Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 2

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

QUESTION
IMPORTANT!!!

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


 * I have to ask Afghan people. Our soldiers, from the Netherlands, went to Afghanistan to help the Afghan people, to help with reconstruction, this was told to the soldiers and the people of the Netherlans by our government. But now, they are almost daily under attack, by what our government is telling "suspected Taliban fighters". Are our soldiers really welcome there, to help the Afghan people? All the news we get from there, is first controlled by our Ministry of Defence. THE BULK OF OUR TROOPS ARE AT URUZGAN, AT THE SOUTH. Do the people really want us to be there??? Rob van Doorn 01:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)  (By the way, I am even interested in the point of view, of the people there, as what the government maybe wants.)

RE:Netherland troops in Uruzgan. As far as I know, the Netherland troops have a base in Uruzgan and yes they are involved in reconstruction of the province, and to help the local Afghan government in that province. I am sure the local Afghans there welcome them for helping but the attacks are not specifically aimed at Netherland troops only. These "suspected Taliban fighters" are trained to attack all NATO troops and all Afghan government forces throughout the country. Their aim is to see all foriegn troops withdraw from the country. NATO and Afghan forces, on the other hand, are hunting them down everywhere. Uruzgan is a very isolated province with no proper road connecting to nearby cities, so now there is a highway under construction linking the capital of Uruzgan, "Tarin Kot", with Kandahar city. There are several other major projects under construction in Uruzgan, which will benefit the local people from that area. For example, like health clinics, schools, water, electricity, government institutions and etc. I don't think the Afghan people are against such benefits.

The aim is that by 2010 Afghanistan as a whole will stand on its feet. This is due to the $10.5 billion dollars that was donated to Afghanistan at the London conference in February 2006, which will be spent slowly until 2010. So for the time being, these attacks will occurr here and there until the government of Afghanistan is strong enough to handle the security of their country. You must realize that the entire country is being rebuilt from scratch, and so far, things are going well. The faster the reconstruction work completes...the faster these attacks will end. From my own point of view, the longer NATO and US troops remain in the country...local people will simply start getting adjusted to their stay and attacks will slow down or start fading. In other words, people in the country will learn to live with them, as long as they see improvements in their daily lives. NisarKand 23:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for your clear answer. But day in day out we hear that the attacks of the Taliban at the British, Canadian and Dutch in Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan are getting worse. NATO commanders are asking much more troops, but member countries are unwilling to send them in. Also sometimes we hear, the Afghan army is well equiped, but this weekend at a Dutch newssite we heard the report of an independent traveling journalist, saying the Afghan army and police is not so well equiped. Many British (the majority at a poll), Canadians and Dutch want their troops out of there). It is a very difficult situation. Rob van Doorn 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC) (Also when you read the independent reprots of the Senlis Council, a think tank, their conclusion is the NATO/international strategy is failing at the south of Afghanistan (somebody brushed the link away from the list with Organisations, but they give very worthful conclusions, some devastating conclusions for the Afghan government (widespread corruption for example) and international community. And it is a group of independent scholars, scientists, policians, who simply wants the best for the Afghan people.) - By the way: saturday evening out secretary of state of Defence was at television. He told that they do not know who this Taliban fighters realy are. They think they can be trained fighters, or maybe people who who get payed to take part in one or the other attack at NATO and Afghan National Army soldiers? But 19 October 2006 the Dutch government decided to sent 130 soldiers more, only to protect the soldiers who are already there. So worse the security situation is, and it is only getting worse we hear: Taliban using tactics like road-bombs, suicide attacks and hit-and-run guerrilla tactics.


 * A report from a British journalist. It is again a big difference we hear from governments, and independent sources. . Contemporary history will maybe later give us the answers??? One of the UN philosophies, is never to send countries who were former colonizers, two: not to send neighbour countries.

Let's be fair, people
I have now twice edited an incredibly biased, conspiratorial (anti-U.S.) version of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The author calls the Soviet aggression an "intervention" which they were forced to make because the United States wanted them to fall into a trap. Give me a break, people, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Was the U.S. guilty? Yes. But let's be fair here. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, let's use the proper terminology. This would be sort of like a pro-German writing that Hitler "was forced to intervene" in Poland in 1939.


 * I don't think that anyone removed your edits on purpose the first time. From looking at the history of the article] I guess that it was a mistake. I don't like the soviet bias but I think that your edit makes it a little too much American bias. I'm not really sure how to word it myself and I don't know much about Afghan history either. Jeltz talk  18:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll grant you that my first edit might have gone too far the other way. I am struggling with how to word it, too, but I think "invasion" is a better term than "was forced to intervene". Forced by who? I feel that there is a bit of amnesia going on about the Soviet and it's Imperial aims. The United States was not the only superpower attempting to overthrow nations from within, funding revolutionary forces, and trying to set up puppet governments. In fact, those kind of tactics were often used by the KGB. American intervention was often a reaction to an initial covert activity by the Soviet Union. I just do not understand why people cannot be evenhanded, if you're going to claim the U.S. engaged in bad behavior, then admit that the U.S.S.R. did it as well.


 * We can say: their intervention was an invasion, okee? Or do we say that they were "asked to come in"? Rob van Doorn 05:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (Afghanistan was a cold-war-battleground)

But Zbigniew Brzezinski himself has claimed that he masterminded a trap to get the Soviet to intervene in Afghanistan. Read these two interviews: one - two

you can call it what ever you want to but the same terminology should be used to the US involvement in the country in 2001.
 * Hussain 11:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Had someone enter in my house without my permission I would call him an intruder; maybe you can have in your house somebody agree with this "new entry" and someone not just agree for, maybe, he damages in way so irreversible, the people, the land, your culture, your family; having you son's throat above his knife while he his still hurting (I say HEAVY hurting!) any other member of your family (this is my humble opinion of what the Taliban regime was), would you stay to look without "intervention", or wouldn't you pray the One God, The Merciful, for "an intervention", even a TEMPORARY (I say TEMPORARY) "invasion" of the sovereignity of your house? I know this implies, most of the times, even a mortal risk for all the people inside the house, but I think it is what any police force worldwide would do any day.
 * User:Anonymous 23:33, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
On very quick observation, it seems to me that the cuurent Islamic Republic of Afghanistan should be a seperate article (it currently redirects here), just as the Republic of Ireland is a seperate article. That said, I have very little knowledge of Afghanistan, so for all I know there could be a specific reason that it is all one article. Canaen 04:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The only reason Republic of Ireland is a separate article is because the island of Ireland is split between two countries. Just as Hispaniola and Haiti are different articles. In our case, the name of the country outweighs the name of the region; Ireland is somewhat of a unique case, since there are two countries there which both have Ireland in their name, and it's a political issue. --Golbez 04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how beneficial this discussion would be, as politicians and warlords have already hacked out the country's official name as 'Islamic Republic of Afghanistan'. However, this is based purely on dirty politics and serves only power-mongers as they try to abuse the name of Islam to stay in the game. It has nothing to do with the way the people feel. There was no referendum, not even an opinion poll to gauge the people's will.

Of course, Afghanistan is predominantly a Muslim nation. This has been the case in the last 1200 - 1400 years, and it always will be. Nobody will ever be able to take Islam away from Afghans. The only period of threat (to some people’s religious tendencies) was during the Soviet invasion, which actually worked contrary to Russian wishes, as people's faith was strengthened even more. That is why there is no need to call the country 'the Islamic Republic of'. Afghanistan doesn't need to prove that it is Islamic. The world knows it. And the people don't care. They just call it Afghanistan. There is no need for political differentiation as there is no other country by the same name, like Ireland. China and Iran have (or had?) a reason to call themselves People's Republic of ... and The Islamic Republic of ...; in both countries, the government was/is attempting to make fundamental changes to culture and/or to portray a new image in the world. This is not the case in Afghanistan.--Breaker-One 16:17, 31 January 2006 (CET)

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

The link "Sououd-e-melli" is misspelled. it should be "Soroud-e-Melli". Same correction should be made it its page heading, and I don't know how to do that.

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

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


 * If people have a lot of arguments for and against this particular theory, maybe they should all be laid out in a separate article (I suggest calling it Bani-Israel) that would be linked from this one?...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Demographics
Afghanistan has a multi-ehnic society. Their has never been an official census made in Afghanistan that could give us a clear idea about the exact figures of different ethnicties.However, according to different unofficial censuses, Pashtuns-also called the Afghans- make the largest ethnic group(about 60 to 65%). In the recent parliamentry elections each faction, mean each ethnic group, supported their candidates. Most of the pashtoon supported Hamid Karzai, he recieved almost 56% votes. Tajiks supported Qwanoonay he recieved 14% of the total votes. So, it is very much evident from the results of these recent elections that pashtoons are the silent majority of Afghanistan. Therefore, there is no doubt in asserting that pashtoons make almost 70% since most of the pashtoons did not participate in the electione becasue they were living as refugees in pakistan. Other ethnic groups include: Tajik 15 to 20%, Hazara 8%, Uzbek 7% etc. The following link provides a very useful insight about some of the censuses made over the years in Afghanistan: http://www.hewad.com/ethnic.htm

Demographics Again
Afghanistan has a multi-ehnic society. Their has never been an official census made in Afghanistan that could give us a clear idea about the exact figures of different ethnicties.However, according to different unofficial censuses, Pashtuns-also called the Afghans- make the largest ethnic group(about 60 to 65%). Other ethnic groups include: Tajik 15 to 20%, Hazara 8%, Uzbek 7% etc. The following link provides a very useful insight about some of the unofficial censuses made over the years in Afghanistan: http://www.hewad.com/ethnic.htm

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

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


 * I also move that we create an article for the Origin of the name Afghanistan as a separate article and give a brief explanation of it in the opening segment as is the case with the Pakistan article. Any objections? Tombseye 16:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Burqa is NOT Afghan culture
In the culture section, there is a picture of a women wearing a picture and is titled, "Afghan woman wearing a cultural Burqa".

The Buraq is NOT Afghan culture. It was imposed by the Taliban in the 1990's. Things that people are FORCED to do are NOT culture.

This picture should be replaced by a picture of real Afghan culture. I will remove it for now. And I will add a picture showing real Afghan cultural/traditional clothing.


 * It still reflects the history of Afghanistan, how women were forced to wear it during the Taliban regeme - I find it to be quite fascinating. How about if we change the caption to "During Taliban rule, women were forced to were buqas"? --Khoikhoi 20:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The Burqa picture will NOT be under culture.
It should be under Taliban rule or Taliban oppression. The excuse that it is part of the history does not make it a part of the culture. Should we put pictures of of Iranian people holding Americans hostage and say that it is a part of the Iranian culture because it was an important part of Iranian history? Come on!! We're taking it off and it can be placed under a different category, NOT culture. Sorry, but it is not culture, but oppression. You cannot take a couple of years of oppression and put a picture so horrible, to sum up Afghan culture which is thousands of years old. Sorry.


 * Calm down, I'll move it to history, ok? --Khoikhoi 03:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you are suggesting the Burqa originated with the Taliban. I am not of course defending the Taliban, but look at any historical photograph of a Kabul street scene from the 1920s, 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s and you will see almost all women clad in Burqas. The only period in which Burqas began to disappear from the streets was during the 80s, under the DRA government, so I think there's a big difference between saying the Taliban brought the Burqa back and saying it originated with them. I'm not endorsing the practice, but denying it existed before the Taliban is historical revisionism.

No, it is not ok.
I checked other countries with periods of oppression and other countries that did not have less than a decade of oppression, but decades of it, and there are no pictures of such htings. We may speak of the oppression of the Taliban, but there is no reason to place a picture on the main page or on the history of Afghanistan page. Like I said, 1,000's of years of history and culture and someone wants a picture from a period of less than 7 years? I don't think so, and anyone that knows anything about Afghanistan will agree.


 * Removing the picture would be like removing this from the Holocaust page. Yes of course it's painful, but it's a part of Afghanistan's history and just like all the other events, cannot be erased. --Khoikhoi 03:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

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


 * I disagree. It's a part of Afghanistan's history, no matter how much you don't like it. --Khoikhoi 03:20, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Not saying that it is not part of the history.
What we are trying to say is that it should be mentioned but it should not be the one of a few pictures that are placed on the page to exemplify a culture and history of a country with 1,000's of years of culture and history. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. '''Part of the history - yes. Should it be one of the few pictures to exemplify any category of Afghanistan - absolutely not.''' The same goes for any other country. Should we post a picture of the Iranians who took the Americans hostage on the main page of Iran? Or should it be specific to Iran Hostage?

Picture & explanation
'There is a large picture of the burqa on the Taliban page''. Why repeat yourself? It is under the treatment of women. Check it yourself unless someone takes it off.''' The picture depicts a man beating a woman on the street. Not enough huh? you need it on the Afghan page too? I think the picture on the Taliban page is sufficient and the entire section on that page dedicated to treatment of women under them is good. Thank you.


 * Full Burqas are still used today even after the fall of Taliban. This is part of there culture. Chaldean 13:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT part of their culture. They are scared to death from the taliban. Most of the Afghan women had seen their best friend shot for not wearing a burqa. All they want is to be on the safe side. In a couple of years the women will go back to wearing regular head scarfs. Wearing head scarfs is part of Afghan culture.LF2 19:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read the above discussion before changing items on the page wantonly.
If you read the above discussions, you would understand that their is already a picture of the oppression of women under the taliban on that page specifically. It is not a picture that should be used to sum up the history and culture on the main page. When you only have limited space, it is necessary to place pictures that encompass the 1,000's of years of culture, not just a period of a little over 5 years. Thank you. The excuse that some still wear them does not suffice to have it as one of the main pictures on the front page. Should I have a picture of men stoning women after she has been found to have been raped on the page for some Muslim countries because a few still do that? No, of course not. It may possibly be mentioned but not made a feature on the main page. One must place pictures that encompass the 1,000's of years of history when you have limited space. Come on get real, read the above discussions before you change things you may not understand.

Recent parliamentary election has shown that pashtoons make almost 65% of the total population

Someone vandalised this page!!! And (s)he also vandalised Holland, Zimbabwe and other articles. --Anis1 17:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to think it's good faith, if perhaps misguided. The problem with removing the comment in this instance is that while the US may have invaded to help (which is debatable) even a "helpful" invasion is still an invasion. Ahwell. ~Kylu ( u | t )  03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

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

land mines
The article mentions in the last paragraph of History:

'possibly the largest concentration of land mines on earth and other unexploded ordinance'

Given the number killed each year I would expect an explanation: which country supplied the mines, who placed them, are they in well-defined areas, and how long will the mines remain dangerous.

- Jon McKenney, updated 12:36 07 June 2006

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


 * The correct name is Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. End of story. —Sesel 19:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Ordnance vs. Ordinance
The article discusses Afghanistan as having a high density of other unexploded "ordinance". I believe the author meant ORDNANCE. Could some with the necessary permissions please fix this?

Repository of images
Greetings,

I have made an Asian repository of images, similar to the one that exists for Europe. Please complete the part pertaining to this country as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:

List of images/Places/Asia

Thanx.--Zereshk 14:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

the Burqa image is unacceptable
the Burqa is a very painful memory to Afghans, just like the gas chambers are to Jews, we do not want to see it and it should be replaced with another image.

I just searched for Israel and Jews. and NEITHER of those articles had images of the Holocaust or anything even slightly relating to that.

So we want the same. We do not want painful memories of our oppression.

I will delete that image, and get another image of Afghanistan's history.

But ofcoarse, the information will be there about our oppression and about the Burqa.

But images are VERY painful.

Please do not insult us or hurt our feelings again by putting this picture back up.


 * Aren't you over-reacting a bit comparing clothing with genocide? If you have picture of typical clothing then post it but according the media reports I read people still wear the burqa. You can't just delete stuff because it isn't the way you wish it was. Also, please put your username at the bottom of your statements. It helps with keeping track of who said what. --MarsRover 09:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not comparing it with genocide. The clothing is a symbol of Afghan oppression and genocide. Over 2 million have died in these wars due to bulles and bombs. Many more have died due to starvation and disease. And even more are severly oppressed. And the Burqa is a symbol of all these things. It remind us of those things.

And yes, people still wear the Burqa. But in all parts of the country were there is now liberty and freedom, people have abandoned the burqa. Peoply ONLY wear it because they have to and are forced to by the remnants of Taliban ideology.

It is NOT a part of culture. Culture isnt something that is FORCED on people.

When women have a choice, they do not wear the Burqa. In the free parts of the country (such as Kabul) most women have chosen not to wear it. They still wear Hijabs, which is ok.


 * Can you post a picture of typical Afghans wearing a Hijab? and hopefully not just people in Kabul? Also, like a said previously, you should sign your comments. People generally don't trust anonymous comments. --MarsRover 20:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * At our country, the Netherlands, there are pictures in our history books, also at the schoolbooks for children (13-18 years old) of the Holocaust, for example. This shows us how terrible this was. The question is, in my opinion, how relevant a picture is to tell us something about history, or culture, or traditions. (Rob)

Greeks and Macedonians
"An ancient land that has often been plundered, and also a focal point of trade, the region of present-day Afghanistan has seen several invading forces come and go, including Aryan nomads, the Mede and Persian Empires, Greeks and Macedonians, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols."

Firstly I would like to say tham I am Greek, and there is an ongoing dispute between the Greeks and people from F.Y.R.O.M. on the valid uses of the name Macedonia.

In the above context it seems like the original author suggests that "Greeks" and "Macedonians" are two different people.

The correct would be "Greek Macedonians", in comfortance with the F.Y.R.O.M. claims that they are eligible to the name (as "Slav Macedonias") as they (now and for maybe a couple of centuries) occupy a tiny fraction of the (then) historical Macedonia. (But this can only lead to a flame war - and it's stupid).

There is no dispute that the Macedonians who were lead by Alexander the Great to conquere the then known world were Hellenes.

But, the above passage is still wrong, as there weren't only Greek Macedonias in Alexander's army. Greeks from Athens, Peloponisos, Thrace, Asia Minor and the rest of the Greek world (except Spartans), followed Alexander's march, not long after he was crowned King of (all) Greeks. So we can safely ommit that "Macedonias" went to Afghanistan, as we need not write that Athenias or Thracians went to Afghanistan.

Bin Laden, The CIA and Pakistan: Regarding the Bin Laden / CIA issue. What I think should be precised is the fact that the funding and training of Osama Bin Laden's group was done through Pakistani agencies that received US funding. The US probably didn't know where exactly the money was going, only were happy to fund anti-soviet resistance groups. But the actual selection of funding targets was done by the Pakistani agencies. Dr_Spielmann

Bin Laden's "nom de guerre"
Can a reference or citation be provided for the claim that Osama bin Laden was a Stinger missile expert and was known as "The Archer" during the war with the Soviets? I recall a character from a Tom Clancy novel who fit that description; this is the first place I've seen the claim that bin Laden was known as such.

Landmine deaths
I changed 1286 to 409 deaths. As you may read oin the official ICRC document concerning landmine victims: http://www.icrc.org/Web/Eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/nairobisummit_res/$File/C-ASIA%20FS%20ENG.pdf

The number of new victims of anti -personnel mines recorded each year has dropped dramatically in recent years.Data collected by the ICRC through some 450 medical facilities in Afghanistan has shown the number of deaths and injuries caused by anti -personnel mines dropped by some 50%,from 409 in 2002 to 205 in 2003. [ICRC ]

Sorry, first editing for me!!! Luk

--physicq210 01:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Poorest country outside Africa"
This cannot be true, because the poorest country in the world is East Timor, which is in SE Asia, if one goes by per capita GDP. If one goes by the UN Human Development index, then this statement is also incorrect, because Afghanistan wasn't included in the rankings. I'm going to remove this unless the statement is clarified or cited. Cheers! --Chuchunezumi 22:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I said poorest country outside of AFRICA. http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-03/2005-03-28-voa53.cfm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3582023.stm

I spent time citing the sources and you deleted them. It is very annoying. Please dont do this again or I'll report you. Thanks. And the reports of Afghanistan's poverty were calcualted after the American invasion to get rid of terrosists from Afghanista. Please dont remove the citaions again, or I WILL report you. BBC is plenty reliable source. THANKS


 * Look at WP:DR instead of "reporting" people, please. Debate the information here, not air your grievances in nonexistent places. --physicq210 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


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

Im sure you'd be mad if you were in the same situation. If cited 2, very RELIABLE sources, and this person deleted them not once, but twice.


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

Thanks. Im not sure how to sign comments, so ill just type my username - Cranberryjuice


 * Please do not add editorial comments to the page, as you did when you reverted edits. I would also suggest that you review Civility. Cheers!  --Chuchunezumi 01:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what are the "editorial comments" you mentioned? I apologize if I sound rude. --physicq210 01:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


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

Now I'm confused. That first citation article (VOANEWS) says that Afghanistan is "near the bottom of the 178 countries surveyed', and just ahead of some sub-saharan African countries. That's not the same things as being the poorest country outside of Africa -  'poorest country outside of Africa' means that the only poorer countries are inside Africa, and that article simply does not say that.  And the first guy's link sez pretty clearly that East Timor is the poorest country in the world, which would make it the poorest country both inside and outside Africa.  The BBC article says only that 'on some measures' Afghanistan is the poorest country in the world.  The only measure it actually gives is that the infant mortality rate is even worse than the poorest countries inside Africa.  Which may or may not be a good measure. I'd think there might be factors that go into infant mortality rates other than wealth. I.e. warfare, history, priorities, local illnesses etc. I mean I'm willing to belive Afghanistan is the poorest, I just don't see the evidence.

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

Mujahadeen Confusion
In Afghanistan, mujahadeen is a highly ambiguous term. The article is clear about what sort of mujahadeen were appointed to office, but the elected officials are left wide open. Could someone clarify?

WHY SO MUCH ON IRAN?
It is ok to mention Iran's ties to Afghanistan, but that does not mean that every single section has to have something linking everything to Iran or "what is now Afghanistan". Once again, the page has been used to push Iranian this and Iranian that. Enough of this.


 * This areticle is mostly sourced, and so are the articles linked to this site. Modern Afghanistan (mainland Afghanistan) used to be part of Iran up to the 18th century, the Western parts of modern Afghanistan (Herat, Farrah, Ghor) were Iranian provinces up to the middle of the 19th century, and Iranian control and influence on these territories was eventually stoped in 1919 (less than 100 years ago), when Afghanistan was finally recognized by the international community as an independent nation.
 * There is nothing wrong with those parts of the article. Tājik 13:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Signs of war wit Iran and Syria and the ties to Afghanistan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

Irrelevant texts
''The third King in Qajar dynasty was Fath Ali Shah's grandson Mohammad Shah, who fell under the influence of Russia and made two unsuccessful attempts to recapture Herat. When Iran's King "Mohammad Shah" died in 1848, the kingdom passed to his son Nasser-e-Din. In 1856 Britain prevented Iran from reasserting control over Herat, which had been part of Iran during the ages, but had been ruled by native Afghans since the mid-18th century. Britain supported the eastern part of Khorasan incorporation into Afghanistan; therefore the current borders of Afghanistan would not be determined until the coming of the British.''

This text does not have any special importance to be mentioned in Afghanistan's main page. While, it can be a very significant and important point to be mentioned in Qajar dynasty's article. Or even more, it can be added in the sub-article of History of Afghanistan, because the main article is getting too long.

If one mentions the history of the Afghan-Iran border called "Fakhri" (the same border lying between Herat and Iran, and which the above text is talking about), so he must also mention the history of other borders i.e. Afghan-Iran border called "McMahan" (the border was created during the ruling of Abdur Rahman Khan by the interfence of British empire in the dispute between Afghanistan and Iran over the late regions of Hilmad River, in which Afghanistan lost its south-western regions for Iran), Afghan-Russian border (created during the ruling of Abdur Rahman because of a Russian attack over Panjdeh village, and Afghanistan lost its Northern territories) and then the Durand Line which does NOT have any importance either to be mentioned. Ariana310 12:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, a brief section defining the modern day borders of Afghanistan and how they got there would be appropriate in this article. Although this one paragraph could be edited down to one sentence.  There could be another article that goes into depth on Afghanistan's borders through history, and the borders should be defined from the Afghan perspective, while the other countries' perspectives should be the focus in their country articles.  KP Botany 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

NisarKand's edits
...have been reverted for now. Here is an extensive changelog, we are currently awaiting rationale from NisarKand for such sweeping changes. and

I will attempt to merge in un-contested edits (quite a bit of good work was also unfairly reverted!) &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 17:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The only possibly controversial edit I kept is the last paragraph in the leading section: someone check that and remove if necessary. The remander of NisarKand's edits were subtractive, nomenclature-related or copyedits, which need to be checked out more indepth. &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't follow all of them, but there were quite a few necessary copyedits. I've been trying to stop by and make copyedits here and there.  Quite a few of the articles about Afghanistan and Afghans need a lot of copyedit work.  Please discuss which ones by NisarKand you felt were controversial.  There were so many, major and minor, that it was hard to follow.  This article, however, does need quite a bit of clean-up.  KP Botany 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tajik, please post in here which edits by NisarKand you disagree with. Thanks KP Botany 17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * NisarKand's edits were mostly POV. Besides that, he deleted sourced info (for example the Encyclopaedia of Islam quote), deleted the Arabic transliteration, etc.
 * If you go thourgh the articles history, you will see all of his changes.
 * Tājik 17:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well NisarKand made so many edits that it's hard to follow the history. Maybe if I had faster than DSL. Some of them were necessary copyedits, though, and a couple looked like he edited out POV, rather than adding it.  The article still needs quite a bit of copyediting, and needs some stuff removed to other articles, and some other work, which I was hoping was what he was doing when he started.  I wasn't checking the Arabic transliterations, though.  And I have to say that source information is not one of the problems this article has--it's one of the few country articles that is well-sourced in general, so references and sources should not be removed, particularly a source so accessible for English-speaking non-Muslims.  Oh, well, I'll continue with copyediting now and then.KP Botany 18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The two diffs I cited above are essentially his edits (with a few blips, but those are far and inbetween). &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 21:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of these edits actually make the article more accessible for the average laymen who is just trying to learn generally about Afghanistan, not publish an entire history, and they remove a lot of POV from the article. The latter is what tends to make the article unwieldingly long and not particularly useful.  Some of the Latin alphabet transliterations were changed also, but Afghans use diverse and often unusual transliterations so I tend to ignore those along with the Arabic script ones--I don't know what's official for transliterations from Pashto or Dari or whatever language.  The Encyclopedia of Islam quote that was deleted is convoluted, too detailed, and redundant to other sections and this sections itself.  I think this was probably a strong edit by someone trying to make the article more useful, more clear and less biased.  I think that your reverting them wholesale was a mistake.  KP Botany 21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If Tajik (the person who asked me to revert) doesn't respond soon, please revert my revert! Subtractive edits are very difficult to evaluate, especially if you're not knowledgeable about the subject. Quite honestly, I'm not really qualified: I just took a few looks, saw that a lot of material was deleted without explanation, and decided to revert. &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some topics up for discussion:


 * Transliterations and native transcriptions of the country name
 * Persian versus Persian (Dari)
 * Declaration of independence
 * Applicability of a modern analysis of the country's state
 * Appropriateness of a map picture in the Name section

I'm going to restore some of the copyedits. &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 23:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the copyedits were restored. The only unchanged things now are the quote and the text of the leading section, which should not be changed without discussion. &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * @ KP Botany: could you please explain which "POV" he deleted?! User:NisarKand:
 * changed Persian language to Dari, which is wrong. The proper name for that language in the English language is "Persian". This has been discussed many times in many different articles. See Dari (Afghanistan) and Persian language for more information.
 * deleted sourced information about the origin of the name "Afghanistan" and replaced it with POV.
 * claims that Ahmad Shah Durrani was the "founder of Afghanistan". In fact, this is believed by many people, but it is wrong. Ahmad Shah Abdali started the Durrani dynasty of Khorasan (the deignation of the Durrani Shahs was "Emperors of Khorasan"). "Afghanistan" as a nation-state was created more than a century later, and was recognized as such in 1919.
 * is inserting non-existing terms into the article, such as "Pashtun-Afghan". If you follow the link of Afghan, you will see that it is the same as Pashtun ("Pashtun" is the historical and only correct meaning of the word "Afghan").
 * Could you please elaborate on what exactly you consider "POV"?!
 * Tājik 23:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I can no longer follow who did what when to what, there were just too many changes. I will continue looking at the article and doing copyedits and encourage folks to continue to make the article more readable.  When I find things that I currently consider POV I will post here first, or on your talk page, before making any changes.  I would like to not chase away copyeditors, particularly in areas I consider important.


 * Plenty of people say "Dari" in English and mean the Persian spoken in Afghanistan by the Tajiks. This is simply a regionalism.  And this horse has been flayed to death, so I'm not jumping on.  (I'll admit plenty of English-speakers also call Afghans "afghanis" for some reason.  So, just because speakers of English use a term, doesn't make it correct.)  More important than us discussing this is someone cleaning up the Dari page so its readable.


 * Oh, I see, parenthetically calling the Ghilzai Pashtun-Afghans--a bit silly. However, the sentence could stand a parenthetic remark that Ghilzai are a Pashtun tribe.  You argue, though, that Pashtuns are the only Afghans, yet English speakers use Afghan to mean all people whose homeland is Afghanistan, to include Tajiks and Hazara and etc.  And you argue the reason for using Persian instead of Dari is the former is its proper name in English.  Well, Afghan, in English, isn't limited to meaning Pashtun.  So, if the term is used for both all the peoples of Afghans and the Pashtuns who originate there in the same article, as it is, some flexibility is needed.  A parenthetical comment after Ghilzai would add clarity and make the article useful to non-Afghans, non-Tajiks, etc.  But, yes, delete the Pashtun-Afghan--it doesn't mean anything.


 * Afghanistan existed long before any Western political concepts allowed it to be included in encyclopedias. Both the way you write it and the way NisarKahn writes it are POV.  However, you argue both for inclusion of the quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam putting the political formation of united Afghans in the 18th century and here for the Western nation state Afghanistan of 1919.  This is confusing to people who are reading the article to learn about Afghanistan--which one is it?  Both should be under political hisotry of the nation-state.


 * I suggest the article be cleaned up, streamlined, copyedited, and divided into smaller articles on big subjecst like the history of Afghanistan. But a little at a time.  And with some discussion beforehand.  KP Botany 00:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia (and by know the one that used most among all) and should keep encyclopaedic standards. If you look up "Afghanistan" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (and I repeat it again: the EI is a collection of scholarly articles!), you will find the same thing I have written here. I am not trying to impose "my opinion" on the readers, but what the most authoritative sources say. Wikipedia is not a there to falsefy truth and facts, only to make it easier for readers to understand - if that were the case, then all articles dealing with physics, mathematics, or chemestry would be totally false! Wikipedia is there to give the best and best sourced information available - for free.
 * Afghanistan did not exist long before any Western political concepts allowed it (you can trust me: I am from Afghanistan and have done a lot of research about this), the same way Pakistan did not exist long before that concepts. In fact, both Afghanistan (created in the 19th century) and Pakistan (created 100 years later) are products of the Russian and Brittish politics of that era. In case of Pakistan, everyone understands that this nation was created in middle of the 20th century and once used top be part of what we call "India". So why shouldn't the reader understand that modern "Afghanistan" was also part of other larger territories of the past and emerged as a nation-state much later?! The name "Afghanistan" itself is a product of the British colonial power. These are pure facts, and it's not difficult to underline them with reliable sources.
 * I suggest you to look up the Encyclopaedia of Islam (or ask someone else who has access to it) and see what "Afghan" and "Afghanistan" mean.
 * Tājik 08:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi folks, Edward Z. Yang, KP Botany and Tajik...I like to begin by saying I appologize for making mass sudden changes too quickly. My editings are intended to make readers get a complete understanding of Afghanistan and its people. It's rather not important to focus too much on Iran or Persia when "AFGHANISTAN" is the main subject, although I am fully aware that both nations shared history in the past. In most of the editings, the attention of readers is too much directed to one specific tiny section of the country, which is the area close to Iran. I see too many words Persia, Iran, Persian, Iranian, Persian Empires, and ect. while nothing is mentioned about the eastern culture. More importantly, the much needed history of the main inhabitants of the country "the Pashtuns" that are the real owners of the land. As I read the report on Afghanistan, I got the notion that someone of an Iranian or Persian origin had written it. Why isn't anything mentioned about the Afghans? I was the one who placed the image of Ahmad Shah Durrani, the father of the nation. Afghanistan did not only share history with Iran or former Persia, in fact, the only area that was influenced by Iran or Persia was mainly the City of Herat, which is the only inhabitated area close to Iran's border. Both places speak entirely different dialogs of the Persian language, and, the dialog spoken in Kabul (DARI) is far different from both Herati Persian or the Iranian Persian. Therefore, the writings make Afghanistan appear to the readers as if Iran's people and Afghanistan's people are both the same. However, this is not because the Afghans are the Pashtuns, they are not Iranians or former Persians. Afghans have a seperate history of their own which can be traced 5,000 years back...and further back to 50,000 years. In the near future I do plan to share this information here.


 * Now over to other issues. First, I completely deleted the Islamic Encyclopaedia stuff because it's errelevent and a waste of space. I also partially deleted the second paragraph under "Name" because Afghanistan was NEVER a state of Iran or Persia before the 18th century. However, there was Iranian/Persian influence in some smaller section of the country but the remaining larger section was independent for ages. It is 100% false statement to say Afghanistan was state of Iran or Persia before the 18th century, and I'm sure every Afghan on earth would challenge this claim. Khorassan simply did not have possession of Afghanistan....now over to Islamic Encyclopaedia...If you read the statement it first says..."Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century"...then it states..."The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghans”...to the average reader this makes no sense because they already are aware that Afghanistan means land of the Afghans. If prior to middle of 18th century, the location was called land of the Afghans then it was Afghanistan...because Afghanistan means land of the Afghans. It's recorded that Alexander the Great had mention a word much similar to "Afghans" for the natives that lived in Afghanistan at the time of his arrival. In several of Hindu Books dating back to apprixmately 5,000 years, the name Afghan is also mentioned. So what's the big deal about someone using this name in the 18th century??? It is mentioned that the name Afghanistan derived from Persian language meaning "land of the Afghans". Are all the countries ending with "stan" Persian names? including Arabistan and Hindustan? Somewhere else I read that Afghanistan is Arabic name...for land of the Afghans...given during in or about the 7th century. So, if the name Afghanistan was given or made up by the Arabs that far in time...how can it be a Persian name? I feel that the words Persian language be deleted in the top first paragraph. Because the evidence is not convincing. It should just read "Afghanistan means land of the Afghans".


 * Next, Ahmad Shah's last name was "Abdali" when he was an army general, before becoming a king and before him choosing the new last name "Durrani". This makes his official name Ahmad Shah Durrani because it is what he wanted to be remembered by. That makes Ahmad Shah Abdali his A.K.A. alias name. Using the alias name is improper and an act to discredit someone. Besdies, his alias name is used in his detailed biography report (see Ahmad Shah Durrani). Also, please do not use the term "tribal chief" for someone already being described as an army or military general. That's like calling President Hamid Karzai a tribal chief instead of a President. About Persian (Dari), I believe the proper way to write is "Dari (Persian)" because people in Afghanistan speak Dari, which is a dialog from the Persian language. If you write it vice versa (Persian (Dari)...only very few would understand.


 * Finally, regrading Pashtun-Afghan......"Ghilzais" are Afghans from the Pashtun ethnics...same as saying "Cherokees" are Indian-Americans or Native-Americans. If someone reads "Cherokees are Natives" or "Cherokees are Americans", they would only half understand the full picture. Pashtun is the older name and Afghan is the modern name. Therefore, to make readers fully understand...at a certain given point...words may be made in ways to better benefit the readers, this is the main purpose here. In this part of the argument, I sense that Tajik is not understanding because he is obviously not Pashtun...he prefers to see "Pashtun" instead of Afghan or vice versa. A reminder again...the subject is "AFGHANISTAN" as a nation and its people. So the main focus must be on the Pashtuns (Afghans) rather than Iranians, Persians, or others. Readers who are interested about Iran, Iranians, Persia, Persians or Persian Empires can do specific search on those topics. Thanks


 * OK, I will wait for your reponse(s) and would be happy to discuss with you further on any topic. Sorry again for causing mass sudden changes and please understand that I only do edits to make people understand the facts about Afghanistan. I will be adding what's important for the country and deleting or changing the unimportant stuff. By the way I am very new here what is "POV"?.

NisarKand 11:02 AM, October 10, 2006


 * Afghanistan is also the modern land, not just the people, and the people who live in the modern land are not just the Pashtuns, but also the Tajiks, Hazara, Balouch, etc. So remember to put your content in the correct place, Afghans under Afghan and Afghanistan under Afghanistan.  Pashtun-Afghan is simply confusing not clarifying in the instance.  Ghilzai (a Pashtun tribe) might be okay, but Pashtun-Afghan doesn't work.  You're doing necessary work, although I don't agree with all of it, but still this article does overemphasize the history of Afghanistan from the Enclopedia of Islam ancient empires perspective, and needs to let modern people understand what Afghanistan is.  More comments later. KP Botany 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you work on just sections at a time and discuss your changes first? KP Botany 18:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Starting at the very top...I am not fully satisfied so I will cause some few minor changes or rearrangements...the first is the language. According to the latest Afghanistan's constitution, it states that Pashto and "Dari" are the official languages of the country. So...the proper way to write it should be "Dari (Persian)". For example, if you look at Pakistan's official language...you see "Urdu", which originates from Hindi or perhaps other languages. Yet there is no need to tag along those former languages with Urdu.


 * However, in this case we can tag Persian next to Dari but should be last...meaning it's a form of Persian language. Mostlly all Afghan government uses "Dari", which is the precise name given to the language by the Afghan government.


 * Next is to rearrange South Asia and Middle East...by placing South Asia first and adding the word "perhaps" in the sentence. Because in very rare cases it is mentioned or stated that Afghanistan is part of Middle East. However, the name "Middle East" may stay because it is in some minor ways tied together. Along with these minor changes...I will later go down to the year 1747 history and onwards...there is something very important missing that needs to be added and or fixed. NisarKand 3:335 AM. October 11, 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it could be a bit confusing, the crossroads South Asia and Middle East, depending upon which Middle East you are talking about. I agree with putting South Asia first.  There is a Latin phrase that means in its strictest sense that would be better than a perhaps.  If you change this part I will edit it to include in its narrowest sense, or look at the Middle  East article and see what they call the traditional-sense Middle East.  KP Botany 15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * NisarKand, you are inserting certain POV in the text which HAS to be reverted and deleted:
 * The quote of the Encyclopaedia of Islam cannot be deleted, because it is an authoritative scholarly work, written by leading experts. No other encyclopaedia - neither Britannica nor any other - has the same status as the EI.
 * You are correct that this article is about the nation "Afghanistan". But you forget that this nation did not exist before 1919. Not even pre-modern "Afghanistan", the Durrani kingdom of Khorasan, existed before 1748. So basically, if we were to minimize the history of Afghanistan to Afghanistan, we had to delete everything dealing with pre-1748 Durrani Afghanistan. Before 1748, Afghanistan was part of the larger cultural dominion known as Persia (which is NOT the same as modern Islamic Republic Iran).
 * Afghanistan as a name for this nation did not exist before the late 19th century. The word Afghanistan means Land of Afghans, and because historically Afghan is a synonym of Pashtun, the correct translation of the term is Land of Pashtuns (the same way Uzbekistan means Land of Uzbeks, although nowadays all citizens of Uzbekistan are popularly known as Uzbeks). It is a well researched and well-known fact that before the 19th century, the term Afgghanistan was only limited to the Pashtun-inhabited areas to the south of Kabul. This is even reported by the Mongol warlord Babur, founder of the Mughal Empire:
 * "... In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor* and Gebrek.  To the south is Afghanistān . There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni. ..." (from Baburnama --> )
 * This is exactly the information given in the Encyclopaedia of Islam.
 * You are making a mistake by defining the Safavids and Ghilzais with modern nationalism. The Safavids were not "Iranians" or "Persians", but simply ONE FAMILY who were not interested in ethnicity. In fact, the Safavids were Turkish-speaking. The same goes to the Ghilzais: they were NOT "Afghan nationalists" fighting "foreign invaders" ... the Ghilzai never regarded the Safavids or their Persian army as "invaders" or "foreigners". The problem was not ethnicity or language, but religion: the Ghilzai Pashtuns were orthodox Sunnis, while the Safavids were a Shia Sufi dynasty - both clans were of diverse ethnic background, and both clans used Persian as a literary and administrative language. Your concept of "Afghans fighting Iranians" is totally wrong and POV. It was a fight between "Shia Safavids" and "Sunni Ghilzai".
 * When the Ghilzai attacked Persia, they did not have the support of the Abdalis. Later on, the Abdalis were allied to Nadir Shah against their own Pashtun kinsmen. When the Ghilzai reached Isfahan, their leader, Ashraf Hotaki, declared himself "Shah of Persia", and until today the Hotakis are regarded as a native Iranian dynasty - they were not foreigners to the thrown of Persia, but subjects of the same cultural domain.
 * You mention a "Ghaznavid Khan Nasher" ... this is pure POV. The Nasher family of Kunduz is of Pashtun origin, but the claim that they are Ghaznavids is nothing but a family myth. They are NOT Ghaznavids, and they are NOT "lords". They are simply a very poweful Pashtun family with a lot of family legends, most of them created in the late 19th century.
 * It's Persian language and not Dari. Dari is only a local name given to the dialects of Kabul and surrounding areas - the original Dari of classical poetry was a totally different language. Besides that, there is no such thing as Afghan Persian, because the Persian language has many different dialects in Afghanistan. The dialect of Herat (Afghanistan), for example, is identical to the diact of Nishapur (Iran), while it is much different from the dialect of Kabul (Afghanistan). The dialect of Kabul on the other hand is - despite the different pronounciations - much closer to the dialect of Tehran than to the dialect of Herat.
 * Tājik 16:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Paragraphs please

 * Is it not possible to make paragraphs in the chapter about history????? (Rob)

Nation began
I've just made recent edits and I will explain them in here, and give full details on why. Before I proceed...your latest responses to me are not related to my arguments...meaning you are arguing with own selves. Because I am here trying to explain exactly how AFGHANISTAN came to existence and when, while keeping in mind that Afghanistan's government records are the most trusted and official source than any other source. I am not into all those detailed ethnical disputes, and those long details on how many different tribes or short dynasties of unpopular people existed, prior to the existense of Afghanistan. However, we may mention those accordingly but not go too deep. It's Afghans who created Afghanistan in 1747, and that's the most important thing. What more source of information do you need to prove that Afghanistan existed as a nation or empire since 1747??? It's a clear contradiction to mention first that Afghanistan was founded in 1747, and then write that it began in early 1800s or 1919 because documents say so. For example...if a man gets born in 1747, but register's his birth certificate with the government in 1780...what would this persons proven birth date be? The answer would obviously be 1747 but if he can't remember then it's whatever year he claims. This is the case with Afghanistan. It was born in 1747 but the article is trying to ignore that fact.

After the death of Nader Shah (Iranian) in 1747...Ahmad Shah Durrani (Afghan) became the ruler over Khorassan (Iran), entire Afghanistan, including entire Pakistan and some smaller parts of India (Delhi). This occurred approximately 3 years after he took power (1750). Then, in late 1700s and onwards...Afghanistan slowly began shrinking until finally 1893, when the Durrand Line was created between Afghanistan and Pakistan, by the British. Prior to that in 1837-1838...the Border of Iran (Khorassan) and Afghanistan had been officially made and settled already, also by Britian. "Afghanistan" was written in English language and kept as records by the British ever since. This clearly means that Afghanistan existed prior to that but had lost some of its territories to its neighbors. The country did not ever change its name since 1747. If Britian intervened in 1747 between Iran and Afghanistan...obviously the name "AFGHANISTAN" would have been written and recorded by the British government. So therefore, we can't just rely on English records. We have to consider the actions that were taken in the country to determine when was the birthdate of Afghanistan.

About the ethnical stuff...I believe it is not a good idea to mention different tribes of Pashtuns, as this will confuse many and it is something people don't want to know. So I will only write....Afghans....Pashtuns....Tajiks....Uzbeks...Hazaras and others, no reason to define these groups of people in this article. Anyone interested may do it their self by mouse clicking.

Now I will explain about my recent edits at Afghanistan....."NAME"....I did not like the way it was prepared...unimportant plus not verifiable. Like I stated before...Alexander the great used the name "Afghan" way before Islam. "Afghanistan" means land of the Afghan in more than one language so no need to mention Persian. Last... Afghanistan was NOT part of Iran before 18th century...it was part of Moghul Empire...prior to that Timurid Empire prior to that Mongol Empire...prior to that Ghaznavid Empire prior to that Ghouri Empire and so on. It is 100% false to state that Afghanistan was always part of Iran before the mid 18th century. So I delete that and will not want to see it again. Most of those rulers I mentioned were Afghans themselves and they adopted their ethnicity to Afghans. Ghaznavid was from Ghazni...Oh one more thing....Safavids were Shias I am fully aware....in fact they started the Shiah sect of Islam....as the Afghans were all Sunnis. So the battle was strictly over religion I know that, Sunnis vs. Shiahs. At the end, Sunnis won and kicked the Shiahs back to Iran and then the Sunnis captured Khorassan (Iran) by killing all the Safavid Mullahs or whatever they were. That is the precise reason why Afghanistan and Iran have differences, because of religion sects. Iran is a nation of Shias while Afghanistan is a nation of Sunnis. ~Nisar NisarKand 11:56 October 11, 2006 (UTC)


 * I have (again) reverted most of your latest edits, because you do not provide ANY sources. Besides that, you use confusing wording (you diffenciate between "Pashtuns" and "Afghans" when it is not needed, and then you do not differenciate between these two words when it is needed).
 * Your claim that "Alexander used the term Afghan" is POV and totally baseless. Do you have ANY sources for that?!
 * You claim that "Afghanistan was part of the Mughal Empire" is onyl true when the term Afghanistan is limitted to its historical meaning: Pashtun-inhabited areas to the south of Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan (especially modern Western and Central Afghanistan) was mostly part of the Safavid Persia. Small portions of the north were part of the Uzbek Khanate.
 * The Timurid and Ghaznavid empires are regarded part of the History of Iran, and represent the same cultureal domain: Persian culture. In fact, it were these dynasties (Ghaznavids, Ghoris, Seljuqs, Il-Khans, Timurids, Safavids) that ensured the domincance of the Persian language and culture in the Eastern domains of the Islamic world (while Arabic became the major language of the Western lands). Until the creation of Afghanistan, even Kandahar was part of Safavid Persia. You very obviously confuse the terms Historical Iran and modern Islamic Republic Iran (click on the links).
 * Your claim that "Safavids started Shiism" is totally baseless and POV - it may even be regarded as very offensive! (see Safavids and Shiism for more info). The region of modern Afghanistan was always home to a large Shia community. Many famous scholars and scientists of that region, including Avicenna, Ferdousi, or Rumi, were Shia in faith. The war between the tribal Ghilzai chiefs and the Safavid central government was an extended fight between the Sunni Ottoman Khalifs and their long-time Shia rivals in Persia. Before Mir Wais Khan Khotak attacked the Safavids, he went to Mecca (back then an Ottoman colony) and asked the leading Mufti for a fatwa to "declare all Shias infidles" (in fact, this was the beginning of the Shia-Sunni confrontation in Afghanistan that is still going in the shape of Hezbi Wahdat fighting Sunni fundamentalists, such as the Taliban). Keeping in mind that the Grand Mufti of Mecca was a loyal servant of the Ottoman Khalif, Mir Wais' ask for a fatwa was the same as asking the Ottoman for direct support against the Safavids.
 * Your claim that "Sunni Afghans kicked Shias back to Iran" is pure offensive POV. You probably have forgotten that still 20% of Afghanistan (or maybe more) is of Shia faith, most of them being Hazaras. You also forget that cities in the west, such as Herat, have a Shia population of up to 40%! You also did not mention that the very first kings of Afghanistan, like Ahmad Shah Abdali, were extremly Shia friendly and appointed Shia Kizilbash to high governmental positions. 2 of Afghanistan's kings were born to Shia Kizilbash mothers. Before the reign of Amir Abdur Rahman Khan and the systematic massacre of Shias and Nuristanis, the Shia population of Afghanistan was much larger. The percentage of Shias in Afghanistan was much more than the present 20%.
 * And PLEASE discuss your edits FIRST, BEFORE changing the articles. Otherwise your changes will be reverted.
 * Tājik 22:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I WILL PROVIDE ALL THE SOURCES...before reverting, why don't you ask me to provide to you the sources? Anyway...I am gonna have to slow down a little because I don't think you are as fast learner as me, and I will also go few steps at a time with you...so that we can both understand and come to one happy conclusion.

About Alexander the great using the term "Afghan"...that is something I read in the past and I'm gonna have to search again and find it. It's not important at the moment because my argument is somewhere else. Now why would you say it's baseless when you're not even sure if he used this term or not???

Next, most of the time when I mention "Afghanistan" I am refering to the present map of Afghanistan and it's headquarter, which is Kabul the capital. You claimed...''The rest of Afghanistan (especially modern Western and Central Afghanistan) was mostly part of the Safavid Persia. Small portions of the north were part of the Uzbek Khanate.''....This is false because look at these 2 maps showing the Safavid Empire...

Later, the Safavids of Iranian descendants challenged Mughal rule with the Iranians reacquiring the area by the mid-17th century.

This must be deleted and that's that....it is false...the map and history both can prove this to be false. Moughul Empire ruled most of present-day Afghanistan until mid 17th century. Up until 1738 Mougul Empire ruled present-day Afghanistan then until 1747 Nader Shah ruled...from 1747 onwards Afghans (Pashtuns) took it until 2006.

Then you argue and say that The Timurid and Ghaznavid empires are regarded part of the History of Iran,...are they not part of the History of Afghanistan, History of Pakistan and History of India??? I am not here to fight or argue with you deep ethnical or religious beliefs. I was pointing out that the rulers of those empires were residents or nationals of Afghanistan, which they were and that was my point. To me you are an Afghan national...regardless who your ancestors where...that's only for you to keep.

Next...this is what it says under Safavid - were a native Iranian dynasty from Iranian Azarbaijan that ruled from 1501 to 1736, and which established Shi'a Islam as Iran's official religion and united its provinces under a single Iranian sovereignty, thereby reigniting the Persian identity and acting as a bridge to modern Iran.

Next...if you look at the map of Safavid's Empire...you see it did not reach Kandahar, Ghazni, Mazar-e-Sharif, Kabul and other locations to the south and east. And did you know that Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul Jalalabad were always the most populated areas...because that was the Silk Road. Even until today all the Afghans in Afghanistan live within 15 miles from the former Silk Road Kabul-Kandahar Highway.

Therefore, the Safavid Empire did not take control of the Moughul Empire, which was in total control of the capital city Kabul, Ghazni, and Kandahar. The Safavid Empire ruled Iran and about 15% section of Afghanistan in the west. [*NOTE: colored areas on these maps indicate its farthest reach of influence. Not the exact border of control.]

I am aware there are Shia Muslims in Afghanistan...some statistics show 15% while others show little up or down. The reason why People from Kandahar decided to fight and push back the Safavids to Iran was a religious cause. It is stated the Sufis were forcefully converting people to Shiism. So the people decided to revolt against them. Ok I guess I am done on this argument...

It should be concluded that from Moughul Empire came Nader Shah's short lived Empire (from 1738 to 1747) and right after that in 1751 the entire present-day Afghanistan was held by Pashtuns (Afghans) until today with Hamid Karzai.

I want to know why would you get angry at Mir Wais Khan Hotak? Maybe I did not use appropriate words when I mentioned that "they were kicked back to Iran"....I saw similar thing written about the Afghans that were forced or expelled from Iran in 1738, by Nader Shah. I will put it in better words this time, but we can't conceal history...because it was something that already happened. So I suggest the paragraph mentioning "Mir Wais Khan Hotak" be left alone....it is the missing piese of the puzzle. And I will remove the last sentence stating that Safavid regained Afghanistan from the Moughal Empire by mid 17th century. I already proved, with clear and convincing evidence, that this was totally false....Safavids DID NOT take control of Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul from the Moughal Empire. ~Nisar NisarKand 6:11 AM, October 12, 2006 (UCT)

Corrections
''During Taliban rule the population faced massive restrictions of freedom and human rights violarions. Women were fired from jobs, girls forbidden to attend their universities. Those who resisted were killed. Communists were systematically eradicated and Islamic Sharia imposed.''

This needed corrections and should be like this...

During Taliban rule the population faced massive restrictions of freedom and human rights violations. Women were fired from jobs, girls forbidden to attend schools or universities. Those who resisted were punished. Communists were systematically eradicated and Islamic Sharia imposed. Taliban did not kill girls or women for attending schools or colleges....they were simply punished by other means. Unless, you show me reports to back up your claim. ~Nisar NisarKand 10:16 PM, October 11, 2006 (UTC)

To User:NisarKand
Tājik 17:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The Safavid Empire was - like all empires of that time - a dynamic kingdom that changed its borders many times ... due to conquest and losses. See this map for more information.
 * 2) Of course the Timurids, Ghaznavids, and Mughals were part of the "history of India" or "history of Pakistan". But - at the same time - they represent a certain cultural domain which was neither Indian not Pakistani or Afghanistani. Afghanistan as a nation-state did not exist before 1748. All history before that time is part of the "Persian history", which you - wrongly - confuse with the "history of the Islamic Republic Iran".
 * 3) Of course Kandahar was part of the Safavid Empire. Why, do you think, did all the revolts break out?! Pashtuns who lived within Mughal borders always faught their Mughal masters (for example Khushal Khan Khattak), while Pashtuns in the Safavid Empire fought for independence from Isfahan.
 * 4) Neither Kandahar nor Kabul were part of the Silk Road, as you claim. See this map for more detail.
 * 5) Nadir Shah's mission against India was ment to punish the Mughals. When Babur's son Humayun needed the help of the Safavids, he was welcomed in Persia and was a personal guest of the Shah for more than 10 years. But when the Safavids were attacked by the Pashtuns and by the Ottomans, the Mughals did not send any help. That's why Nadir Shah, who considered himself the rightful successor of the Safavids (in fact, he used to be called Qoli Beg, meaning "slave of the king"), he attacked India and plundered Delhi because of the coward behaviour of the Mughals.
 * 6) I am not angry at Mir Wais. I see him as a historical figure, neither good nor bad. He had his political and religious views, and he fought for his views. I do not consider him any different from the Shahs of Persia, from the Mughals, from the Ottomans, from the Timurids, or from the Mongols under Genghis Khan. It just happens that some were more powerful than the others.


 * 1) You're showing me the same map I displayed in my previous post, and the map showes that only 10% to 15% present-day Afghanistan was controlled by the Safavids. Besides, the map was made by someone last month using computer art.


 * 1) Why are you keep repeating to me that Afghanistan as a nation-state did not exist before 1748? I already know all that. I am Afghan and I am an expert in history of my country. I told you that the kings of Timurids, Ghaznavids, Ghouri, Mughals and ect., were people who were living in present-day Afghanistan (they were on the soil or earth of a place which is now called Afghanistan). So...they were Afghans because "AFGHANISTAN IS LAND OF THE AFGHANS". It does not matter what their language or backrounds were. Just like when someone from Asia goes to America, lives there and establish citizenship....they are then called Americans, regardless which ethnic, race, color or language they speak. You make people confuse by putting Persian everywhere. "Persian" has more than one meaning...a persian who was from former Persia or someone who speaks the Persian language. Anyone on earth can be Persian, as long as they can speak Persian language.


 * 1) Kandahar in early 1700s was not the size it is today. Remember there is Kandahar the city and Kandahar the Province. The city was ruled by Safavid for a very short period, while the Kandahar region was not. At that time Kandahar included present day Quetta, Pakistan. Most of Southern Afghanistan which is in the boundry of the Safavid Empire is empty desert, where nobody can live....it's all sand. The only important place the Safavids held was Herat, the remaining larger and important cities were held by Moghuls or were self ruled. About Khushal Khan....that's NWFP area which is part of Pakistan now. It is not anywhere near Kandahar, which was the border between Safavif Empire and Moghul Empire. Knowing all this, you cannot and you must not claim that Safavid ruled Afghanistan. It only ruled a smaller portion for a short period until they were defeated and crushed by the Afghans in or about 1722. Afghans ruled Isfahan (Iran) from 1722 until 1736.


 * 1) Are you saying Nader Shah was ruler of the Safavid? and was he Shia Muslim? Anyway...AFGHANISTAN, which is land of the Afghans. The first person that began the creation of Afghanistan was Mir Wais Khan Khottak. President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, who is Pashtun, in 2002 made Tajik Ahmad Shah Massoud "National Hero", why can't Mir Wais Khan Khottak be mentioned and called a national hero?....Pashtuns are known to be non-racists...that's why God gave them power to rule, and they get along with everyone else fine. By the way...you know Pashtun from Afghanistan went to space before United Kingdom, Japan, China, Israel, and many more countries. ~Nisar [[Image:Flag of Afghanistan.svg|18px]] NisarKand 9:43 PM, October 12, 2006


 * No, I was NOT showing you the same map again. And that map clearly shows that MOST of present-day Afghanistan was part of the Safavid Empire (the entire west, the entire south, including Kandahar, and large parts of modern Hazarajat).
 * Please do not misunderstand me, but I do not think that you are an expert. Your argumentation actually shows that you are a beginner. Especially your claim that Timurids, Ghorids, Ghaznavids etc "were Afghans because they lived in the land of Afghans". This sentense is totally illogical and false - in every point. None of these dynasties actually resided in the "Land of Afghans" (which is the limitted territory inhabited by Pashtuns), some did not even reside within the modern political borders of Afghanistan (the Timurids, for example, were Mongols residing in Samarqand and Ferghana). And since "Afghanistan" as a nation did not exist 500 or 1000 years ago, NO ONE living in that area - except ethnic Pashtuns - was "Afghan". Your claim is like saying that Genghis Khan was a "Russian" only because he was born in a region that is now part of Russia, or that Mahmud Kashgari "was a Chinese", because nowadays Kashgar is part of China. That's pure nonsense! What if Afghanistan were part of China today?! Would that make Ahmad Shah Abdali a "Chinese warlord"?!
 * Mir Wais Hottaki was not from "Afghanistan", because THERE WAS NO AFGHANISTAN AT THAT TIME. Ahmad Shah Massoud was a CITIZEN of the modern nation Afghanistan. He was born and he died as an Afghanistani citizen. Mir Wais, on the other hand, did not know "Afghanistan", he did not act as an "Afghanistani citizen", and he was probably not even interested in his "Afghan heritage" (keeping in mind that HE and HIS family were the one who imprisoned the later founder of Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Abdali). Neither Mir Wais nor Khushal Khan Khattak are "Afghan heroes" in the sence of the modern nation "Afghanistan". They are "Afghan heroes" in the sence of "hero for ethnic Pashtuns". Usually, Tajiks and Hazaras are not interested in Pashtun heroes ... I am an ethnic Tajik, and I do not consider Mir Wais as "my hero" ... in fact, I have to admit that I consider him "foreign". This is certainly not true for "Tajik heroes", such as Avicenna or al-Biruni whom I consider part of my heritage.
 * The Pashtuns was sent to space by the Soviet Union. It was not an achievement of the Pashtuns as a people, but a present from the Soviet Union to their allies in Afghanistan. I still remember the day when that astronaut was shot to space ... entire Kabul ... all of Afghanistan was watching. But that was not an achievement of the Pashtuns ... it was political propaganda of the Soviets to distract the people from the bloody war they were fighting in Afghanistan. It might also interest you that the Pashtun-dominated Khalq-Party of Afghanistan prevented Ghulam Masum Daouran to go to space. He was the original candidate for the project. But the preoblem was that Ghulam Masum Daouran was a Persian-speaker. Instead, they decided to send Abdul Ahad Mohmand - a Pashto-speaker from Sardah.
 * Tājik 09:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Pashtuns above 52%
As of 2002..over 4.5 million Afghan refugees were repatriated to Afghanistan...most of them from Pakistan and others from Iran...and....the majority of those were Pashtuns. Therefore, the 4.5 million (mostly Pashtuns) returning back to Afghanistan makes a huge impact on the % ratio of the Pashtuns, which means the number of Pashtuns would rise dramatically in Afghanistan in the near future. Another fact...many Dari speakers in Kabul, Herat and other cities are Pashtuns by ethnic but simply speak Dari language. The real and official figure of ethnic Pashtuns is in the 70% area. This will be researched and will be shown in the near future. The same goes in Pakistan...many Pashtuns are used to speaking Urdu language there but are Pashtuns by ethnic. One example out of many is Imran Khan, who speaks Urdu only but is Pashtun by ethnic. There are large number of Pashtuns who speak different languages but are ethnically Pashtuns. It is errelevent to use language as someone's ethnic. According to the CIA world factbook...Pashtuns are 52% while Tajiks are 12 to 15%....this is acceptable for the time being until a more clear census is made in the country in the near future. But the real figure is that ethnic Pashtuns are in the 70% area. ~Nisar NisarKand 12:AM October 14, 2006 (UCT)


 * Now, this is called pseudo-scientific and ethnocentric POV ... Tājik 01:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The national census would not be in a near future. It would be in 2015, acccording to the Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan. And things will do change, especially the concept of "majority". Ariana310 11:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Afghanistan (Pashtunistan or the land of pashtoons)
Afghanistan means nothing but Pashtunistan(since Afghan means pashtoon, then Afghanistan should mean the land of pashtoons). It is land of the Pashtuns, while others may also live there. Tajiks have a country and it's called Tajikistan...Uzbeks have a country of their own and it's called Uzbekistan...Hazaras are Shia Muslims and they have a country of their own that is Iran. Punjabis, Urdu speakers, Sindhis, Baloch people, on the other hand have their own country and it's called Pakistan. Since Afghanistan means land of the Afghans....it actually means "land of the Pashtuns", so it's Pashtunistan. Since the land is Pashtunistan (modern name Afghanistan) or land of the Pashtuns...then the history of Pashtuns must be clearly and fully explained so that people of the world learn exactly how Pashtuns came to power, and started their own country and own rule. The only way to explain is by reading history of the first Pashtun Mir Wais Khan Khotak or (Hotaki) Dynasty that initiated the creation of Pashtun kingdom, which started in 1708 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The non-Pashtun Afghans call themselves...Tajik-Afghan...Uzbek-Afghan...Hazara-Afghan....yet these same people claim there is no such thing as Pashtun-Afghan. Wonder why is that???

Another thing is the languages of Afghanistan...according to Afghanistan's constitution, CIA world factbook and 1,000s of other sources along with about 30 million people of Afghanistan...Pashto and "Dari" are the official languages of the contry. A reminder that "Dari" and Persian language are totally different, and that's why both have different names. It's exactly like English and Spanish. Why is here only 1 or 2 people claiming that Dari is not the language of Afghanistan and that it is Persian???

Many people think that USA is against Pashtuns and are supporters of Tajiks because Taliban were mostly Pashtuns. This is not the case at all...America as a whole loves President Hamid Karzai and Zalmai Khalilzad, who is US ambassador to Iraq. There are many Pashtuns that work inside the Pentagon in Washinton, DC. Pashtuns in America are well recognized by the Americans as the best of the Afghans. Pashtuns in America are well established and have hands in politics there as well as owners of a huge business industry that helps America's economy. The United States turned against Taliban because of not surrendering Osama when requested to do so...other than that...Taliban were doing a great job on erradicating drugs and crimes in their country. The very proof to this is that in sping of 2001...the United States rewarded Taliban with $43 million dollars. The Taliban were not going around killing people for no reasons. They faced the same insurgency that is faced by US and Nato troops. However, the insurgents fighting the Taliban were opposition groups mainly the Shia Hazaras followed by the Tajiks and Uzbeks. That's why people were being killed on both sides at that time. When the United States first came to Afghanistan, they had little information on the exact cause of the fighting between Taliban and opposition groups....after years passed and everything was observed in the country....they learned that Taliban were not as bad as what everyone thought. It is clear fact that opposition groups to Taliban would say everything possible to make the image of Taliban look as nasty and as evil.

If you look at the situation now, Taliban is impossible to defeat because like President of Pakistan Musharraf said...every Pashtun is Taliban supporter, and there are approximately 50 million of them in the region, also backed up by another 150 million or so Pakistanis and Arabs. These people are determined to fight and never to give up.

As an American...I am now clearly convinced that we are on the wrong path both in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are sacraficing our own men to strengthen Iran (Shia), who is spreading its influence in both of these conflict zones. Even our top military commanders are saying that a new strategy must be implimented in order to stop the insurgents from attacking or using suicides. If America was invaded by Taliban and the white Americans were removed from power, replaced by the Afro-Americans or Hispanic Americans, I'm 100% sure the white Americans would've sarificed themselves by launching suicides attacks...the same way Taliban are doing it in Afghanistan. While US forces are killing Taliban in Afghanistan...the over all situation is becoming worst by the days. I believe the only way to solve this huge problem would be to allow back the Taliban, make them sign a deal that they stop fighting and follow the new constitution of the country instead of the Sharia law which they used in the past. Pashtuns are known to stick to their words. However, this does not mean US and Nato troops would withdrawl from the country, they must stay and continue to provide security for the country and help with reconstruction. It is very risky and uncomfortable to be doing construction work while watching your back every minute to make sure somebody don't attack and shoot you. So...this kind of strategy is being spoken around by all the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it must be considered as an option. I just hope that some sort of deal is made soon so that things get back to normal and both sides come out happy. Hey, we may be laughed at for few days for signing a deal with Taliban but it's much better then being laughed at for decades. If not then we will be like the biggest fools on earth...working for Iran (Shia) by defeating their enemies (Sunnis). We must not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon, as this would lead to major war in the region. So the bottom line is that we must stop defeating Taliban instead bring them to the table and make them agree that they stop attacks. At the same time we must help them with what they want and that is law and order in Afghanistan. I know all this sounds very disturbing for many but it's the only way to help bring stabality to a country. ~Nisar NisarKand 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UCT)

Islamic Encylopedia clearly states that "Afghanistan" was born as a nation in the mid 18th century (refering to 1747)...and that before this time the nation did not exist as a one piece. Records of history also backs this claim because in 1747, Ahmad Shah Durrani, who was an Afghan (Pashtun) that created a nation (Afghanistan) for his own people.

Even before 1747...the Afghans (Pashtuns) attempted to create their own nation in 1708, by rising against the Safavids, an empire which they defeated by 1722 and held control of Isfahan (present-day Iran) until 1729. However, the Afghans were removed from power and forced back to their land (present-day Afghanistan)...meaning the first attempt failed. Nader Shah from Persia (Iran) invaded present-day Afghanistan and took control for 10 years until he died in 1747. After his death, Ahmad Shah Durrani rose to power as the new king in the area...he captured entire present-day Afghanistan...entire present-day Pakistan along with Kashmir...Delhi in India....and northeast Iran, which was then called Khorassan.

In the year 1838, after a war between Persia (Iran) and Afghanistan...the present-day Afghanistan-Iran border was marked by the government of Persia, Afghanistan and Britian. Then in 1893, the present-day Afghanistan-Pakistan border (Durand Line) was marked by the government of Afghanistan and British India.

So the bottom line is this...Afghanistan was created as a nation in 1747, regardless if other nations recognized it or not. A land existed on earth, in which people called it "Afghanistan" (English: Afghanland). It is a pure myth for people to believe that British gave it this name in 1838, by calling it Afghanland, and then Afghans adopted that name to Afghanistan. If such thing had happened it would've been recorded by the British, unless you believe the British don't keep their records of events, or perhaps you believe they kept this a top secret. ~Nisar NisarKand 05:44, 17 October 2006

I think this is worth reading
This article put the multi-billion dollar opium-herion industry into scope in regards to Afghanistan. If you want to learn more about this aspect of Afghansitan and how it ties in witht he rest of the world and the world economy read this article.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061017&articleId=3516

User:NisarKand and POV issues
I have put the totally disputed tag on the page, because of the recent POV edits by User:NisarKand. Almost all of his edits are ethno-centric POV edits, totally unsourced. He himselfs believes that other Wikipedia articles and certain maps and pictures are reliable sources.

He has messed up the history part, he was trying to mess up the "name" part, and he is trying to push for a POV version in the culture part (including his rediculous claim that "Dari" and "Persian" are "different languages, like English and Spanish").

No one else feels responsible for this site, and even User:KP Botany who was actually supporting NisarKand's POV edits has no disappeared from the discussion.

Tājik 16:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I couldn't follow up all the discussion between Tājik and User:NisarKand, I think there are two disputable points among you two:

1. Persian is used for both Farsi and Dari. Persian is an English word used by European and Western scholars for both the languages. Despite the fact that Persian is derived from Persia meaning language of Persians and goes exactly similar to Farsi, today it is used for both Farsi and Dari. Both "Farsi" and "Dari" are unfamiliar and foreign words for Europeans and Westerners. In order to avoid any misconception, the word Persian must be used in wikipedia. My suggestion for Nisarkand is to avoid pushing his Pashtun nationalistic views, while he can't give solid historical reasons based on linguistic researches.


 * I assume both you and Tajik do not speak American English, but rather British or Canadian or Australian or some other English. "Dari" is used by many Americans meaning Afghan Persian, although many Californians say "Afghan Farsi" and "Farsi" rather than "Afghan Persian" and "Persian."  Neither "'Farsi' [nor] 'Dari' are unfamiliar and foreign words for ... Westerners" in America.  If you believe (POV) that "Farsi" and "Dari" are unfamiliar to Europeans, that is merely your POV, and apparently Tajik's.  However, I can google "Dari" AND "Afghan" for UK sites and get almost 20,000 hits--not the final say on the matter, but it certainly seems the word is at least familiar enough in part of the English-speaking, non-American Western world, that your POV is incorrect.  I don't think that "Dari" is as unfamiliar to Westerners as your POV asserts it is.


 * However, you are inserting your Persian-biased and non-American English biased POV about Dari.


 * I agree that Nasar is inserting a Pashtun-biased POV. However, he is also removing a lot of Persian-biased POV from the Afghanistan article, which, before he came, should have been retitled, "Iran East."  As Tajik won't compromise on the article being about Greater-Iran, and NasarKand won't compromise on it being about Pashtunistan, what should be done?  The article is important, but adding more supporters of either bias, the Tajik all-Iranian-Afghanistan or the NasarKhan all-Pashtun-Afghanistan will neither make the article better reflect the reality of the modern political entity nor resolve the issues between them.


 * http://www.unomaha.edu/world/cas/?menu=publication&sub=publication&show=dari#start


 * KP Botany 19:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The expression "Afghan Persian" is not accurate. It doesn't exist any Iranian Persian or Afghan Persian. Moreover, Persian is generally used by western scholars for both Dari and Farsi. I am not totally agree with Tājik, especially his own position for Iran whether because of ethnic or shiism issues. And furthermore as you said, he does not even allow editing Iran to Greater Iran, although historically and basically it should be mentioned Greater Iran. Ariana310 19:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice side-stepping completey of the point that Dari is used by Wester scholars, as you yourself now admit. Possibly I did not follow your English meaning in your original post.  Are you arguing that "Dari" is not used by Westerners or that it is used by Westerners?  Possibly you did not follow what I said.  The issue is about the use of Dari, not about Afghan Farsi or Afghan Persian.  Please clarify what you mean about Dari in your earliest comment.  It is good that you see some problems with Tajik's POV, though.KP Botany 20:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, from a more historical point of view, Dari and Farsi are two distinct languages. Farsi developed from Sassanid Pahlavi while Dari developed from Parti (Ashkanian Pahlavi),Soghdi and Takhari languages. Farsi was the language of Zoroastrian religous leaders in Persia, while Dari was then the official language of Sassanid Court. Dari was the language of eastern regions of Persia, Greater Khorasan. For more details, sources and linguistic researches please refer to Dari (Afghanistan) article. I have recently edited the article. The old article contained lots of incorrect, false and Iranian-oreiented theories. Although I did not modified completely the article, but I kept both theories about Dari language: the one that I just mentioned in this paragraphe, and the other one which Dari and Farsi are the same language developing from Pahlavi. So the main article of Dari in wikipedia contains both theories with sources. But the western and european scholars consider Dari and Farsi the same unique language with the difference of dialects. You can refer to Encyclopedia Britannica, Iranica and other western sources. They all have used the word "Persian" in their scholaric research articles for both the languages. In the old litereture books "Farsi-e Dari" has been used, which refers to both language (although this is one of the main disputable points between Iranian and Afghan scholars), so "Persian" has been constated as an equal term for "Farsi-Dari". The new term "Afghan Persian", created in USA according to you, is completely incorrect from linguistic researches point of view. First, "Afghan" is the name of an ethnic group who do NOT speak Persian. If we consider Afghan as a nationality, then "Dari" existed before the 18th century (formation of new Afghan state: Afghanistan). Dari is a 2000-year old language. So the expression "Afghan Persian" is totally incorrect. Secondly, "Persian" (as a language) was used by all the territories of Persia. Again we come up to two contradictory opinions: Afghanistan was called as part of Persia - and - Afghanistan was not part of Persia, but as an independent state called Khorasan, but had been conquered by Persian several times in a long period. I AM NOT TAKING ANY POSITION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPINIONS. Thus, saying "Afghan Persian" is again inappropriate, one has to say "Eastern Persian" (considering Dari and Farsi as the same language, Faris the western dialect of Farsi-Dari (Persian) and Dari the eastern dialect). These were the reasons for avoiding using Afghan Persian, instead whether it should be used "Dari" or "Eastern Persian". Ariana310 20:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

2. "Afghanistan" is a new word used in 18th century. It does show that Afghanistan was formed as a state in 18th century, but it does not mean that the people living in this territory were all part of other countries e.g. Pakistan, whose most people were part of India and the rest part of the old Afghanistan. The current Afghan territories were always known as "Khorasan". I am not going on the issue whether Khorasan was an independent state or part of Persia. Even during the government of Ahmad Shah Baba, it was called Khorasan. The name "Afghanistan" was first used in a treaty between Shah Shuja, British empire and Ranjeet Singh in 1838 in Lahore (source The reality of Political situation of Afghanistan, by Mohammad Akbar Shormach (an Afghan national)). Here are some other clues: دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد، جمال ملک خراسان شد این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد بیا یی به موند هیح راحت له خواشینه چه داخوار رحیم راووت له خراسانه
 * Abdullah Khan Popalzayee uses the word Khorasan when Ahmad Shah Abdali created the new city of Kandahar (of that time):
 * Abdul Rahi Hotak, a Pashtun poet also uses the word Khorasan:

دخراسان دسحر باده په جانان وایه په پردیسو سلامونه پر هندوستان می گل کرلی پر خراسان ولاره یم بوی یی راخینه په زمین دخراسان کشی پیدا کری رب سلطان دی دده نوم په تمام جهان کشی خپورته هر چاته عیان دی باز دلم سوی خراسان رفته است رشته کفر بریدست به ایمان رفته است
 * Gul Mohammad uses the same word for Abdul-Rahman Khan:
 * In 1284, the same word used in one of the poems: دوفوج مشرق ومغرب زهم مفصل شد امیر ملک خراسان محمد افضل شد
 * Other Persian-speaking or Dari-speaking poets who lived in India always used the word Khorasan for this territory. For example Zeb-un-Nissa Makhfi (1638-1702), a famous poet and daughter of Awrangzeb Moghul, has used several times this word:

ز روی لطف به تقصیر من قلم درکش که باتو هست مرا نسبت خراسانی

تواز ملک خراسانی به اصطبل وطن سازی  به خواب شد اگر رنج و غم هندوستان بینی

دل آشفته مخفی به فن خود ارسطویی است به هند افتاده است اما خراسان است یونانش

بوعلی روزگارم از خراسان آمده  از پی اعزاز بردرگاه سلطان آمده

And several other examples, especially in the old books such as Tarikh-e Baihaqee, Hudoodul Alame menal Mashreq menal Maghreb, Tarikh-e mallahand, etc. But I only gave examples of 17th century onwards. So the claim of User:NisarKand who says the current Afghan territory was known as Afghanistan or should be called Afghanistan, is obviously ridiculous. Although the word "afghan" or awghan or apagan, according to some sources, is a very old term, but it cannot be a reason to call the current Afghan territories as Afghanistan before the 18th century, because before the 18th century "afghan" or "afghanistan" was never used for a territory or for other people other than Pashtuns. Calling Ghaznavids, Timurids, Ghorids and others as Afghans, is totally a false and stupid claim. (And of course, we cannot call them Iranians either. They were Aryans by race or civilisation but not by nationality referring them to the contemporary Iran. We can only say that they ruled on Khorasan, on the current Afghan territories) Before the 19th or 18th century, the word "Afghan" was never used for any Nationality, only the name of an ethnic group who lived ONLY in the north of Sindh river in the south-eastern Afghanistan. While only after the 19th century, "afghan" was referred as a Nationality. But of course, today Tajik, Hazaras, Uzbeks and others are called Afghan nationals. So some claims like: Afghanistan same as Pashtunistan, or the land of Pashtuns, is completely baseless. May I ask User:NisarKand who were really ruling on these territories (current Afghan terriotry) before the 18th century? Were they Pashtuns/Afghans? It is really strange, the people who ruled on these territories for about 2000 years are now called as "foreigners" and are referred to other countries such as Tajikistan and Iran. Ahmad Shah Baba was crowned by a Kabuli citizen, Saber Shah. The word Afghanistan is a pure Dari word. The suffix "istan" is a pure Dari or Persian word. I already presented the arguements that even during the ruling of Ahmad Shah Baba, Afghanistan was not called as Afghanistan, but as Khorasan. Ariana310 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NisarKand who calls himself a historian of Afghanistan MUST AT LEAST know that 18th century begins from 1700 and finishes up to 1799. So modifying 18th century to 1747 and writing in comments 17th century is obiously ridiculous. I just re-edited the Name section. I would like to ask him to first write his reasons in discussion page with trustable sources, then edit the article. Ariana310 19:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition I would like to ask Tājik please not to try to impose his POVs for Iran. By considering both Afghanistan and Iran, as contemporary countries, Afghanistan was NOT part of Iran. However, it was part of the Greater Iran or Ariana or Eran-shahr but not part of the current Iran country which is not but a small part of the Greater Iran. I am also agree that being the major regions of Khorasan, it had been conquered by Persian Empires, sometimes it was part of Persia as a state i.e. Khorasan, and sometimes it had its own independent dynasties i.e. Kushans, Ghaznavids, Timurids, Ghorids, Samanids, etc. Ariana310 20:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT GET ANGRY!...but after reading all this, I am left very confused to knowing what is being argued here? I am doing everything possible to make people understand the region (Afghanistan), with less confusion. Let me start again...who are Pashtuns??? Where they come from??? Do you believe Pashtuns were dropped down from the sky or they walked out of the ocean to the land??? What makes you think Pashtuns are not the real Aryans (people that lived in present-day Afghanistan approximately 50,000 years ago). Aryans were very light skinned...I mostly see light skinned people among Pashtuns, while the Persians are mostly dark. We Pashtuns are well known to the entire world that throughout the entire recorded history, we always fought invaders and defeated them. This is perhaps the biggest reason to believe that Pashtuns remained pure for a very long time. Again...these are simply considerations to consider when focusing on the history of the region (Afghanistan). According to Afghanistan's earliest history (at least 50,000 years ago), the "Aryans" lived in present-day Afghanistan...these Aryans slowly migrated to different parts....some went south towards present-day India and some went west towards present-day Iran. The area was occupied and controlled by the Aryans for a very long time...under different dynasties or ethnic groups that were formed among the Aryans. The last people to control present-day Afghanistan are obviously "Pashtuns". During the long history that Afghanistan has, invaders came from other faraway places and spread their influences in the region...from Greece, India, Arabia, Turkey, China, Britian, Russia and America. []

It now appears to me that Persian speakers think or assume they are the original Aryans, and the rest of the people that are non-Persian speakers living in the region are left overs of those who came to invade the region in the past. There are not many options left to believe....it's either believe that Pashtuns are Aryans or believe that Pashtuns are left over from invaders. Just these 2 options on the table to choose from. Pashtuns obviously did not come down from the sky or walked out of the ocean. The most logical belief is that Pashtuns are clearly Aryans that lived in the region for at least 50,000 years.

We know very well that as time passes every once and then...people naturally divide...introduce new culture, new language, new religion, new governance, new way of living, new way of thinking, and etc. That's just the way GOD created everything. At one time there was no such thing as English language...however...it is now a world wide language. We are all communicating through this English language...I guess because it is unique or perhaps easy to understand. I fully understand that there Persian language, and that it has a history in Afghanistan. I am also aware there are many many dialects of Persian language. Pashto is another great language and there is no idea when Persian or Pashto really began, and I don't think it is that important to know. Perhaps they both started slowly...from other languages. Since 1940s...Afghanistan's official language was ONLY Pashto. However, in 2004 the Afghan government decided to make "Pashto" and "Dari" both the official languages of their country. If Dari is a language that comes from Persian language...then it is no longer Persian language. The same way Persian language at one point came from some other one. Tajik wants to preserve Persian language because I guess he is against the people of Afghanistan for giving their language a different name to it...that is his own POV. It does not make Afghanistan's Dari language a Persian language because Afghan government says so. The argument must first be with Afghan government before changes take effect.

About me getting confused with 18th century....not the case. When you talk about modern era....you can't place centuries any longer...you must be more specific. You must at least indicate early century, mid century or in the end of the century. A century is 100 years, which is very long time. If you state that the name "Afghanistan" was pronounced by its name since 18th century...it leaves most people to believe as of 1700s...some would think maybe in the 1750s...while only few would assume since the late 1700s. According to the Pashtuns...they all claim that present-day Afghanistan was called "land of the Afghans" for ages. However, since they don't speak English or Persian language...they had different names for it, which basically means the same as Afghanistan, Afghanland or land of the Afghans. In other words...it was no man's land. The same way like NWFP (North West Frontier Province and FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area) of present-day Pakistan. The Pashtun areas of present-day Afghanistan and Pakistan were not part of Khorassan. This includes Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul, Jalalabad, NWFP and FATA. Khorassan was the place where ONLY those that spoke Persian language.

I my self do not follow poetry, and I don't believe in poetry. I only believe history from historians, those who are historians by profession. Poetry is poetry...while history is history. My message to the Afghan editors (Ariana and Tajik)...do not try putting your own feelings, beliefs or views in Afghanistan's article because eventually you will lose credibility. We must only put actuall facts only. This is what I'm trying to do. Ariana stated that a man from Kabul crowned Ahmad Shah Baba in Kandahar. I want to say to Ariana that if you think you know so much...please explain who that man was and how did he end up living in Kandahar if he was from Kabul. By the way, Ahmad Shah did not even capture Kabul at that time when he was becoming crowned in 1747. According to what everyone in Kandahar believe is that the man was a local "Sayed" (decendent of prophet Mohammad)...he was well known by everyone in Kandahar. Also like to mention that Kandahar is very a small place where almost everyone know one another. It always has been this way. NisarKand 12:58, 19 October 2006


 * You seem to be reflecting your own feelings without any scientific or historic reasons. I am sorry, I did not have enough time to read completely what you wrote so long without any solid arguement. But by paying a glance on it, here I am only pointing VERY BRIEFLY out your incorrect claims:


 * 1. Pashtuns are from the Aryan race. Let me correct you that Aryan tribes came from the north of Amy Darya after 3,000 BC and according to other sources between 2000 BC and 1800 BC; AND NOT 50000 ago. 50,000 years ago, only the human tribes used to live in Mountain caves in today's Afghan regions, but they were not Aryans. So Pashtuns are also the descendents of Aryan Race. But this tribe of Aryans (Pashtuns) were only limited to the Northern areas of Sindh river and around the Sulaiman Koh mountains. They were called "awghan" by Persians (refer to Shahnama). Awghans used to live on mountains, but were known for their bravery and strictness. Pashtuns/ Awghans converted to Islam by Subuktageen, father of Shah Mahmood Ghaznavi, when he conquered the Khorasani regions. You can refer to "Tareekh-e Baihaqee", Abul Fazl Baihaqee has clearly written it. So the people who ruled on the Khorasani regions until the 17th century were Dari-speaking Persians (Tajiks or Persians) and Turkish. I am not trying to show any hatred against any ethnic, nor I am trying to insert my own point of views, but I am only writing the truth.


 * Since 1940s...Afghanistan's official language was ONLY Pashto. This is a false and ridiculous claim. Can you provide me any source for it? You can however show me any Afghan consitution..... Pashto became the official language of Afghanistan in 1929. Before the 1929, the only official language was Dari. Ahmad Shah Baba, Timur Shah and other Durranis and Sadwazayees have a complete poetry Diwan in Dari language. The official language since Ahmad Shah Baba's government was Dari. And Pashto became the second official language in 1929, a short while late the Pakhto Tolena was created.


 * I do not have any prejudice against our Pashtoon brothers. Today we are all called as Afghan Nationals. And I never intend to write incorrectly the factual and historical facts about Afghanistan, I only write what was and what is the truth. I never insert my own feelings and POVs. I do not consider myself a Tajik while writing in Wikipedia, but an independant user. And don't think that I am agree with Tajik and that I am in favour of his Persian/Iranian POVs. I hope you will also stop pushing your pro-Pashtoon POVs, calling Afghanistan as Pashtunistan, a stupid claim. Manena! Ariana310 11:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Ariana310 If you haven't read what I wrote in my previous post then that's your first mistake. First of all...I was trying to shorten the 50,000 years old history...I did not say I 100% claim that those people living in Afghan region 50,000 years ago were called Aryans...that's something we don't have any information on. I am telling you there are signs that at least 50,000 years ago people in Afghanistan lived....it's not important if they lived in the north, south, east or west...as long as they lived in Afghanistan. There is little information on those folks. However, an excavation was performed in 1960s or 70s, finding objects and clues indicating that there were people living in the region at least 50,000 years ago. Perhaps they were cavemen or they were the forefathers of the people that are living in present-day Afghanistan...as we don't know much about them for now. By the way...it's "Indus River" you're refering to and not Sindh River. Then you claim that Persians gave Pashtuns the name "Awghan"...before saying that...you must have clear and convincing evidence. You should not consider Pashtuns as mountain people....because they don't live on mountains. If you look at all the Pashtun areas....it's open plains, flat land and very little mountains. It is the Tajiks that live on mountains. Therefore, Pashtuns cannot be considered as those that live on mountains because they don't. Neither is Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul, Jalabad or the Pashtuns areas in Pakistan mountains. I've been to those places many times by road.

Why did you brought Islam into this debate...I did not mention anything about Islam in my previous post. By the way my great great grandfathers introduced Islam to the Persians and converted the Persians from their religion to Islam. So I am Arab decendent from my father's side...just so you know. According to history...Islam made its way into Afghanistan mainly by Arabs that sailed in ships crossing the Persian Gulf...landing in present-day Karachi City, Balochistan, Pakistan, and some landing in present-day southern Iran. While another front was crossing from present-day Iraq to Iran and then into Afghanistan. Islam was first rejected by the Pashtuns and the Arabs were defeated. After holding loya jirgas (peaceful meetings) many years later, between Arabs and Pashtuns, Islam was finally accepted by the Pashtuns as their official religion. However, the Persians and Hindus were forcefully converted by the Arabs. Another point I'd like to add is that Tajik and Persian is modern names...made up recently. In the past there were no such people as "Persians"...especially "Tajik". Persian is a western given name. I'm not sure but I think Persians were called "Parsibans" (Parsi speakers). To make me understand...what did Persians in the past call one another...according their to pronounciation?

About Pashto being the ONLY official language since 1940s....notice I did not mention that it started in 1940s. I said since 1940s...which means at least since 1940s. Or I can say that before 2004...Pashto was the official language of Afghanistan, while Dari was the second language. However, as of 2004 until now...both are official languages of the country. So I was not wrong and I did not make a false or ridiculous claim. Read the following....

"In 1936, as part of Zahir Shah's family the Musahiban's attempt to strengthen the national ideology, Pashto was recognized as the official language. During King Amanullah's reign (1919-1929) both Pashto and Dari (Afghan Persian) were considered official languages" (Zulfacar, Page 14).

The government decided to replace the language of instructions, Dari, with only Pashtu in an attempt to bolster the state's claim on Pashtunistan, currently Pakistan's Northwestern Frontier Province.

Therefore, I am correct when I said that since 1940s Pashto was the ONLY official language. By the way...you may do your own search and find out all this. I am also not prejudice against anyone. Everyone born in Afghanistan is considered an Afghan national or Afghan native. However, I only see non-Pashtuns from Afghanistan using Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara and other names before Afghan. The only reason I decided to edit Afghanistan's article was because there was no Pashtun mentioned or very little mentioned. So I decided to explain a little about Pashtun history. According to Pashtuns....Pashto language existed at least 2,500 years ago. So don't mind me share information about Pashtuns and their history...as you may explain about your people's history...but I only like to see everything from well known sources and not from people who write poetry. NisarKand 03:11, 20 October 2006

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

@ NisarKand
... what's wrong with you? You are flooding the article with wrong information and POV. It is very obviousl that you are pushing for an extreme anti-Persian and anti-Tajik POV.

Most of your claims, like saying that "Dari and Persian are different languages" or labeling Farhad Darya as a Pashtun or Pashtun nationalists are totally hillarious.

You are also falsefying the history part. Your edits totally contradict the Indo-Iranians article, or ANY other sourced article about this region. Your claim that "there have never been Persians in Afghanistan" is totally stupid! Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word Tajik, the meaning of Kizilbash, or the meaning of Farsiwan. Maybe you should look up the article Ghurids or Samanids.

Please stop destrying this article with your stupid POV.

Tājik 20:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with me...I am putting 100% facts in Afghanistan's article. I am not racist in any sense, Persians are simply people that speak the Persian language. Tajiks are people that you don't know, while I know more about them. You are confusing everyone that read Afghanistan's article by inserting Persian this Persian that. The fact is that Aryans first settled in Afghanistan and then moved to Iran's and India's regions. Afghanistan was called "Aryana" (Land of the Aryans). Dari and Persian are 2 different languages in the eyes of the world...especially in the eyes of Afghans. I don't need to look up...I am already know. Only Iranians assume or think they are the true Aryans...this is 1000% false. Afghanistan was always the center of Aryans....while Iran was part of it...the same way India was part of it. Remember the name "Iran" was made up Persians very recently....before that...there was NO IRAN. Again..."Persian" simply means anyone that speaks any branch of the Persian language. You assume Persian only means Aryan....this is totally false. Aryans were those that lived in Afghanistan 1,000s of years ago...eventually they broke down to many different tribes or people. Tajik is someone that has Turkish father and Persian mother...or sometimes vice versa. I am making it clear so English people can clearly understand all this...I am not destroying Afghan article...it is you who are doing it, and I suggest you stop. Pashtuns...also known as Afghans...are Aryans...they've been living in Afghanistan for ages and they ruled Afghanistan since 1747 and are still ruling it. Learn to live with it...if not...then take a hike to Tajikistan or Iran.


 * OMG, NisarKand ... That's racist BS! Sorry, but I am out of this discussion. You are certainly not the right Person to talk to ... you are obsessed with this "Aryan this, Aryan that" BS ... That's not the way to write a good encyclopaedic article. I am going to revert everyone of your POV edits. Case closed! Tājik 21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * @ User:NisarKand: Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, your claims are baseless, ludicrous, and unfounded. Not to mentoin your obvious bias and POV. You also dont seem to know as much as your proclaim, becuase a lot of what you say contradicts scholarly information.Khosrow II 22:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was neutral with the NisarKand and Tajik edit war, but having read the last few edit summaries, NisarKand needs to review Ownership of articles. When multiple knowledgable people disagree with you then you should examine your position not dismissed them with rude remarks. The only two options are having (a) multiple points of view or (b) coming to a consensus. And with your comments you are not accomplishing either. MarsRover 23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the article has read for a long time like it is the history of eastern Persia, rather than the history of Afghanistan. Part of the problem is that there is a lot of Persian literature about the history of the western part of Afghanistan written by Persians and translated into English and then put into the basic derivative sources that most English-speaking peoples use for the history of Afghanistan.  There are also Arab histories of the area, although fewer, that also tend to reflect Afghanistan as eastern Persia.  Histories translated from the Hindi, from Urdu, and from Pashtu (very few of the latter) can read quite a bit differently, although they tend to have large agreements with each other.  But only the Pashtu sources, of these, are strictly about Afghanistan, rather than about the source of various invading empires.


 * However, Afghanistan the political entity that exists today is not simply greater Persia. It is a country in its own right, and this is what the article is about: the modern political entity known as Afghanistan.


 * In spite of their differences, they two, Tajik and NasarKhan, have actually made a few improvements in the article and come to agreement about a number of things, although one party has given up more ground than the other. The article requires a drastic copyedit, and is now being changed so often that there is no point in doing that.  I don't know what should be done, but both parties seem to be guilty of Ownership of articles issues, and the continual changing is not of benefit to the article or Wikipedia.


 * Nonetheless, the article is about Afghanistan, not about eastern Persia, and many of NasarKhan's changes are attempting to reflect that, and many of his changes and comments are correct, although his manner of defending his changes is not selling his points.


 * I don't know what to do, but this edit war is highly disruptive right now and accomplishing very little. KP Botany 23:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * KP Botany, what you miss is that before 1747 (or the 1850s), Afghanistan WAS Eastern Persia. What NisarKand is trying to do is to claim "Afghanistan" as an "always-existing nation", which is totally wrong. Just take a look at the history of the article and his recent edits. He is even claiming that "there have never been any Persians in Afghanistan" and that they were "foreign invaders who were defeated every time" ... this is pure nonsense, and even you should know that. Honestly, I have no idea why you are supporting him. Just take a look at the article Afghanistan in the Encyclopaedia Iranica or Encyclopaedia of Islam (I am talking about the 2006 Online Version!) - it'S always the same: Afghanistan's history starts in in the 19th century, strongly linked to the Pashtun independence-movements of the late 17th and early 18th century. Everything that comes BEFORE that is NOT the history of the modern nation "Afghanistan" (= "Land of Pashtuns", STRONGLY tied to the national history of the Pashtuns) but the overall history of Eastern Persia and southern Central Asia.
 * This is what I want to put into the article: telling the readers that Afghanistan as a nation does NOT have "5,000 years of history" as Hamid Karzai claimed many times in TV, but - as a modern nation - roughly 250 years.
 * Just compare this to Pakistan - of course, the history of the region nowadayws known as "Pakistan" is continuation of thousends of years of human history, staring in the Indus Valley Civilization - but that history is shared with modern India. In fact, Pakistan's history is THE SAME as India's history, up to 1947 - HERE begins the independent history of MODERN Pakistan. Everything BEFORE 1947 is known as History of India.
 * That's exactly the same with Afghanistan! What User:NisarKand is trying to propagate as "unique Pashtun history" is actualy the shared history of Greater Iran (<--- this is the scholarly term, used by leading experts such as Richard Nelson Frye!), and since modern Iran - as a nation - is the direct continuation of the ancient Persian Empire, the history of the Hindu Kush BEFORE 1919 (1850s, 1748) is (technically) the History of Persia and NOT the history of Afghanistan.
 * Tājik 23:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am being accused of POVs...why aren't you able to point out the exact specific POV?...is this this hard for you to do? Everything I added is 100% verifiable through the most trusted sources. Again, accusation is the most simple thing to do...while proving it is the hardest. I see under "NAME" it states that before the 18th century, Afghanistan was always a province of Iran....let me first laugh out loud...hahahahahahahahaha....can anyone show any evidence or proof to this??? It is these types of POVs that are present in many places in the article on Afghanistan, which all must be deleted. As I said earlier, the Aryans landed in Afghanistan first...then moved west towards Iran and south towards India. Don't say there was no Afghanistan, Iran or India....I am clearly refering to the geographic locations on earth, in which we identify the areas with these modern names. Type this on your search engine...Excavation of prehistoric sites suggests that early humans lived in Afghanistan at least 50,000 years ago.....and see how many hits you get.

From my end...I am not pushing for racism in this debate. Notice I purposly removed "Pashtun" from many names, as this is optional and creates further confusion. EXAMPLE: Farhad Darya's father is Pashtun...and in order for someone to be considered a Pashtun...their dad must be Pashtun....according to the rules of Pashtuns. Yet, Tajik clearly stated that Farhad Darya is not Pashtun and said this is POV. The best way to solve the problem between me and Tajik is to use the United States as an example. We all know that British were the first people that settled in USA...are these British people, who first settled in USA in 1600s, still considered or called British people? or are they now characterized specifically as the "Americans" or the American people? Why are they now called Americans instead of British? NisarKand 05:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Tajik is now trying say that US State Department on Afghanistan is wrong..... is wrong....and all other western sources who keeps records on Afghanistan (see also ) is wrong....and that Iranica (Iranian book) and Islamic sources are correct....hahahahahahahahahaha....may I remind you that USA has one of the best schools in the world. And that Iran or other Islamic nations do not have the best schools in the world...this is a fact. To Tajik, this is also a POV. NOTICE: he also accused President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, being incorrect and wrong. This Tajik fellow is something else...don't know what to make of her or him. NisarKand 05:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Most trusted sources"?! What are you talking about?! You have not provided ANY reliable sources! Let's take a look at the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
 * "... The modern boundaries of Afghanistan were established in the late 19th century in the context of a rivalry between imperial Britain and tsarist Russia that Rudyard Kipling termed the “Great Game.” ..."
 * A quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam (which is an authoritative scholarly source) is given in the article.
 * You are IGNORING major sources and try to disprove them with unimportant thrid-class sources from google.
 * This is not the way to write an encyclopedic article.
 * Let's assume that in 200 years from now, Afghanistan has become a province of China ... would that make Farhad Darya a "Chinese"?!" Would that make Hamid Karzai a "Chinese"?! Of course not! The same goes to Afghanistan and Afghans (=Pashtuns). Before 1748, Pashtuns had no importance in that region. They did have some small kingdoms in India (see Lodhi or Sher Shah Suri), but they did not rule region. Even the Mughal Emperor Babur wrote in his memoires:
 * "... In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor and Gebrek.  To the south is Afghanistān . There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni. ..."
 * 500 years ago, Kabul was not regarded part of Afghanistan (="Land of Pashtuns"), because "Afghanistan" was the name of the Pashtun tribal homelands. That'S why modern Afghanistan is strongly linked with Pashtun history, but NOT with the history of the region BEFORE 1748.
 * Why can't you just underatnd that?! You do not have ANY sources! Besides that, you have just broken the 3RR!
 * PS: only the fact that you call the famous Encyclopaedia Iranica an "Iranian book" (contradicting notable scholars around the world: ; in fact, only a tiny minority of the 400+ authors of the EI are Iranian nationals), totally disqualifies you from being taken serious (and everyone else who supports you). This clearly proves that you are an amateur whose only object is to push for a nationalist and wrong POV.
 * Tājik 00:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NisarKand please stop vandalising the article. You cannot avoid mentioning an important historical aspect about Afghanistan: "Khorasan was the old name for the current Afghan territories". I had already written in response to one of your baseless and ridiculous claims, a brief statement about this issue. And you could NOT reject my statements . Here I re-post it:

The current Afghan territories were always known as "Khorasan". Even during the government of Ahmad Shah Baba, it was called Khorasan. The name "Afghanistan" was first used in a treaty between Shah Shuja, British empire and Ranjeet Singh in 1838 in Lahore (source The reality of Political situation of Afghanistan, by Mohammad Akbar Shormach (an Afghan national)). Here are some other clues:

* Abdullah Khan Popalzayee uses the word Khorasan when Ahmad Shah Abdali created the new city of Kandahar (of that time):

دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد، جمال ملک خراسان شد این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد

* Abdul Rahi Hotak, a Pashtun poet also uses the word Khorasan:

بیا یی به موند هیح راحت له خواشینه

چه داخوار رحیم راووت له خراسانه

دخراسان دسحر باده په جانان وایه په پردیسو سلامونه

پر هندوستان می گل کرلی پر خراسان ولاره یم بوی یی راخینه

* Gul Mohammad uses the same word for Abdul-Rahman Khan:

په زمین دخراسان کشی پیدا کری رب سلطان دی دده نوم په تمام جهان کشی خپورته هر چاته عیان دی

* In 1284, the same word used in one of the poems: دوفوج مشرق ومغرب زهم مفصل شد امیر ملک خراسان محمد افضل شد * Other Persian-speaking or Dari-speaking poets who lived in India always used the word Khorasan for this territory. For example Zeb-un-Nissa Makhfi (1638-1702), a famous poet and daughter of Awrangzeb Moghul, has used several times this word:

باز دلم سوی خراسان رفته است رشته کفر بریدست به ایمان رفته است

ز روی لطف به تقصیر من قلم درکش که باتو هست مرا نسبت خراسانی

تواز ملک خراسانی به اصطبل وطن سازی به خواب شد اگر رنج و غم هندوستان بینی

دل آشفته مخفی به فن خود ارسطویی است به هند افتاده است اما خراسان است یونانش

بوعلی روزگارم از خراسان آمده از پی اعزاز بردرگاه سلطان آمده

And several other examples, especially in the old books such as Tarikh-e Baihaqee, Hudoodul Alame menal Mashreq menal Maghreb, Tarikh-e mallahand, etc. But I only gave examples of 17th century onwards. So the claim of User:NisarKand who says the current Afghan territory was known as Afghanistan or should be called Afghanistan, is obviously ridiculous. Although the word "afghan" or awghan or apagan, according to some sources, is a very old term, but it cannot be a reason to call the current Afghan territories as Afghanistan before the 18th century, because before the 18th century "afghan" or "afghanistan" was never used for a territory or for other people other than Pashtuns. Calling Ghaznavids, Timurids, Ghorids and others as Afghans, is totally a false and stupid claim. (And of course, we cannot call them Iranians either. They were Aryans by race or civilisation but not by nationality referring them to the contemporary Iran. We can only say that they ruled on Khorasan, on the current Afghan territories) Before the 19th or 18th century, the word "Afghan" was never used for any Nationality, only the name of an ethnic group who lived ONLY in the north of Sindh river in the south-eastern Afghanistan. While only after the 19th century, "afghan" was referred as a Nationality.

So please do not delete that point in the Name section. You are obliged to respect the regulations of wikipedia. Thank you Ariana310 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NisarKand vs. User:Tajik
Let's all relax and settle this issue with manners...no name calling please. As I never called anyone names, also I thank those that support me. So let's begin by concentrating on the "NAME", which comes after the introduction.

Name - The name Afghānistān literally translates to Land of the Afghans. Its modern usage derives from the word Afghan. The Pashtuns began using the term Afghan as a name for themselves from the Islamic period onwards. According to W.K. Frazier Tyler, M.C. Gillet and several other scholars, "The word Afghan first appears in history in the Hudud-al-Alam in 982 AD." '''The last part of the name Afghānistān (-istān) originates from the Persian word stān (country or land). The English word Afghanland that appeared in various treaties between Qajar Dynasty and the United Kingdom dealing with the lands between Iran and British Raj inhabited by Pashtun tribes (modern Southeastern Afghanistan) was adopted by Afghan officials and became Afghanistan.'''

However, Afghanistan was pronounced by its current name in 18th century when Ahmad Shah Durrani formed the new government based on Pashtun rule, and was officially named as Afghanistan during the ruling of Abdur Rahman Khan. Before the 18th century, the region of present-day Afghanistan was known as a province of Greater Iran called Khorasan.

The Encyclopaedia of Islam states: '''Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured: previously various districts bore distinct apellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghans”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan.'''

Everything darkened, except the word "NAME", is disputed by me (NisarKand)...

First...The last part of the name Afghānistān (-istān) originates from the Persian word stān (country or land). Who says this??? and where is the evidence to back this claim???

Next...The English word Afghanland that appeared in various treaties between Qajar Dynasty and the United Kingdom (in 1800's) dealing with the lands between Iran and British Raj inhabited by Pashtun tribes (modern Southeastern Afghanistan) was adopted by Afghan officials and became Afghanistan. <-refering to 19th century

This is totally false...because the word or name "Afghanistan" (English: Afghanland) appeared in the memoirs of Emperor Babur, Dated: 1525 A.D. *''"...In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor and Gebrek.  To the south is Afghanistān . There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni. ..."''

Next...Before the 18th century, the region of present-day Afghanistan was known as a province of Greater Iran called Khorasan.

Where is proof to this??? I asked for proof to this claim many times but never was provided with any. If there was Afghanistan (Pashtun areas) in the year 1525...how was it possible to be called Khorassan at the same time? I've done extensive research and read all historical reports on Afghanistan but did not came across any statement indicating that before 18th century, the region of present-day Afghanistan was known as a province of Greater Iran called Khorasan. I believe from 16th century to 18th century....Afghanistan was divided into many parts. It's certain that Pashtun lands to the south was called Afghanistan...Kandahar province was independent and not part of Khorassan...Kabul was independent and not called Khorassan....Balkh was independent and not part of Khorassan. Therefore, under no circumstance should someone claim that all these areas were a province of Greater Iran called Khorasan...because such claim is false.

Finally, the last argument involves "Encyclopaedia of Islam", which states: Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured:...

Historical record shows that Pashtuns called themselves "Afghans" and their land "Afghanistan" from at least 1525 and onwards (see Hudud-al-Alam and Memoirs of Babur). Now, why on earth would the Encylopaedia of Islam state that "Afghanistan" borne the name since the middle of the 18th century??? I strongly believe that the Encyclodedia of Islam being incorrect, it erred by stating the 18th century, which should be any date on or before 1525.

I made my argument clear, and I request for everything that I darkened obove be removed, deleted or rewritten with the truth. NisarKand 09:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One last thing to mention...I've checked on Greater Khorasan's article and noticed that it initially was written in 2005: Greater Khorasan included parts which are today in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Some of the main historical cities of Persia are located in the older Khorasan: Nishapur (now in Iran), Merv and Sanjan (now in Turkmenistan), Samarqand and Bukhara (both now in Uzbekistan, Herat and Balkh (both now in Afghanistan). This was subsequently altered over the year and now reads like this: Greater Khorasan is a modern term for eastern territories of ancient Persia. The very term khorasan means east in Middle Persian, or more exactly where sun comes from or land of sunrise. Greater Khorasan included territories that presently are part of Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan Greater Khorasan contained mostly Herat, Balkh, Kabul and Ghazni (now in Afghanistan), Nishapur, Tus and Sistan (now in Iran), Merv and Sanjan (now in Turkmenistan), Samarqand and Bukhara (both now in Uzbekistan) as well as the Bactrian regions (now in Afghanistan and Tajikistan).

It means someone decided to add more provinces of Afghanistan...to make it appear as Khorasan was much more bigger than originally imagined. I find all this very strange NisarKand 17:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are disputing the Encyclopaedia of Islam, one of the most powerful and most reliable sources in the field of oriental stuies. Let me tell you just one thing: YOU are in NO POSITION to dispute the authrty or reliability of te Encyclopaedia of Islam. CASE CLOSED!
 * The meaning of "-stan" is well known. Your dispute only proves your POV-motivations.
 * What you simply do not understand is that the modern nation "Afghanistan" is NOT THE SAME as the "historical homelands of the Pashtuns". Only the southern and eastern parts of modern Afghanistan - especially the rural areas - are the historical homelands of the Pashtuns, and thus the "historical Afghanistan". When Babur said "Afghanistan", he was NOT talking about the modern nation Afghanistan. He did not even consider Kabul (historically a Tajik-dominated city) part of what he called "Afghanistan" (meaning "land of Pashtuns"). All the rest of modern Afghanistan that was NOT part of the historical "Afghanistan" was considered "Khorasan". This is FACT and can be supported by MAJOR sources. There is not a single source or reference that uses the term "Afghanistan" for a wider region beyond the historical Pashtun areas. Neither Herat, nor Kabul, Balkh, Ghor, not even Gardez or Ghazni were part of "Afghanistan", because these cities and regions are NOT historical homelands of Pashtuns.
 * Once again, you are being caught using wrong sources and falsefying facts. You talk about the Hudud-al-Alam while you provide a link to the Baburnama - two absolutely different works, written in different languages, by different people, in different centuries. But while we are at it: can you show me the exact sentence where the Hudud-al-Alam (written in 982) where it says that "Afghans called their nation Afghanistan"?!
 * Tājik 16:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice that you have "ZERO" ansewers or evidence to show that before 18th century Afghanistan was a province of Greater Iran called Khorasan...I caught you in a Great Lie that you intented to spread to the world. Now you are writing silly junk...just to show that you are still there. First...go check map of Pashtun land...and see that Kabul, Ghazni, Kandahar, Jalalabad are all part of Pashtuns. It does not matter if Kabul or other cities were part of Pashtuns homeland or not...that has nothing to do with my dispute. Your claim is that Afghanistan as a whole was part of Iran....this is 100% false and you know it. I read the entire Babur memoirs...and by reading it....I clearly have a picture of what Afghanistan was in 1525. Each area (present day provinces) were seperate countries. Khorasan was one of them, a place in the North-West of Afghanistan. Only Herat city of Afghanistan was part of Khorasan at that time and before the 18th century...NOT AFGHANISTAN as you claim. That is a total lie from your side. I never said in Hudud-al-alam there was written "Afghanistan"....only the word "Afghan" is SUPPOSE to be written in Hudud-al-alam, and that has nothing to do with my dispute. I now made my case clear for everyone...so now I will start deleting the PROVEN FALSE LIES ABOUT AFGHANISTAN. I should have no more complaints from anyone. NisarKand 03:35, 26 October 2006


 * What the hell are you talking about, NisarKand?! YOU are the one who has not presented a SINGLE source. You always claim that your claims are "100% facts" ... WHERE are your sources?!
 * And now to Khorasan:
 * "... Among the languages of the people of Khorasan, the language of the people of Balkh is predominant ..." (Ibn al-Muqaffa in ''"Ebn al-Nadim, ed. Tajaddod, p. 15; Khwarazm, Mafatih al-olum, pp. 116-17; Hamza Esfahani, pp. 67-68; Yaqut, Boldan IV, p. 846)
 * This is one of the oldest Islamic references to Khorasan, and ibn al-Muqaffa makes clear that Balkh was part of Khorasan. That means that the borders of Khorasan went as far as Balkh. And since medieval Balkh was much larger than the present province in Afghanistan (it included large areas in Transoxandia), all of the region was Khorasan.
 * Now, let's take a look at the time of Abbasid rule in Iran:
 * [[Image:Abbasid Provinces during the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid.JPG|left|300px|Khorasan during the caliphate of [[Harun al-Rashid]]]]
 * Do you see the map?! MOST of Afghanistan was part of Khorasan! Only small regions in the south, for example Kandahar, have never been part of Khorasan. Even Ma Wara'un-Nahr was considered a part of Khorasan!
 * What the hell is your problem, man?!
 * Tājik 22:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Before I begin...this map clearly supports me and my argument, and also remember that the argument is over administration of land. Not language, culture or influences of people.

First...this map is dated from the year 786 A.D. to 809 A.D. (8th and 9th century), which is apporixmately 1,000 years before 18th century. Secondly, the map clearly showes that Kandahar province, Ghazani province, Kabul province, Nangahar province and other areas inhabited by Pashtuns WERE NOT part of Khorasan. All these provinces I mentioned are the major areas that make up today's Afghanistan. I'm sure you can locate exactly where Ghazni province and Nangarhar province are by looking at this map? Ghazni is between Kandahar and Kabul, while Nangarhar is more to the east of Kabul. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out. [NOTE: in the past... Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul and Nangarhar were much bigger than today's sizes...there were no 34 provinces in Afghanistan's area, as they are now.]

On the other hand, ONLY Herat province and Balkh province were part of Khorasan as shown in this map dated 786-809 A.D. This means that somewhere between the year 809 A.D. and 1525 A.D., Balkh became independent and ruled by Uzbeks or others, ending the Persian rule from Khorasan. It is pure nonsense to believe that Afghanistan was part of Khorasan or a province of Khorasan before 18th century, because it wasn't.

You make Balkh and Herat appear as if they are more important than Kabul, Ghazni, Kandahar, Nangarhar and all other areas of the Pashtuns. This is your problem, and you need to realize that Herat and Balkh are not much important cities as compare to Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad, Ghazni and other Pashtun areas. Majority of the population in Afghanistan are in these Pashtun areas. Like I said before, Kabul sits inside the land of the Pashtuns...go check this on map of ethnics in Afghanistan. You need to accept certain things in life, without getting angry over it, and that is Afghanistan WAS NOT province of Khorasan. However, I agree that Herat was part of Khorasan for a very long until 1747 when Afghanistan was formed as a new empire in the region. These are facts and that's exactly what happend. I am sure that perhaps the Persians or Iranians never wanted to recognize Afghanistan...the same way Iran does not recognize Israel. This does not mean Afghanistan did not get created in 1747 or Israel never got created in 1948....because majority of the nations on earth agree that they both did. NisarKand 07:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, you are talking pure nonsense, NisarKand. As always, you are pushing for an extreme Pashtun-nationalist POV, and as always you have no proofs for your rediculous claims.
 * You minimize modern Afghanistan only to eastern provinces (=Pashtun provinces), which - compared to other provinces - are the most unimportant.
 * You claim that "Kabul was part of Pashtun lands", although even Babur wrote in his memoires that Kabul was NOT part of the Pashtun lands. Until today, Kabul is a city dominated by Persian-speakers. The Pashto centers are only Kandahar and Peshawar.
 * Here is a map of Persia in 1592: As you can see, the entire region today known as "Afghanistan" was part of Persia. And even short time before the creation of Afghanistan, the entire region - including Kandahar and other Pashtuns areas, were parts of Persia.
 * What you fail to understand is that modern nation-states did not exist before the 18th century. While terms like "Persia" and "Khorasan" are rather geographical and/or cultural expressions, the term "Afghanistan" is purely political. It has NO historical or geographical base, and it is NOT the name given to a "geographical area", as you claim. It is the name given to a POLITICAL area with fix borders.


 * Pashto is still - after 250 years of domination, massacres ainst Non-Pashtuns, and forceful resettlement of Non-Pashto-speakers - still a language limitted to he south and east.
 * Kabul has NEVER been part of "Pashtun lands", as you claim ... in fat, like always, you have no proof for that. And Gardez and Ghazni are STILL Persian-speaking cities, and have always been Persian-speaking cites. In fact, Ghazni used to be the campital of Khorasan during Ghaznawid rule.
 * As for Gardez, this is what the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica says:
 * "... Gardēz is a city belonging to a network of old isolated Tājīk settlements in southern Afghanistan that are remnants of a time when Pashto had not yet reached the area. ..." Daniel Balland, "Gardēz", in Encyclopaedia Iranica (in regard of the population of Gardēz: with reference to Wiebe, "Strukturwandlungen afghanischer Mittelpunktsiedlungen unter dem Einfluss ausländischer Infrastrukturprojekte", Germany, 1982, p. 76), Online Edition
 * It'S clear that Pashto and Pashtuns a apeople are not native to Gardez or Gaznai, and that thy moved from the south (=Kandhar and/or Peshawar) to the north All of your claims are totally baseess and you have o reliable sourcesfor your claims.
 * Tājik 09:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I'm confused
Afghanistan is not the homeland of Pashtuns! It's called Afghanistan, not Pashtunistan! Afghanistan means land of the Afghans (Tâjiks, Hazara, etc.). Please see Pashtunistan -- Ķĩřβȳ ♥  Ťįɱé  Ø  09:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The historical meaning of the name "Afghan" is "Pashtun", and thus, in historical documents (such as the Baburnama) it is a reference to the Pashtuns and "Afghanistan" a reference to Pashtun homelands (mostly what is now the NWFP in Pakistan). The meaning of the word has changed in the past century, especially after the constitution of 1964 which declared all citizens of Afghanistan "Afghans".
 * One could compare it to the word "Deutsch" in the German language. Originally (and still popularly), the term "Deutsch" means "ethnic German". The German government, however, recongnizes all citizens of Germany as "deutsch", meaning "German". Many non-ethnic German citizens today are officially recognized as "Germans". Historical documents, however, speak of ethnic Germans when refering to "Germans" and not to naturalized Turks or Italians.
 * That's why the term "Afghan" in historial documents should be understood as "Pashtun". And when the term "Afghanistan" was chosen as name for that country by the British ("Afghanistan" as a modern political term emerged during the so-called Great Game), they mistakenly believed that the entire kingdom ruled by the Barakzai Dynasty was a "Pashtun land". That's why British documents of the 18th century constantly used the terms "Afghan land" or "Afghanistan" for the whole region. It was not the official name of the kingdom. It became the official name of the country during the reign of Amir Abdul Rahman Khan.
 * Up to the 20th century (and in some cases up to present-day), the normal people called the region by its historical name "Khorasan" Afghanistan's most famous contemporary poet, Khalilollah Khalili, used "Khorasan" instead of "Afghanistan" in many of his poems. The most famous being "Hero of Khorasan", dedicated to Amir Habibullah Kalakani.
 * Tājik 17:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

@ NisarKand
You say that the Encyclopaedia of Islam contradicts Babur ... This clearly proves once again that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you lack the ability to understand complex writings.

Just take a look at the underlined text:


 * Babur says: "... In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). [...]  To the south is Afghanistān  ..."
 * Encyclopaedia of Islam says: "... Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured: previously various districts bore distinct apellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghans”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan . ..."

WHERE does the Encyclopaedia of Islam contradict Babur?!

You simply fail to understand that with "Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century" the EI is refering to the MODERN NATION Afghanistan (created in 1748) while Babur is talking about the original Pashtun homelands.

Please stop flooding the article with nonsense.

Besides that, saying that a major and authoritative source X contradics source Y is POV. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to judge other encyclopaedias!

Tājik 20:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:NisarKand please stop vandalising the article. You cannot avoid mentioning an important historical aspect about Afghanistan: "Khorasan was the old name for the current Afghan territories". I had already written in response to one of your baseless and ridiculous claims, a brief statement about this issue. And you could NOT reject my statements . Here I re-post it:

The current Afghan territories were always known as "Khorasan". Even during the government of Ahmad Shah Baba, it was called Khorasan. The name "Afghanistan" was first used in a treaty between Shah Shuja, British empire and Ranjeet Singh in 1838 in Lahore (source The reality of Political situation of Afghanistan, by Mohammad Akbar Shormach (an Afghan national)). Here are some other clues:

* Abdullah Khan Popalzayee uses the word Khorasan when Ahmad Shah Abdali created the new city of Kandahar (of that time):

دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد، جمال ملک خراسان شد این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد

* Abdul Rahi Hotak, a Pashtun poet also uses the word Khorasan:

بیا یی به موند هیح راحت له خواشینه

چه داخوار رحیم راووت له خراسانه

دخراسان دسحر باده په جانان وایه په پردیسو سلامونه

پر هندوستان می گل کرلی پر خراسان ولاره یم بوی یی راخینه

* Gul Mohammad uses the same word for Abdul-Rahman Khan:

په زمین دخراسان کشی پیدا کری رب سلطان دی دده نوم په تمام جهان کشی خپورته هر چاته عیان دی

* In 1284, the same word used in one of the poems: دوفوج مشرق ومغرب زهم مفصل شد امیر ملک خراسان محمد افضل شد * Other Persian-speaking or Dari-speaking poets who lived in India always used the word Khorasan for this territory. For example Zeb-un-Nissa Makhfi (1638-1702), a famous poet and daughter of Awrangzeb Moghul, has used several times this word:

باز دلم سوی خراسان رفته است رشته کفر بریدست به ایمان رفته است

ز روی لطف به تقصیر من قلم درکش که باتو هست مرا نسبت خراسانی

تواز ملک خراسانی به اصطبل وطن سازی به خواب شد اگر رنج و غم هندوستان بینی

دل آشفته مخفی به فن خود ارسطویی است به هند افتاده است اما خراسان است یونانش

بوعلی روزگارم از خراسان آمده از پی اعزاز بردرگاه سلطان آمده

And several other examples, especially in the old books such as Tarikh-e Baihaqee, Hudoodul Alame menal Mashreq menal Maghreb, Tarikh-e mallahand, etc. But I only gave examples of 17th century onwards. So the claim of User:NisarKand who says the current Afghan territory was known as Afghanistan or should be called Afghanistan, is obviously ridiculous. Although the word "afghan" or awghan or apagan, according to some sources, is a very old term, but it cannot be a reason to call the current Afghan territories as Afghanistan before the 18th century, because before the 18th century "afghan" or "afghanistan" was never used for a territory or for other people other than Pashtuns. Calling Ghaznavids, Timurids, Ghorids and others as Afghans, is totally a false and stupid claim. (And of course, we cannot call them Iranians either. They were Aryans by race or civilisation but not by nationality referring them to the contemporary Iran. We can only say that they ruled on Khorasan, on the current Afghan territories) Before the 19th or 18th century, the word "Afghan" was never used for any Nationality, only the name of an ethnic group who lived ONLY in the north of Sindh river in the south-eastern Afghanistan. While only after the 19th century, "afghan" was referred as a Nationality.

In plus, Kandahar and Jalalabad were also part of Khorasan. About Kandahar, I already posted the text of Abdullah Khan Popalzayee about the city of Kandahar. As to Jalalabad, it was a city built by Mohammad Akbar Jalaluddin, one of the Kings of Moghul Empire. Please refer to: Mafateh-ul Tawareekh and Mar'aatul Aaalam. Both books were written during the Moghul's Empire.

So please do not delete that point in the Name section. You are obliged to respect the regulations of wikipedia. Thank you Ariana310 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

RESPONDING TO USER:TAJIK BY "WRITING IN BOLD BLACK WORDS" The following is what he wrote: You say that the Encyclopaedia of Islam contradicts Babur ... This clearly proves once again that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you lack the ability to understand complex writings. THAT'S JUST YOUR BASELESS ACCUSATIONS TOWARDS ME...NOTHING MORE

Just take a look at the underlined text:

Babur says: "... In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). [...] To the south is Afghanistān ..." < NOTICE HE DOES NOT MENTION ABOUT "AFGHANISTAN" BEING INHABITED BY PASHTUNS OR ANY MOUNTAIN AREAS NOW WHY DO YOU ADD THE WORDS "INHABITED BY PASHTUNS" OR "MOUNTAIN AREAS"?

Encyclopaedia of Islam says: "... Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured: previously various districts bore distinct apellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghans”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan. ..."

 LETS FOCUS NOW....ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF ISLAM SAYS:"... Afghānistān has borne that name "only" since the middle of the 18th century (1750), when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured

Babur IN THE YEAR 1525 A.D. says: "......In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs......TO THE SOUTH IS AFGHANISTAN......" '''

WHERE does the Encyclopaedia of Islam contradict Babur?!

LOOK ABOVE AND SEE THE CONTRADICTION

You simply fail to understand that with "Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century" the EI is refering to the MODERN NATION Afghanistan (created in 1748) while Babur is talking about the original Pashtun homelands. = AFGHANISTAN IS AFGHANISTAN....WE ALL KNOW AFGHANISTAN MEANS LAND OF THE AFGHANS(PASHTUNS)....THE SAME MEANING GIVEN TO THE 1525 REFERENCE AND THE SAME IN THE MIDDLE OF 18TH CENTURY REFERENCE....THEREFORE, IT IS YOU THAT FAIL TO UNDERSTAND

Please stop flooding the article with nonsense. = IT IS YOU WHO IS FLOODING THE ARTICLE AND TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO MINIMISE PASHTUN'S HISTORY BY SOMEHOW TRYING TO MENTION MORE ABOUT PERSIAN HISTORY INTO AFGHANISTAN'S ARTICLE....AND I'M QUITE SURE BY NOW THAT EVERYONE WHO READS ALL THESE THINGS WE TYPE....THEY LAUGH AT YOU

Besides that, saying that a major and authoritative source X contradics source Y is POV. It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to judge other encyclopaedias! = I AM SIMPLY POINTING OUT A HUGE ERROR, WHICH MUST BE SOMEHOW FIXED OR DELETED FROM AFGHANISTAN'S ARTICLE....BECAUSE THIS IS AFFECTING ME THAT I AM AFGHAN

By the way...I was challenging you earlier in a debate...why you decided to quit on that debate and go back to altering Afgha article? It proves that you have no evidence or proof showing that Afghanistan was province of Khorasan...other than showing me maps that not a person on earth can read. NisarKand 03:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * NisarKand, you deffinitly have some big problems understanding what you read. You did read the extract from the Baburnama, but you have not understood a WORD. Let's take a look at Babur's text ONCE AGAIN (since you seem to have problems to understand):
 * "... In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor and Gebrek. To the south is Afghanistān. There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni. ..."
 * It is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR for every intelligent and educated mind that in here Babur is CLEARLY referring to the Pashtuns when he says "Afghans". He clearly differenciates the "Afghans" from Tajiks (whom he calls Sart), Hazara, Aimak, Hindi, Arab, and Turk.
 * And he CLEARLY differenciates the "Afghan language" (=Pashto language) from Persian, Arabic, Chaghatay Turkic, Mongolian, Pashai, Parachi, and Gebri.
 * In fact, Babur's memoires are the best proof that the ORIGINAL meaning of the word "Afghan" is "Pashtun". And when Babur says "Afghanistan" and places it south of Kabul, it is CLEAR that he is talking about the AFGHAN-speaking (=Pashto-speaking) mountainious region today known as NWFP. Peshawar and the NWFP are the REAL, the ORIGINAL "Afghanistan" - the "Land of Pashtuns". This is the "Afghanistan" of Babur.
 * The term "Afghanistan" was expanded by the later kings of Afghanistan to their entire region, and the term "Afghan" was forced on the population of that kingdom which was Non-Pashtun (=Non-Afghan) in majority.
 * Why can't you understand that simple fact?
 * And the Encyclopaedia of Islam does not make ANY mistakes by saying that the POLITICAL meaning of "Afghanistan" emerged only in the 18th century. Before that, the Afghans (=Pashtuns) as a nation did not have ANY political or historical meaning, except for a few very short-lived kingdoms in India.
 * The EI explains that BEFORE the 18th century the meaning of "Afghanistan" was simply "Land of Afghans" (="Land of Pashtuns") and was limitted to a territory south of Kabul which today belongs to Pakistan!
 * STOP vandalizing the page and deleting AUTHORITATIVE sources!
 * PS: here is a map of Khorasan during Samanid rule:
 * Tājik 22:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Since you refuse to read what I write....I will now start refusing to read your junk also...cause what you're repeating is the same I already know...I am Pashtun and we Pashtuns have our own history that we see it our way. We don't need Tajiks to explain Pashtun history, when they don't even know their own. By the way...South of Kabul is not NWFP...if you think that...then you are making stupid statements. The entire Pashtun areas of presend time are considered South of Kabul. NWFP is "EAST" of Kabul for your information...go check map. And you still can't prove to anyone that Afghanistan was province of Khorasan before the 18th century...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHANisarKand 04:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * NisarKand, you are just an extremely annoying and an extremely uneducated person. Your hillarious claims and your hillarious edits prove this. You are not only vandalising this page, but also many other articles. Your hillarious edits in the article Iran are the best prrof that you are not here to contribute to Wikipedia, but to vandalise articles and push for an extreme and false POV. You are a totally hopeless case.
 * As for Pashtuns and their homelands "south of Kabul", just take a look at the map. [[Image:Pakistan ethnic 1973.jpg|thumb|right]]
 * It's you who is uneducated.
 * And, btw: history is not a matter of "interpretation", but a matter of science. Pashtuns "interpret" their history, and base it on their own emotions.
 * Wikipedia should base its information on non-biased scientific works, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica, both being authoritative sources written by more than 400 experts world-wide, most of them being leading professors at Western and East Asian universities!
 * Tājik 23:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What does this map suppose to prove??? Anyway...I will now make it clear for you to see everything from a 3rd party. Consider the fact that it is not from me but a 3rd source, and see what they know about Afghanistan's history. First look again at the Map of the Abbasid's Empire (786-809) above, by scrolling up...the same Map you showed me before. Next....click here and see Map of Ghaznavid Empire (962-1027). Then check Map of Mongol Empire, Safavid Empire, Moghul Empire (1200-1700) if you want. Next, click here and see Map of Afghan Empire (1762). You will not find anywhere that present-shape Afghanistan ever being province of Khorasan before the 18th century. But you see that Khorasan was province of Afghanistan in 1762. And finally, click here and read the brief events of history from 652 A.D. to 1747, notice nowhere is anything mentioned about Khorasan. It will only take couple of minutes to understand that Khorasan played no role in Afghanistan's history, except for a very short period (10 years rule) when Nader Shah established rule in Afghanistan. And you perfectly know that Nader Shah's army were mostly Afghans...like Ahmad Shah Abdali, who was Afghan and his top military general. Khorasan is not Iran's capital...Tehran is...and before that it was Isfahan. By the way, take some time before you start resplying to me...this way you will be more prepared on what to type. All the information I provided here is from Afghanistan Online and the link to this site is added to Afghanistan's articl NisarKand 06:13, 27 October 2006


 * This is not going anywhere, and is quickly degenerating into a flame war. Can the two of you please calm down? NisarKand, since you are accusing Tajik of not reading your responses, what I'd like you to do is summarize Tajik's argument in your own words.  Once Tajik is satisfied with your summary, I'd like Tajik to summarize your argument until you are satisfied. Also, agreement on what precisely you are arguing about would be helpful. Thanks. &mdash; Edward Z. Yang (Talk) 01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah ... great source, NisarKand. A private website about Afghanistan - www.afghan-web.com. It's not a reliable or scientific source, in fact, it is even wrong. I know Abdullah Ghazi, the owner of Afghanistan Online, personally. The numbers in his website are not scientific numbers, but just a general overview for the normal reader who just wants to know a liuttle bit about Afghanistan.
 * Wikipedia, on the other hand, is - by now - the leading encyclopaedia world wide. It has become the main source for many students who seek information for their works at school or college.
 * What you are doing is falsefying facts and pushing for an unsourced and unscholarly POV.
 * Tājik 09:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

Afghanistan was not province of Iran
This is the map clearly showing that Afghanistan was not province of iran called khorasan. khorasan is north-east section of iran. Only a small portion of Afghanistan was part of iran before the 18th century. Please try to understand that and do not add the false statement in the Name section of Afghanistan's article. Besides, the Name section is only about "AFGHANISTAN's" name...no other names...just Afghanistan. NisarKand 07:47, October 29 2006 (UTC)

Ethnolinguistic Groups
Hi,

I have added another source (Britannica Afghanistan) for the ethnolinguistic groups, which gives a slightly higher percentage for Pashtuns, and lower for Tajiks.
 * Pashtun: 49%
 * Tajik: 18%
 * Hazara: 9%
 * Uzbek: 8%
 * Aimak: 4%
 * Turkmen: 3%
 * Others: 9%

Also Sunni/Shiite breakdown has been modified according to Britannica (89.2% Sunni, 8.9% Shiite). I hope this helps in improving the quality of the present article.Heja Helweda 01:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputing User:Tajik's false statements again
Under the "NAME" section in Afghanistan's article...I notice these false statements made by User:Tajik

'''Later, the English word "Afghanland" that appeared in various treaties in the 19th century, dealing with the Pashtun territories of Kandahar as well as south of Kabul, were translated as "Afghanistan" by Afghan authorities[citation needed] and was extended to the entire kingdom during the reign of Abdur Rahman Khan[citation needed]. It became the official name of the country in 1919, [citation needed]after Afghanistan gained its full independence from the British, and was confirmed as such in 1964 by Afghanistan's first national constitution[citation needed].'''

I see errors here...if not...I want to know where is this English word "Afghanland" written so I can read the treaties of the 19th century. I also would like to know about how the Afghan athourities translated the name "Afghanland" as Afghanistan...unless this is someone's point of view and that it did not happend this way but rather British translated "Afghanistan" into "Afghanland".

Next...How did Afghanistan get extended to entire kingdom during Abdur Rahman Khan? I am very confused and there is no sources to show all this. If Afghanistan became the official name in 1919....what was the name of that country before 1919? I have a copy of the "1893 Durand Line" agreement, which was written by Afghanistan's king in 1893 with British India and the name "Afghanistan" is clearly written on it. Does this mean Afghanistan as a nation did not exist in 1893 or it did?

And the last part..."it was confirmed as such in 1964 by Afghanistan's "FIRST" national constitution...that has to be false because here is Afghanistan's 1923 constitution --> LINK

Finally...I also want to know who says that the last part in "Afghanistan's" name (-istan) comes from the Persian language...is this a wild guess or there is information on this? If so....then what's so hard about sharing it with readers? I believe this is what they call POV. "istan" may have originated from India...because India was formerly known as "Hindustan"....and the name Hindustan existed before any other country that ends with "istan". I'm amazed at how some people (example:User:Tajik) love spreading false information to people around the world. NisarKand 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

MP stands for Military Police

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

where is the Paris treaty??

 * in the period of Nasser al-Din Shah He tried to recover the part of eastern Persia (especially Herat) that had come into the British sphere of control but after the British attack on Bushehr, he had to retreat. Herat is today a part of Afghanistan. Nasser-al-Din Shah was forced to sign the Declaration of Paris granting Afghanistan supremacy over the former Persian territories."

Part of the Afghanistan was territory of Iran; if it was not How could some one interpret Paris treaty? when Birtish Empire forced Iran out of it?

in farsi from here "معاهده پاریس : در چنین روزی در سال 1235هجری شمسی ، معاهده پاریس میان دو دولت ایران و انگلستان امضا شد . پس از عزل امیر کبیر و در دوران آقا محمد خان نوری که صد راعظمی خیانت پیشه بود ، اوضاع سیاسی ، اجتماعی و فرهنگی ایران به سوی قهقرا گرایید . در این زمان دوست محمد خان حاکم کابل سپاهی را تدارک دید و قصد تصرف هرات را کرد . در این میان  حاکم هرات از حسام السلطنه والی خراسان کمک خواست اما پس از ورود سپاهیان ایران به این منطقه نسبت به آنان خیانت ورزید  و به آنان حمله کرد . حسام السلطنه هرات را محاصره نمود و نهایتا آن را تصرف کرد . انگلیسی ها با در یافت اوضاع و وضعیت منطقه و اینکه افغانستان را یکی از اهداف استراتژیک خود می دانستند  ،  منافع خود را در ضرر و زیان دیدند . بر این اساس نیروهای نظامی بریتانیا  به سرعت عازم جنوب ایران شدند و جزایر خارک ، خرمشهر و بوشهر را به اشغال خویش در آوردند . میرزا آقا خان پس از وقوع چنین اتفاقی تصمیم به شناسایی دولت افغانستان گرفت و آن را در عهدنامه ای به نام عهد نامه  پاریس معین ساخت. بنابر این معاهده ایران تعهد کرد هرات را تخلیه کند و ایضا تمامیت ارضی کشور افغانستان را به رسمینت بشناسد و همچنین تمامی دعاوی مرزی خود را با این کشور از طریق میانجی گری به انجام بر ساند. " "معاهده پاریس از طرف ناصرالدین شاه و میرزا آقاخان نوری صدراعظم و ویکتوریا ملکه انگلستان امضا شد و ملکه ویکتوریا به خط خود در زیر آن نوشت: تا می‏توانیم مانع می‏شویم که اصول این پیمان به هم بریزد و با تمام قوا در حفظ آن خواهیم کشید."

another interesting point is that it is not mentioned in this article at all????

If a third party reads the above discussions, he will conclude that user:NisarKand is disrupting the article. Regardless to the sources that was presented, he does what he think is correct.--Pejman47 23:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Who the Hello is Nasser al-Din Shah??? and why write farsi in here when not many people understands it??? Even I can't understand it because I grew up in America since being a minor (less than 10). You Iranians need to FIRST indicate the dates when refering to past history...without dates shown....nobody will understand what you're talking about.

Herat was never part of Iran...Herat was always independent, had it's own kingdoms. You Iranians must wake up to the real world...Persia died in 1935...there is no more Persia...there are no more Persians. It's only Iranian people now speaking many dialects of Old Persian language. I don't know why you Iranians are claiming to be Persians when there is no such thing as Persia anymore. You also cannot claim to be Persians in term of speakers of the Persian language because Persian is not one language....it's more like 100s of different dialects now...so you can only state the exact specific language that you speak. You Iranians need to stop calling names...and behave like normal people of the world...talk in manners and do not get angry so quick. I know why you hate us Pashtuns...because we are very popular and Iranians are not. Here are some examples: since 1990s, all the top most popular movie stars in India are Pashtun related (i.e. Sharukh Khan, Amir Khan, Fardeen Khan, and etc.), by the way India's movie industry "Bollywood" is much bigger than "Hollywood". Pashtun invented nuclear bomb (Pakistan's nuclear scientist, Qadir Khan, is Pashtun), Pashtun went to space in 1988, a Pashtun (Ashraf Ghani) just almost made it to become head of the United Nations, replacing Kofi Annan, but dropped out of the race. US Ambassador to Iraq is Pashtun through his father, Pakistan's top cricket player of all time was Pashtun, Pashtuns were the first people to go to Australia in 1800s and start trade business there (check www.AfghanExpress.com), UAE's top Afghan business men are Pashtuns, most of the top business men in Pakistan are Pashtuns, the Interior minister of Pakistan is Pashtun...I can go on for hours and name show how productive Pashtuns are in the world. But on the other hand, look at Iranians....Iran's leader calls on whiping out Israel, making blank threats because he doesn't even have the weapons, giving to the world a very bad image of Iran and its people. However, it's natural for people to experiance jealousy some times but people must not take that serious. I always notice Iranians look very down upon Pashtuns...I am Pashtun and I don't mind this, doesn't in anyway affect me. I simply laugh like this...hahahahahahahaha. One thing I like to say important...don't under estimate Pashtuns...as they are not who you think they are. Pashtuns are naturally gifted with knowledge and wizdoms from Allah (GOD). At the same time, Pashtuns believe that all people of the world are equal, regardless of their religion, color, race, or ethnic backgrounds...that includes Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Athiests and etc. GOD created all these different people for a special reason that only he alone understands. This is just my lecture for Iranians and those that think like Iranians. Anyway....

About past history...if you really want to know about any event in the past....you have to do many searches and find out what really happened...don't try to make your own conclusions by applying your own philosophy, ideas or imaginations. There is an extremely long history written about each war fought in Afghanistan. And finally, anything that you people add or edit in Afghanistan's article should and must be by thinking of yourself as a 3rd party...not Pashtun or Tajik or Iranian. That's exactly what I do...I pretend I am not even Afghan when I edit Afghanistan's article...this is the best way to clearly explain Afghanistan's history. Most people think I am Pashtun nationlistic, which I'm not....if I was a nationalistic of any kind it would be American because that's where I grew up and that's all I know about. So lets all cut the *rap and just write the truth about Afghanistan and keep your personal grudges against one another to your self. There are already 1,000s of websites that explains all there is to know about Afghanistan...this Wikipedia is just another place. No need try to tamper with history...if you do such thing...Wikipedia will lose creditiblity. Afghanistan was created, pronounced, incorporated and founded in 1747 according to 1,000s of sources...including CIA world factbook...and lets keep it that way. NisarKand 03:57, 1 November 2006


 * No comments ... This last reply by NisarKand should even convince his last supporters that he is only here to falsefy history and promote extreme Pashtun nationalism, which should have no place in Wikipedia. In fact, NisarKand and his Pashtun-nationalistic views as well as his anti-Iranian opinion in a special way reflect the attitude we know from the Taliban (who are a Pashtun nationalistic movement).
 * Tājik 21:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nisakhand, this is not a respectable thing to be doing on Wikipedia. This is not a forum for fun or anything, this is an encyclopaedia. If you want to express your point of view (which isnt based on any facts at all), please do so on a blog or a forum, not here. Thanks.Khosrow II 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * that 's it :"Who the Hello is Nasser al-Din Shah???" you don't know anything from history, please don't comment on what you have no information on it.
 * After the protection left; I suggest adding parsi treaty to the article. --Pejman47 20:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see...wasn't it Mirwais Khan Hotak's son Mahmud (Afghan) that rose from Kandahar to capture Herat in 1722 along with Isfahan (city that was capital of Persia at the time and is located in western Iran). Didn't Mahmud rule Persia for 10 years? didn't later, in or about 1750, Ahmad Shah Durrani (Afghan) capture Herat along with Kohorasan? From 1750 to 2006....did Persians or Iranians ever possess Herat? I believe not. Only one time Persians or Iranians invaded Herat in 1837 or 1838...but were defeated and expelled from the city in less than a year, with the help of British. Britian sent 500 or so Troops to Herat to help the Afghans defeat the Persians and they did. This clearly means that Herat was territory of Afghanistan since 1750. That's more than 250 years now and you coming up with claims that Herat being territory of Iran. You need help...I suggest you all go see therapists to help you. It is the wrong time for Iranians to make such weak claims now, especially that the United States signed a 99-year agreement with Afghanistan...which is to remain in Afghanistan for 99 years and establish mulitiple military bases in the country. So for the next 99 years or so, USA will be in charge of the region and if Iran has disputes with Afghanistan...they must first face USA. It's pretty funny...as soon as I came to edit Afghanistan's article...all these Iranians began coming. I wonder why? and the first people I hate in the world are ignorant ones. User:NisarKand November 5, 2006


 * These are really minor points of argument here. No need to bring in nationalist perspectives as we need to write encyclopedic entries. And before I get accused of anything, I'm the guy who turned Pashtuns into a featured article and with help from Khoikhoi and others did likewise with the Iranian peoples so I have tried to be as neutral as possible. As for Herat, well it was also part of Khorasan and the Arabs made the region a base of operations (mainly in nearby Merv to the north which was a mixed city at the time of Iranians, Turks, and others). Herat similarly has been a mixed city with Persians, Pashtuns, Turks, etc. all living and arriving at various points in time. Most likely before the Persians and Pashtuns we may have had speakers of Avestan and possibly some Bactrian influence, but the reality is that historians can't pinpoint exactly the histories of some of these regions as the information is scant and can only lead to conjecture and speculation. Also, it's important to note that these groups all mingle quite often so that speaking of strictly distinct groups can be misleading in the historical sense. Kabul being a good example of the mixed nature of Afghanistan. We should all assume good faith and try to work together on compromise edits and definitely if something is not cited then that is something to consider as well. If there are 2 sides to an argument I think we can all work together and point to references and use academic views as the barometer and arrive at some better conclusions as well. Cheers. Tombseye 15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

(m)page issue
The link to Afghan Northern Alliance needs to be fixed. it should link to United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan thnks!Is it Steak?&lt;Xiaden&#39;s Homepage&gt; 15:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Provinces Template
I added the template at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Afghanistan_Province_infobox

Usage:

Example:

Populaion and Area (2002) can be found at: http://www.statoids.com/uaf.html Coordinates for the Capital City: http://www.tageo.com/index-e-af.htm or http://www.fallingrain.com/world/AF/index.html

User: Asfandyar

Name section getting long
The section of Name is getting a bit long. I am removing for instance the piece of text of Encyclopedia Iranica, the points stated in that paragraph are already mentioned in the previous and following paragraphs.

Ariana310 18:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine, but the Name section ONLY deals with the name AFGHANISTAN. Since it is clearly mentioned that AFGHAN and AFGHANISTAN both existed before, in and after the 18th century, why mention history about the country being called Khorasan before the 18th century or part of it? Since you wrote that statement, I assume you read it somewhere and why not share that information, by applying the link of the source next to your statement? Unless you can't find it. If that's the case, then why write this unecessary statement? According to Afghanistan's history, the territory of modern Afghanistan was many parts, belonging to different ruling parties. North to the Uzbeks, West to the Safavids, and the remaining larger (South and East) belonged to Moghuls or self ruled by the Pashtuns, who called their territory Afghanistan. The South and East section of modern Afghanistan was perhaps called Afghanistan from at least the Islamic period and onwards. It was then expanded and made a big Empire in 1747, which included modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, northeast Iran and western India.

Either the last paragraph (IN THE NAME SECTION) be removed or a references be added next to it. Pashtun Nov. 24, 2006


 * If we go into your logic, then you have to remove most part of the History section, because most of

it deals with the periods before the 19th century and in that ages Afghanistan was not called by its current name, but was known as Khorasan. So the 5000 year old history of Afghanistan will decrease into 150 years.
 * Afghanistan was popularly known as Khorasan, there's no doubt and that's not a new thing. I have presented the arguments several times in this discussion. Please read them in the sections: @ Nisarkand and POV issues, and in @ Nisarkand. Even during the ruling of Ahmad Shah Baba, Afghanistan was called Khorasan. I have presented all the points in those two sections.
 * If you avoid mentioning Khorasan, then how will you define the situation of Afghanistan before the 18th century? Was it a colony of Persia or Iran? Because it was not Pashtuns who ruled over this territory from 3000 BC up to 1500 AC. So Afghanistan or old Khorasan had its own kingdoms and empires such as Ghaznavids, Seljukids, Timurids, Ghorids and others, who created independent states in Khorasan, although it was conquered in some periods by Persians. When I mentioned in the text a state of Greater Iran, it was NOT because to put Khorasan as ruling part of Persian Kingdoms, but it was to express Greater Iran as a Geographical Territory referring to Ariana. One has to distinguish between Iran as a contemporary Political government and Iran (Iran-shahr or Ariana) as a Grand Civilization. You can remove the phrase 'a state of Greater Iran', if you want.
 * Moreover, you can refer to Talk:Greater_Khorasan where I had a discussion with some Iranians. As to providing a source, I will soon provide a link.
 * Ariana310 07:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Ariana310, you're totally confused by the NAME section and HISTORY section. The NAME section ONLY deals with the name "AFGHANISTAN" and no other name. While the HISTORY section deals with the entire history of Afghanistan, its people and its geographic location. The NAME section first states that a place called Afghanistan existed in at least 1525 AD south of Kabul and inhabitated by Pashtun people, which is with no doubt a big area of land that includes in modern Afghanistan. In the next paragraph in the NAME section, the Encyclopeadia of Islam states that Afghanistan borne it's name (as a nation) in the middle of the 18th century (1750). User:Ariana310, you added, that before the 18th century Afghanistan was called Khorassan. Therefore, your statement clearly contradicts the prior statements made in the NAME section. Because there, it showes that a big part of modern Afghanistan was called or named Afghanistan from at least 1525 and onwards (area inhabitated by Pashtuns). And you're saying that modern Afghanistan was Khorassan. So which is true, Afghanistan was Khorassan? or Afghanistan was Afghanistan before the 18th century? By the way, Khorassan did not include Pashtun areas, just so you know this. Pashtun Nov. 26, 2006

Here's the online edition of the book Khorasan, written by Mir Ghulam Mohammad Ghubar, the renown Afghan historian and the writer of the book 'Afghanistan in the Course of History (Afghanistan dar maseer-e taareekh). It was published in 1937 by Kabul Printing House.CLICK HERE Ariana310 16:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your source (CLICK HERE) is written in NON-English language, which does not help here because this is English Wikipedia. Meaning your sources also MUST be written in English. You can search everywhere and you will not find any true history record that will explain that Afghanistan was Khorassan before the 18th century. Pashtun Nov. 26, 2006


 * "Many important centers of Kh orāsān are thus located in modern Afghanistan, for example Bal kh, Herāt (Harī), Gh aznī ( Gh azna) and Kābul (Kābolistān)."


 * What's all this about? You're including these additional notes about the name for Herat and Kabul and etc., in the article about the name "Afghanistan" for what reason?  Please explain,  in the text so people can follow why it requires alternate spellings of the name of Herat for an explanation of the origins of the name of Afghanistan.  Also, why is 'Kābolistān' in the discussion of the name of Afghanistan when it isn't even in the discussion of the name of Kabul?  Is Harī explained in Herat?  It doesn't seem to be?  What about Gh azna and Bal kh ?  Are they explained or even used in their respective articles?  What's the purpose of these added unexplained anywhere on Wikipedia spellings and their relationship to the name of the country Afghanistan?


 * Or just include the article titles, and links to the articles, and this information in the articles themselves.


 * As to the edit comment, 'Herí Rúd' is an old English language spelling for this river used by scientists and explorers in the 19th and early 20th century at least. See Forbes F. and Rawlinson, W., Route from Turbat Haideri, in Khorasan, to the River Heri Rud, on the borders of Sistan in Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 14, 1844 pp. 145-192 doi:10.2307/1798056, as a single example from an on-line search engine.


 * KP Botany 19:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point whether Afghanistan was known as Khorasan before the 18th century, I will explain it in a short while in response to User:Pashtun.
 * Regarding your series of questions, I added the alternative names for Herat, Balkh, Ghazni and Kabul because those were mostly used in early ages when the region of modern day Afghanistan was called Khorasan. You said I must have also explained to readers those alternative names: The definition for those old names (Hari, Ghazna and Kabulistan) should be used in their own articles and not in Afghanistan's article. I just added the definition of Kabulistan in Kabul's article today, please check it. And I was to add the definitions for others as well. A little bit patience !!
 * Please don't add this information to the discussion of the origins of the name 'Afghanistan'. Etymology of the names of all of the areas of Afghanistan that once were part of other areas would consume well over 32 KB alone, leaving no room for anything about Afghanistan. Within-Wikipedia linking is not the place for additional outside information about other subjects.  KP Botany 02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding the spelling of "Hari", it is pronounced as Hari in Persian (Farsi-Dari) language. Sources: Farhang-e Dehkhuda (Dictionary of DehKhuda in 10 volumes, by Ali Akbar Dehkhuda, an Iranian scholar) and Farhang-e 'Amid (Dictionary of Amid, an Iranian scholar). Since you only cited me a single English source where it has been written as Héri, I would suggest you to once check in online search engine the number of results you find from Scholarly works published by Western scholars: the number of western works in which Hari has been written and the number of works in which Heri has been written. I leave the conclusion to yourself. As an example here are few scholarly published sources:
 * UNESCO Patrimoine Mondial
 * An Historical Guide to Afghanistan, written by Nancy Hatch Dupree, based on the works of renown Archaeologist about Afghanistan, Louis Dupree
 * Deutsches Archaologisches Institut
 * ...and several others. Since you get convinced by online search results rather than the Phonology of the word in original language. Ariana310 01:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC) \


 * We're not speaking or writing in Farsi here, although it is possible you were discussing that in your comment to Tombseye, I see now--however, if you two are discussing this, your notes about your personal discussion simply confuse the edit history and do not belong with the article. I am commenting upon how it is spelled in English, as I made clear in my post, and in English, it has been spelled 'Herí Rúd', among various other spellings.


 * I said, "As to the edit comment, 'Herí Rúd' is an old English language spelling for this river used by scientists and explorers in the 19th and early 20th century at least."


 * And your comment about my "[getting] convinced by online search results rather than the Phonology of the word in original language" is also not related to what I said, but appears to be related to me personally--it's not related to what is being discussed, how I am convinced that is. So, please, discuss the topic at hand, not your speculations about me.


 * However, this is the Internet, it is perfectly appropriate to offer someone an on-line source. As I followed exactly the example you provided above by providing you with a single on-line source as you did to someone else, although not in Farsi, I will admit, your assumption that this is how I am "getting convinced" might lead me to believe that this is, indeed, how you are "getting convinced."   It does not, however, do so.


 * Why I posted an Internet source, a single example for you, is that I was following your example as a courtesy to you, not because I am "getting convinced" or not by on-line sources, but because it was the method you used above, I assumed it was a method you would like someone to do for you. Still, this is the Internet, and quoting on-line sources, a single on-line source, with the assumption that you are quite capable of doing your own web searches, is reasonable.  And, ultimately, it is Wikipedia's goal to be a useful, accurate and well-quoted source of information on the Internet, so I'm not going to insult Internet resources in general. Resources on-line and elsewhere can be weighed on their own merits.  Including Wikipedia, for that matter.


 * So, please remove your phonetics from the sentence, as you have offered no reason, explanation, or insight into why they are there in the Afghanistan article in a section about the origins of the name Afghanistan. By this, I mean, they must be explained in the article itself, with their usage, so that readers of the article can understand why they are there and what they are, not to me on this talk page.  Add the explanations to the other articles where those interestest in the etymologies and history of the names may go to find them.  A link to another article is not the place for it.  Thank you.  And let's keep personal comments to a finite limit, say none, and work on making this an excellent and useful Wikipedia article on Afghanistan. KP Botany 02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood me about mentioning the explanations for those terms. I said that the explanations for those old words should be used in the articles related to the same city and not in the article of Afghanistan, since you asked me for the explanations. Anyhow, I will remove those old words, since you said it was confusing.
 * The reason that I mentioned the cities of Balkh, Herat and Ghazna, is that they were the famous cities of Khorasan. They had been always called as cities of Khorasan. As Herat was known as the pearl of Khorasan.
 * Moreover, let me remind you that the source that I provided in the main article's page, was a published scholarly work by an Afghan historian. His works are mostly proved by the Afghan Research Units such as University of Kabul and Academy of Knowledge of Kabul. Giving a link to the online edition of that book, was not my principle intention. Thank you.
 * Ariana310 03:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the relationship between what you are saying and anything I said as I didn't challenge the source or discuss its veracity. Oh, wait, are you speaking to me or to User Pashtun now?


 * Oh, I see, you gave a link to an online edition of a book that you did not intend to give? You can remove it if you did not intend to give it, or you can cross it out, then I would have realized it was a mistake on your part to quote from this book you're now defending as scholarly.  Very difficult to follow this, but maybe you're intending to address someone else on this matter also, or discussing something else.


 * Your reason for including the cities is evident from the article's text, as it should be--when the article is more polished will be time enough to decide if it is appropriate and well placed in this particular section. All the additional information you now include in this talk page is superfluous to the content of this section of the article, what's important is you removed what was not needed from the section, thereby making it more accessible to the casual reader--one piece at a time.  Thank you.


 * By the way, though, regarding another one of your edit summaries, the Middle East is part of Asia and Africa, not Asia alone. Egypt, for example is a major African nation.


 * KP Botany 19:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)



These Maps show that only a section of modern Afghanistan was part of Khorassan. The rest of Afghanistan was not part of Khorassan. So it is false to say that Afghanistan was called Khorassan before the 18th century because it was not. Pashtun Nov. 26, 2006

Khorasan and Afghanistan
Response to the comments of User:Pashtun

Although I suggested you to read the points that I elaborated in response to User:Nisarkand and he was not able to answer me or to defend his point views by presenting authentic sources, it seems that I should re-write those points for you and to make a translation of the book Khorasan for you, written in in Dari language (one of the two official languages of your country and that an Afghan National is supposed to understand) and written by the greatest Afghan Historian Mir Ghulam Mohammad Ghubar. Since the discussion was between me and you, presenting an authentic work in Dari as source is never useless. And presenting an authentic source, written by a renowned scholar and proved by a research unit, no matter of the language, is a logical step.

Here are my arguments, I hope while responding to me, you will provide me proves with authentic sources:

1. When you say that the word Afghanistan was used before the 18th century for the same modern day territories of Afghanistan, you have to first make it clear whether you are considering the word "afghan" as an old word, whether you are considering "afghanistan" as an old or you are considering "afghanistan" as a word used for a Nation and a Political region.

The word afghan is itself a very old word, probably about 1500 year old. Most sources state that it refers to apagan or abagan which was the title of the second Sassanid King, found in the inscriptions of Behistun. It meant Lion and Brave. But this was only the title of Shahpur, and never attributed to a region.

The word afghanistan was first used in Baburnama in early 16th century. It was only used for the southern regions of Kabul and regions situated between Kabul and Kandahar inhabited by Pashtuns. It never attributed to all the current Afghanistan territories, or it never attributed to a Nation or it never attributed to a Political State.

The first appearance of the word 'Afghanistan' referring to a Political state, thus current Afghan territories, was in early 19th century (1800s onwards). It was mentioned in the treaties between Shah Shuja and British Commanders, as well as in the treaties between Abdul Rahman Khan and British Empire. Please show me a single official document before the 18th century, in which the current Afghan territories were called as Afghanistan.

2. There are many proofs that Khorasan was attributed to the modern day Afghan region up to the 18th century, even during the ruling of Ahmad Shah Baba. Here I briefly mention those points which are mentioned in the scholarly published work, '''Khorasan, written by Ghulam Moh. Ghubar''':

About the area of Khorasan: a region in its east it is Hindustan, in its north it is Rode Jaihoon (Amu Darya), in its West it is Gurgan and Ghor. And about the area of Hindustan, he believes it was up to the deserts of Sindh.
 * In the old historical book of Hudud ul-'alam min al-mashriq ila al-maghrib, written in 984, the author defines the area of Khorasan as follows:


 * Ibn Battuta, the famous Arab traveler, writes in his book about his trip to Mawarul Nahr and Khroasan. And he mentions the following cities as part of Khorasan: Balkh, Herat, Jaam, Tus, Mashhad, Nishapur, Bostam, Kunduz, Baghlan, Andarab, Hindukush, Charkh (Logar), Kandahar, Kabul, Ghazni and Mountains of Sulaiman. And when he reaches to Multan, he starts a new Chapter in his book and calls it part of Hindustan.

سلام کن ز من ای باد مر خراسان را
 * Nasir Khusraw famous Poet, who was born in Yamagan of Badakhshan, says about his native homeland by using the word Khorasan:

به چند گونه بدیدید مر خراسان را

کنون که دیو خراسان به جمله ویران کرد

مرا به دل ز خراسان زمین یمگان است

نبینی کز خراسان من نشسته پست در یمگان

همی آید سوی من یک به یک هرچه ایم همی یابد

حکیم آن است کو از شاه نندیشد، نه آن نادان

که شه را شعر گوید تا مگر چیزش فرماید

مانده به یمگان به میان جبال

نیستم از عجز و نه نیز از کلال

یکسره عشاق مقال منند

درگه و بیگه به خراسان رجال

ای خداوند خراسان و شهنشاه عراق
 * During the Ghaznavids, the empire was divided into 2 parts: Khorasan and 'Iraq. This point can be clearly seen in Tarikh-e Baihaqee. Khorasan was the Eastern part of his empire and Iraq was the western part. Manachehri Damaghani says about Shah Mahmood Ghaznawi as:

ای به مردی و شاهی برده از شاهان سباق

ای سپاهت را سپاهان رایتت را ری مکان

ای ز ایران تا به توران بندگان را وثاق

از همه شاهان چنین لشکر که آورد و که برد

از عراق اندر خراسان وز خراسان در عراق

همچنان باز از خراسان آمدی بر پشت پیل

کاحمد مرسل به سوی جنت آمد بر براق

خـدايگان خـراسان به دشت پيشاور
 * Ansuri, the Malekul Shu'ara of Ghaznavids, calls Peshawar as part of Khorasan:

به حمـله ای بـپـراکـند جمـع آن لـشکر

و ايا شنيده هنرهای خسروان به خبر بيا

بيا زخسرو ومشرق عيان ببين تو هن

دل آشفته مخفی به فن خود ارسطویی است-
 * Zeb-un-Nissa Makhfi, one of the poets of the Moghul's period and daughter of Aurangzeb, calls the regions other than Hindustan as Khorasan. During the ruling of his father, Aurangzeb, the last area of the Moghul empire was up to Kabul and Kandahar. She calls Kabul, Badakhshan and Balkh as Khorasan, and uses the word Khorasan for these regions and not Hindustan or Persia:

به هند افتاده است اما خراسان است یونانش

بود اندیشه دل را اگر در آستین دستی

برون آرم من از کان سخن لعل بدخشانش

ز روی لطف به تقصیر من قلم-

درکش که باتو هست مرا نسبت خراسانی

وانشد چون غنچه دل در بهارستان هند

رفت مرغ روح مخفی گوشه کابل گرف

These were the points before and during the Moghul period. Now let me show you some sources in which during the ruling of Ahmed Shah Abdali until the ruling of Abdul Rahman Khan, Afghanistan was called as Khorasan.

دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد
 * Abdullah Khan Popalzayee, a Pashtoon poet, uses the word Khorasan when he writes about Ahmad Shah Baba when he made the new city of Kandahar:

جمال ملک خراسان شد این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد

بیا یی به موند هیح راحت له خواشینه
 * Abdul Rahi Hotak, a Pashtoon poet also uses the word Khorasan:

چه داخوار رحیم راووت له خراسانه

دخراسان دسحر باده په جانان وایه په پردیسو سلامونه

پر هندوستان می گل کرلی پر خراسان ولاره یم بوی یی راخینه

په زمین دخراسان کشی پیدا کری رب سلطان دی
 * Gul Mohammad Khan says about Abdul Rahman Khan:

دده نوم په تمام جهان کشی خپورته هر چاته عیان دی

در آن زمان که خاقان مغفرت نشان امیر بی نظیر علیین مکان امیر دوست محمد خان در ولایات خراسان در دارالسلطنه کابل ارم تقابل بر اورنگ امارت وجهانبانی نشسته بود
 * In the book Gulshan Emaarat, written by Noor Mohammad Qandahari about 1879, writes about Amir Dost Mohammad Khan:

احمد شاه پاد شاه ولایات خراسان است وتو صوبه دار پادشاه هندوستان
 * Saber Shah Kabuli, who crowned Ahmad Shah Baba, used the word Khorasan while talking to the Governor of Lahore:


 * On the coin made during the ruling of father of Abdur Rahman Khan, this verse was written:

سپاه مشرق ومغرب زهم مفصل شد

امیر ملک خراسان محمد افضل شد


 * Saayel, a poet during the ruling of Abdul Rahmand Khan, used the word Khorasan, when he went to Peshawar:

والی ملک خــــــراسان به پشاور آمد

گويا مهـر جهــــــان تاب ز خاور آمـــــد

Now, you can clearly see that in all sources, the word "Khorasan" was used until the 18th and even 19th century. Before the 18th century, the word Afghanistan was only used for limited regions between Kabul and Kandahar inhabitant by Pashtoons, and that was only after the 16th century.

By refusing this fact, you whether claim that part of "Afghanistan" was called as Hindustan and another part as Persia. Which is obviously not correct. The current Afghan territories were conquered by some Persian Empires, but it does not mean that it was the land of Persia, of course generally it was known as part of Ariana (or Greater Iran, NOT the contemporary Iran).

The maps which you showed, they were completely irrelevant. Those were the maps of Empires, each empire had its own different areas. You cannot fix the area of the region by its empire, but by the name it is called. Secondly, Khorasan was more a Geographical term, such as Ghazna. When the Empire of Shah Mahmood Ghaznawi expanded, they didn't call all the conquered territories as Khorasan. The first map shows the Khorasan regions within the Safavid Empire, and the regions of Khorasan which were not conquered by Safavids, are not showed up. The second map, is the map of Umayyad Caliphate. Again, it shows the area of Khorasan Province within the Umayyad empire. The regions of Khorasan which were not conquered by the Umayyads are left out.

Let me show you the map of Khorasan. . This map is not limited to any specific empire, and shows the regions as they are. You can clearly see that all the current Afghan territory is under the name of Khorasan, in 13th century. Peshawar, Kabul and Kandahar are included in Khorasan. While the northern areas of Amu Darya are marqued as Transoxiana and Khwarizm.

See this one. Again you observe that during the Timurids, all parts of Afghanistan are marqued as Khorasan.

Now, if you have any good reasons with authentic sources, I will be pleased to read them. Unless, your claims will be empty and cannot defend your point of views. Ariana310 03:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Everything User:Ariana310 posted are opinions and not facts. You cannot use NON-English sources in here because this is English Wikipedia. This English Wikipedia is not made for people from Afghanistan but for everyone in the world. This means you have to convince the English speakers and not the Farsi or Pashto speakers. Your Maps do not indicate that immediatly preceeding the 18th century, Afghanistan was called Khorasan or being part of Khorasan. I showed you the Map of the Abassids in 809 AD, proving that only a section of Afghanistan was part of Khorasan. Then came the Ghaznavid Empire, which was clearly not based in Khorasan but in Ghazni (which is in modern Afghanistan and was not territory of Khorasan at the time of Ghaznavid Empire). In fact, Mahmud of Ghazni went from Ghazni to capture Khorasan at that time and brought Khorasana region under his control. Then came the Ghourids, the same thing, Mohammad of Ghor was not born in Khorasan and also he did not rule from Khorasan but from a place called Ghazni (which is the heart of Afghanistan now). And again, Ghazni at that time also was not territory of Khorasan. Then came Ghengis Khan (Mongols) and then came Timurids, who were based in Herat (which is in modern Afghanistan). Then came Babur, who established his capital in 1504 at Kabul (which is in modern Afghanistan), this is well known by many sources. Babur clearly mentioned that somewhere to the north-west of Kandahar is Khorasan, and that Kandahar was an independent territory, clearly meaning it did not belong to Khorasan. He also mentioned that south of Kabul was called Afghanistan, which was a seperate independent area. By the way, he called Kabul also a different country (stated as country of Kabul). meaning it was an independent territory that did not belong to Khorsan. So, with all the things you wrote above and the false statement in the NAME section in Afghanistan's article, you're stating that Babur is wrong. Because you stated that immediatly preceeding the 18th century, Afghanistan was called Khorasan and included: Kabul, Ghazni, Balkh, Herat and etc. In fact, before the 18th century, Afghanistan was broken down to many countries, provinces, districts, regions, lands, areas, or whatever, and was not one country or one nation and or part of one country or nation. That's exactly what the encylopedia of Islam states. But you are also going against the encylopedia of Islam by stating that modern-day Afghanistan was not pieces but rather part of Khorasan before the 18th century. If everything you say were true, this would've been acknowledged by every Afghan in the world. It would've been mentioned in Afghanistan's history everywhere, especially, by the government of Afghanistan. As you know that Afghanistan's government does not recognize Afghanistan being called Khorasan before the 18th century and that's the main point. So it's you against the government of Afghanistan, the universities of the world, and the majority of people from Afghanistan along with the majority educated people of the world. Pashtun Nov. 26, 2006


 * Is that what you call a fair debate or discussion in a scholarly manner? Your claims are all empty, since you did not provide any single source to justify your statements.
 * You are not in a position to refuse the works which were already approved by Afghan Research units. Whatever I stated, were all based on authentic sources.
 * Moreover, do not keep pretending the language of English since you cannot respond based on authentic sources. Did I wrote any Dari expression in the main article? No. And in this discussion, despite that you're an Afghan, I translated the majority of points into English. The sources were all old historical books such as Hudud ul-'alam min al-mashriq ila al-maghrib or the works of '''Ibn Batuta. How can you refuse them? I translated the points in English for you.
 * When you cannot respond by presenting good proofs, so please do not pretending the language or writing me repeatedly the history of different empires. Those two maps, published by the an educational unit are valid and authentic. And they clearly show the territories of Afghanistan as Khorasan.
 * I presented more than 10 points and you could not respond to any single point.
 * I would like to remind you that you could not respond to my points, and obviously you cannot refuse them, because they were all authentic works. So please do not edit the article until you present solid reasons and not empty words reflecting your opinion and views. Thank you.
 * Ariana310 17:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Ariana310, you need to relax a bit because I'm still here and not leaving anywhere. What in particular do you want me to provide or show you? You're jumping to conlusions already, thinking you proved something. Your sources are worthless because they are in NON-English text. Nobody on earth would trust something they can't read. What if that farsi writings are saying that Afghanistan was not part of Khorasan but you are mistranslating it? We will never be able to know that. Also, I have no idea who those historians are, never heard of them. If your mom and dad told you fairy tales when you were a child, about Afghanistan once being called Khorasan, then I can understand that. And you are trying to share that information with people on Wikipedia in the NAME section of Afghanistan article. However, out of many encyclopedias and official records of Afghanistan, there are NO mentioning of Afghanistan being called Khorasan before the 18th century? User:Ariana310, IT IS ONLY YOU that is making this false claim, I suggest you stop before you make a fool out of yourself and everyone starts laughing. You said I came out empty? here is one source Encyclopaedia Britannica - Khorasan]. By the way, it is not me that suppose to come up with sources here, I am not the one claiming Afghanistan was called Khorasan. It is you who made the claim so it is you that need to come up with the proper sources. Pashtun Nov. 26, 2006


 * I can see that you don't have any capacity to hold a rational debate. Since you cannot refuse those source, you keep pretending the language, although you're an Afghan. That's okay.


 * You helped me further more by providing me the link to Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is clearly stated: Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India. There's no need to go further. It explicitly says that the boundries of Khorasan extended to India, according to Arabs. As Tombseye said, for Arabs, Khorasan was used for anti-arab nationalists in the territories enlarging up to Peshawar. Next time, please read carefully the article when you present it as a source to me.


 * Check this article. Published in The Indian Express. It says: Khorasan of the Middle Ages and Aryana’ in the antiquity’, Afghanistan has seen them all pass by.
 * Check this Research article of Tajikistan Development Gateway. It says: Khorasan consisted of two provinces - Khorasan proper that comprised the territory of modern Afghanistan, including Iranian Khorasan, and Maveronahr, the territory located between the two biggest rivers This is a formal website based in Washington DC USA, which holds several research projects.
 * ...and the Afghâns became sovereigns of the territory as far as the confines of Khorâsân. HERE
 * Khorâsân at that time was divided into three portions. Candahâr and its dependencies were in possession of the Kilizehi Afghâns; and the rest of Khorâsân was subject to Melik Mahmôd Khân, governor of Nîmrôz, or Sistân, HERE You can clearly see that Kandahar was also known as part of Khorasan.
 * On the road between Hindustān and Khorasān, there are two great marts: the one Kābul, the other Kandahār. The memoirs of Babur Kabul and Kandahar were not known as Hindustan but as Khorasan. And in old Dehli, called Shahjahanabad, is a gate called Kabuli Darwana also known as Khooni Darwaza. At that time, all the goods went from Khorasan to Hindustan whether by Kabul or by Kandahar.
 * Here's the exact sentence that I just explained: Indeed, Bābur himself informs us, that Kandahār was formerly regarded as the boundary between Hindustān and Khorasān. CLICK HERE
 * They strongly urged me also to winter in the territory of Khorasān. But as Kābul and Ghazni were places much exposed to external violence .... meaning Kabul and Ghazni were part of Khorasan. The memoirs of Babur
 * Very often he visited the court of the king of Khurásán or Kábul as an envoy on behalf of... Here the author uses the word "or", and means Kabul was in Khorasan. HERE


 * Since you were pretending the language, here I cited you the sources in English. You can clearly see that Kandahar was also known as part of Khorasan, and not part of Hindustan. Years before the word of "afghanistan" attributed to that region. In addition, let me ask you two questions:


 * Can you please show me in the two following maps IF Kabul and Kandahar are outside the region of Khorasan and belong to Hindustan? These maps are approved by an educational unit (university). (click on the maps, so that they enlarge)






 * Please tell me by what name were the current territories of Afghanistan were known before the 18th century since you refuse the term of Khorasan? What were they called during the Ghaznavids, Samanids, Saffarids, Seljukids, Ghurids, Khwarezmids and Timurids? Persia, Hindustan, or Afghanistan? You have to answer me by providing a source. And before presenting them, read them carefully, so that they shouldn't express the opposite of your claim as your link to Britannica's article. And I am wondering that what will you start pretending on this time...Ariana310 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica: Khorasan - also spelled Khurasan historical region and realm comprising a vast territory now lying in northeastern Iran, southern Turkmenistan, and northern Afghanistan. The historical region extended, along the north, from the Amu Darya (Oxus River) westward to the Caspian Sea and, along the south, from the fringes of the central Iranian deserts eastward to the mountains of central Afghanistan. Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India.

Is the last sentence talking about 18th century? Do you have any idea where the boundaries of India were during the time of the Arabs (7th to 9th century)? The are not talking about modern India's boundaries. The last sentence is not evidence, meaning it's nothing. Also, you don't write dates in your argument, so we don't know in what period of time you're talking about. User:Ariana310 is having hard time understanding the English text. That's probably why User:Ariana310 keeps showing us NON-ENGLISH sources here instead of English. User:Ariana310 purposly hides the dates so that we are left more confused. I dismiss the rest of the argument due to nonsense, except about Babur's diary, which mentions the different places in much details. Babur never says that Kabul, Kandahar, Ghazni, Balkh were part of Khorasan. He explains that each of those places were independent smaller countries, with own personal names, not belonging to any one race of people. That in each of those small countries, people from all ethnics and cultures lived, many different languages were spoken. The Encyclopedia of Islam backs that claim. There is no official record of modern Afghanistan being called Khorasan or being part of the Iranian Khorasan before the 18th century. Khorasan was not an empire but simply a name given to a specific area of land, which still exists in North-East Iran. If some people believe that Afghanistan was called Khorasan in the past, that's fine and they may think that. It's the same as someone believing in imaginary friends. But in order to write this in Wikipedia, there should be solid evidence to back this false claim. Besides, why bring this argument to the NAME section of Afghanistan, when it's just about Afghanistan's name? Why not explain this in the Khorasan article? Pashtun Nov. 28, 2006


 * Very brief comments regarding your response:


 * Yes, we know the boundaries of India or Hindustan between 7th to 9th century. Here's the piece of text of Hudud ul-'alam min al-mashriq ila al-maghrib, written in 982, the most authentic geography book in Arab language: (title)About the boundaries of Hindustan and its cities: in its east it is China and Tibet, in its south it is the great river (referring to the Indian Ocean), in its north-west it is Rod-e Mehdan (Jehlam - located in Pakistan today).
 * Since you asked me sources in English, I presented 8 authentic sources in English, with an approved English Translation. Whatever you say, you cannot deny those sources by any mean.
 * You still did not answer my last two questions.
 * Since Afghanistan was known as part of Khorasan, it is important to be mentioned in Afghanistan's article. This point has already been mentioned in the article of Greater Khorasan in more detailed manner.
 * Thank youAriana310 23:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hudud ul-'alam min al-mashriq ila al-maghrib does not explain anything other than saying that it is a book written by an unknown writer. Earlier you asked "Please tell me by what name were the current territories of Afghanistan were known before the 18th century since you refuse the term of Khorasan? What were they called during the Ghaznavids, Samanids, Saffarids, Seljukids, Ghurids, Khwarezmids and Timurids? Persia, Hindustan, or Afghanistan?. '''by what name is Afghanistan's territories known today? Why do you assume modern Afghan territories had to be part of Khorasan, Hindustan or others? Could it be that Afghanistan was not part of Khorasan nor of Hindustan. Well, Afghanistan (Land of the Afghans), was self ruled for ages and was not part of Khorasan or Hindustan. I'm clearly refering to all the territories where the Afghans (Pashtuns) lived, Because that's where the modern name "Afghanistan" originates from. Ghaznavid Empire was made up of Afghans, Ghurid Empire was made up of Afghans, Hotaki Empire was made up of Afghans and Durrani Empire was made up of Afghans. These Empires crushed Persia, Khorasan and Hindustan over and over in the past, for over 1,000 years. Meaning the Afghans ruled over entire Pakistan, India and entire Persia (Iran and Iraq). Also meaning Pakistan, India and Khorasan were once part of Afghanistan. But not the other way around, that is an insult to Afghans. That's like saying that the Hindus in India ruled over the British, or that British was once part of India. Afghanistan was never part of Hindustan (India) or Pakistan or Khorasan.''' Pashtun Nov. 29, 2006


 * Please provide me an authentic and scholarly source in which it says that Ghaznavids, Samanids, Saffarids, Seljukids, Ghurids, Khwarezmids and Timurids were Afghans or Pashtuns, and as well as for "Afghanistan had its own independent government and was also called Afghanistan for 5000 years" as you said: Well, Afghanistan (Land of the Afghans), was self ruled for ages and was not part of Khorasan or Hindustan.


 * You answered my second question and it was your own point of view and without any authentic source. You still did not answer my first question about the maps.
 * Ariana310 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Pashtun that not all of modern Afghanistan was part of Khorasan. However, he is wrong when he says that only the northwestern parts were part of that region. In fact, MOST of modern Afghansitan was part of Khorasan, the only exception being the modern southern provinces around Kandahar. Cities such as Kabul, Balkh, or Ghazni were deffinitly major cities of Khorasan.
 * Tājik 20:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Babur says in his 1525 AD memoires: "....In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by.....In the city and the greater part of the villages....... To the south is Afghanistān ..."

How is is possible for Kabul to have been a major city of Khorasan? In the 1525 AD memoires, Babur explains that Khorasan is somewhere to the north-west of Kandahar. Babur stated, on one of his missions, that he travelled from Khorasan to Kandahar, then to Ghazni and finally to the country of Kabul. Pashtun Nov. 27, 2006

Babur further states in 1525 AD: "...There is also the country of Ghazni,* which is often denominated a Tumān. Ghazni was the capital of Sabuk­tegīn, of Sultan Mahmūd, and of the dynasty sprung from them. Many call it Ghaznīn. This was also the capital of Shāhāb-ed-dīn Ghūri,* who, in the Tabakāt-e-Nāsiri, and many of the histories of Hind, is called Muizzeddīn. It is situated in the third climate..." Pashtun Nov. 27, 2006

Babur further states in 1525 AD: "...Kābul is not fertile in grain; a return of four or five to one is reckoned favourable. The melons too are not good, but those raised from seed brought from Khorasān are tolerable." Pashtun Nov. 27, 2006

Babur further states in 1525 AD: "The country of Kābul is very strong, and of difficult access, whether to foreigners or enemies. Between Balkh, Kunduz, and Badakhshān on the one side, and Kābul on the other, is interposed the mountain of Hindū-kūsh, the passes over which are seven in number. Three of these are by Penjhīr;*........The road from Khorasān leads by way of Kandahār. It is a straight level road, and does not go through any hill-passes...." LINK HERE! Pashtun Nov. 27, 2006


 * "Khorasan" was not a country with definite political boundary. It was a loosely defined region, dominated by a very similar culture, language, and way of life.
 * Kabul, Ghazni, and Balkh were CERTAINLY part of that "Khorasan".
 * Besides that, Babur is only one source. al-Biruni and Ferdousi, for example, include both Ghazni and Kabul into the large body of "Khorasan". The word itself is strictly linked to the Persian culture and language - it is simply the most eastern border of the Persian cultural sphere. And since Kabul and Ghazni are still dominated by that Persian culture and language, these two cities form the most eastern parts of "Khorasan" - the "Eastern (Persian) land".
 * Tājik 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That makes no sense, what you stated. That's the same as saying that the entire world is part of America now because America's English language and culture or way of life is being used world-wide. Besides that nonsense, why you all refuse to write exact dates? Kabul, Ghazni, and Balkh were CERTAINLY part of that "Khorasan". in what exact time period was this? Pashtun Nov. 29, 2006


 * I would like to remind you that al-Biruni has stated in his book "Tahqeeq-e Mallahand" that the Afghan tribes were living in the southern areas of Khorasan (don't mix it with in the south of khorasan). So it clearly indicates that Khorasan did comprise the territories where there were Pashtuns i.e. Kandahar region. Ariana310 14:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This issue seems somewhat pointless. Khorasan has had various 'borders' once stretching into northern Iran (Tabaristan) to Peshawar. I've been recently reading Al-Tabari as well as Patricia Crone's book "God's Rule" which has a lot on the Umayyads and Hugh Kennedy's book on the Baghdad court of the Abbasids and Khorasan is defined as having an Inner Khorasan that was heavily influenced by the Arabs and Umayyads (Nishapur and Gorgan in particular) and Outer Khorasan which was dominated by 'Eastern Persians' (what we would today call Tajiks) reverting to a more anti-Arab nationalist view during the early Caliphates, Turks, Pashtuns etc. This is the place from whence Abu Muslim comes as well and the army that puts the Abbasids into power. One has to keep in mind that although some people may have referred to it as Khorasan it may not have been the case with all of the inhabitants of Afghanistan as the country is very much geographically factional. Thus, Arabs and Persians could be referring to the region as Khorasan, while its subsections could be other entities (Kabulistan for example). Its Persianness even varies as Turkic tribes had been moving into Merv, while Perso-Arab and Arab elites dominated the upper echelons of society (Ahl Khurasani) and the Pashtuns dominated its southeastern fringes. In short, it can be and was both a vague 'region' and also composed of subsections that, at various times, would be known by local names. Its central character being 'Persian', but also composed of Arab, Turkic, and Pashtuns elements. Tombseye 06:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly ! I totally agree. Mir Ghulam Moh. Ghubar, an Afghan historians, says that Khorasan has been used in two different terms: as a word with its specific meaning and as a word in a general signification. Khorasan in its strict sense, it was a word used by Sassanids for the regions around Herat, which were made by the Greeks (Alexandar the great). As Herat was called as Pearl of Khorasan. But as a general use, Khorasan was used for all territories lying between Transoxiana (included) and India, and between the Caspian Sea and Kashmir (Kabulistan included). For example, the north of Amu Darya have been also called as Khorasan, although they had their specific names such as Mawarul Nahr (or Faraa Rud) and Khwarazm (Chorasmia). Or for example, Kharaqan has always been reported as a village of Khorasan, while today it is in the Semnan province of Iran. As a whole, both Kabulistan and the regions of Kandahar were known as Khorasan. In many historical books, we read that Khorasan contained a group of Afghans or Pashtuns. Ariana310 14:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is Khorasan discussed in a section on the origins of the name "Afghanistan?" Please tie in to specific section.
This section begins, "The name Afghānisthān literally translates to Afghaniland or simply Land of the Afghans. Its modern usage derives from the word Afghan or Afghani."

This, along with the name, leads one to believe that this is the topic of the section.

But it concludes with this:

"In the Middle Ages, up to the 18th century, the region was known as Khorāsān[7]. Several important centers of Khorāsān are thus located in modern Afghanistan, such as Balkh, Herat, Ghazni and Kabul 1"

""The name Afghānisthān literally translates to Afghaniland or simply Land of the Afghans.... In the Middle Ages, up to the 18th century, the region was known as Khorāsān[7]." Huh?

Please tie this in directly to the discussion in this section or move or remove it. Someone else brought this upearlier, but it was lost in the mess.

How is an old name for some of the region related to how it came to be known as Afghanistan? When was it known as Khorāsān, then changed to Afghanistan? Or why was the name changed from Khorāsān to Afghanistan, as this seems to be what the article is implying or saying without saying, it was Khorāsān, then its named was changed to Afghanistan? Please clarify and tie-directly into the section. KP Botany 23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear KP Botany I think you're bringing the discussion again and again, or probably you did not follow the discussion properly. The fact that Afghanistan was part of Khorasan, and before the 18th century it was known as Khorasan, I provided enough sources both in English and Dari.


 * As for your question, why a name change in Afghanistan: It was all the political issues in 19th century based on ethnicity. In 18th century, Pashtuns came over power in the country. Ahmad Shah Baba was the first to create a grand empire, although before him Mirwais Khan Hotak and Khoshal Khan Khatak had already involved in political activities for independence. However, during the ruling of Ahmad Shah Baba, there was no reliance on ethnicity. He was a person respected for all ethnics i.e. Tajik. As Saber Shah Kabul (a Tajik from Kabul) was the first to vote for him and then also crowned him.


 * But in 19th century, prejudice for ethnicities spread. Those who were in power, the descendants of Ahmad Shah Baba, thought to rename the country as Afghanistan trying to make the country more depending for Pashtuns or Afghans.


 * Personally, I do not take any position against the current name of Afghanistan. Whatever happened in the past, today it is a name used for all the nation. The reason for mentioning the case of Khorasan, is that it is an obvious fact, an evident history for Afghanistan. The civilization, the cultural achievements and other developments in Khorasan region (that Afghanistan was part of it) is a honor for Afghanistan. Why should we try to avoid mentioning this important historical fact? Why should we leave it as it will be forgotten?


 * So now what do you propose? I thought since that Name section deals with the naming of Afghanistan, it is not irrelevant to mention the old name of the region. And by the way, does this single sentence mess up the whole article??!!!


 * Briefly, what do you propose? You want me to create another section for that? I think that would be completely inappropriate for just two lines. Or you want me to put this discussion in a new article/page and to give a link to it. But I think creating such a page will not be acceptable for the wikipedia administrators.
 * Ariana310 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course it messes up the whole NAME section of the article. Besides, everything you just mentioned is coming from the inside of a mind of a NON-Pashtun that you are. Perhaps a Tajik I assume. It is not an obvious fact, an evident history for Afghanistan that Khorasan being the former name of Afghanistan. Afghanistan being called Khorasan before the 18th century is 100% complete false and a made believe lie. This is the imagination of Tajiks and a political propaganda. No Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks or other ethnics from Afghanistan agree with Tajiks over this false claim. Pashtuns created the Nation (AFGHANISTAN) in 1747-1748. The modern nation was called Afghanistan since that time, this is what all Pashtuns claim and many official sources of the world backs this (i.e. CIA factbook, Encyclopedia of Islam, Afghanistan's official government and its sources). Since 1747, Tajiks never recognized the name "Afghanistan" for the country, most still do not recognize the name until this day, but they keep this secret to themselves of course. It's exactly the same way most people in the Middle East do not recognize Israel. As long as this false statement is in the NAME section of the article, people will always dispute it. The Diary of Babur in the year 1525 clearly explains, in full details, that Afghanistan was made up of several independent countries or large provinces, each of those countries had own government and own names. There was no such central government system placed. That's the precise reason why Babur decided to take control of the entire region. He first travelled and observed the regions and then he saw free opportunity to become ruler of the whole region. Kandahar province was one country, Ghazni province was another country, Kabul province was another and so on. These three larger countries in particular were lined up covering entire present-day south-west to north-east Afghanistan. To one side (Nort-Western Afghanistan plus parts of Iran) was a region called Khorasan. To the right (present-day Eastern Afghnistan and Western Pakistan, all the way perhaps as far as the Indus River) was the region called Afghanistan. Afghanistan at that time was not just made up of Pashtuns, but from people of other ethnics and religions also (i.e. Sikhs, Hindus, Hindo speakers, Urdu Speakers and etc.). Even until today, many Sikhs, Hindus and others speak Pashto language and live in the Pashtun areas of eastern Afghanistan and western Pakistan. This is the way modern-day Afghanistan's region was, since at least the time of Arab invasions in the 7th century until now, 2006. Different rulers came and gone, different invading forces came and gone but the territory or land kept their names AS IS.


 * Saying that before the 18th century Afghanistan was called Khorasan or being part of Khorasan is the most silliest and craziest thing I have ever heard. Because the name and the nation "Afghanistan" originates from the area that was inhabited by Ethnic Pashtuns, THE SOUTHERN HALF OF PRESENT-DAY AFGHANISTAN. Not originating from the northern half or from Khorasan, which is a province in northeast Iran. This means that in mid 1700s, the southern half of Afghanistan took control of the northern territories, which was an independent territory called Balkh, and the north-western territory which was called Khorasan (most was inside present-day Iran). Southern Afghanistan, on the other side, took control of Pakistan and western India. Khorasan (in Iran) was possessed and ruled by Afghanistan since mid 1750 to 1800, which is 50 long years. If you give me the specific year or time period, I will explain in more details about the territory of the region. But if just write from middle ages to 18th century, the region was called Afghanistan. That's written in a way to claim that for over 1,000 years entire modern Afghanistan was called Khorasan. Very silly statement. I suggest this silly statement be removed.Pashtun Nov. 30, 2006

User:Pashtun You failed to respond me in the discussion and you failed to prove your claim. You failed to refuse my point (Afghanistan was part of Khorasan). You were not able to provide any authentic source who would justify your claim. So now please do not re-bring the discussion.

You're trying to push your own POVs based on your own ethnicity: Pashtun. Making Afghanistan home for only Pashtuns, it is a ridiculous claim (I beg your pardon, but you wrote things a bit excessively showing your feelings). Not only Pashtuns but Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks and others are the original inhabitants of this territory.

You are writing history-fiction in the article, bringing everything for Pashtuns: claiming that Shah Mahmood Ghaznavi was a local Afghan (Pashtun), Ghorids were local Afghans (Pashtuns), Khwarezmids did not rule over modern Afghan territories, etc. Moreover, you just removed that sentence, for which you could not refuse in a the debate and you failed to respond to my questions, and you wrote the reason as it was already explained in the previous sentence. But I didn't see any sort of point like that in previous parts of the text. Please be honest for your edits and the reason you give them.Ariana310 08:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well this is another issue altogether, albeit one of substance that trumps the minor detail of history versus etymology. Even the Iranians I know laugh at the concept that Afghanistan was once called Khorasan because it implies that the region was unified for hundreds of years under Persia control at a time when no outsider has ever controlled the region, and directly contradicts all history about the region written by just about everyone.  These are college-educated Iranians--born and educated in Iran.  They find all the maps rather interesting, too, as they point out that huge expanses of Afghanistan were not mapped by anyone until the 19th century.  But I'm not up on that part of the history of Afghanistan and will leave it to others and chip away, slowly but surely, at other things.  KP Botany 01:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they try to call whatever exists in Central Asia as their own possession. They always claim that Afghanistan was a colony for Iran, which is of course a false claim. These are all their Nationalistic feelings. And it is normal that they do not accept the term of Khroasan.Ariana310 08:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ariana, the section is about the name "Afghanistan." Please stop saying things to people like you "probably you did not follow the discussion properly," when you yourself are not addressing the topic at all--the topic is the etymology of the country's name, not its history, and Khorasan has to do with its history, not its current name, as you yourself repeatedly say.


 * Do you understand that Khorasan and Afghanistan are not the same word? Or do you believe that in English they are the same word?  If this is a language barrier we need to work through it in English, one more reason for you to not continue with quoting Persian texts.  If this is not the case, and if Afghanistan does not derive directly from the word "Khorastan" then don't put Khorasan in a section on the etymology of the word "Afghanistan."


 * The question is "What is the relationship between the word 'Khorasan' and the word 'Afghanistan.'"


 * This does not say a single word about the relationship between the etymology of 'Afghanistan' and the word 'Khorasan.' You are discussing the history of Khorasan, but the section is about the etymology of 'Afghanistan.'


 * I suggest you either remove the sentence about Khorasan or add sentences about every other region that ever had anything historically to do with Afghanistan. Your choice, but if you do the latter, justify it fully, and don't omit a single region, and include all the tribal kingdoms.  Heck, you can even justify it in the paragraph, why you included the mention of Khorasan in a section on the etymology of its name. If you think you can reach consensus on this.


 * This is a valid section on how the country got its name. It is not the history of the country, including the history of Khorasan.


 * Also, highlighting is a way of linking Wiki readers to another article with the first occurence of a word, not with every. Pashtun has asked you repeatedly not to to do this, it's a Wiki style matter.


 * And there already is another section for that, Section 3, title "History."


 * Your and my personal opinions on the name do not matter. It's about the modern name for the country, the roots of the name, not the history of Afghanistan, that's part of history section, not the name section.  Here are links to dictionary definitions of etymology and history and name.  "What somebody is called" is not their biography, it's just their name, and that is what the section is about the name of the country, not its history..


 * KP Botany 00:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I will move that point from the Name section to the section of History somewhere. Ariana310 01:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and please edit your extraneous linking of Khorasan, only the first instance. KP Botany 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get it. What do you mean?Ariana310 01:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Excessive linking = linksmog
This article is excessively linked, even ridiculously so, it's like a huge purple and black splotch. You only need to link to another Wikipedia article the first time you mention a topic, not every time.

"Main articles: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Only make links that are relevant to the context Make only links relevant to the context. It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user’s experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by “(see:)”. Hence, the links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read."

WP:MOS

KP Botany 01:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User: Pashtun's Edits
Dear Pashtun, you keep reverting the article for whatever edit I do. And for your edits, you give a reason which sometimes has nothing to do with your edits. Please stop inserting your own POVs and writing a *history-fiction* in the article; You are violating the the general agreement for wikipedia.

Here are the edits you did November 30, 2006: You wrote in the reasons that This is already explained in the sentence before this, no need to explain something twice in a row. Can you please show me the exact sentence?
 * You deleted the sentence: In the Middle Ages, up to the 18th century, the region was known as Kh orāsān. Several important centers of Kh orāsān are thus located in modern Afghanistan, such as Balkh, Herat, Ghazni and Kabul. [LINK

You already failed to defend your claim in the discussion, and you were unable to refuse my point regarding Khorasan. If you have forgotten, please check here.

The Encyclopædia Britannica clearly states: ''Alp Tigin (grand father of Mahmood), a slave of Turkic origin at the Samanid court, escaped in AD 962 to Kabul, where he rapidly gained control of the town. He transferred his headquarters to Ghazna in central Afghanistan and established his dynasty there......  (AD 977–1186), Turkish dynasty that ruled in Khorasan, Afghanistan, and northern India.....The founder of the dynasty was Sebüktigin (ruled 977–997), a former Turkish slave who was recognized''. So how can you write in the article: who was a local native of modern-day Ghazni, Afghanistan.
 * You edited the article despite the source of Britannica that I had given. You wrote:  Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi, who was a local native of modern-day Ghazni, Afghanistan. and  founded by another local native from modern-day Ghor, Afghanistan,. link

This is called vandalizing. You told me that the Columbia Encyclopedia is more authentic and reliable than Encyclopedia Britannica and I told you to go ask this question from an Administrator of Wikipedia. So did you ask it? What did they told you?

First you changed Samanids to Sassanids, and I hope you got convince that one of the three capitals of Samanids were Herat.
 * You had also removed: Samanids (875-999) writing the reason as: The region of modern Afghanistan was not the center of the Sassanid Empire, that Empire was centered in present-day Iran or elsewhere.) LINK

I would like to ask you to please stop inserting your POVs and editing the article for whatever opposes your Pashtun ethnicity. It is an online encyclopedia, things will never be edited in the articles according to our personal wishes and preferences. Such type of edits violates the wikipedia's rules. Thank youAriana310 08:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're coming with nonsense again. Read the article carefully and tell me what is there that you find is POV and not actual fact? Sultan Mahmud was born on Ghazni, click on the link that I attached. I allowed the Samanid Empire to stay in the article, why you complaining over that now? The NON_ENGLISH sources will never be allowed here and I will go get administrators to help us with that. I am not vandalising or reverting the article, check my history for evidence. YOU (User:Ariana310) ARE REVERTING THE ARTICLE and you're history is proof to that. Stop accusing me of your actions or deeds. About the ethnic thing you mentioned, Hey, I'm proud of who I am. Pashtun Nov. 30, 2006

About Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammad of Ghor being called local Afghans or local natives of Ghazni or Ghor Afghanistan. That is not saying their ethnics were Pashtuns or Afghans. It means they were born in the place that is now called Afghanistan. This is the way we humans say things in this modern times. If Sultan Mahmud or Mohammad of Ghor were both born in, let's say 1139 AD, in the land that is now called the United States, then they would be called Americans or Native-Americans. That's the way it is explained by everyone and learn to live with it. You need help in understanding English more properly because as soon as you read something, you get different ideas of your own. Pashtun Nov. 30, 2006

'''The Arab Empire initially annexed parts of western Afghanistan in 652 AD, then conquered north of Afghanistan by 809 AD and administered that region as Khorasan. Over time much of the local population converted to Islam.''' <-this is the sentence before.

Then you write this after that sentence -->'''In the Middle Ages, up to the 18th century, the region was known as Kh orāsān. Several important centers of Kh orāsān are thus located in modern Afghanistan, such as Balkh, Herat, Ghazni and Kabul.

It is already explained that Arabs administered Northern Afghanistan as Khorasan. Then you come up with something totally different by saying that Entire Afghanistan was called Khorasan until the 18th century. This is something against the Encycopedia of Islam's quotation, which says that Afghanistan was not ruled by any one race of people or having any centralized government or the country being one piece and etc. Besides that, the source you keep attaching to your sentences are NON-ENGLISH and nobody here can understand that. I myself can't understand one single word. I see the writings in your sources as this --> oiwpomp9carspcoizj;oremofsai;mm;iesz,jflkmgwahf w;imfcks;zf.ndxzr,m;ojfe ll EZFJ?X>D;xz.fem/ir wa/d,p[xWA}?{|CEp]xrsa[o 'o[fso[fdxzmfrm'osrdotjjreagrtkjdskof[vg,m[lkaskoerwaoklawdidwqmixwq##$$(%*_(PJPWMD:<"Z ":LDpW. NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING?' [[Pashtun Nov. 30, 2006


 * It seems that I really have problem in communicating with you. Fine, since you did not mention Shah Mahmood Ghaznavi as an Afghan (Pashtun) in your new edits, I did not revert it. I only made a slight change, and I insist not to change it.
 * Regarding Khorasan, now it is mentioned only one time. Because your only reason for removing that was the repetition of the point. I just edited it, check it. Again I would like to make it clear, that I removed the online link for the source. Now, the source only contains the Name of Author, Title of the book, Place of publication, Editor, and Date of Publication. It is a published work approved by the Academy of Knowledge of Afghanistan and Kabul University, so there's no point in removing it.Ariana310 12:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Pashtun your continuous edits are inappropriate. In the discussion, we come almost to an agreement, but you again go and edit the article according to your preference and bringing illogical and irrelevant reasons for your edits. Please avoid such edits and do not mess up the article. Ariana310 12:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with you is that you want to re-name Afghanistan's article with Khorasan. This is Afghanistan's article not Khorasan. Khorasan is part of Iran. Explain about Khorasan in Iran's article not here. You probably don't even recognize that a nation by the name Afghanistan exist somewhere in the world. If you were from Afghanistan, why on earth would you be so anti-Afghanistan???????Pashtun Dec. 1, 2006

Mahmud Ghaznavi and Afghan
'''The Columbia Encyclopedia - Mahmud of Ghazna Mahmud of Ghazna (mämOOd', gŭz'na) [key], 971?–1030, Afghan emperor and conqueror. He defeated (c.999) his elder brother to gain control of Khorasan (in Iran) and of Afghanistan. In his raids against the states of N India, Mahmud, a staunch Muslim, destroyed Hindu temples, forced conversions to Islam, and carried off booty and slaves. Hindus especially abhorred his destruction of the temple to Shiva at Somnath in Gujarat. Mahmud's territorial gains lay mainly W and N of Afghanistan and in the Punjab. At Ghazna (see Ghazni), his capital, he built a magnificent mosque. His successors in the Ghaznavid dynasty, which Mahmud founded, ruled over a reduced domain with the capital at Lahore until 1186.''' What does that says in the begining? Was he Turkish or Afghan? Pashtun Dec. 1, 2006


 * Let me quote you the piece of text of Encyclopedia Britannica:


 * Ghaznavid Dynasty: (AD 977–1186), Turkish dynasty that ruled in Khorasan (in northeastern Iran), Afghanistan, and northern India. The founder of the dynasty was Sebüktigin (ruled 977–997), a former Turkish slave who was recognized by the Samanids (an Iranian Muslim dynasty) as governor of Ghazna (modern Ghazni, Afg.). 
 * Ghaznavids and Ghurids: Alp Tigin, a slave of Turkic origin at the Samanid court, escaped in AD 962 to Kabul, where he rapidly gained control of the town. He transferred his headquarters to Ghazna in central Afghanistan and established his dynasty there.


 * The Columbia Encyclopedia itself has got contradiction. For example, in the article related to Kandahar, it states: It was conquered by Arabs in the 7th cent. and by the Turkic Ghaznavids in the 10th cent.  The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2006


 * Other sources also approve that Ghaznavids were from Turkic origin:


 * Universtiy of Calgary, The Islamic World to 1600
 * The Metropolitan Museum, Central and North Asia
 * De Bellis Antiquitatis (DBA), Ghaznavids
 * Central and Inner Asia Studies, History


 * So the contents are Columbia Encyclopedia regarding Ghaznavids are unreliable. Moreover, Encyclopedia Britannica is more authentic and trustable than Columbia. Calling Shah Mahmood as original and local Afghan/Pashtun, is baseless. Ariana310 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you claiming that Ghaznavid Dynasty were from the country Turkey? That's what it means by saying "Turkish dynasty". Actually, the argument User:Pashtun brought up here is to explain about the person Mahmud Ghaznavi being born in the country we call Afghanistan, therefore, making him Afghan in that sense. There are people from many ethnics and cultures living in Afghanistan, as stated in the introduction section of the article, and all the people living in Afghanistan are called or classified as Afghans, regardless where their original heritage comes from. This is the way we the westerners feel about that. User:Ariana310, you are trying to get us confused between the Ghaznavid "Dynasty" and a "person" (Mahmud Ghaznavi). If Mahmud's father or grand-father were from Turky, that is not the case for Mahmud because he was born in Afghanistan, not in Turkey. Your entire argument here baseless, because you want to hide the fact Mahmud Ghaznavi being a native of Afghanistan. And yes his heritage is Turkish, the same as his father and so on. You want readers to assume that Mahmud was from Turkey or else where. Mahmud Ghaznavi is Afghanistan's National Hero, according to Afghanistan's official government. In recent news reports, the Afghan government complained to Pakistan about using Ghaznavi's name for Pakistan's nuclear missile. This link will show you just exactly where he is buried Nancy Hatch - Ghazni.--Italisa 07:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you read the original articles from Britannica Encyclopedia and other sources whether they were Turkish Dynasty or not? and by the way, when you say he was born in the Afghanistan territory i.e. Ghazni. and simply makes him Afghan. So by what name were the Afghanistan territories called in the period of Ghaznavids? Did the word Afghanistan exist?


 * My only point is to avoid using the term "Afghan" for Mahmud Ghaznavi, that's all. I neither claim to write Turkish, nor I am a pro-Persian or Iranian to ask to write something like Persian, etc. Just to avoid using the term "Afghan", which indicates the Pashtun ethnicity, for that period. Ariana310


 * Answer to your first question: During the Ghaznavids, the Afghanistan territories were not called by one name but by many. Not sure right now to tell you exactly how many seperate smaller countries existed but I can do detailed count later and name each single one. The country in which Mahmud was born was called "the country of Ghazna" (short Ghazna), which forms todays Ghazni Province that is located in Afghanistan.


 * Answer to the second question: According to historical records, YES, Afghanistan existed perhaps begining as far as from in or about the 7th century and onwards. It was a name given to an area south of Ghazna, Zabulistan and Kabulistan, west of the Indus River (Indus River today is in Pakistan). The first original name was "Afghana" or "Afghania", not sure which way was the proper way to pronounce it, hen turned into Afghanistan later in time. Finally it became the today's nation's name of Afghanistan in the late 1700s (anywhere between 1747 to 1772), but most believe it was in 1748.


 * About Mahmud being called local Afghan: This is explained in the sentence "to define" the person if whether he was invader from somewhere or whether he was a local ruler from the area, that's all. It's simply saying that Mahmud Ghaznavi was different among other rulers of Afghanistan at that time, because, he was a local ruler from Ghazni, and not someone like Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan or several others. Majority people want to know what happened in the history of Afghanistan, and they are "very less interested" in people's ethnicity, especially of people from over 1,000s of years ago that cannot be easily verified. Also, we are living in times now where people migrate from countries to countries, mixing with other ethnics very often then ever before. --Italisa 09:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * About the exact specific word or name "Afghanistan": This word or name was made by Persians and Hindustanis both, during the same period when the name "Afghana" or "Afghania" was made up (in or about the 7th century when Arabs invaded the area). The local Pashtuns called it "Afghana" while the Persians to the north and west, and, the Hindustanis to the east of Pashtuns all called it Afghanistan ever since that period of time. To the left of "Afghana" were Persian speakers, while to the right of "Afghana" were the Hindustanis. --Italisa 10:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but not totally with the usage of the word "Afghanistan". I agree that the word "afghan" existed during the Ghaznavids. As Ferdawsi, the poet who lived during the reign of Shah Mahmood, has used in Shahnamah the word awghan for the people living in south of Zabulistan and around the Sulaiman-Koh regions. But the word "afghanistan" never existed. The first usage of Afghanistan is in 16th century during the Moghuls, in Baburnama. So during the period of Ghaznavids 'afghan' never attributed to a region but to a people.

Since in the article, the word "Afghan" has been used as a synonym for Pashtun, we have to avoid using the word Afghan for Shah Mahmud Ghaznavi. I edited the sentence as : from Ghazni simply! Neither the word Turkish has been used, Nor the word Afghan has been used that would create any misconception of Afghan as a Nationality or Afghan as an ethnic group i.e. Pashtuns.

Another error and mistake in the first edited version by Pashtun, that I copied it for you in the next section, is that he called Shah Mahmud as the founder of Ghaznavid Empire. While some scholars take Alp Tagin (his grandfather) and some take Subuk Tagin (his father) as the founder of the empire since he prepared a troop and came conquered Khroasan.Ariana310 11:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit war
Guys, I have to protect the article due to the edit war. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Please solve the problems on talk.

I guess there we have a few content disputes. Some are pure stylistic: like where to put the Geography section. Some look like an attempt to fork other articles: like the ethnicity of Mahmud Ghaznavi should be solved on his article not here. Here we put only the result: like Turkish [ref] (by other sources [ref] local etc. Or just omit his ethnicity if it is to long a story.

Please avoid bad faith accusations to each other. Neither of your edits look like vandalism to me.

When you have some sort of a consensus please send me a message. Or if you have an agreement on a part of the problem, I could insert it into the protected article.

Please try to cooperate with each other. It is a Good Article, it is a shame to keep it locked due to the editorial disputes. Alex Bakharev 22:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * After the second thought it looked like a blatant 3RR violation by a single user, so I just blocked him. Still many of his edits seems to make sense, please check if you could merge them into the article Alex Bakharev 22:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Pashtun's first edits were appropriate though. But recently he started to edit the article according to his own preference and adding his personal POVs. The current version comprises the Edits of both User:Pashtun and User:Tajik. I hope they will both be satisfied, and that User:Pashtun be more cautious while doing Editing. Moreover, I added the point of Khorasan which was already discussed in here in section Khorasan and Afghanistan. But it was modified and deleted by User:Pashtun without giving any logical reason, although in the discussion he failed to defend his claims and then left the discussion.


 * I hope next time, User:Pashtun will discuss the points first in the discussion before proceeding for further edits. I asked him several times, both in this discussion and in his personal page for message. Another disputable point is the case of Ghaznavids, he claims that Mahmud of Ghazni was a local Afghan (Pashtun), while according to Encyclopedia Britannica he was from Turkish origin. I would like him to first present his arguments before any edit. Ariana310 23:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Ariana310, I've been eyeing on this entire discussion here on Afghanistan's article. Almost all the claims you made or make are proven to be untrue, and I'm sorry to tell you that. You just accused User:Pashtun about him claiming that Mahmud of Ghazni was a local Afghan (Pashtun). Can you please show me where he stated this? And was that the entire line of User:Pashtun's statement? I don't see it anywhere in the entire discussion of him telling this. What he's been telling and everyone is simple, that Mahmud of Ghazni was a local man from Ghazni, he was born in Ghazni and he resided there since being a baby. That clearly means that he was a local Afghan (from the palce that we call Afghanistan today). We all recognize the country Afghanistan and anyone who was born there at anytime in the past, he or she is considered as modern-day Afghanistan's local or native (Simply local Afghan). This is the exact term used by Encyclopedias of today. Besides, why do you make such a big deal about Mahmud being local Afghan or not? What do you want Mahmud to be called, a man who was born on some empty land which was somewhere in Asia? Anyway, I do not see anywhere that User:Pashtun mentiong of Mahmud's ethnics as Pashtun, as you just accused User:Pashtun of saying this. And don't make your own personal conclusions, when nobody wants to respond to your statements, of leaving discussion so that they lost or agreed to your terms. Many people don't respond back, that does not mean they lost the debate. Finally, the claims you've been making about Afghanistan before the 18th century being called Khorasan is now proven false, because you can't come up with one single reliable source to convince not even a standing dummy. You need to first do extensive research about the subject of Khorasan and figure out just exactly where and how far it was involved with Afghanistan's territories. Just because someone claims that Afghanistan before the 18th century was called Khorasan does not make it true. You skipped all the Encyclopedias, Iran's government documents, Afghanistan's government documents but now want to only rely on some unknown Arab Historians to explain this? You've been putting false information on Kabul's article also and in the end of the discussions on that with Pashtun, YOU ADMITTED THAT YOU WERE COMPLETELY WRONG TO USER:PASHTUN (Check history of your recent conversation on Kabul's article. I will not bring the evidence of your statements here but it's all recorded on your history. Not a single of your entire sources, that you bring here to Afghanistan or Kabul articles, are reliable, yest not even one. --Italisa 00:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Italisa, I am glad that you were following our discussion and the edit war in Afghanistan, but I think you were unable to follow it up properly. Here's the edit and version in which User:Pashtun wrote that Ghaznavids were Afghans:

Revision as of 17:56, November 29, 2006 in this version

As you can see see he deleted the name of the empires without giving any proper reason, and here's his sentence: The region of modern Afghanistan became the center of various important empires, including the Ghaznavid Empire (962-1151), founded by a local Afghan ruler from Ghazni named Mahmud Ghaznavi.[9] This empire was replaced by the Ghorid Empire (1151-1219), founded by another local Afghan ruler, Muhammad Ghori, whose domains laid the foundations for the Delhi Sultanate in India.

In this article the word Afghan has been used in double aspects: first as a Nationality and second as an ethnicity i.e. Pashtuns. As an ethncicity here are the sentences: The Pashtuns began using the term Afghan as a name for themselves from at least the Islamic period and onwards...."Afghān" is the term by which the Persian-speakers of Afghanistan (and the non-Paštō-speaking ethnic groups generally) designate the Paštūn....The term "Afghān" has probably designated the Paštūn since ancient times. Or for example, in this section the word Afghan and Pashtun are used as synonyms: a local Afghan (Pashtun)

The word Afghan was never used during the Ghaznavids as a Nationality, it would be a ridiculous claim. Ghaznavids were from Turkic origin, as I cited the sources, and NOT Afghans. At the period of Ghaznavids the word Afghan designated the Pashtuns.

About the Khorasan discussion, please do not try to reflect it the other way. You only read the first part of our discussion in which I had provided him sources from Arabic and Persian books. When he did not accept them and started pretending the language, I presented the sources in English. Please check the part just after he didn't accept the previous sources. I gave hims 10 points from English translated books, and those were the points that he couldn't refuse. Plus, I asked him two questions, including the one for the two maps, which were approved by an educational unit (university). He again did not respond me. He could not provide enough reliable sources in order to justify his point. So it is your own personal conclusion from our discussion !!!

You said that I admitted in Kabul article that I was wrong. WOULD YOU PLEASE CITE ME THE EXACT SENCTENCE IN WHICH I ADMITTED TO USER:PASHTUN THAT I WAS TOTALLY WRONG? Now it's you who's accusing !!! Ariana310 07:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

POV predictions
While these improvements will help rebuild a strong basis for the nation in the future, for now, the majority of the population continues to suffer from insufficient food, clothing, housing, medical care, and other problems exacerbated by military operations and political uncertainties.

I'm not so sure if this is NPOV, since making positive predictions about a country like Afghanistan is definitely a point that would be contested by a lot of people. Maybe reword it somehow?

ManicParroT 03:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The evil taliban is still operating in afghanistan and they still trying to take the country back to the stone age.

Map of Ethnic Groups was innacurate, replaced.
This map has many obvious mistakes. For one, it has colored Hazaras as Tajiks on the map. Or in other words, it does not show Hazaras on the map and instead shows more Tajiks. Another mistake is showing Pashtuns on the Iranian border, that is exaggerated. The Tajik population is also exaggerated and many parts should be replaced with Pashtun, as in the map I posted. Also, the map I uploaded shows areas that are often mixed. This map does not show that. Parsiwan 16:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are openly challenging the most recent (2006) information from the CIA, United Nations and BBC (agencies that are present in Afghanistan monitoring the entire country, using the most advanced methods of generating data and information). The map you are obessesed with and keeps posting is one from 1985, clearly outdated information. Plus, your map is very unreliable because it is made by an unknown agency. The above CIA/UN map just gives general information of where the Tajiks and Hazara live. According to me, it is as accurate as it can be. About the Pashtuns living on the border with Iran, this is nothing new. All that area is inhabited by Pashtuns since before Afghanistan was created as a nation in 1747. In fact, I just saw a map shown on TV of Afghanistan on the new English al-Jazeera channel, and it showed Pashtuns covering the same area as the one above. Perhaps this disturbed you for some reason but it shows what's out there in the western area of Afghanistan. If you keep removing my map I will bring an administrator to help resolve the issue. This is not a place to remove most recent and more trustful information, and replace it with 1985 outdated and innaccurate information. More importantly, the Demographics of Afghanistan is mainly to show a break down of the number of Ethnic groups in the country. The area in which each ethnic group reside is not first but second, or that important because many Afghans are nomads and they mover from place to place all the time. Your map over mines has no place in Afghanistan's article because it is unreliable and only made in a way to make you happy. --NisarKand 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets put all other issues aside, and just think about the issue of where are the Hazaras on the map? The Hazara are found in central Afghanistan. This is not shown on the map. This map is discluding an ethnic group that accounts for 9% of the population and are the inhabitants of central Afghanistan. That is a major flaw on its own, never mind the other problems. Parsiwan 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In regards to where Hazaras are, look at the chart (the pie) and read Hazaras. It clearly states that Hazaras live in the Central Highlands. Again, your 1985 communist map is very very very outdated and should be removed.--NisarKand 04:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that you have decided to keep both maps there. I think that a good solution and I now don't see any problems. Although there still is the innacuracy about Pashtuns being only from Hebrew origins, Pashtuns have various origins. And other issues. But since we have both maps, I will not argue against your decision. But others might not like this compromise either... Parsiwan 05:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you can come up with facts about where the Pashtuns originated from then I will call the CIA and the United Nations to correct their map, chart and findings. If you fail to do this, then go along with what the claims of the Pashtuns are. You are just a normal person with limited knowledge about people. Do not act like you know more then CIA and the United Nations. The maps you keep showing is dated from 1980 made by an unknown agency. It is posted at Hazara.net, which is a site of Hazara people. Meaning these maps of yours are bogus. Afghanistan is soon going to have census and the mystery will be solved about the exact number of people of each ethnic group. In fact, they were suppose to do this a year ago but failed so far. The number of votes Hamid Karzai recieved is enough proof that Pashtuns are very high number in Afghanistan. As we all know that it's not normal for NON-Pashtuns to vote for a Pashtun leader. check Politics and government of Afghanistan, where the number of votes Karzai recieved. And don't give me any comments or excuses to that.--NisarKand 12:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * NisarKand, stop your nonsense. The current map is not taken from Hazara.org, but has the same source. It is the ONLY map available that is based on direct census numbers. All other maps, including CIA, BBC, SPIEGEL, etc are nothing but pure guesses. Some reliability have certain scholarly works - but these, too, are pure guesses.
 * And it's totally hillarious that you want to figure out population statistics by analyzing the last election. The funny part: a correct analysis of the election actually disproves your claims and reveals that the Pashtuns are not more 30% of Afghanistan. Here is an article of the Washington Post (10-12-2004; posted earlier in this discussion :

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.


 * In other words: 86% Pashtuns + 40% Tajiks + 21% Hazaras + 16% Uzbeks = Karzai's 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 please stop this nonsense and instead provide correct and reliable information, and stop certainly deleting certain maps and sources, only because you believe that there is a Hazara conspiracy.
 * Tājik 23:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I keep wondering why you coming here arguing with me, when you make no sense at all? Don't you realize that many people might be coming to see this discussion here? You are basically telling everyone here not to trust the CIA, BBC, United Nations' 2006 chart that is posted above, which is also posted at BBC, and that everyone should trust your 1980 map which was made by an unknown person. First of all, I am not arguing over the number of each ethnic group but instead you are. I never changed the numbers, rather I changed and replaced the old 1980, hard to read and understand map of yours. My map, the one above, explains little more about each Ethnic group, while yours does not. Demographics of Afghanistan should not just be the numbers of each group but also include a brief explanation about who or what these people are and or where they originate from. By watching your actions and you keep insisting that your map remains in Afghanistan's article, there must be something you are up to. Also something I noticed, you keep talking about the numbers of Pashtuns should be lower, which indicates that you wish to see them die or something. I will slowly look around for an administrator to help with removing and deleting your silly outdated map soon. I wish not to bother talking or discussing anything with you as I find that you are not a nice person to talk or socialize with. You keep reminding that Pashtuns killed this Pashtuns killed that, why don't you discuss about Pashtuns always being killed by invaders. They have the right to rule their country and they have the right to kill anyone they find as a traitor to their country. This law is practiced in all the countries of the world. By now I've already realized that you are not just a traitor to Afghanistan but also a true enemy of Pashtuns. Stay away from me cause I don't like those who don't like me. I have Allah (Almighty God) on my side and that's why I always win.--NisarKand 08:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

And I keep wondering why you are here at all, since you proved many times that you have absolutely NO idea what you are talking about ... and it's really a myth why you have once again started these POV edits, especially after you had been blocked for more than a week by admins because of POV edits, vandalism, and sock-puppets. You also totally fail to understand that the map you have posted above is NOT the official UN map (if it that were the case, then the map would have been available at www.un.org!). The BBC does not have much reliability, because it is only a news-agency. And - this is most important point - the map you have posted uses exactly the same numbers as already presented: those of the CIA factbook 2005. The other maps - the ones in the article - are based on OFFICIAL census numbers from the late 70's and were published in 1985 ... They are - right now - the most reliable maps, because the data was published by the Afghan government. The maps were PRINTED in 2001 based on those numbers. The3 problem with you is that you are a Pashtun nationalist, and thus totally biased. You even claimed that these maps are wrong, because they are also published on www.hazara.org, a Hazara site, affraid of some kind of Hazara conspiracy against Pashtuns. This is totally POV. This is just one of your countless POVs in the article ... and I do not even want to start with your POVs about "Pashtuns having invented the nuclear bomb, Pashtuns being the first humans in space, Pashtuns having had the first civilization on earth, blah blah blah". I mean ... you do not even know that Afghanistan is a Western transliteration of the original Af gh ān'stān - the original Persian spelling does not have an -i ... it is only a vowel that is used between the n and the s - a typical phenomenon in Middle Eastern languages where two consonants are splitted by a vowl. Based on this misunderstanding (that the "i" is part of "Afghani") you even claim that "Afghanistan" means "Afghani place" ... that's pure nonsense and actually proves that you have NO idea what you are talking about. Tājik 10:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: you may not know that, but Pashtuns - too - are part of the "invaders" who invaded and conquered the region, just like Persians, Turks, Mongols, etc. They are originally from regions further south, now part of Pakistan. They are not an autochtonous population ... the only group in Afghanistan that cannot be considered as "invaders" are the Brahui - the ONLY autochtonous population of Afghanistan. All the rest are "invaders and conquerors" ... including Pashtuns. A good proof for this are the "Persian-speaking colonies" in the eastern and southern parts of Afghanistan, including Farrah and Gardez ... remnants of a time when Pashtuns and Pashto had not yet invaded and reached the region. Tājik 10:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To your first post....I am posting ALL INFORMATION from well known sources, so that's not POVs. About Pashtun inventing nuclear bomb, I said he (Abdul Qadeer Khan) invented "PAKISTAN's NUCLEAR BOMB"...learn what that means. About Pashtun being first to space was among the rest of Afghans or the rest of the Pashtuns...he made it to be the "FIRST PASHTUN" to reach space. Also, learn what that means. I never said the first man to space was Pashtun. About me being blocked for a week, I chose to be blocked and it does not mean anything now, I enjoyed my 1 week of block. You think that discredits my knowledge? Don't think so pal. Now about the number of ethnic groups, I am not arguing the number of people of each group, that's up to the United Nations and Afghanistan to conduct a census and make a true figure, which will happen one day. I am against your map, which you loaded from a wesbsite that sells Middle Eastern rugs. That specific bogus map did not include any numbers of the ethnic groups of Afghanistan. It is you or your other Alias name "User:Tajik-afghan" that added the numbers to the map. Face it, your bogus map is not reliable and worthless work of art. It is hard to read. If you were smart, you'd show trustful and reliable map.--NisarKand 11:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To your second post....What you just stated here facts or your own POVs? Man you sound dumber as you keep typing. If Pashtuns are invaders then why they are not included in the History section next to all the other invaders? HAHAHAHAHAH....see what I mean by your dumbness? You just wrote all this nonsense here but have "zero" evidence to prove any. That's the perfect examples of POVs.--NisarKand 11:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nisarkand, you sound like you want to argue with Tajik, while Tajik is just discussing things and stating facts. I think we should all avoid arguments and simply discuss things as opposed to argue, this isn't afterall an internet forums. And no, I am not the same person as Tajik. Tajik is one person who tries hard to bring credibility and facts to this encyclopedia and he is always for the truth and nothing but the truth. I on the other hand am not as active as him, I just make very minor contributions, while Tajik is a great contributer to Wikipedia. Neither of us are Tajik nationalists. For example you may have noticed that I was the one that uploaded the Zalmay Khalizad and Afghan austronaut pictures and placed them in the Pashtun article. If I was an anti-Pashtun Tajik nationalist, why would I make positive contributions to the Pashtun article? You see, your allegations against us are simply false. We do not have a POV, we are only trying to state the truth. Now about that map, it is NOT from the CIA or United Nations. ONLY the data is from the CIA/United Nations and our map already has those numbers! The map itself is produced by the BBC, which is just a news company and not credible. For instance the BBC once claimed that Hazaras are 30% of Afghanistan, which anyone from there knows is exagerated. Both the BBC map and the 1985 Afghanistan Gov. map have the same numbers! The only difference is, our map is from a reliable source, while yours is not (BBC) and thus the map we currently have is more accurate. Parsiwan 05:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You keep forgetting...your 1980 map that is posted at Hazara.net never included the statistic numbers of each ethnic groups...it's a plain map just showing colored areas. That's where the problem is...and don't deny the facts about you not being the same user as User:Tajik, User:Ariana310 because you are. You (under all your alias names) make sure that you have the last message posted in every discussion. By hiding the name Tajik-afghan and replacing it with Parsiwan over it, that's your intention of reducing the chance of being easily recognized by other users. I noticed countless number of mistakes you've made, which indicate that all of you are the same user. I don't have time to explain all this as it is not important for me. Now you are also using the alias name of User:Napoleon12 and his IP is the same as yours.--NisarKand 10:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

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

What does this mean?
Hi.

I saw this: " is a landlocked country at the crossroads of Asia and the Middle East. " But isn't the Middle East in Asia, anyway? 70.101.147.224 06:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing that out. I'll change it to something like: "is a landlocked country at the cross roads of South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East." Parsiwan 06:11, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, much of the Middle East is in south-west Asia, so that could be mentioned as well. One point it said, "at the crossroads of Asia", which seems better. 70.101.147.224 22:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, thats an even better idea. Thank you. Parsiwan 06:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
The following was removed from the article:

"In the Middle Ages, up to the 18th century, the region was known as Kh orāsān. Several important centers of Kh orāsān are thus located in modern Afghanistan, such as Balkh, Herat, Ghazni and Kabul 1."

Why? Khoikhoi 21:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Khoikhoi, you are always defending User:Tajik and his many alias names User:Ariana310, User:Tajik-afghan...this makes you look bad. The region of Afghanistan in the Middle Ages, upto the 18th century was NOT known as Khorasan...you know this very well so don't pretend dumb. Those references attached are just websites, without explaining anything. One of the reference clearly explains the opposit, that Afghanistan was made up of many different provinces using different names, and that only "one out of many districts" was called Khorasan. That does not mean the entire Afghanistan was known as Khorasan. From the Middle Ages to upto the middle of the 18th century, Afghanistan was never a one single country, it was made up of many smaller districts and each district was governed by its own ruler or king. This is what all the historians of the world say. Whoever placed this false information about Afghanistan being known as Khorasan needs to show convincing evidence or I will bring Wikipedia administrators here to help resolve this dispute.--NisarKand 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's well referenced, that's for sure. I've restored it. --Mardavich 05:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What is well referenced? You think a website from Tajikistan, a sentence that says....Afghanistan was known as Khorasan...by an unknown writter or unknown person is reliable source of information? That's the same as if someone from Afghanistan would say that India was known as Afghanistan in 1700s, simply because a small part of India was part of the Durrani Empire. I know the Indians would dispute this all the time because to them India was never known as Afghanistan in the past. By the way, Tajikistan is a country that was created in 1992, so what do they know about past history?--NisarKand 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the first time that User:Nisarkand and its sockpuppets are removing this point, despite it is well sourced. The case of Khorasan has been already discussed in this discussion page in the section Khorasan and Afghanistan. I presented all the arguments with reliable sources and references. And User:Pashtun (sockpuppet of Nisarkand) could not present any single reliable source and could not defend his point. In addition, Nisarkand has comitted several times the 3RR violation, and always trying to push his POVs by attacking personally on other members. --Ariana310 12:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Ariana310 A.K.A. User:Tajik...the only thing you know is how to accuse people. You are also obssesed with me, I don't even like you. Why do you bother wasting time with me when knowing that I don't even like you? Every Wikipedia users have multiple alias IDs, especially you. You sockpuppet of User:Tajik and User:Tajik-afghan. This is not a basketball match, why you keep saying you made points when you made "zero"? You can't show one single Encyclopedia references about Afghanistan being Khorasan before the 18th century. If this was true, I would not object or dispute this in anyway. Because it is false and that's the only reason I dispute it. Look at all my edits, I've added the most trustful sources...straight from encyclopedias and well known historians.--NisarKand 10:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. I think the point is simply that to some people Afghanistan was part of Khorasan, while local groups may not have referred to it as Khorasan. It's a large geographic term and is not meant to denote solidity or historical continuity. For example, during the Abbasid period Kabul and Qandahar were not part of Khorasan whereas in later years these Pashtun regions became associated with the area. These are, of course, Iranian (and Arab) perspectives as they named regions and used this terminology which has continued to be used by Western academics who read Persian and Arab texts. I believe a more accurate view would be that most of Afghanistan (outside of Kabul and Qandahar) was considered part of Khorasan and then, at variuos stages of history such as Safavid rule, it was extended further east into Pashtun areas. Locals may have simply used city names or tribal names to denote their respective regions and that's fine too. I'm not sure there is any need for an argument here though. Would it be suitable to say that much of Afghanistan was referred to as Khorasan by the Persians and Arabs then? Whereas at various times, under expanding empires based in Iran the terminology was expanded to include areas as far east as Peshawar and Baluchistan and as far north as Transoxiana (or a sizeable proportion of it at least including what is today Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan etc.). We can surely agree then that some of Afghanistan was considered Khorasan then yes?Tombseye 18:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If you are not sure about something...don't write false information in the article as facts. Here is the map from the University of Pennsylvania and tell me if Afghanistan was known as Khorasan before the 18th century?



I am aware that some people are born naturally stupid, while others like me are born with extra knowledge. I never make claims unless I am not 100% sure about something. My claim is that Afghanistan was not known as Khorasan before the 18th century, which I've been saying over and over... scroll up in the discussions and you see.NisarKand 07:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What the Hell!
People you need to understand and I am speaking to the (non Afghans) Iranians dont count becuase they share the same history and are almost the same thing, but mainly to pakis and other people who think that afghans are thier cousins or think they know everything there is about Afghan people. Afghanistan was once apart of the persian empire and many of the persian kings great genrals were ethnic pashtuns, like Ahmad shah durani, just like Armanian's, azeri's, kurd's, pashtun's were a ethnicity in persia before the 18th century (mainly of eastern persia ) which is now mostly Mashad and Herat. Now for some of my fellow Afghan brothers who are so into being pashtun than rather having Afghan unity and think that the pashtun race just magically appeared like LUCKY CHARMS..NO! if the the theory is true about pashtuns being decendents of Israel then it should prove that pashtuns are originally a persian ethnicity (which they are) becuase Iran had a large jewish population before and after the creation of a territory called afghanistan and after afghanistan became an independent nation in the 18th century. But that was then this is now and Afghans no matter what langauage you speak and what tribe we come from should not be important more than having unity and peace amongst our selves (I am one of the millions of Afghans who say the the hell with that damn durrand line) those people only speak a afghan language but they claim paki..that just tells you they have no Afghan pride and pakistan is using them as an insturment to distrupt rebuilding Afghanistan. So im urging my afghan brothers and sisters where ever ther at please stop this language bashing becuase thats what it is...all those people in afghanistan (pashtun,tajik,uzbek,hazara,turk) thier all Afghan now they just speak diffrent language. Srry I just thought this would be a good place to remind Afghans of where we have been and what have we done for our selves with all this language bashing...NOTHING...30yrs of war, over 2 million dead, and Afghanistan which was looking to be a modernize country in the 60's and 70's is one of the top poorest countries in the world....HOW SAD WHEN WELL WE LEARN FROM OUR MISTAKES..

Why is Afghanistan in labeled as south asia
Im sick and tiered of people labling Afghanistan as south asia...isnt the indian subcontentent labeled as south asia...I know for a fact that Afghan people are not Indian or south asian. and dont south asian's reffer them selves as desi which I know Afghans,Arabs iranians are not desi for a FACT. becuase they look diffrent and are from diffrent orgins. Afghanistan should be labeled either middle-east, central asia which makes more sence, or southwest asia which completely makes sence. Im not Afghan but I deffently know my geography, I have books on world countries from the 1970s and Afghanistan was never called south asia it was called CENTRAL ASIA and Iran was labeled Central asia too, plus a couple of my friends are afghan and they do not look like anyone from pakistan or india, so afghanistan out of the south asian equation I know my Afghan freinds would agree and so would the rest of the afghan population. From :observer


 * Yes, we have labeled Afghanistan as Central Asia first, then mentioned that sometimes it is also Middle East or South Asia. But someone vandalized it. I will now correct it again. Thanks for bringing it up. Behnam 19:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)... Hey behnam someones changed the article back to south asia and blocked any type of editing..must be some freakin south asians!

What! Afghanistan is not apart of South Asia...who the hell put Afghanistan in that region..since when..we have alway labeled Afghanistan as Central asia.. or west asia. Isnt south asia predominatly the indian subcontenent.Which Afghans are not indian or paki. This should be changed right now!... :Bache afg

[Omg who the hell blocked the editing. Whoever did that has no right. Its probabaly some damn indian or damn paki who is obsessed with either trying to be Afghan or wanting Afghans to be in the same catagory as they are. which is not true becuase Afghans and Iranians are too white and too good looking to be considered from the indian part of the world so all you Pakis and Indians who think you know Afghans better lay off this Article. Afghanistan is a mid-east/ central asian country...so BACK OFF go fix a the indian, desi, or freakin paki article lay off of ours. :Gurrilla Fighter


 * I am Afghan and I placed Afghanistan part of South Asia. According to all the top sources (CIA Factbook, United Nations, BBC news and others, Afghanistan is part of South Asia first, then Central Asia and last the Middle East. This is not about the people and even if it was, the Pashtuns (major ethnic of Afghanistan) are not Central Asians because they don't have oriental look. Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan are the same people...totallying to about 50 million. Anyway, this encyclopedia goes by what the major sources say...not what each one of us think or say.--NisarKand 13:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Nisarkand to chee megoyee..."The pashtuns from pakistan and afghanistan are the same people" no they are not maybe 100 years ago but not anymore. They are as paki as can be, I know alot of them personally and they do not claim Afghan at all they claim Paki and are really proud of it too and not all of them look Afghan ALOT! of them look Indian or punjabi(same damn thing)and central asian looking like oriental! no what about most of the tajiks from Tajikistan they do not look oriental but niether do Afghans other than our hazara and uzbek brothers but I know one thing Afghans do not look indian thats one thing for sure, Most Afghana look Persian and Arab becuase thats what most Afghana are. Nisarkand you are forgeting about another concept, that Afghanistan was always considered central asia and the middle-east (I have 3 books one from Afghanistan in the 1960's and one from United States from the 1970's and another from 2005 and they all say Afghanistan is mainly Central Asia, we follow Iran not pakistan becuase 100 yrs ago there was no pakistan and those people stuck in the durand line are from Afghan decent but they are now paki and it sounds that you are basing afghanistans geography on basically THEM!...like if those pashtuns from pakistan were place in europe then afghanistan should be considered european. Remember they should follow us..we shouldnt have to follow them. Another thing, what about the rest of the Afghans (pashtuns, tajiks ,uzbeks, hazaras, and turks) in Afghanistan that do not want to be associated with the people of north pakistan,(including myself) do not want to be associated with a bunch of people who do not recognise who they are and loyal to a punjabi government. Last but not least, then alot of Afghans should consider them selves Iranian based on your assumption...Most of Iran is in the middle-east and gulf area then alot of Afghana who speak farsi should consider them selves middle-eastern, Like I do and manyothers like me. So bottom line Nisarkand you cant based the whole web page just on your opinion you need to base them on facts and the CIA fact book also includes Afghanistan as central asia, United Nations considers ONLY! southern Afghanistan as a BORDER LINE of south asia becuase of certain linguistic ties to north pakistan, but the UN considers most of Afghanistan and Iran to be Southwest Asia which is the Middle-East, and BBC is wrong and I am in the middle of talking to one of the directors of BBC news and web page and soon you will see Afghanistan moved to the Middle-east section and soon ther in the middle of making a Central Asian web page Afghanistan will be put into that page also.


 * User: Nisarkand, NONE of those sources you just listed are academic sources! I will soon provide you with several academic books clearly describing Afghanistan as a Central Asian country. Also, Afghanistan is a ALREADY a part of WikiProject_Central_Asia and so obviously this has already been discussed and agreed that Afghanistan is first Central Asia, then South Asia or Middle East. That alone should be enough to put Central Asia here. Behnam 11:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, here is a reliable SCHOLARLY source clearly labeling Afghanistan as Central Asia . I think that settles that dispute. --Behnam 11:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * - Afghanistan = "Southern Asia, north and west of Pakistan, east of Iran"
 * South Asia (United Nations map) - Afghanistan = South Asia

I am not into this ethnic battles between Iran and Pakistan or India, so please do not show me your hate towards other ethnics or nationalities. I treat people from every country equally. I am Afghan...not Iranian, Pakistani or Indian. The article says that Afghanistan is located at the heart of Asia and this is what matters. The rest is not a big concern. Since the CIA world factbook is used mostly in this article then it must also be used in this place, describing that the country is generally part of Southern Asia because the CIA say so, not because of us or book writers. Please don't use the word scholarly too much, it is only a human who wrote the article about Afghanistan in the 1919 encyclopedia. This is simply a geographical matter not a scholarly matter. The person who wrote the statements without signature is obviously the same person using the same IP number. First he/she stated that he/she is Afghan...then in the next post stated that he/she is not Afghan. Why do you people fight over something that is very unimportant and if others read these things you are doing they get disgusted at Afghans. Just so people know, I am officially Afghan (Pashtun) and we are very civilized people as you can see. We don't fight over nonsense, and we let others write their false information on their insisting if it makes them happy because we know that eventually people will understand the thoughts of those who are purposly placing false information in these Wikipedia article. We Pashtuns know that we are smart people and we have much bigger things on our minds then this kids stuff.--NisarKand 16:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

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

"Central Asia" vs. "South Asia"
Good heavens. You guys still at it, reverting between these two versions of the sentence?

Version A

Generally considered part of Central Asia, it is sometimes ascribed to a regional bloc in either Southern Asia or the Middle East, ...

Version B

Generally considered part of Southern Asia, it is sometimes ascribed to a regional bloc in either Central Asia or the Middle East, ...

How often have you done this now? Talk about "sterile" edit-warring ... And two parties have already been blocked over exactly this revert. Let me tell you it's generally not a very clever idea coming off a block and returning immediately to the same reverts.

For now, I'll do the following. I'm removing the sentence completely, for the time being. I'll leave it as an exercise in imaginative collaborative editing for you guys to re-insert it in such a form that will be acceptable to both sides.

Hint: If you study the two quotes above, carefully, you will find there is a prettyobvious solution to this task. But I'm not telling you what it is.

Carrot and stick: I will award a plate of wiki-cookies to whoever first comes up with the solution. I will block, immediately and without further warning (and without counting to 3), anybody who will simply revert the sentence to either of the two old versions. And no, this will not be abuse of admin power in a content dispute, because I'm still uninvolved here and the revert-war has gone on for so long any continuation of it amounts to disruption.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I provided an academic scholarly source clearly stating that it is Central Asia, Encyclopedia Britannica []. User: Nisarkand's sources are the CIA World Fact Book and United Nations. These are not scholarly nor academic sources. Encyclopedia Britannica is. That is why last night I provided this source and changed it. I really don't see what the problem is though, because we have stated in that sentence that it could be classified in either Centrial or South Asia. More academic/scholarly sources say Central Asia than South Asia, it should be described as Central first, then South Asia (common, but less frequent in academic/scholarly sources), then Middle East (not as common, only sometimes). Well that's my solution, Version A, I didn't think it was much of a problem to begin with. --Behnam 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That source I provided there was an older version of Britannica. Here is the latest one and what it says "landlocked, multiethnic country located in the heart of south-central Asia." That could be another possible solution.


 * Also, Afghanistan is already a part of WikiProject_Central_Asia. So this must have already been discussed at that project page. And also on the South Asia template it was agreed that Afghanistan is only sometimes part of South Asia.


 * Template:Countries_of_Central_Asia
 * Template:Countries_of_South_Asia
 * Template:Countries_and_territories_of_the_Middle_East


 * Here is another solution: "generally considered either as a part of Central Asia or South Asia, it is sometimes ascribed to a regional bloc in the Middle East."


 * And here is one more: "Generally considered a part of South-Central Asia, it is sometimes ascribed to a regional bloc in the Middle East." --Behnam 18:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The only reason why I placed South Asia or Southern Asia first is because under South Asia Afghanistan is clearly included with the same color as the rest of the South Asian nations (click here and see...Southern Asia). On the other hand, Afghanistan is colored different from the Central Asian nations (see ->Central Asia. Middle East is way off because that includes mostly Arab nations. I say why don't we just go with the flow here and stop making things difficult. This sounds like someone arguing and saying that the sky is NOT BLUE but actually turquoise or light blue, although we all say the sky is blue when generally speaking. User:Beh-nam is now using Britannica in determining the geographic position of Afghanistan as his source when just earlier he claimed that Britannica is wrong about Afghanistan being created as a nation in 1747. He claims that present-day Afghanistan was called Durrani Empire from 1747 to 1919, when no such Empire ever existed. Durrani Empire is an English made-up name for the government of Ahmad Shah Durrani, has nothing to do with the name of the country. Afghans never called it Durrani Empire. They called the nation as Afghanistan from at least since 1747. Anyway, I am ready to quit this article because it's not going anywhere. You may write that Afghanistan is Central Asia since this gives you personal satisfaction thinking you won something. But I know that the CIA, US Dept. of State, UN and BBC will always consider it part of South Asia because it is the majority who the sentence is refering to...not to what the Afghans consider it. Oh and by the way, Afghanistan "IS" member of SAARC (South Asian States), I think since 2004 or 2005. User:Abdul916, I strongly assume is the person who wrote the statements above using IP address and no signature, removed Afghanistan from SAARC on January 11, 2007. LOL...Afghanistan is also a member of SACEP (South Asia Co-operative Environment Programme)--NisarKand 18:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User: Nisarkand, I have not claimed no such thing. How many times do I have to tell you that me and User: Tajik are two DIFFERENT people! Also, look again! I provided the LATEST version of Britannica as well as the 1911 version. And what you fail to realize is that the geography of a country doesn't change, afterall countries don't move! Whereas, demographics do change over time. Instead of making comments that are not related to this topic, please comment on one of the 2 solutions that I have proposed. --Behnam 01:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this debate is unnecessary. Afghanistan, as the sources show, is simply in a difficult to define position. It fits neatly on a map as a part of 'South Asia', but is often considered a part of Central Asia because it has no sizeable Indo-Aryan linguistic group and is sometimes considered a part of the Middle East as it has historical and cultural ties to the west (mainly Iran but also the Arab world as with the Abbasid era). Perhaps a solution could be to tally up the number of sources that place it in one region or the other and list them in that order? That might be a lot of trouble though. Also, we have, predictably, varying views as they are based upon either an imperial legacy (the British in British India view it from that perspective as do Indians), the Soviets who would see it as a Central Asian, and other Westerners who might see it as a logical extension of the Iranic world and thus the Middle East. All of these can be correct answers and so listing the various regions should be okay. In fact, that could be the solution. I originally phrased the opening with the regional bloc affiliations and didn't foresee this problem coming up. I think then that we could just phrase it as being located in the heart of Asia and sometimes ascribed to regional blocs in Central or South Asia and/or the Middle East. Central Asia coming first simply due to alphabetical order and the Middle East last due to its reduced frequency of application. Does this sound like a fair compromise to everyone? Tombseye 06:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alphabetical order doesn't work here with this and it sounds like you are just supporting User:Beh-nam. The following is the list of sources that places Afghanistan in Southern Asia or South Asia:

1. CIA world factbook on Afghanistan - Southern Asia, north and west of Pakistan, east of Iran

2. U.S. Department of State - South Asia - U.S. Government Agency Grants $3 Million to Build Afghan Homes

3. BBC News - South Asia - COUNTRY PROFILES A GUIDE TO SOUTH ASIA (Afghanistan)

4. United Nations's map includes Afghanistan in South Asia (click here -> South Asia.

If you don't think Afghanistan comes under Southern Asia first, then you are saying that these 4 major sources are wrong, and I have no more arguments regarding this. Also, don't forget that Afghanistan will be officially a permanent member of SAARC and is already a full member of SACEP.--NisarKand 09:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What about if we write: '''...is a lanlocked country, located at the heart of Asia. It is surrounded by the Middle East, Central Asia, East Asia and the Indian subcontinent...'''? It it already stated that it is located in the heart of Asia (center of Asia), meaning it is not part of Central Asia, East Asia, Southern Asia or the Middle East. It is uniquely a lonely nation, not being part of any groups of nations.NisarKand 10:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to take sides so much as find a solution. I don't necessarily disagree that Afghanistan can be considered part of South Asia first, but its geographic position is contested. For example, at UCLA the Middle East dept. considered it a part of the region as does Columbia Univ. Others, especially in the UK, view it as South Asian. Because of the varying views, I am simply looking to have them all expressed. I think you may be onto something with Afghanistan being its own unique country, but I would say that it can be considered a part of any of the regional blocs. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying any one person is right so much as that anyone can be right given a certain argument. Thus, I put forth my view that it can be considered a part of any of the regional blocs. Yes, the SAARC situation is interesting, but not surprising given India's massive economy. I wouldn't be surprised if Iran joins up in the not too distant future as well. We could even say that it overlaps into the Middle East, Central and South Asia as well, which is also true. Tombseye 20:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although Afghanistan shares aspects of its culture with many surrounding states, it is rather more South Asian culturally than Middle Eastern in a lot of ways.  That UCLA considers it a part of the Middle East as does Columbia University may be more reflections of large Iranian populations in those areas than anything else.  How exactly is this expressed by each university that Afghanistan is Middle Eastern and not South Asian?  The University of Nebraska at Omaha Afghan Studies Center would be a more prominent source to look at for its positioning.  The fact is some ME maps contain Afghanistan and others don't.  Afghanistan shares quite a bit of culture with the Middle East in addition to South Asia, and there are some shocking differences between some aspects of South Asian culture and Afghan culture.  However, if I'm travelling and in Denver or St. Louis and craving Afghan food and can't find a restaurant, I go to a Indian restaurant, not a Middle Eastern one.  If I have to buy a traditional present or cooking vessel for an Afghan couple, I go to the Indian stores in my neighborhood (although now there is an Afghan store), not the Middle Eastern one.  Other than for Iranian pastries and music, the Middle Eastern store is not a major shopping stop--and, the Indian stores now carry all the Afghan music.  I think mentioning that it is considered part of various blocks by various groups covers it well, but really the major emphasis or first mention should be South Asia, until a credible source can be found that dismisses this notion.  KP Botany 01:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KP Botany, you have discussed South Asia and Middle East, but what are your thoughts on Afghanistan being part of Central Asia? Unsigned post by 18:44, 2007 January 15 Beh-nam (Talk | contribs)


 * This is only my personal thoughts on the matter, as a lot of people consider Afghanistan to be a part of Central Asia, and really the question to ask is what is the accepted interpretation and the verification for it, not what any one editor at Wikipedia thinks. But I have a hard time thinking of Afghanistan as Central Asian, although culturally it shares some, and, in particular, some of its peoples share a lot with Central Asia, and one cannot imagine an Afghanistan not influenced and impacted by Central Asia, or vice versa.  On a personal note, I can get my cousins together to see Indian movies, Pakistani movies, Iranian movies, and Middle Eastern movies, even Turkish movies, but not a single one of them ever goes to see Uzbek or Kazakh films with me at film festivals--some of the more interesting films of the 90s.  We buy out the house for South Asian and Middle Eastern movies, even for Arab-African films--but I suspect this has to do with the Soviet influence on these cultures, and my thinking is probably impacted by being a Cold War era American.  I'll have to ask the older Afghans about this some time.  However, as it is part of Central Asia in some descriptions, this obviously should be mentioned in the article, but after South Asia and Middle East.  KP Botany 03:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS Also, I'm a geologist, so I tend to think of the geological history of Afghanistan first. It's accretionary terranes are much more impacted by South Asian and Middle Eastern and even Asia Minor's relationships wtih it than by Central Asia, but, again, maybe this is my Cold War thinking.  KP Botany 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, you raise some interesting points, but I think they simply prove what I have been saying, that Afghanistan is an overlapping state that is defined in any and all of the regional blocs. The social orientation issue varies as, for example, Afghanistan Persian-speaking population tend to orient themselves towards Iran, the Pashtuns towards Pakistan and the Uzbeks etc. towards Central Asia. It's still, in short, an overlapping region due to its varied ethnic make-up. The one thing that drastically makes it different from South Asia is the language issue. The languages are Iranian and Turkic (Indo-Aryan languages are virtually non-existent) and historically it has been part of the Iranic world. The South Asian connection is more modern, but like most countries it has ties to all of its neighbors. So, like Turkey, which has ties to both Europe and the Mideast, Afghanistan links to all of its neighbors. The faculties at Columbia and UCLA are overwhelmingly Americans with a smattering of Mideasterners so I'm not sure how much of Iranian impact there is. I simply think that Afghanistan is defined as part of all three of the regions and thus stating that in the article without giving particular credence to one or the other seems logical and viable. I can see how Afghans share things in common with Pakistanis (particularly Pashtuns), but I don't see how they relate to Bengalis or Sri Lankans at all. Perhaps Indian Muslims in-general share some similarities in some cases as well, but the South Asian association is no more viable than Central Asia or the Mideast in this regard. We're really back to square one as mentioning that it can be considered a part of all of the aforementioned blocs should be okay and is truthful and can be referenced. That's an interesting point regarding the geologic terrain. The Iranian plateau seems more of a link than the Indian subcontinent that ends at the Punjab strangely mirroring the linguistic divide between the Indo-aryan and Iranian speaking areas. Tombseye 05:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's most dominant cultural link is South Asian, and this goes for all Afghans, not just Pashtuns. I had to pick up a group of Afghan Tajiks, whom I had never met, in Fremont a couple of years ago for a wedding.  As I drove down the street, looking for their address I saw a group of four people waiting for a ride.  Only when I saw their faces, did I realize they were Indians.  There was another group just down the block, dressed exactly the same, except they were Tajiks.  In the US you would never mistake a group of Middle Easterners for a group of Iranians.  The point I was trying to make is that perceptions may be clouded by biases.  Iran is in the Middle East, so, if a school has a large Middle Eastern population it may, by proximity, move Afghanistan handily into the Middle East.  This is their perception bias in placement.  I've admitted mine, because they're there.  I shop for Nekah gowns with Afghan women all of the time.  I've never been in a Middle Eastern store for one, but they all speak enough Hindi (probably from an addiction to Indian soaps) to shop readily in an Indian store.  When I told my cousin in Denver that there was a Middle Eastern store where she could buy some of the Afghan foods she wanted, she was utterly amazed that they had some of the stuff she needed, but didn't know what over half the items in the store were.  You can buy all the pans and teapots and cooking utensils and trays you need for an Afghan household in the States in an Indian store.  The Middle Eastern stores carry lots of delicate little things.  I would never mistake a group of Central Asians or a group of Middle Easterners for a group of Afghans, but it's hard to find the Afghans in a crowd of Indians.  Culturally, Afghans are primarily South Asian, in the food, in the clothing, in some of the customs, where they differ greatly it is due to the heavy impact of Hinuism and the caste system on Indian culture, like dowries.  An Afghan plopped down in an Indian store, bazaar, restaurant, kitchen, wedding, household would feel right at home.  An Afghan plopped down in a Middle Eastern store might not be able to stock the kitchen well.  But biases cloud the individual's viewing.  What do the references say?  Nisar provided links to encyclopedias that say otherwise, what are your links to sources that say culturally Afghanistan is Middle Eastern or Central Asian?  One of my cousins sent me an e-mail last night reminding me that almost everyone in the family with a degree got their degrees in Tehran, which is why we have any Middle Eastern connection. (Interjected about Nisar's comment.) KP Botany 14:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You people have very limited information about the culture of Afghans living in Afghanistan. Afghans (as a whole) are mostly into the Indian culture and not much into Iranian culture. First, Afghans are 80% Sunni Muslims, while Iranians are Shias. In fact, because of this, most Afghans are anti-Iranians. Next, Afghans watch Indian movies and TV dramas, and because if this, they are very much influenced by Indian culture and language. At the same time, Afghans DON'T watches Iranian or Middle Eastern movies. If you walk around in Kabul all you hear is Indian music playing load in front of every shop. Not me but Afghans are hooked on watching Indian dramas on TV and they never miss one episode of it. Afghans, Pakistanis and Indians wear similar clothes. Don't forget that most Afghans can speak Urdu or Hindi. The Persian language spoken in Iran is very much different from the one spoken in Afghanistan. I'm not being rude but I have Iranian TV channel in my home and I never watch it because they show very boring stuff. All these things I said here can be verified if you go to Afghana.com, then log on to chat (no passwords required) and speak to 100s of Afghans live. It's real easy and ask the people there whether they are into Indian culture or Iranian culture, then you will learn the truth. That's how I learn things when I'm not sure about something. By the way, I'm not anti-Iranian. I consider Iranians as my family or relatives. NisarKand 11:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources for Central Asia and Middle East placements I see Nisar's sources, but only references to other Wikipedia pages. What are the authoritative references placing Afghanistan in the Middle East and in Central Asia over South Asia? This is part of what makes Afghanistan so interesting, and what brought the Soviets, the British, the Mongols, of course--it's location. KP Botany 14:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Afghanistan can whether be mentioned both in South Asia or in Central Asia. If you look to the official documents, whether some 80 years ago or at present, you will find Afghanistan under those two regions. But not Middle-East. The reason for excluding Afghanistan from the Middle-East region, is not the culture or traditions, but its geographical locations. Despite the fact that Afghanistan shares the same language and the same culture with Iran, or the same Sunnite sect of Islam with other countries of Middle-East, it cannot be called as Middle-East country.
 * Honestly, I do not see any problem in mentioning Afghanistan both in Central Asia and in South Asia. That's what it shares. Afghanistan is a member of both Central Asia and Southern Asia Economical / Coperational associations.Ariana310 18:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Geographically most of Afghanistan that is not part of the Hindu Kush is part of the Iranian Plateau, and Afghanistan is greatly impacted by major fault systems that radiate out from Asia Minor and Iran. As Iran is firmly part of the Middle East, saying that Afghanistan can be excluded from the Middle East because of its "geographical location" has no basis.  Please look up the major fault systems of the Iranian Plateau and the accretionary history of Afghanistan and the Kabul Block, before pronouncing your opinion on the geographical location of Afghanistan.  However, is the Middle East primarily a geographical construct?  Geography is a function of political entitities and of physical realities.  Physically there is reason to place Afghanistan in the Middle East and Central Asia, but its primary physical placement is also South Asian because of the impact of the Hindu Kush and the Himalayan uplift on the country.   KP Botany 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here are the sources again that places Afghanistan part of South Asia.--NisarKand 15:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

1. CIA world factbook on Afghanistan - Southern Asia, north and west of Pakistan, east of Iran

2. U.S. Department of State - South Asia - U.S. Government Agency Grants $3 Million to Build Afghan Homes

3. BBC News - South Asia - COUNTRY PROFILES A GUIDE TO SOUTH ASIA (Afghanistan)

4. United Nations's map includes Afghanistan in South Asia (click here -> South Asia.

Afghanistan's mention in all three regions is just a reference to the fact that references and perspectives vary. That's all. I'm not favoring one over the other, I just think that more information is better than less. Britannica and Americana list Afghanistan as part of Central Asia, many academic departments put it in the MIddle East, and American and British agencies list it in South Asia. Thus, mentioning all 3 seems logical to me. How about we just vote on it and we can list the three in order of support? Tombseye 18:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you please give me the specific links to the academic sources that place it in the Middle East? Or did you post this already?   If the geological sources matter I will be glad to post some.  KP Botany 22:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, here are some I know off the top of my head-Middle East Institute, NYU, University of Michigan, University of Texas, United Nations, US Library of Congress' Near East list. There are others such as Columbia and UCLA, but their websites don't explain the geographic parameters for whatever reasons and the Univ. of Chicago used to, but now it seems either open-ended or obvious I suppose. At any rate, I think this just proves the point that Afghanistan is an overlapping country that can be placed in Central and South Asia and the Middle East/Near East. This, to me, is natural as the country is varied and even the South Asia connection is with a region of Pakistan that is itself Middle Eastern/Central Asian (the North-West Frontier Province and Balochistan (Pakistan). I am not saying there is not a South Asian connection overall (even with remote areas of Afghanistan), but I see no reason why it is more South Asian than Central Asian. The Middle East categorization, it seems to me, is varied and the only reason Afghanistan is not univerally placed in the region is because it doesn't fit nicely on a map. Tombseye 03:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Taliban's brutalities against Afghan women and children
Why did the Taliban prohibit women from going to school, wearing their heads exposed, or talking or laughing in public? Why did it bar children from watching television, playing games or music, working on computers, or reading books? Did political cartoons in newspapers in the late 1990s and 2000-2001 view the Taliban as demons, devils, and ogres?

Commenting on Botany and Nissarkand's comments
this is abdul916, Botany apperantly you have no idea of what Afghan people truley look like becuase if your saying that Afghans look like indian people which is totally offensive to almost every Afghan ( other than Nissarkand ) you are basing all Afghans on just the group you know that is not fair and if you are really in the bay area then you should know that Afghans come in all shapes and sizes which deffenitly looks like you dont. Im a tajik and I am from North Afghanistan and were I am from people relate them selves closer to Iranians people, and as for my family we have light brown and blond hair and very light features like white people have you seen Indians like that Botany? and...we HATE pakis and Indians... Just ask anybody from Parwan province from Panjshir, ghorband, kunduz, badakhshan, and salaang they'll tell you what they think about Southern Asians. If were so close to them why do we make fun of them?, why dont Afghan people call them selves desi? , and why do Afghans speak a persian language not urdu or punjabi? becuase we have nothing in common with them and this goes for Nissarkand becuase he is one of the very few Afghans I have came across that is so hell bent on grouping Afghans with Dark south asians.. Botany is not afghan and probably dosnt know the diffrence between his or her right or left hand, but Nissarkand your Afghan you should know that our culture is origianlly khorassany and what is that its a persian culture...our food is the same I have never meet indians who made Kabuli-palow, mantoo, diffrent styles of beef and chicken kabobs we have (which are simalr to iranian food), we are big beef eaters and indians cant even eat most meat so I do not know where nissarkand and botany got the idea of afghan food and culture is simalar to indians. Another thing I have lived in Afghanstan both before and during the war( these were the times where Afghanistan was like the FLORENCE of Central-Asia and Middle-east when it came to fashion and culture in the 70's-80's) and the Afghanistan and the people living in it, is not the same country I left 16 yrs ago becuase i remeber,

..very few people knew how to speak urdu or hindi, another thing is these people living in Afghanistan and in the United states have either spent time or lived in pakistan as refugees so of course where ever you go you will adopt that nation's culture to blend with socitey.
 * sure almost every country you go in asia and middle-east indian films are popular but they are viewed dubbed thats how they were back then in Afghanistan becuase very


 * I remember going to pakistan as a refugee and my family and the other Afghans we came with were the only ones wearing western style clothing (the same type most people in Afghanistan would wear not indian or paki clothing) and yes by the way we dressed and our looks which would be SO diffrent from the pakistani's people. People knew we were Afghan We spent 5 months in Pakistan and still could not pick up the language so My family is one of the many Afghans we know that do not watch the indian channels becuase we have no idea what they are saying so we watch the IRANIAN channels and yes we watch iranain movies too... becuase we find them far more intresting and realistic then indian movies..plus we can relate to Iranian movies much more than any indian movie. So nissarkand unless you have lived in the times where i have lived in Afghnaistan you can not claim all afghans love indian movies more or love indian clothing...becuase even white people like indian clothing and movies


 * Wheres my other fellow Afghans that can give thier opinion and thier backround because I know ther's alot of Afghans who will disagree with wht Nissarkand and Botany say...who cares about the position of afghanistan ...now we are closer to indian people by looks and by culture...That is the most untrue comment I have heard so far...People of Afghnistan who are known for having one of the most Beautiful children, beautiful women, and Handsome men in the world ...more than any south asian, arab and other people....thats funny. when was the last time youv'e seen a cute paki or indian baby, beautiful indian women, and handsome paki or indian guy...I still havnt seen one....and the ones from the movies are fake.


 * I am a white Afghan, I look like any ordinary white American, European or Australian. I don't think the color of people have anything to do with Afghanistan being more on the Southern Asia side. It is more due to it's position and the relationship with South Asia. Abdul, you are Tajik (minority)....while I am Pashtun, the majority of the region. You should not speak for the majority of the people, when you are the minority. Sure we have relations with Iran but it's not as close to as the Indian subcontinent. You see, we Pashtuns consider Pakistan as our country because we can travel and live there with no problems. 28 million Pakistanis are Pashtuns, that's the same numbers as the entire population of Afghanistan. For the past 25 years or so, Afghans were living in Pakistan as if they were living in their own. They owned homes, shops and worked without any restrictions. And even until now, about 2.5 million Afghan still living there. I wish you read news on how Iran is treating Afghan refugees then come here and talk nice things about that country. Iran just raised one month visa fee from $37 to about $100 for Afghans. Visa to Pakistan is FREE to every Afghan and it carries minimum 3 months to maximum 6 months stay time. Enough with this now...the Central Asian nations completely destroyed Afghanistan and now you want it to be considered part of them? Who do you think majority of the Soviet army were made of? They were mostly from Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. During that period, Afghans were safely living in Pakistan, while the Central Asian nations were destroying their country. I find it very silly knowing that people in here are actually wanting to make Afghanistan part of Central Asia. When it was Central Asia that crippled Afghanistan.--NisarKand 15:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * These are really racist comments don't you think? Beautiful people? what does that have to do with anything and who cares? I can see why you aren't signing your posts as these comments are ridiculous. I was going with Afghanistan as part of Central Asia b/c other encyclopedias (Britannica and Americana) both define it in the region, but I certainly don't want to be associated with idiots who make racist comments. Tombseye 18:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Tombeye, you should write the name of the person who you're posting your message to. Your message looks as a reply to mines when people read this discussion. By the way, I am an expert at knowing who is who when they type here and while seeing their actions elsewhere in Wikipedia.--NisarKand 12:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My comment was meant for the guy above who made all the racist comments and not you. I don't bother to find out who people are if they don't sign their names as it's a waste of time for me to even reply I figure. The comments were not directed at you. Peace. Tombseye 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Nissarkand you seem to be confident in your lack of knowlege when your talking about Afghanistan being closer (cultrally and what not) to Iran or Pakistan/India. I told you once I have live there probably before you were born, I have seen both peacefull Afghanistan and both War-torn Afghanistan...It is no joke when more than a millon people have to move from their lands to either go to Iran or Pakistan Becuase I have gone through being a refugee in a forign country..(that being pakistan). I agree that Iran did not treat other Afghan refugees fairly BUT! neither did Pakistan...I have asked some of my friends who are mostly Pashtun about this debate and they even said that We people of Afghanistan share closer ties cultrally to Iran that is not ROCKET SCIENCE as one of my pashtun friends from Kandahar said. You also said that 2.5 million Afghans live in Pakistan of course they live thier becuase that is thier land...northern pakistan belongs to Afghanistan, Since you are such a smart! person Nissarjaan you should know about the treaty of Gandumak which is all about the Durrand line. If Pakistan dose not accept Afghans any more and would not let them live in North pakistan then the government of Pakistan knows its going to have a huge problem in thier hands which it already has. Another thing you mentioned which every Afghan will disagree with you is that Pakistan's economy was mostly built becuase of the blood of Afghans, the ones living thier would live in poor conditions, pakistani police would harass anyone from afghanistan, would beat afghans with thier police battons, get money or go to jail tactics, and I dont know if you have ever been to Southern Pakistan like Karachi or Lahore but they are very racist against Afghans ...trust me I know. So Nissarjaan dont tell me that Pakistan has been very kind to Afghans..you should sit down and talk with older educated Afghans who will tell you thier horrible expeirences in Pakistan. Oh ya dont ever call me a minority becuase back in the good old days this huge gap between Pashtun and Tajiks never exsisted...what you said was offencesive I have every right to call my self Afghan becuase I am from Afghanistan...and for your information my mother is 100% Pashtun originally from Zadran..but she grew up in Kabul and met my Father who is a Tajik from N.Afghanstan...so dont EVER call me a minority for your info ya your right! Pashtun ethnicity is the majority but not the language and most Pashtuns either speak both or they speak Dari.. and they would also disagree with you that Afghans are closer to Pakistan or india...becuase my Mom even said that you are wrong and Afghans are closer to Iran ...you own Hardcore Pashtun said that..and the other Afghans who live in Pakistan who are originally Pashtun either consider them selves Independent or Pakistani...because that was a long time ago that the Durrand agreement split them ...so that should explain why Pakistan has ANY pashtun's in the first place..becuase you talk like pakistan exsisted for many years Pakistan has been around for about 60yrs, so if your a true person from Afghanistan then you will understand if you dont then you must have some type of motive..like either you are really from Pakistan..or you just love them too much becuase you obviously care much about them and do not care if you offend other Afghans such as your Tajik brothers.(Abdul916 18:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC))


 * Heres some links for people to better understand....just some articles for people to read.
 * []
 * []
 * []


 * User:Abdul, do not get personal with me here. I was in Afghanistan when the first Russian air bombing began. It was a cold winter normal day and all of a sudden we heard jet planes in the sky and bombings. I saw russian conveys pass in front of my house on many occasions, usually 100s of tanks and military trucks. I remember hearing tank shells from morning to night for weeks long, and it was truely like living in hell in those days. After each fightings ended and the Russians left the area, we would go around look for dead bodies and collect them. Sometimes we would come across dead bodies of civilians...from observing the scenes it looked as if they were first tortured or beaten, perhaps by stabbing them and later their bodies were burnt using kerosin. I've seen bodies with entire chest missing or heads broken apart in half. I saw one of my friend this way early in the morning in the mosque after they brought his body, when just about a week earlier I saw him playing with baloons and smiling at me. He had a big hole in his upper back, from a helicopter missile that hit him. This means I was there in Afghanistan during the wars. I was also there before the war and yes the country was a nice place. During the peace times nobody ever seen how a gun looks. Murder was very rare and if we ever heard of someone getting killed, it was made like a major terrorist attack now. I remeber all these things about the country and I'm sure there are many who do also. Don't make your self important than others when you don't know who is who. We Pashtuns do not look as Pakistan as special. We look at it as our country because the land where Pashtuns live in Pakistan is nearly half of Pakistan's land. We naturally own that land and that's why we stick to Pakistan. The majority of the Urdu speakers in Pakistan are refugees from India who settled in Pakistan since 1947. Pakistanis do not deny this, they know and will tell you more. We Afghan-Pashtuns think like kings because our ancestors were the kings ruling all these areas for 1,000s of years and still do today. We don't look at Punjabi leader of Pakistan as our leader. He is leader of his own Punjabi people. We also look at Iran and other neighboring countries the same way. We are kings and we cannot be ruled by others, that's just how we naturally are. Why do you Tajiks make Iran so important? I look at Iran as a country that was ruled by us, so naturally I have to look at it as our servant country. Now, I'm talking about recent history...not history of BC times, a history that we can be 100% sure of. The capitals of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India are very close to one another. Tehran's capital is in bubble f.... Afghanistan's majority are Pashtuns and Pakistan has 28 million Pashtuns...because of this, Afghanistan is tied to South Asia (Indian Subcontinent). More movement is made between Afghanistan and Pakistan than with any other country. There are more than 50 crossing points between the two countries and they are trying to add more soon, according to the government of Pakistan. Between Iran and Afghanistan, there is only 1 or 2. Between Afghanistan and Turkmenistan there is only 1 and its use is restricted to civilians. Uzbekistan = 1 crossing point also restricted to civilians. Tajikistan has 1 crossing point = mild restriction for civilians. All this explains that Afghanistan is NOT part of Central Asia.--NisarKand 07:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, Abdul, Afghans dress like Pakistanis and Indians, and if you don't know that, there's no point in my reading or discussing the rest of what you wrote. Let's stick with those who at least know the cultural basics about Afghans, or are willing to learn them, instead of going off into tangents with people who think that Afghans don't wear many clothing items similar to Indians and Pakistanis.


 * And, yes, as Nisar points out the obvious once more, one of the reasons that Afghanistan is considered South Asian is the high impact of the cultural exchange between Afghanistan and the Indian subcontinent due to the Pashtuns living on both sides of the Hindu Kush. KP Botany 22:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean eastern Pakistanis and Indians dress like Afghans (which for our purposes of cultural demarcation will include the Pashtuns of western Pakistan) perhaps as the form of dress you are referring to was brought to South Asia by Turko-Iranian invaders from, yes, Central Asia. For whatever reasons, South Asia has been slower to adopt 'western' clothing in comparison to other regions, but the origins of the types of similar clothing (the shalwar) are Middle Eastern/Central Asian in origin anyway. Tombseye 03:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tombseye, you are misguided. The loosely pajama style clothes worn in Afghanistan and Pakistan was brought to the region by the Greeks. At first it was like a skirt but then it was made to what it is today. During cultural or traditional events, the original Greek style white skirt is worn by men and they perform traditional dances (check images here...Farhad Darya). If you look at Greece article, you may find gaurds at some special places in Greece wearing the same original style clothes. Shalwar Kamees is not Central Asian at all it originates from Greece (Europe).--NisarKand 11:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Most of what I've read attributes the dress to Turko-Iranians, BUT even if it is of Greek origin I think one thing we can agree on is that it is NOT a dress native to South Asia, which was my real point here. Tombseye 21:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The links that Abdul provided don't say anything to support Afghans not dressing like South Asians, Afghans not being South Asian, or anything about Afghanistan's political geography, other than asserting generally what is being discussed here, Afghanistan has cultural ties to South Asia, the Middle East and Central Asia, so I don't know the point of posting them. I would like specific references that place Afghanistan geopolitically elsewhere, besides South Asia as Nisar has provided those.  I think my original point that cultural biases cloud people's intellectual viewpoints remains valid.  KP Botany 22:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * KP Botany, are you actually claiming that you know much about Afghanistan or Afghanistan's culture?! Anyone who thinks that he can minimize the culture of Afghanistan to only one single character knows actually nothing of the country.
 * Fact is that there is no "culture of Afghanistan" but many "cultures of Afghanistan". Afghanistan is a blend of the different cultures of the region - a very natural thing, considering the history and geographic location of Afghanistan.
 * My paternal family is from Herat, and I do not identify myself with anything "South Asian". Of course, almost everyone in Afghanistan loves Bollywood movies and music ... but this does not automatically qualify for being "South Asian".
 * Herat's people and culture, for example, are pretty much "Iranian", the people of northern Afghanistan are pretty much "Central Asian". And the people of Kabul - the center of Afghanistan - are pretty much everything, most of all westernized!
 * There may be many Afghans who "dress like South Asians", as you say it. But the entire Middle East has common clothing and food. Afghanistan's national dish - "Mantoo" - is originally Central Asian and was brought to Afghanistan by the Turco-Mongol invaders. It is also - with some variation - the national dish of Russia (see: Pelmeni)! Afghanistan's national sport, Buzkashi, is also Central Asian. Afghanistan's most important non-Islamic holliday is the Iranian Nouruz. Afghanistan's literature and script is based on the Persian alphabet, itself a variation of Arabic alphabet (which itself is a variation of the ancient Aramaic alphabet). Afghanistan's national poet, Khalilollah Khalili, was born and raised in northern Afghanistan and he identified himself with the people of the north (although his maternal family was Pashtun). 10-15% of Afghanistan speak a Turkic language, like their Central Asian neighbours. At least 50% speak Persian, of whom at least 10-15% are Ithna Ashari Imami Shia who look up to the Iranian ulema. Afghanistan's music is a blend of traditional Persian and Indian music - the people of Herat are closer to Iranian music (see here: Ustad Madadi's music. He is one of Afghanistan's most celebrated contemporary classical musicians!)
 * I am not opposing the idea that Afghanistan may be considered part of South Asia. But is totally absurd to claim that Afghanistan is "only South Asian" and not Central Asian or Middle Eastern. Afghanistan is a blend of all of these cultures.
 * Btw: I wouldn't put too much trust in NisarKand's writings. He has proved more than once that he does know as much as he claims (no to mention his extreme anti-Tajik and Pashtun nationalistic idelogy). In this article, he claims that the "Ottoman Empire invaded Afghanistan" (which is totally absurd), and in another article he did not even know that Anatolia was populated by Turkic tribes from the 12th century on (claiming that "the Ghaznavids were Turks from Turkey"). Besides that, he only speaks for Pashtuns, especially for those living in southern Afghanistan. He has absolutely no knowledge of the people in the north or those in the west.
 * Tājik 01:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Everything User:Tajik states is pure nonsense. I don't have to explain how much User:Tajik is anti-Pashtun and hates me (Pashtun) with a passion. You can just read his messages about me and figure that out. From the first day I came to edit articles on Wikipedia in October 2006 until today, he is the only one against me being here editing articles that relate to Afghanistan. I have not one single problem with any other users. I proved him wrong on many occasions but he won't give up. He tries to put Pashtuns down and make Tajiks or Persians look better, that's his modivation from focusing on his actions here. Everyone in my house are college graduates and successful people in life, including me. I don't need to explain more.--NisarKand 11:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * May I remind you that you were banned by admins because of constant racist attacks against others, including your notorious statement "Tajiks are rats"?! Tājik 16:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Web-etiquette and Wikipedia method of dispute resolution (WP:DR), 1. Avoidance, and 3. Second step (after talking which requires both parties to stay on topic): Disengage for a while.


 * The point I made is that people are biased by their own experiences--some more than others. I talked about the diverse influences on Afghanistan of various cultures, and my own experiences to make this point.  Please discuss the article, or my comments, Tajik, not your assumptions about me, as your guesses about me have all been wrong in the past, and unsupported by any evidence, making no point in continuing along those lines.  The article and the question at issue is, "Is Afghanistan part of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East, or primarily more part of one block than the other, AND can anyone provide references, specific references, to Afghanistan as part of Central Asia and the Middle East?"


 * It's clear that others view Afghanistan as variously part of all three blocks, so it's time to move on to references that can resolve this issue to the point of writing a referenced-sentence for the lead about this, not about me.


 * Back to the issue, please.  KP Botany 18:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My assumption about you that you blindly support NisarKand, despite his extreme racist statements about other ethnic groups, was true and is true. But back to the toppic. You ask for sources, here is a reliable source. The Institute of Asian and African Studies of the Humboldt-Universität in Berlin, Germany, very obviously considers Afghanistan part of Central Asia. Just click on the link. What else are you asking for?! Tājik 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * NisarKand is going for the all South Asia viewpoint. If you spent less time attacking others, especially repeating attacks I've already heard and ignored, and more time on reading what they say without your assumptions, you might contribute more positively to the article, and understand what is needed (Citing sources).  I don't have to blindly support Nisar or not--he is culturally familiar to me because was raised Afghan in Afghanistan for most of his life, and my disagreeing with him hasn't and won't become a personal issue, but rather will remain an intellectual issue.  Academics and scholars, whom you often quote, quite often disagree with each on matters of importance--it's part of learning, understanding the weaknesses in your own argument, and seeing the world from a different viewpoint, particularly in an area with so much fertile ground for personal biases.  I have diagreed repeatedly with Nisar, and agreed with him in other areas.  Look at the content and see, it will move this article forward.
 * That site is fine, except that this is en.Wikipedia, and if there aren't any scholarly sources in English, then it doesn't belong. Quite simply, I am asking for references, (Citing sources), in English, that can be tied to the sentence in the article, like any Wikipedia article.
 * I think that, as Nisar has provided sources in English, as this is en.Wikipedia, that there is no reason to not put South Asia first. If a single source is possible, that would be fine.  No one has argued against the impact of South Asian culture on Afghanistan, Abdul and Tajik have simply attacked me for agreeing with Nisar on this.  An ad hominem attack is not an argument that can be used as a reference for a Wikipedia article, so should be discredited for its failure to argue the issue.
 * KP Botany 01:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we SHOULD all now realize that the original opening was actually quite accurate. Afghanistan was simply designated in Central Asia first, BUT a true compromise here would be to say that it is variously considered a part of Central and/or South Asia as well as the Middle East or something to that effect. That way we give credence to all of the views, which have a certain measure of validity, and then we can move on. We can also put in the best single source for each rather than a zillion sources that say the same thing. Otherwise, I see no reason why this argument needs to go on. Tombseye 21:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Which of these sources you linked places Afghanistan in the Middle East? And why Central Asia first, when no arguments were made for Central Asia, only personal attacks by Abdul and Tajik?  I can't even find it on the Middle East Institute article, which puts Afghanistan in Central Asia.  Maybe the links are wrong?KP Botany 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Instead of continuing your presonal attacks me and once again tolerating the racist comments of your friend NisarKand, you yourself should do some reasearch. Since you seem to be preoccupied with your arrogance and hate toward me and others, I did some research, and the result is the same as already proposed: Afghanistan is in Central Asia:
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica: "... landlocked, multiethnic country located in the heart of south-central Asia . ..." (note: "south-central Asia" means "southern parts of Central Asia")
 * Columbia Encyclopaedia: "... Afghanistan - (fgn´stn´´, fgän´´stän´) (KEY), republic (1998 est. pop. 24,800,000), 249,999 sq mi (647,497 sq km), S central Asia . ..."
 * Map of Central Asia, including Afghanistan and Iran
 * Tājik 02:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the Middle East Institute does put it in the Mideast. All you have to do is click the entry on Afghanistan. I don't know why you had trouble, but here is the exerpt:
 * Afghanistan is a republic in southwestern Asia, bounded by Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, China, Pakistan, and Iran. Afghanistan lies across ancient trade and invasion routes from Central Asia into India and Iran.LINK
 * Can you just reread this quotation you posted, and repaste it and bold the part that says Afghanistan is in the Middle East? Or Mideast?  I see "southwestern Asia" and "routes from Central Asia into India and Iran,"  but I just don't see Middle East anywhere in this phrase or on the page it links to other than the Middle East Institute.  I went to the link, again, and don't see it there, either.  I don't see Middle East inside this brief quotation that you just provided: "Afghanistan is a republic in southwestern Asia, bounded by Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, China, Pakistan, and Iran. Afghanistan lies across ancient trade and invasion routes from Central Asia into India and Iran."  Please look at it again and bold where it says Middle East or Mideast, so I'm on the same page you are, because I don't see it.  Maybe it's on another page at this website and could be linked to that page?  I've seen this happen on other Wikipedia articles where a web page reference changes, and someone who read it earlier, doesn't see the changes.  I don't know what's going on, but I don't see this page placing Afghanistan in the Middle East.  In fact, searching the page for "east" I get only the copyright at the bottom.  KP Botany 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As for I went with Central Asia first, a few reasons. First, the other encyclopedias all do and second academia tends to be divided between those who place it in the Mideast and those who it in Central Asia. As for 'arguments', well as we've seen there are MANY different views, but again this is an encyclopedia and going with the general trend is what I usually do anyway. Also, it alphabetically comes first. Afghanistan did not live through the Soviet era, but was heavily impacted by the Soviets obviously so it's different from the rest of Central Asia. It's people are largely of Iranic and Turkic stock and speak Iranian and Turkic languages and not Indo-Aryan tongues. There is virtually no Hindu legacy, which is the center-piece of Indian civilization, and even the Vedic influence is, at best, conjectural. By contrast, Zoroastrianism is believed to have originated in Afghanistan and the Avestan tongue spoken there first. And again, even the link to South Asia is simply films, music whereas the ethnic link to Pakistan is mainly to the parts of Pakistan that are themselves Central Asian and Middle Eastern (read this from the Middle East Institute:
 * The Islamic Republic of Pakistan marks the area where South Asia converges with Southwest Asia and Central Asia.
 * Keep in mind that at various times, whether we're talking about Khorasan or Greater Afghanistan founded by Ahmad Shah Durrani, Afghanistan included parts of Iran, portions of the modern Central Asian republics, and western and northern Pakistan. The Khorasani dialect was spoken as far as Tabaristan, while the Pashtuns were prominent in Persian armies and conquered Persia itself for a time. And again, while I see the connection with Pakistan specifically, I fail to see how Afghanistan is linked to Sri Lanka or Bangladesh as these are more distant regions. So if you're looking for an 'argument' or a dialectic exchange or whatever, I mean this is the rationale. My dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary) places Afghanistan in South-Central Asia and Encyclopedia Americana (which I also own) puts it in Central Asia. Obviously, most reference books place it in Central Asia, while academics often put it in the Mideast and popular references are increasingly associating it with South Asia. These are all fine, but my arguments are based upon what I have stated. If you still disagree, well that's okay, but this seems like the best we can do here and keep everyone happy. So perhaps that should be a consideration as well. Tombseye 05:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that you had this already decided from a Persian-biased viewpoint, all aspects of Afghan culture that are related to Persia confirm that it is Middle Eastern and Central Asian (like Persian dynasties and religions that spread west), but all aspects of Afghan culture that relate it to South Asia (like Indian dynasties and religions that spread east) are dismissed, so there's not really much I can say.  Dictionaries and general encyclopedias are not necessarily the best sources on issues of geography, just like they can't be used to arbitrate botanical issues.  I will look it up at the geography library some time before I comment again.  I am used to the strong Persian bias in Wikipedia articles, so it being used to decide this issue and one more sentence of it in this one won't matter much.  Please do post your academic sources some time, though, as I asked you to.  I'm having trouble with the Middle East Institute page on Afghanistan agreeing with what you say is there, and I would like to review the information for myself.  KP Botany 23:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Persian-biased? What kind of ridiculous accusation is that to make? Which Indian dynasties and religions are you referring to? The Indian dynasties that had an influence were largely Muslim (the Mughals and Dehli Sultans, some of whom were Afghan) and the Mauryans brough Buddhism, which was largely eliminated in India. I'm not dismissing them, but the Central Asian aspect is more viable. You are starting to act as if you want your way, but aren't clarifying why. I'm not talking botany and this IS an encyclopedia and thus other references books are what we go by, otherwise it's original research. I'm not Persian and in fact when I worked on the Azeris article I was on the other side sometimes contradicting the Persian nationalist view there so I think your point on that score is an incorrect assumption. I'm not trying to be biased, but the superficial aspects you point to are not viable to make AFghanistan South Asian first (whatever that means here). I come up references and you seem bent upon finding fault with them. Southwest Asia=the Middle East by the way. We aren't always literalists here as just the fact that Afghanistan is on the website which is called the Middle EAst Institute should be a dead give away that they are including it in the region. For crying out loud, what do you want? If you just want your way just say so. I'm frankly at a loss as to what else can be presented here. I and others here have come up with as many and more references that show Afghanistan outside of South Asia, BUT I don't believe that it can't be considered part of South Asia too. I just believe that South Asia ALSO denotes a cultural group that Afghanistan is not a core member of. You are ignoring that Afghans speak Iranian languages (NOT the same thing as being Persian mind you) and live in close proximity to Iran and other similar states. And you're ignoring that parts of Pakistan that border Afghanistan are themselves formerly parts of Afghanistan. There isn't even a clear geographic cultural continuity here. Just an interest in Bollywood and the fact that many people have learned Urdu. Afghanistan's ancient past (with Buddhism, the Hindu Shahis, Greeks etc.) is gone. What has survived are its Iranic/Turkic past, Islam (it's everywhere) and some of its pagan roots. This is NOT my view, but that of academics. Read Sir Olaf Caroe for the old school (and somewhat dated) view from the British. Newer renditions from an academic are the following: Banuazizi, Ali and Myron Weiner (eds.). 1994. "The Politics of Social Transformation in Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan (Contemporary Issues in the Middle East)." Syracuse University Press. ISBN 0-8156-2608-8 AND Banuazizi, Ali and Myron Weiner (eds.). 1988. "The State, Religion, and Ethnic Politics: Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan (Contemporary Issues in the Middle East)." Syracuse University Press. ISBN 0-8156-2448-4. Try to keep an open mind and not assume that I'm a champion of the Persian POV as that is so not the case. Many of them have been critical of me for not supporting the nationalist view while others I've worked with without issue. Tombseye 00:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with all the things user tajik has said, Afghanistan's culter is a huge mixture of everything from predomiantly mostly Middle-Eastern, central asian, and last south asian becuase of the influence some of our Afghans..especially our Hardcore Pashtun brothers and sisters who LOVE! bollywood movies....that does not mean that the rest of Afghanistan should be pulled down to southern Asia. Afghanistan's culter is completley based on the fundementals of the persian culter..like our language which most pashtuns even speak and now many of them consider it thier language like I told Nissarkand that my mom is 100% Pashtun and my father 100% Tajik...my Mother speaks both and she considers Farsi or dari to be her own language also other than Pashto...and ive also discussed some of the thing with my mother and my pashtun friends about this article and nissarkand's comment's and they all said he is completely WRONG...many of them have looked @ his comment's and said there is a very good chance that he may be Pakistani...or one of those Pashtun nastionalist...who are hardline belifes are more like the taliban..who hated Tajiks..or farsiwans...wanted to impose a south asian culter on Afghanistan which was combined with radical Islam. Every true person from Afghanistan and I know my brother Tajik would agree with me that most educated Afghans have never accepted this beilefe system and will never. Nissarkand also talked about other aspect such as food and music ...like Tajik said our national food is Mantoo which is nothing from south asia...our music is originally is based on khorasani music...like the music from Badakhshan and the north is really tru Afghan music. One of our Beloved singer and song writers is Ahmad Zahir who's music was greatly influenced by western musician's...and himself was a great influence for Afghanistan, Iran, and Tajikistan....if our culter was closer to India or mainland Pakistan then he would have been famous there but he wasnt becuase his music and style was Western/Afghani...basically POP. So Nissarkand and Botany did not have aby idea of what they were talking about, they were basing on there experiences and thier own opinions ...nothing factual. Nissarkand deffenetly sounded racist against his other fellow Afghans like Tajik's..saying we were a minority..User Tajik knows... many Modern Pashtun's from Afghanistan do not devide themselves with thier tajik brothers...if anything they wont even say thers a diffrence...its just a language..which it is...but Nissarkand was too racist...its becuase of people like him Afghanistan saw more blood shed after the soviets left...when will we all be united to bulid Afghanistan too what it once was.Nissarkand talks about central Asian destroying Afghanistan..plzz no one destroyed Afghanstan but ppl of Afghanistan...we were the ones who brought the Russians...after they left we were the ones who could not get along with one another and had to have this power struggle which resulted in a deadly civil war..which gave hardlined Pashtuns and Pakistan's government too put together a bunch of rag-tag criminal's called the taliban and make sure Afghanistan never see's the light of day again..that was mostly Pakistan's plan..so other than Afghans themselves the government of Pakistan should be blamed for the destruction of Afghanistan...with help from the CIA and ISI of Pakistan...and remember Iran was alway against pakistan's govt and the Taliban becuase they knew that they were always up to know good...any true person from Afghanistan would agree with me.

Too botany those links are for nissrkand to show the relationships between Pashtun's and Tajiks...which people are trying to make them closer like it was 35 years ago...not for you to critisize..becuase appearantly you know nothing about peoples of Afghanistan...claiming "If Afghans were in a crowed with Indian's you cant tell them apart" how offensive that completley shows you have know idea about the peoples of Afghanistan..which more look like Iranians and Arabs..so DONT STERIOTYPE...the ppl of Afghanistan with only the family you know...Afghans come in all shapes, sizes, and colors.Abdul916 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Abdul916

I also want to apologize to user ( tombsey) for any thing offensive I said becuase Nissarkand was to extreme and racist..that is why I said those things becuase I still believe he is hardcore pashtun nationalist from Pakistan...trying to be from Afghanistan but I just wanted to apoligize to u.Abdul916 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Abdul916


 * @ KP Botany: it is not an "assumption" that NisarKand is uneducated and racist (he was blocked for more than a week because of constant racist attacks), it is fact. And it is also a fact that you usually have no interest in sources and blindly support NisarKand's POV. It is also a fact that you - for some unknown reason - also tolerate his racist remarks and always attack those who oppose him.
 * So far, I have not seen any reliable sources from NisarKand's side (could you please explain which "sources" you mean?!). And you - especially not you - do not have to teach me anything about sources. I am one of those who took the Iranian peoples to FA, and the Babur and Afghanistan articles to GA. I am also the main author of the Kizilbash article. I know what reliable and 'authoritative'' sources are - unlike so many others in here.
 * User:Tombseye has given you a very good English source (the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica) ... maybe you should at least once stop blindly supporting your friend NisarKand. Instead of telling me something about reliable English sources, you should tell your friend NisarKand that simply typing "Bryant 2001" is NOT a reliable source ... and that he should provide reliable sources for his claims that "Ottomans invaded Afghanistan" and that "Ghaznavids were Turks from Turkey".
 * Tājik 01:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To the mystery writer above (and not Tajik), apology accepted, but I just want to add that there is no point in blaming an entire people for what some do. I doubt all Pakistanis would condone the behavior of border guards or authorities who were not so kind to non-Pashtun Afghan refugees (I've heard the stories myself), but blaming people and then racial stereotyping is not the answer. Even if Nisarkand started it, there's no reason to sink to that level. Let's all just try to stay civil and work to improve the articles and not get personal. Also, it would be cool if you would sign your passages. Peace. Tombseye 05:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

WoW! I have read alot of user Tombseye debates and articles he or she really seems to know what they are talking about, which even makes me feal more guilty that I offended them with some of my comments becuase I never want to offend people who are factual and unbias...keep up the good work...oh ya you too Brother Tajik ....Salam-haye Garm bare Shuma merasanum  Abdul916 17:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thers been huge changes made with the main article, It seems much is too consintrated on Pashtuns only..there has to be more info on other ethnicities of Afghanistan which have contributed alot to the history of Afghanistan and its society. The Article seems to be a whole lot shorter than I remember...Like wheres the Ahmad Zahir picture under music and arts section of Afghanistan...As someone from Afghanistan I wish someone neutral like user Tombseye would add some touches to the article and some other neutral researchers who have some academic knowlege on Middle-East/ Asia geography such as user Tajik who almost everything he has written is unbias and factual. Afghanistan unlike very few Articles needs neutral people to add thier knowlege of the country, becuase Afghanistan is a very touchy subject between the peoples of Afghanistan it is not fair if one person for example user Nissarkand who seems to be a Pashtun nationalist and contributes all of Afghanistan's article to just Pashtuns...Ive noticed that there is a Pashtun Article so maybe some pashtun nastinalist can express thier ideas about thier ethnicity or language there but NOT! on the Afghanistan article becuase that Article just like the county belongs to all of the peoples of AFGHANISTAN not just PASHTUNS...everyone who fought and died for Afghanistan..has a right in thier country and to this article....so Im suggesting to who ever runs this article that people like Nissarkand should br blocked from this article and have Tombseye and Tajik add more knowlege to this article. Abdul916 17:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)Abdul916

About the SAARC topic
The reason why I moved Afghanistan from the SAARC is becuase if you check out the official website Afghanistan is not included, my cousin works for the govt and he said afghanistan is just an observing nation becuase Afghanistan is re-thinking of fully joing do to Afghanistan's on going problem with Pakistan which is a growing concern for membership status..just like Iran's nuk program, afghanistan's similar situation is its border with pakistan and debates over the Durrand line and many countries are asking afganistan to put aside its wanting of the durrand line and cooperating with Pakistan but Afghanistan will not give up its rights that it has on those lands becuase the durrand line is a gateway to having possible links to the Persian gulf and this would mean Afghanistan no longer a land locked country.....so I have my sources and pretty correct on moving Afghanistan from that list.

Link error
There is an error in the article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan has a wrong link.

The correct link is: Library Fundraising in Afghanistan http://featurepics.com/PressReleases/Afghanistan-Photos.aspx

(no "/" at the end)

How can I change it?

It would be even better to link to: http://www.featurepics.com/Fundraising/Kids-Can-Read-Program.aspx

Any help you can give me is greatly appriciated.
 * I corrected the link (I kept it pointing to the press release). Thanks for spotting it!-- lucasbfr talk 09:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Lucas, thank you very much!

Hazaras are more than uzbeks
on the demographics it showed that their is as much hazaras as uzbeks which is not true. THe Hazara population is way more than Uzbek population.

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