast their votes. According to this survey, Karzai received support from 86 percent of Pashtun voters. This was not surprising as Karzai   also belongs to this ethnic group, which is the largest in Afghanistan. But unexpectedly 40 percent of Tajik voters also said they cast a ballot for Karzai. Tajiks are the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and the relations between the Tajiks and Pashtuns were strained during the Taliban era because most Taliban leaders were Pashtuns. The Taliban regime persecuted the Tajiks, forcing many to leave the capital, Kabul, and seek refuge in the Tajik-dominated northern provinces. That's why when Karzai's Defense Minister Mohammed Fahim, who is a powerful Tajik militia commander, broke with the Afghan president when the election campaign formally started, many predicted the election could turn into a conflict between the Pashtun and Tajik ethnic groups. Fahim severed connections with Karzai and decided to support a rival candidate, former Law Minister Yunus Qanooni, bringing along other powerful Tajik personalities, such as Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah. ...   '''Besides Pashtuns and Tajiks, according to the survey, Karzai also received the support of 16 percent of Uzbek and 21 percent of Hazara voters. These are the other two large ethnic groups in Afghanistan. ... His main rival, Qanooni, received the support of 5 percent of Pashtun voters, 34 percent Tajik, 9 percent Uzbek and 5 percent Hazara. '''Thus, although he is Tajik, Qanooni received fewer votes from his own ethnic group than Karzai. http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041012-031213-5906r.htm

In other words: 86% Pashtuns + 40% Tajiks + 21% Hazaras + 16% Uzbeks = Karzai's (very weak) 54,6%. On the other hand: assuming that Qanooni was voted only by Tajiks (15% of the total results = 1/3 of the total votes), that would mean that Tajiks are ca. 45% of the population (1/3 of Tajiks voted for Qanooni, 2/3 for others --> Qanooni's 15% * 3 = 45%).

So, the recent elections are not a proof that Pashtuns a majority but rather that Pashtuns are NOT the majority.

Nature of the people of Afghanistan
Afghanistan has hardly ever been a single country. It does not even completely represent a people as such, since the Pashtuns are almost evenly split between Afghanistan and Pakistan, Tajiks between Tajikistan and Afghanistan and Uzbeks with Uzbekistan. A census has never been taken, and various pieces of land has belonged to different people. In addition, almost noone can be considered indigenous of the land, due to non-stop invasions throughout the history. The approximate area of Afghanistan has also shifted quite a bit. Ancient Khwarazm was slightly to the north including Bokhara and Samarkand, and so was Bactria and Khorasan. Before the Soviet and British 'Great Game', the size of 'Afghanistan' or Khorasan was more than twice of what it is now. At times it has included lands upto the Indus river, and other times, it was a large remote province of the Persian empire.

Afghanistan for most of its history has been a collection of loosely-connected tribes, most of which lived quite autonomously. This reduces the meaning of 'rules Afghanistan' to ruling Kabul or Kandahar. Afghanistan could never be seen simply as a 'nation' or country of a 'people'. The name 'Afghanistan' was coined by a Pashtun at a time when many other ethnic groups lived autonomously within the region. The central highlands was referred to as Hazarajat or Hazaristan, and the King of Kabul or Kandahar actually paid the Emir of Hazaras for the safe passage of soldiers or traders. Afghanistan in history is best seen as a collection of Khanates in a border only visible to outsiders, who would only deal with the rulers of Kabul.

The demographics and history of Afghanistan are therefore highly disputed. Percentages of population are very frequently overstated, each ethnic group claiming 80% of the population is not uncommon. The population also fluctuates with the movements of the large number of refugees.

While the history of smaller ethnic and religious groups are lost, historians in Iran, Turkey, Pakistan etc constantly view Afghanistan as a part of greater 'Turkistan', 'greater Persia' and so on. This makes the history of the country highly biased and unreliable, and it should be viewed as such.

On the other hand, the various peoples secured their own history better, the history of Pashtuns are best read from a Pashtun perspective, Hazaras from Hazara perspective, Tajiks from Tajik perspective, and always with a grain of salt. Going further back in history, before 1600AD, the people were grouped differently, Tajiks being simply Persian, Hazaras and Uzbek being Turkic/Mongol... and going even further back, Pashtuns are split between tribes of Greek, Jewish and Aryan ancestory, and the Baloch quite possibly being an ofshoot of ancient Persia as well.

This makes the history very interesting, but very difficult to dig up.


 * Actually, the groups have arrived at different points in time as well. The Persian language originates in southern Iran and spreads to what is today afghanistan later.  The Hazaras arrive much later as well.  The Pashtuns and related Iranian tribes such as Bactrians are the earliest natives.  For the record the Pashtuns are mainly related to the greater Iranian people and there is no genetic evidence to suggest that there is any substantial Greek or Jewish ancestry.  It's all myth.  The lack of a census makes the numbers very difficult as Tajiks claim that Persian is the majority language, while Pashtuns claim they are the majority etc.  This gets down to the bickering over the demographics of cities like Kabul, which are important to both of the main ethnic groups.  Very problematic actually and shows the deep ethnic and religious rivalries and frustration in the country. Tombseye 20:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Although they are split into many smaller ethnic groups, they are still in one larger ethnic group (Arabs). &rarr;  Jarlaxle Artemis   23:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * Check the demographics section of this article. I don't think that there are many Arabs at all in Afghanistan. The tribes in Afghanistan are thought to be Turkic, Persian, Mongol and some other (Pashtun?). See the Arab artcile to see what group Arabs are. Jeltz talk  14:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh no, they are definitely not all Arabs, or even under the larger classification as such. In fact, Arabian is rather small ethnicity in that country. Gibson Cowboy 05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

afganistan
Bold textWhat does afganistan import and export?


 * Have you looked in the Economy of Afghanistan article? Jeltz talk  17:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historical names
I deleted the following paragraph:


 * Afghanistan has gone through a few names changes in its long history. One of the first ancient names was Ariana ("Land of the Aryan"), then it’s name later changed to Khorasan which means "Land of the Sun", and today it is known as Afghanistan, meaning Land of the Afghans.

The claim that Afghanistan was once called "Ariana" is a recent falsification and you cannot find one single credible document that shows any part of Afghanistan was ever called "Ariana". This claim was made after WW-II for the first time. Some Afghans who have been challenged to prove this claim refer to "Aryana Vaego" in the Avesta, but that is clearly not anywhwere near modern Afghanistan (scholars believe Aryana Vaejo would be either right next to the Caspian Sea or the Aral Sea -- nobody has even suggested a third possibility). As for Khorasan, the name Khorasan is a Persian name and it was created during the Sassanid time (specifically, Khosraw-I) and was applied to the eastern region of Iran, because the sun arrives from the east and that is exactly what "Khorasan" in Persian means. Modern Afghanistan contains only parts of what the Old Khorasan (or the Greater Khorasan) was. Mansour 17:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I am reverting back your deletion of my edit. You are in no position to refute the Embassy of Afghanistan. It clearly states it here:


 * --Zereshk 22:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

That's just a web site with no academic authority. Just because you are providing a link doesn't mean you can include any bullshit that you want in Wikipedia articles. Here is a link to Iranica's index, with multiple entries on both Afghanistan and Aryana. Show me where it says Aryana or Ariana is or was in Afghanistan. I think encyclopedia Iranica with hundreds of scholars working on it, each a world authority in his/her respective area of experties, is a little more authoritative than a web site of the embassy of Afghanistan. Also etymology of "Khorasan" doesn't mean "Land of the sun" it means "The place [where] the sun comes from". And only parts of today's Afghanistan where part of the old Khorasan province. Why do you insist on inclusion of your misinformation when you are clueless on a subject? Besides, what are you trying to achieve by including this wrong information in this article? Who benefits from it and in what form? Mansour1 04:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) I repeat, you are absolutely in no position to call the OFFICIAL website of Afghanistan's largest embassy in the world as "Bullshit", and dismiss it.
 * 2) Thank You for providing the EI link. I used your link and found the following statements which I am quoting from page 405 of The Encyclopedia Iranica below:
 * 3) "The Latinized term Ariana...is based upon Old Iranian Aryana- (Avestan Airiiana-, esp. in Airiianem vaejo, the name of the Iranians' mother country...)"
 * 4) "Aria,...Old Persian Satrapy which enclosed chiefly the valley of the river Hari-Rud,..., the modren Herat,..., the land south of Margiana and Bactria, in the east of the Carmanian [Kerman] desert, north of Drangiana [sistan], and west of paropamisadae [HinduKush],... and corresponds to the province of Herat of today's Afghanistan."
 * 5) I've monitored your posts. What do you benefit from defending Akhond-philic retrogrades like Ahmadinejad in the recent elections, portraying American elections as undemocratic instead? That says volumes about you. Are you ashamed that Ariana is identified as being in today's Afghanistan?


 * Kheili kor kori mikhooni. Next time before calling me "clueless", do some research first. It will save you some aberoo.--Zereshk 17:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You *ARE* indeed clueless. Yes, "Ariana" is a different spelling for "Aryana" which does indeed come from the Avestan's "Aryanem Vaejo" (specifically, in Vandidad, Fargard-e Yekom). But the "Aria" that you mention above is Greek for what is in Old Persian "Haraiva" which is modern Herat (Hari-Rud). Looks like you can't even read and understand a simple text in front of you. The Greek "Aria" has NOTHING TO DO with "Arianem Vaejo". Not even a single scholar has ever suggested that Arianem Vaejo is the same as "Haraiva or the Greek "Aria". The Greek "Aria" (Avestan: Harôyu -- Old Persian: Haraiva) is comparable to how in ancient greek texts "Hagmatana" is written "Ekbatana" or many other examples. The Old Persian satapry of Haraiva is clearly mentioned in both Darius I's Behistun Inscription as well as two of Xerxes' inscriptions.  "Arianem Vaejo" on the other hand, is mentioned in the Avesta where I told you above, and numerous scholars have published works on the whereabouts of it (including our own late Dr. Bahram Farahvashi who has a full book by that title, called "Iran Vij").  Nobody (other than our great resident scholar "Zereshk" of course) thinks it is the same as Hari-Rud/Haraiva/greek "Aria".

As for "aberoo", I honestly feel sad for you, because your beahviour and edits in Wikipedia clearly reveal that you suffer from an inferiority complex and nearly all your edits are about image and not about contents. It is obvious that you try to present an image instead of contributing to contents. I suspect this has to do with the fact that you live in USA (according to your user page) and they have probably called you a camel rider or something along those lines, so this has resulted in the sort of pathetic behaviour that we observe from you here. Mansour1 18:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Stop vandalizing the page. The reference you provided specifically defines Ariane. And it con sisted of today's Afghanistan. I provided you direct quotes from here, and The Embassy of Afghanistan.
 * 2) Attacking other users is strictly prohibited on Wikipedia and can lead to your account termination. Stop attacking me.--Zereshk 23:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * btw, Im proud to be an American. But I am also in fact writing this from Tehran.--Zereshk 23:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, you claimed that "Airiianem vaejo" is the same as the "Ariana" that you claim to be Afghanistan. I provided you a link to Iranica and asked you to show me where I can find this in there. You failed to show me. I also provided you with academic information which I don't think you deny its correctness. I have also mentioned three of the Achaemenids inscriptions which clearly mention both the words "Arya" (Arya in Old Persian) and the name of modern day Afghan province of Herat (Haraiva in Old Persian, which the Greeks recorded as "Aria") which is the source of this confusion and/or false claim. I have also given you the name of a highly respected scholar, Dr. Bahram Farahvashi, and the title of his book on this very subject of "Aryanem Vaejo". And you still revert to your bullshit on the account that an afghani web site says so?!! I see that you are really brilliant. As for your "proud to be American" -- how boring. Trust me, you are neither Iranian nor American. Torke tabloye taze be dorun reside cheghad zer mizane. Mansour 05:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You may find it to your benefit to consult No personal attacks. siafu 05:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, aren't you the person who has uploaded an image of Fravahr and called it Ahura Mazda and included it in that article?! I had to make a correction on that one. If you don't know the difference between Fravahr and Ahura Mazda which is fairly trivial, it would be surprising if you knew about Aryanem Vaejo which is more technical. So instead of getting upset with Mansour who is just correcting a piece of misinformation here, why don't you try to change your attitude and be thankful that someone has taken the time to correct your mistakes and even go the extra step of trying to explain to you a bit of the details? -MJ


 * Just because someone got x wrong doesn't mean that said user also got y wrong. Can you explain how and/or why the content that was added here is incorrect? siafu 01:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)


 * There is detailed explanation right here in this very discussion about the error. Mansour's explanation is absolutely correct.  The Greek "Aria" (for Old Persian Haraiva) has nothing to do with the Old Persian Arya that Darius and Xerxes called their clan or the "Aryanem Vaejo" that Zereshk seems to have mistaken for Haraiva. In other words, "Aryanem Vaejo" would not be in Afghanistan. -MJ


 * The detailed description, laden as it is with invective and personal attacks, is a bit too muddled to wade through. Can this be explained plainly to those of us who are not speakers of the languages in question, and not necessarily experts in Afghani and Persian/Iranian history? siafu 22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this but I think that you should wait with readding it untill it has been discussed further. To me Mansour seems to have shown more evidence for his case. People should stop removing and readding the paragraph and try to resolve the issue. Jeltz talk  10:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Mansour's revert war against "Ariana" and "Khorasan"
Here is why there is a revert ar going on:

Mansour (or MJ and his anonymous signatures), disputes the fact that Afghanistan was once called by the names: 1. Ariana (Aryana) 2. Khorasan. Yet the Ariana claim is verified by referring to the following sources:


 * The Embassy of Aghanistan in Washingtin clearly states this here.
 * Encyclopedia Iranica p 405 states it.
 * Ariana was also the name of an Afghan Quarterly printed in Kabul managed by Rahnavard Zariab.
 * There is an entire book called "Aryana or ancient Afghanistan".
 * The first Afghan Encyclopedia was compiled by a group called Anjuman-e Aryana. See: Anjuman-e Aryana Da’irat al-Ma`arif-e Afghanistan, Aryana Da’irat al-Ma`arif, v. III, Kabul: 1956
 * The Embassy of Afghanistan in Canada defines Aryana as: "Ancient Afghanistan" . So does Afghanistan Online: (see section: 2000 BCE- 1500 BCE). So do these websites:
 * "Ariana" is the name of Afghanistan's national airline.
 * "Ariana" is also the name of an Afghan magazine.
 * This website about Afghanistan is also called "Aryana Site".
 * This Dutch website about Afghanistan is also called "Ariana".
 * This book is about Afghanistan. See its title.
 * "Aryana, Khorasan, and today Afghanistan."
 * "Aryana was the original name of Afghanistan."
 * "According to historians, When Afghanistan was called ARYANA..."
 * "ARYANA IS PRESENT DAY IRAN AND AFGHANISTAN." (scroll down to entry by "By Dr. Ariazad")
 * "Afghanistan was called Aryana."
 * "In ancient times, the land was called Aryana."
 * From Aryana to Afghanistan: The Historic Role of the Afghan Flag.
 * "Khorasan of the Middle Ages and Aryana in antiquity, Afghanistan has seen them all pass by."
 * "I am a Tajik from Panjsher, Afghanistan (formerly known as Khorasan/Aryana)." (scroll down to Comments by second anonymous user)
 * In German: "Diese drei, Aryana in der Antike, Khurasan im Mittelalter und Afghanistan im heutigen Zeitalter..."
 * A dozen other websites...

I do not need to prove the fact that present day Afghanistan was part of Greater Khorasan as well. That is well established too, even more.

Finally, "Mansour"'s last post on 05:20, 13 July 2005 contained a racial attack against me, which is easily verifiable by anyone who speaks Farsi. Not good.

That should put an end to Mansour's revert war. '''Ariana was the name of ancient Afghanistan. Period.'''--Zereshk 00:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The racial attack is a good reason to remove Mansour from the debate (and possibly wikipedia as a whole), but there may still be an argument against this position that's valid. Below here would be a good place to explain it, if anyone knowledgeable cares to. siafu 00:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Wrong again. So far you have only based your claim on a bunch of obscure web sites, most probably via a google search. Iranica does NOT say that Aryanem Vaejo is in Afghanistan, nor does Iranica say that any part of Afghanistan has ever been called Ariana. If it does, paste the EXACT quote here WITH A LINK to that article. The association of Afghanistan and "Ariana" for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY appeared after World War II and this includes the name for their airlines "Ariana Airlines". You seem to be of the mindset that no matter what, nobody should change what you put in the articles. This is indicative of poor upbringing by your parents. Your parents have produced a foolish Mr. Know It All who is not smart enough to distinguish between the real world and the our-son-is-never-wrong environment of his mommy's house. This is stupid. I have offered plenty of serious and verifiable examples that shows what you are forcefully injecting in this article is wrong, but it seems that you are only interested in a stupid and stubborn childish game of just winning an argument at any cost, no matter what the truth is. Tell me which of the following points is wrong:
 * 1- No reputable scholar has ever claimed that Aryanem Vajo is in Afghanistan.


 * 2- One scholar, the late Professor Bahram Farahvashi, who dedicated his life to Iranian studies and has several respectable publications, including his award winning Dictionary of Pahlavi Language, has a book by the title of "Iran Vij" which is precisely about Aryanem Vaejo which Zereshk claims to be Afghanistan. According to this book, as well as other scholars, Aryanem Vaejo is next to the Caspian Sea. Farahvashi also mentions the names of the scholars who think (and gives their reasons as to why they think) that Aryanem Vaejo is next to the Aral Sea.  In no case anybody has suggested it is in Afghanistan.


 * 3- In at least three of the Achaemenids inscriptions (by Darius I and his son Xerxes) where they mention the word Arya (that is, the Old Persian word Arya) in the SAME INSCRIPTION they also mention Haraiva (modern day Herat which was recorded as "Aria" in Greek texts) as one of the provices under their rule.  The two words are DISTINCLY DIFFERENT words with different spellings.  Only due to the Greek rendering of Haraiva as Aria this confusion exists today (and even then, it surfaces after World War II, because someone found a way to associate Afghanistan with "Aryan" and others picked it up.)


 * 4- Unlike what Zereshk claims, Encyclopedia Iranica DOES NOT say that Afghanistan is the same as Aryanem Vaejo nor does it anywhere say that Afghanistan has EVER been called "Ariana".


 * 5- Show me one authentic source from BEFORE WORLD WAR II, that shows any part of Afghanistan has ever been called "Ariana" or "Aryana". Just one source would be enough, but it has to be an authentic and academically acceptable source, and NOT a bunch of afghani web sites from the 21st century.  By repeating that the "official afghanis website says so" you only show how weak your argument is.


 * 6- Last but not least, in your revert message you offered the reason [this is] "the OFFICIAL POSITION of The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" -- well, that is not good enough. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not the official website of Afghanistan.  The "OFFICIAL POSITION of The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" is irrelevant here.  We are interested in correct information. Mansour 01:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

OK Zereshk, thank you very much for suggesting that we should read the "Aria" entry of the Iranica. I paste your own EXACT link here "(look up "Aria")" -- please everybody, read his own link. Look up Aria and in there it clearly says: "ARIA, name of a region in the eastern part of the Persian Empire, several times confused with Ariane in the classic sources" and it also explains more in two sub-items about this confusion. And it basically says what I have been saying all along that simply this "Aria" is a greek/latin rendering of "Haraiva". Mansour 01:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Nobody cares what Aryanem Vaejo is, because it doesnt appear in the text on the Afghanistan page.
 * 2) I have provided 27 sources as proof that Afghanistan was called Aryana (Ariana) in ancient times. Strabo first gave a lengthy account of Ariana as mentioned in EI p405 item #2.
 * EI, p 405, item 2, defines Ariana's boundaries, starting from line 8. Today's Afghanistan clearly falls inside that territory.
 * 1) Your last argument doesnt hold either because I have been quoting everything only out of item #2, hence no confusion.
 * 2) Afghanistan was part of Greater Khorasan as well, a fact which you keep deleting.

Im sorry Mansour, but you simply cannot revise history. The Afghans like the Iranians were part of the Aryan family, and you know it. --Zereshk 02:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

And you owe me an apology for attacking me with a racial insult. --Zereshk 02:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I raised 6 points, of which you did not answer any. And in your item 1 above you say "nobody cares what Aryanem Vaejo is"!!  I guess you forgot that this was your first claim (it's still on this page!). Allow me to refresh your memory ... you wrote: "The Latinized term Ariana...is based upon Old Iranian Aryana- (Avestan Airiiana-, esp. in Airiianem vaejo, the name of the Iranians' mother country...)".  It was you who brought up that term for the first time to support your claim, now you say nobody should care about it?!! I copied the EXACT statement from Encyclopedia Iranica from THE VERY ARTICLE which you yourself were using to support your baseless claim, and now you are pretending as if nothing happened, and you are back to your long list of meaningless google-searched mostly-afghani obscure and/or personal web sites.  I will not bother to retype my 6 points above.  They are legit and every observer can see them.  Asnwer the points. Encyclopedia Iranica is an infinitely more reliable source  than some personal web site from an afghan guy who somewho is happy to believe that Afghanistan = Ariana.


 * "...historians trace the origin of the country [Afghanistan] into remote prehistory, referring to it as ancient Aryana, or Land of The Aryan." p109, Encyclopedia International, ISBN 0717207048 --Zereshk 09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding EI page 405 item no.2, this is about ARIA which I pointed out above in bold from the start of the same article. It FIRST EXPLAINS about the confusion about this term with "Ariane" in the classic sources and then goes on to explain the two items. Can't you read and understand simple English in front of your eyes?  Even if we ignore all that, STILL, it would only make modern-day Afghanistan a small part of the so-called "Ariana";  so why do you say the name was changed from "ariana" to "khorasan" to "afghanistan" ?!!  that is ridiculous.


 * Item #2 talks about Ariana, not Aria. Aria was part of Ariana, as is stated in line 20 of item#2. Stop attacking me. Please maintain your tone civil. Attack the argument. Not the person.--Zereshk 23:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * As for deleting the Khorasan part, it is because it says "Afghanistan later changed its name [from Ariana] to Khorasan". Well, that is a gross misstatement.  First because Afghanistan has never ever been called "Ariana" and secondly, even if it was called "Ariana", it is wrong to say it changed it's name to Khorasan because  a) Khorasan was a much larger land/province than all of Afghanistan today, b) only parts the country today known as Afghanistan used to be part of the greater Khorasan, not all of modern-day Afghanistan, c) Khorasan was the eastern province of Iran which was named "Khorasan" (etymology: "the place [where] the sun arrives [from]") during the Sassanid reign (specifiaclly, it was named during the reign of Khosraw I a.k.a Khosraw Anushirwan) and even today the eastern province(s) of Iran are called Khorasan.  To say that Afghanistan = Khorasan is complete BS. Mansour 04:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) Nobody is saying Khorasan = Afghanistan. Youre twisting my words. All we are saying is that Afghanistan was recognized by that name. (but so was current eastern Iran.)
 * 2) All of Aghanistan (not just parts of it) was in fact part of Khorasan. Dehkhoda clearly states:

این اسم ... بطور کلی بر تمام ایالات اسلامی که در سمت خاور کویر لوت تا کوههای هند واقع بودند اطلاق میگردید

(trans: "this name was given to all Islamic lands east of Kevir-e Lut desert, all the way up to the Indian muntains.")

Pamir and Hindukosh are then afterwards specifically mentioned in the text. See p8457 for more details.

Furthermore, if you read Baladhuri and Hamavi's accounts, the cities they name as being part of Khorasan include almost every city in today's Afghanistan. And what gives the Afghani Khorasan claim even more legitimacy is the fact that Dehkhoda quotes historians in saying that Khorasan was made up of 4 quarters: Merv, Balkh, Bukhara, Herat. Only one is inside today's Iran. The center of gravity was more to the east.

In any case, check out the revised version of the section on the Afghanistan page. See if you agree. It's been worded carefully.--Zereshk 23:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You really are astonishingly stupid AND STUBBORN. Moron, the four cities above are just 4 of many many many cities and villages in the HUGE province of the [Old] Khorasan.  And unlike what you think of the above four none is in Iran; and  Merv and Bukhara are not in Afghanistan.  What the hell is the point of mentioning only 4 cities out of scores of cities? Modern Afghanistan is not any more or less "khorasan" than modern Iran or modern Uzbekistan or parts of modern Turkmenistan is.  You clearly have no grasp on this subject.  What can we expect from a Turkic mutt who thinks "Fravahr=Ahura Mazda" and thinks "Aryana=Afghanistan" and thinks "Khorasan=Afghanistan"?   I honestly wish I had your brain .... I would feed it to my plants.  I am done with you, you are a complete waste of time.  Go ahead and put whatever bullshit you wish in the article and be happy that "you won" cuz your only aim seems to be just winning the argument at any cost, regardless of the facts, and that level of "intelligence" is more than I can handle.  If you had even a modicum of a brain, I would have attempted to teach you what yeki bar sare shakh bon miborid means.


 * I am warning you to stop attacking me. This is your second racial attack against me. Nevertheless, I will go ahead and answer your objections this time. If you attack me one more time, I will have you dealt with properly. You and all the anonymous accounts.


 * They were not "four cities", but 4 regions (nahiyeh) centered around those cities. Two were in current Afghanistan. One in current Turkmenia. One in current Iran. Im not saying this. Dehkhoda is. I provided you a specific page number. I repeat: Im not saying "Afghanistan = Khorasan". Im only saying that Afghanistan was ALSO known by that name. And the center of mass was more to the east than today's Iranian Khorasan.
 * The text you deleted clearly said: "Afghanistan evolved into part of Greater Khorasan,...". I will try to emphasize this in my next edit to correct your confusion.
 * For the Ariana case, you also deleted the text, even though I added the pharse "...according to Afghan historians..." to incorporate your view as well. And I provided clear documentation from Encyclopedia International supporting the Ariana case. In addition to the 27 sources earlier provided, not all of which were Afghani sources as you claim.--Zereshk 09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Just as an observer of this long thread, Zereshk, aren't you cheating here? You had first written "Merv, Balkh, Bukhara, Herat." as the four names and claimed one is in Iran.  When Mansour pointed out that you don't even know that of those four famous places of Khorasan none is in Iran, you then changed what you had written earlier to "Merv, Balkh, Neishabur, Herat." and wrote in bold face that One is in current Iran.  That's unbelievably low.  --Paul Chiu


 * When Mansour mentioned "Bukhara", I realized that I had miscopied the names. Sorry about that. The correct 4 are "Balkh, Herat, Merv, Neishabur". This can be verified.--Zereshk 21:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, no problem. But I will restore your original writing back, because it is obviously wrong to go back and change what one had written before AFTER people have responded to the original writing.  Please do not do this again in the future.  By the way, your "correction" to article has another problem which actually replaces a correct bit of information with misinformation.  The "stan" part unlike what you have written is actually "istan" and it is not a word, it is a suffix.  I advise you to refer to some academic sources regarding that particular suffix.  --Paul Chiu


 * Reverting or changing other people's statements on talk pages is a Big no no here on Wikipedia. You can only point to what I did by posting a comment. But you cannot change my statements. This is a talk page, not the main article.
 * My argument still holds one way or the other, because I provided a source: Dehkhoda p8457.
 * I did not author the third paragraph about the -stan part.
 * Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks of any form. Abusers can and are permanently banned.--Zereshk 04:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks like just about all your activities (both in articles and discussion areas) end up in fights, trouble, tension and the like. the ONLY EXCEPTIONS are when you are toadying up to an admin. It appears that anything that anybody does that you dislike is immediately labelled "personal attack" or "vandalism". You have no right to go back and edit an error that you have already made in an argument that has been going on for some time and to which your opponent has ALREADY RESPONDED and then turn around and change what you had originally written and make your opponent look like a fool when it was clearly you who was mistaken.  Nobody will support you for such a dishonorable behavior in Wikipedia and if you want we can go to the admin's board and put this up for judgement.  Also, this sort of behavior is a sure bet to make you very unpopular among most admins very fast.  I am restoring the text to the original posting, again. If you change it again, next step will be admin's board and I will also open an official request for judgement on this issue for the sake prevention of future dishonorable behavior in Wikipedia as well as ensuring someone like you is never nominated for adminship. I can't really believe your behavior.  I certainly hope I don't live in a world where people like you outnumber the honorable ones. --Paul chiu


 * You have already violated Wikipedia law by turning a talk page into a personal dispute that is irrelevant to the topic of this page. That and the fact that you have personally attcaked me (instead of my argument) is enough to take you to ArbCom. And you have already attacked me according to Wikipedia definitions:


 * "It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said." See: Personal attack


 * I have already requested the page be monitored by Admin surveillance. Please stop attacking me, and instead let us focus on the topic at hand.--Zereshk 09:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

To "Paul Ciu",

I have been monitoring this discussion for a while. You have 14 posts in total ever since you came to Wikipedia. Of those, 13 were written in attacking or questioning the integrity of Zereshk, and one was a revert of his text. Other than that, you have had no contributions at all to Wikipedia. I strongly advise you to stop your smearing campaign against Zereshk, as he is one of Wikipedia's top editors in Iranian related articles. --CJ Wren


 * LOL .... oh my god. Man, you have some IQ.  "CJ Wren" with an IP from Iran who thinks that Zereshk "is one of Wikipedia's top editors" ?!!  LOL  hehe I am creased up with laughter right now.  --Paul Chiu


 * I am also from Iran and I also fully support Zereshk. Eivallah. I have seen his edits everywhere. I am surprised that he hasnt filed a complaint against the racist Mansour or the Hitler Supporter "Paul Chiu", who posted a message calling Iranians "illiterate".--217.218.48.51 03:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

'''If you actually check info on the net about the Aryan race u can see that they resided in modern day Afghanistan, which back then they called Ariana. You wont get this info from any irani based encyclopedia. PLUS if u actually read Afghan history, when the Ahmad Shah Baba killed the Irani king he declared the lands of eastern Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan-dont know about paki-land. Anyways, he declared it the Country of Khorasan. Every educated Afghan knows this. Oh and the name changed during the "Great Game" Russia and Britian devised a plan to make boundary's for their "buffer zone" then they decided to call the new land (former khorasan) Afghanistan because many Pashtun's lived there and Afghan means Pashtun. End Of Story.'''

Therefore Afghanistan Was Khorasan, and was also ARIANA. no matter how much u try u cant say it wasnt. - Afghan Living in Canada

Afghanistan's Geographical Location
Afghanistan, as the article on Central Asia points out, is in Central Asia. It is not part of the Indian subcontinent as it rests upon the Iranian plateau instead. It overlaps and is on the fringes of South Asia, but is actually an extension of the Iranian and Turkic civilizations as well. Eastern Pakistan is where South Asia ends. It ends with the Indic languages of Punjabi and Sindhi. The edits seem to be almost arbitrary as opposed to based upon history and geography. The basic point is that Afghanistan is, in the majority, an extension of Iranian civilization. While South Asia has had a certain unique experience both historically and otherwise, Afghanistan has been on the fringes and absorbed many aspects including a Hindu minority, the majority religion of Buddhism that dominated the region and as the base of Muslim invasions that moved into South Asia. All of this consideration comes to some conclusions. First, it is geographically not on the Indian subcontinent. Second, it has no linguistic affinity to India, but does share linguistic affinity with western Pakistan which is also an extension of Iranian civilization (see Pashtuns and Baluchis). Third, the vast majority of its history is with Iran, Tajikistan etc. Fourth, aside from fitting neatly on a map when mapping out "South Asia", a term often as vague as the Middle East, there is little criteria to include it in South Asia proper. The BBC does place it within South Asia, while UCLA and Harvard do not for example. Border regions like Afghanistan, Turkey, Georgia etc. all require an assessment that is not based upon nationalism or ethno-centrism and a more overall view as to why regional labels are useful and definitive. Otherwise, there's not point at all. Turkey and Georgia are thus, for the record "Eurasian," but can be considered either or since Europe and Asia are not actual continents in the geologic sense, but cultural spheres of some relevance.

Tombseye 23:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I really doubt you're an Afghan historian, and you must be really clueless if you think the Medes are 'recent'. Iranian does not mean Persian AND the Avestan itself may have been written in Afghanistan. As for 'Indian' influence, lol, you mean ancient Indo-Aryan before they went to India. They were not Indian as we know it then. Talk about stupid. Culturally Indian? How do you know that? Because Indian religious books write about them? Hinduism was still in its early stages AND Buddhism is India's main contribution, religiously, not Hinduism. Indian culture dominated over these? So the Pashtuns must be new then? And if they're 'Indian' (which means nothing here as you are clearly confusing Indo-Aryan, probably before they even moved to India, with Indian) then where are all the Indo-Aryan languages spoken in Afghanistan? The Greeks called it White India? What does that mean? Is that what this is about? Race theory? Connecting India to white people? Race itself is highly tenuous and your usage implies more of an interest in India as opposed to Afghanistan. Let's see the reference to that and since the term India was applied originally by the PERSIANS to a small part of the Punjab I doubt your point is valid. This is the result of modern nationalism and not historic record. The Afghans also have their own cultural background and the Pashtuns are Iranic. Even genetic testing that has been done links them to other Iranian peoples. Look it up and then tell me I'm wrong. Mughals/Muslims were in conflict with the Afghans, and let's not forget that actually a lot of those Muslims who came to India came from Afghanistan so the cultural influence was probably more from Afghanistan rather than from India and what does that mean anyway? Ever hear of Khushal Khan Khattak? While the Mughals favored Persian, Khattak and the Pashtuns didn't and there was conflict. Lastly, it's beyond idiotic to say that it was not until Nadir Shah that the Iranian influence took hold. The Safavids came in more than 100 years before. Lastly, Iranian civilization as in Germanic civilization is what is meant by that. Both Pashto and Dari are Iranian languages, the people bear many similar customs, and Afghanistan is much more easily accessible from Iran than it is from India, although western Pakistan is basically also part of historic Afghanistan. It is not an extension of ancient Indian civilization, but a passing point for it. The inscriptions found there, including during the brief Ashokan and Mauryan period are written in Greek, Aramaic, and Persian. Now why is that if Afghanistan's Iranian past is recent? You need to go back and hit the books and stop quoting Indo-centric history and stop pretending to be an Afghan historian since clearly you're not. And for the record my guess is you're an Indian guy pretending to be an Afghan historian as you didn't say much about Afghanistan, but lots about India instead. Tombseye 17:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

-By the way Tombseye, this is Afghan historian posting. Just so you know, I'm actually a Pakistani Muslim from Peshawar, which is an Pashtun populated city. And, much of eastern Afghanistan was populated by Indo-Aryan influenced Iranian tribes such as the Kambojas as well as Indo-Aryans like the Gandharis. Persian inscriptions themselves bare witness to the Gandharis. The name Kandahar comes from Gandhara. The Pashtuns did not exist in that era. They are descended from an amalgam of various Iranian tribes, with some Greek ancestry among certain populations. And, if Indian influence in the region was only passing, then why the hell did Buddhism dominate over Zoroastrianism for so long under both the Mauryas, the Indo-Greeks and the Kushans and afterwards? The Greco-Buddhist civilization which originated in Greek-dominated parts of the Indian subcontinent and the Kabul valley had part of its base in the eastern part of what is now Afghanistan. The Indo-Aryan influence came from deep within the subcontinent so yes, it is what would today be considered ancient Indian influence. We Pashtuns may be Iranic but that is only racially and linguistically. In terms of civilization, we are a mix of Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Greek and central Asian. So as our Afghan-born friend said above, dont go trivilizing the Indian aspect of Afghanistan, which came from the subcontinent after the Indo-Aryan migration. If you want a little more proof, there is cold archealogical evidence linking early cultures in the region with the Dravidian Indus Valley Civilization, proving even more its ties to southern Asia. If you dont want Indian for PC reasons, fine. Finally, I apologize for calling you stupid. It was wrong of me. -Afghan historian


 * Oh come on, you guys are one guy. Exactly the same writing style and everything. Geezus.  No sign in name so as to be anonymous, which I have no problem with, but come on. I actually said, the cultural contribution of Buddhism was India's main contribution. However, it's all through an Iranic prism. The Iranian peoples in much of Afghanistan (Zoroastrianism remained in many parts of Afghanistan alongside Buddhism as per archaeological finds dating into the Islamic period) do adopt Buddhism and that is India's main contribution. The Indo-Aryan languages were pushed out by the Iranians more than likely as a split took place between the two branches. Iranian languages have been in Afghanistan for as long as the Indo-Aryans. The Muslim historians write about Iranian peoples or groups similar to them in Afghanistan so I'm not sure how the Indo-Aryans were wiped out at that point. I'm skeptical with a few things as the term Indian keeps being used as synonymous with Indo-Aryan, which in the case of early Afghanistan, is not the case as they hadn't moved to India yet and thus the culture that would emerge by mixing with the aboriginal peoples did not begin. That's an important point here. It's also speculative as to whether the Indus civilization was Dravidian or Elamo Dravidian (a theory that connects Elam is not remotely universal either) as the Indus script has not been deciphered. More evidence might come in the form of DNA testing at some point. The Iranians in the form of the Medes, Achaemenids, Parthians, Scythians, Seleucids and others ruled Afghanistan for over a millenium compared to less than 1 century for the Mauryans who ruled the southeast. How's that the same? The Shahis were in and around Kabul only and they don't really necessarily reflect the religion of the local population at the time as they came in fairly late. These are pretty peripheral contributions and the Indic influence (aside from the Indo-Aryans whom I don't count here) we're talking about is more on par ultimately with Ural-Altaic invaders such as Turks and Huns as opposed to the Iranic which is the predominant through history. Hinduism shows up on the periphery and is not on par with Zoroastrianism (dominant in the west) and Buddhism (in the east). No ancient Hindu temples that compare to the remnants of the other religions. Nor is Hinduism emphasized in Iranic studies pertaining to Afghanistan. That's just an odd thing to bring up in this discussion like the Jews of Afghanistan who were probably a small but vibrant minority. The Medes did rule Afghanistan circa 700 BCE. They make note of their control in inscriptions. Sorry, but you're incorrect here. As for the Greek ancestry of Afghanistan, it's tiny and genetic tests who virtually non-existent. In fact, genetic tests show that the Pashtuns and Baluchis cluster with other Iranian peoples and not people east of the Indus. These debates on ancestry are highly speculative unless backed up with some hard evidence. Kandahar is also hypothesized as a local name for Alexandria (Iskandar). We don't know if it's connected to Gandhara, but it's one of the possibilites, not a certainty. You may be right that the Pashtuns did not exist in Gandhara until much later as evidence is quite scant and only vague references to Pactyans and the Pactuike aren't enough to substantiate such claims. On the other hand, Gandhara may have had a mixed population of both Iranic and Indo-Aryan origin. This is of course outside of afghanistan and into northwest Pakistan where the Pashtuns are the majority now. Your other points aren't valid. Pashtuns/Afghans as well as Tajiks are not contiguous with Indian civilization, but Iranic.  It's not a 'mix' of Greeks either or racial. Genetic testing aside, their languages are Iranian, their culture before Islam Iranian, most of their history Iranian (not just Persian mind you). Their connections to the subcontinent ultimately begin and end with Buddhism and some limited cultural inroads. To call Indian influence the same as Iranic is not correct. I'm not being "PC" at all actually. That's also not an accurate term. I explained what I meant by Indo-Aryan and then modern Indian. It's not the same thing. People change when they move and/or are absorbed by other populations. Afghanistan is predominantly Iranian linguistically and culturally. The influence is not at all even. The Indo-Iranian crossroads you're talking about is in Pakistan where the Iranic and Indo-Aryan worlds met and mingled. Afghanistan is solidly Iranic. For the record, apology accepted. Tombseye 10:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

-Some Dardic Indo-Aryan languages are still spoken in Afghanistan. And, I did read somewhere that Pashto, despite being Iranian, has a great deal of Indo-Aryan influence. If such influence does exist, it may point to an earlier Indo-Aryan speaking population living there. I might be wrong though. User

-"Afghan"/Pakistani historian again. Just because Iranic studies dont focus on Hinduism doesnt mean it didnt exist there. And, archaeological finds show that the Indus civilization was distinctly Dravidian. I mean, Shiva and south Indian symbology. Its obvious. And, Brahui, a Dravidian language, is still spoken in Balochistan and Afghanistan as well as on the Iranian border. And, Zoroastrianism only dominates western Afghanistan, not eastern Afghanistan. And, eastern Afghanistan is not just a periphery, it is the Hindu Kush mt range with Kabul and Kandahar attached. If Buddhism dominated for such a long period of time, its not peripheral.


 * You still don't understand what this all means. First off, just because they spoke Indo-Aryan tongues is not a link to the culture of India TODAY. Pashto has borrowed words from Urdu and Punjabi because they are close-by. It doesn't mean that Pashto was IndoAryan before, except of course both branches were once a single language as Indo-Iranian. Actually, Indic studies have not shown anything as the Indus script has not been deciphered. These are all remnants of archaeological clues that MIGHT mean that the people spoke some Dravidian language, but no one really knows for sure. Now with DNA testing of some people they find they might find out more, but that hasn't happened yet. Brahui is believed to have arrived much later actually by most academics and is no longer believed to be an early remnant of the Indus Valley. Yes we just got through discussing that Buddhism was there and was predominant in parts of Afghanistan. Religion is one aspect of 'culture' at any rate and the people still spoke Iranic languages. Sorry, but Afghanistan is an Iranic region and most evidence supports that this has been the case for most of its history. Look, Afghanistan is Iranic predominantly and has had Indic influences mainly through Buddhism. It's not comparable. Tombseye 09:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

About the CIA Implications: I found an interesting chapter in Peter Bergen's Book "Holy War, Inc.", published by The Free Press, NY, 2002, titled "Blowback, the CIA and the afghan war". The most relevant part states something that we can all agree about, that although many think that Osama Bin Laden is a CIA product, and that CIA directly armed and trained the afghan arabs and the Taliban, the reality is much more subtle than that. It is true that CIA made many tactical mistakes during the afghan-soviet war, and some of these mistakes contributed to the improvement of certain anti-western factions allied with the arab militants. This statement settles the discussion for me about CIA involvement, and therefore I would be glad if someone with better wiki knowledge than me could insert this in the main article.

Dr_Spielmann 22 September 2005.


 * Can you clarify and expand a bit as to what points you want put into the article Dr. Spielmann? Is the point that OBL is a product of the CIA and was also a tactical mistake in hindsight?  Tombseye 20:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

name change
User 70.29.3.153 just took out the Official name of Afghanistan and replaced it with the Pashtun equivalent. Just thought you might wanna know about this.--Zereshk 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Cultures of the World
Would you consider contributing? Or how about voting for it as collaboration of the week for this new but important article.--Culturesoftheworld 19:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

'''

ARYANA IS PRESENT DAY IRAN AND AFGHANISTAN
'''

By Dr. Ariazad

The lands of Iran and Afghanistan are as complex as are its people. About two hundred years ago, Afghanistan became an independent nation under Ahmad Shah Durani. Iran and Afghanistan are nations that have analgous historical relationship to each other. It is amazing that some writer still debate Afghan-Iranian identity and both their histories. I have spent most of my life researching the Afghan-Iranian relationship, and intern my research revealed that their ancestral roots were the Aryan. Furthermore, to assess unaware readers in understanding the relationship of Iranians-Afghans better, I have provided the fallowing analogy of other nations that are encapsulated in a similar circumstance. Here are the relevant references; (England and Scotland), (Germany and Austria), (North Korea and South Korea), (Bella Russia and Russia), (Pakistan and Bangladesh with India), (Sicily and Sardinia with Italy), (Montenegro and Kosova with Albania). All these people share a common history and culture but hold their affinity to their territorial states.

Historically, for thousands of years, Afghanistan and Iran have fallen under different groups of people. The reason for this was that both countries did not exist as separate nations but were merely a geographical location on earth that people sought to prosper in. Archaeologist indicate that the first people who came to these parts where called the Aryans. They migrated from the Russian-Caucus via the Khorasan passage; a region between Northeastern Iran and western Afghanistan, approximately between the modern cities of Mashed and Balkh. Aryans spread thorough these lands and called themselfs by the cities they established. Medes, Sodganas, Bactrians, Fars etc. They spoke the same language but of different dialects. This ancient language was preserved by an Aryan priest named Zoroaster in Old-Persian (Zardasht) in a secret book called Avesta. Modern Afghan and Iranian Persian/Dari-Farsi, Pashto, Kurdish, Baluchi all are derivatives of this language. The Persian language had three stages; Old Persian spoken by the Achmianid Dynasty, Middle Persian spoken by the Sassanian Dynasty, Modern Persian that derived from Pahlavi in Khorasan is called Dari today. Both the Iranians and Afghans share this modern Farsi language. The confusion that Iranian speak Farsi-Persian and Afghans speak Dari- Persian is as false as to say American speak American and the British speak English, this holds also true for the Australians. The truth is both Afghans and Iranians speak the same language, and I will point out where the confusion is dormant. As indicated previously the Aryans established the city called Fars approximately where modern day Isfahan is located. Here, the Aryans became politically strong establishing commerce and trade. Soon their influence reached across Aryana (Afghanistan-Iran). They became known as the Achaemenids Dynasty and because of their wealth, political structure they organized a powerful military system attracting people from all over Aryana. Darius The Great extended this influence as far as China and Northern Greece. Getting back to the main idea, the Greeks had a city state system and when a city ruled over a land mass that land mass was named after that city. Much like if you would call America Washington D.C. The Achaemenids never considered Aryana to be called after their city Fars. Like in modern day politics Fars was a capital to the land it dominated, it was a region where power was centralized. The Greeks also pronounced Fars as Persia and that is what the western world has referred to this land as. Later, the borrowed Greek culture by the Romans and from them the British Empire to Modern day United States has enhanced its use of the word thorough the succession of western civilizations. To put it in a nutshell Farsi means Persia and visa-versa. As indicated before the Persian language went through three stages. The first stage was the Achaemenid-Persians whom I briefly introduced, the second and the third stage will produce our final thoughts on this subject. The second stage of the Persian language and culture came after the fall of the Achaemenid Dynasty by Alexander the Great. Here, Greek culture and language influenced the Persian language receiving many Greek loan words. After the death of Alexander, Aryana was Hellenized or (Greekized). Many factions tried to take control of this land. The land had split under three Greco-Perso ruling powers; the Selecuids, the Parthnians and the Bactrians. The Parthnians were unique in that even though they had Greek influences they held national pride in old Achaemenid traditions, in hope to rebound anther empire from Aryana. The Parthnians were successful later calling themselves the Sassianian Empire. Here is where Middle Persian/Farsi took stage. During the third stage when the Arabs arrived, they called the language Pahlavi. This was because they took control of Arayna's central power territory, the state of Khorasan also known as (Parthia). The Arabs orally pronounced Parthia as Pahlavi which is commonly used and mis-used by writers today. Parthia was the Greco-Roman pronunciation. The last stage is the invention of modern Persian/Farsi called Dari, which became the language of the kings royal courts. The Arabs had brought Persian/Farsi to a near extinction when poets concealed nationalism amongst Aryans to revive their language and culture from total Arabization. One man in particular whom brought a sense of dignity to the demoralized Aryans was Frowdosi Tossi of Khorasan. He reinvented Persian/Farsi by using Arabic letters writing a glories story about the ancient kingdoms of Aryana. This intern brought a sense of unity and nationalism revolutionizing Persian/Farsi into what is Dari-Persian/Farsi. Dari is the modern literal Persian/Farsi and has derived into several dialects. Like English, we could hear many variations from different regions. Some are close and others sound distinct. For example when you hear Australian or Jamaican you might not understand it if your from London, but it is still a literal English language. Farsi has the same properties, if your from Tehran and I am from Kabul there is a distinction in our language, but it is still literally Farsi. Persian/Farsi speaking region will have loan words from a geographically close neighboring nation. Languages like Pashto, Kurdish and Baluchi are close to Persian/Farsi but have become distinct Aryana languages of their own. These languages were all one language with Persian/Farsi during the arrival of the Aryans, but was less influenced by Persian/Farsi during its development phase in Aryana and took its own course. Theory suggests that this was because of its geographical remoteness in Aryana. In closing Dari is the new third stage of Persian/Farsi used today. When an Afghan says he is speaking Farsi he is one hundred percent correct, he is speaking Afghani-Farsi dialect and an Iranian is speaking his or her dialect, they all speak Dari-Farsi/Persian dialects. One more thing, the shah of Iran in the early 1900’s summonsed the Europeans to stop referring to it as Persia and call it by its original name “Elm- A – Aryan”, which means in English “Land Of The Aryans”.

female literacy rates
The following is in the article:


 * 'Literacy of the entire population is estimated at 36%, Male Literacy rate is 51% and female literacy is 21%. The male is higher because of Taliban laws prohibiting education of women.'

The Taliban were in power for 6 years, that is not a primary reason for women having a literacy rate of 30% less then men. The artlce would be better to leave the "explanation" out of the statistic, it is quite telling as it is.12.20.127.229 16:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I totaly agree with the fact that there is no reliable information on Afghanistan's ethnic composition. This is due to the fact that Pashton dominated governments in Afghanistan never had the intention to have the sensus of the country. Being aware of the facts in the ground, when ever they distribute the ID cards( Tazkera) they labeled all people as "Afghan". But in books and periodicals some times they put the Pashtons as majority and now they say they are "at least the largist ethnic group" with no proof. The reality is that Pashtuns make hardly one third of the Afghan population and Tajiks together with Aimaqs and Qezibash are almost 40% of the Afghan population. Based on the Bonn Agreement the UN should have helped Afghanistan to carry out its population syrvey but this was not carried out. No Pashton dominated government in Afghanistan will be ready to make a reliable survey of ethnic composation of Afghanistan people. They as always, would say: " we all are Afghans no division". On the othe hand, in official documinatation and in international media, they put Pashtons as "mojority" or at least the largest ethnic group", which is not.

Afghanistan's name section is almost as long as the history section
AND the information is repeated over and over again. Perhaps just a link to the origins of the name so that people can just know the basics, Afghan in its current usage is synonymous with Pashtun and stan means country in Persian and the name thus means land of the Afghans/Pashtuns. The rest of the theory might as well be in a separate article. Tombseye 09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)