Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 4

ABOUT KHILIJ-AWGHANS IN BABURNAMA
The History of India, Volume 2, chpt. 76

... took place in the year 621 H. (1224 A.D.) One year and six months after, the chiefs of Ghor through this irruption of the infidels, joined Násiru-d dín. Towards the end of the year 623 H. (1226 A.D.), the army of Khilj, consisting of all the forces of Khwárizm, under the com­mand of Malik Khán Khilj, invaded the lands of Mansúra, one of the cities of Siwistán. Malik Násiru-d dín marched to expel them, and a battle ensued, in which the army of Khilj was de­feated and the Khán of Khilj was slain. Malik Násiru-d dín then returned to Multán and Uch. In this same year, the compiler of these leaves, Siráj Minháj, came from the country of Khurásán, via Ghaznín and Mithán, and thence reached Uch by boat, on Tuesday, the 26th of the ...

... enterprising man, he used to make incursions into the districts of Munír (Monghír), and Behár, and bring away much plunder, until in this manner he obtained plenty of horses, arms, and men. The fame of his bravery and of his plundering raids spread abroad, and a body of Khiljís joined him from Hindustán. His exploits were reported to Sultán Kutbu-d dín, and he sent him a dress and showed him great honour. Being thus en­couraged, he led his army to Behár and ravaged it. In this manner he continued for a year or two to plunder the neigh­bourhood, and at ...

The Muntakhabu-’rukh, Volume 1, chpt. 180

... 495, 512, 525, 537. Khāwind Naqshbandī, Khwāja, con­temporary of Bābar, 446. Khazāinu-l-Futūḥ, known also as the Tārīkh-i-‘Alāī, 252 and n 1, 266. Khīlī, the betel in the form it is offer- ed for sale, 303 n. Khilj, the,—a Turkish tribe of Ghūr of Afghan people, 81 n 2, 86, 88 n 1, 191, 230 n 1, 231. Khiljī, son of Sulān Mu‘izzu-d-Dīn Muḥammad Sām Ghūrī, 69. Khiljī, Rāo, Governor of the fort of Bhaṭ at the time of Tīmūr's inva­sion, 355 n 4 Khiljī Sulāns, the, 475. Khiljīs, the. See under the tribe of Khilj. Khing bud, or the white idol, one of two enormous images in Bāmiān, 46 n 1. Khirad Nāma, one of the works of Maulānā Jāmī, 272 n 1. Khīrī, a flower, 173 and n 3. Khiā (Cathay), ...

The History of India, Volume 2, chpt. 98

... dín arrived at Ghazna, where he was joined by many bodies of his adherents, and assumed the pomp and circumstance of a monarch. When Yamín Malik heard, in Hindustán, of the Sultán's arrival at Ghazna, he hastened to meet him. Aghrák Malik, also, with an army of Khiljís and Turkománs, came from Pesháwar to do him homage, and A'zam Malik brought a large force of Ghorians to serve under him. In all the troops now at his disposal amounted to twenty thousand cavalry. The Sultán went with these large reinforcements to Parwán, on the ...

... were unable to endure, and were reduced to great misery, so they abandoned the contest, and returned to their homes. When the winter was over, the nephew of the Rájá of Láhore returned to the attack with a fresh army. On this occasion, also, the men of Kábul and of Khilj brought up their reinforcements. The armies met between Karmáj and Pesháwar. Sometimes the infidels gave battle, and drove the Musulmáns to the hills; sometimes the Musulmáns took the offen­sive, and repulsed the infidels at the point of the sword. When the rainy season came on, the infidels were anxious about the rising of the waters of the Indus, so, without knowing whether they were victorious or defeated, they retired to their homes. The men of Kábul and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were ques­tioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, “Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and dis­turbances.” ...

... Láhore and the infidel Gakkhars ended in war, the Gakkhars formed an alliance with their neighbours the Afgháns. The Rájá of Láhore made peace; and, to put an end to contention, he ceded to them some districts of the Lamghánát, and associated with them the tribe of Khilj, which, in the infancy of the Afgháns, had settled in that desert (sahrá). The conditions were, that they were to guard the frontier, and prevent the armies of Islám from entering into Hindústán. The Afgháns erected a fort in the Kohistán (mountains) of Pesháwar, which they called Khaibar; and they took possession ...

... Bin Aby Sufra. Kabul revolts from the Moslems, who are expelled. Sulim recovers Kabul, and appoints one Abdoolla to the govern­ment. Abdoolla superseded, and retires among the Afghans of the Soolimany mountains (A BIG MOUNTAIN RANGE IN MODERN PAKISTAN NOT IN AFGHANISTAN). Becomes the father of Lody and Soor, from whom two Afghan tribes derive their name. The Afghans make war on the Hindoo Prince of Lahore. The Gukkurs form a treaty with the Afghans. The Raja of Lahore cedes territory to the Guk-kurs to defend his territory from the invasions of the Afghans. 1 CHAPTER I. HISTORY OF THE KINGS OF ...

The whole Afghan history plays in modern Pakistan and India and not in modern Afghanistan which had first the persian name Khorassan. Is this a chance?? NON BECAUSE AWGHANS ARE FROM SULAIMAN MOUNTAINS AND PESHAWAR VALLEY...so called WESTERN GHAT and the pashtunes have the WORD GHAR FOR MOUNTAIN AND GHAT MEANS MOUNTAIN AS WELL!!!

BABUR WROTE HI HAD TO FIGHT AGAINST THE AWGHANS IN THEIR OWN LAND IN AWGHANISTAN THE KOHISTAN DISTRICT OF PAKISTAN!!!

... they retired to their homes. The men (MONGOLIC ARGHUNES) of Kábul (KINGDOM) and Khilj also went home; and whenever they were ques­tioned about the Musulmáns of the Kohistán (the mountains), and how matters stood there, they said, “Don't call it Kohistán, but Afghánistán; for there is nothing there but Afgháns and dis­turbances.” Thus it is clear that for this reason the people of the country call their home in their own language Afghánistán, and themselves Afgháns. The people of India call them Patán; but the reason for this is not known. But it occurs to me, that when, under the rule of Muhammadan sovereigns, Musulmáns first came to the city of Patná, and dwelt there, the people of India (for that reason) called them Patáns—but God knows! When the peace between the Rájá of Láhore and the infidel Gakkhars ended in war, the Gakkhars formed an alliance with their neighbours the Afgháns. The Rájá of Láhore made peace; and, to put an end to contention, he ceded to them some districts of the Lamghánát, and associated with them the tribe of Khilj, which, in the infancy of the Afgháns, had settled in that desert (sahrá). The conditions were, that they were to guard the frontier, and prevent the armies of Islám from entering into Hindústán. The Afgháns erected a fort in the Kohistán (mountains) of Pesháwar, which they called Khaibar; and they took possession of the country of Roh. During the ascendancy of the Sámánians, these (Afgháns and Gakkhars) prevented them from doing any injury to the territories of Láhore. This is why it was that the incursions of the Sámánians from first to last were made by way of Sind and Bhátiya. Roh is the name of a particular mountain, which extends in length from Swád and Bajaur to the town of Siwí, ...

... Hasan Abdál to Kábul. Kandahár is situated in this territory. When the throne of Ghazní came to Alptigín, his general Subuk-tigín made several attacks upon Lamghán and Multán, and carried off many prisoners. Unable to endure these attacks,''' the Afgháns applied in their extremity to Jaipál, the Rájá of Láhore, and com­plained of Subuktigín's inroads. Jaipál was aware that the army of Hindústán''' could not continuously occupy those parts, in con­sequence of the extreme cold; so he consulted with the Rájá of Bhátiya, and by his advice he called to his presence Shaikh Hamíd, a man of great consideration among the Afgháns, and raised him to the dignity of amír. Shaikh Hamíd in this way obtained possession of the territory of Lamghán and Multán (two of three main capitals of Awghanistan), and carried on the government on his own behalf. Thus, at that date the Afgháns obtained an amír of their own, and became people of importance. When Alptigín was dead, and Subuktigín had succeeded him, Shaikh Hamíd thought it advisable to avoid war; so he sent to Subuktigín a message, saying: “You and I are both Musulmáns, and so ...

... army of the Mughals being firmly determined either to slay Dáúd or fall themselves, met him in the battle-field; where, after many valiant rencontres, the Kálá Pahár, or “Black Mountain,” who led the advanced guard of the Afgháns, was repulsed and slain. The Afgháns were then put to flight. Dáúd Sháh Kirání was brought in a prisoner, his horse having fallen with him. Khán Jahán, seeing Dáúd in this condition, asked him if he called himself a Musulmán, and why he had broken the oaths which he had taken on the Kur'án and before ...

... soon recovered his health at Dehlí. Whilst the Sultán was thus engaged in endeavouring to restore cultivation, the news was brought that Sháhú Afghán had re­belled in Multán, and had killed Bihzád, the náíb. Malik Nawá fled from Multán to Dehli. Sháhú had collected a party of Afgháns, and had taken possession of the city. The Sultán pre­pared his forces and marched towards Multán, but he had made only a few marches when Makhdúma-i Jahán, his mother, died in Dehlí. * * The Sultán was much grieved. * * He pursued his march, and when he was only a few marches from Multán, Sháhú submitted, and sent to say that he repented of what he had done. He fled with his Afgháns to Afghánistán, and the Sultán pro­ceeded to Sannám. From thence he went to Agroha, where he rested awhile, and afterwards to Dehlí, where the famine was very severe, and man was devouring man. The Sultán strove to restore cultivation, and had wells dug, but the people could do nothing. ...

READ MORE ABOUT THEM HERE: http://persian.packhum.org/persian/index.jsp?serv=pf&file=03501050&ct=0 --Tajik-Professor 15:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, so we cannot put all this long text in the article. Here's the resume and the main message of all this text, which you had written: In his Baburnama, Babur calls Afghanistan the southern territories of Kabulistan and north of Kandahar that were inhabited by nomadic Khilijs (Ghilzais) (Kuchis) who traveled from Sindh to Khorasan and from Khorasan to Sindh. Khilijs were also called "Afghans" by Babur. and it is there in the text, no one removed it.Ariana310 15:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok! ...but can you add that the Khiljas of Ghazna were just a remnant of the Khilijas who moved to Delhi and Suleiman Mountains with their ruler? Timur wrote there lived in Ghazana around 2000 of them. Maybe you should write southern of kabulistan there was called as Afghanistan like the Kohistan district of Pakistan, you know. Because Khalajs self are turks who just identified themself with Afghans and their figure was not important enough (ca. 2000 souls).

Ps:hope you get my message + sorry for my words and hope you read just one time the quotes ;)--Tajik-Professor 16:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Opium ref
Koko, I actually quite admire the additions that you made to the article. Your text was excellent and you are obviously knowledgable on the subject. However, I do still object to the deletion of a well-sourced reference about opium production. The source, which is recent, clearly states that opium production increased 60% last year. Regarding your edit summary, I don't see how we can possibly conclude that opium production has declined this year; given that it's only May it would seem like a premature assertion. I do support all of your additions and hope that we can compromise, simply by replacing the text and ref that were deleted. Thanks for your consideration. Doc  Tropics  02:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In the previous paragraph, it's already mentioning opium, then, in the economy section it further mentions opium for the 3rd time in a row. I think that's just not a good article. The subsection (latest on afghanistan -2007-) should not mention this stuff. The gov. of afghanistan this year destroyed poppy crop more than they have ever done in the past 5 years, so it is not correct to state that production has increased when in reality it is declining this year. One report says one thing and another says the opposit, it's not worth going by western news articles, most just speculate, we rather rely on afghan government reports, as they know what is going on in their country, and by now they do have very reliable information sources. I believe writing about the new Pak/Afghan tension over the border attacks is more important in the latest subsection, something never seen before.--KoKolicious 02:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it might still be too early to say that the production is down, but I would be very interested in seeing a cite if you can provide one. If two valid refs contradict each other, the proper thing to do would probably be to use them both, as opposing views. I know it bothers you that the opium production is being mentioned 3 times in relatively rapid succession, but the first and third refs are very closely linked. The first ref shows that production had indeed been down (under the Taliban), and the third (now deleted) ref, showed that it is up again. I think that the relationship between the two statements is important. Let me suggest this: Let's replace the text that got deleted, then we can add a new sentence like "As of 2007, production was down 30% due to government efforts" as soon as you can provide the ref for it. I'm trying hard to find a compromise and hope that this will be suitable.
 * BTW - I think that the subsection header "latest on Afghanistan" is very bad. That I plan to delete : ) Doc  Tropics  03:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

literacy rate
I'm a little confused as to how the male literacy rate and the female literacy rate are BOTH larger than the total literacy rate (in the education section). Are there a whole bunch of illiterate hermaphrodites and transsexuals in afghanistan?

Phrenophobia 10:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pointing out, someone has recently edited the correct literacy rate in the article. However, the total of Male and Female literacy rates being equal to the total population's literacy rate is NOT a necessary condition. The male literacy rate and female literacy rate are counted on base of male/female proportion in the population.


 * The most recent estimation about the literacy rate (as of 1999) is 36% for the entire population, 51% for male and 21% for female; according to the CIA world factbook. -Ariana310 13:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. But as a strictly mathematical point, it IS a requirement that the total literacy rate be no smaller than the minimum of the male and female literacy rates.  The proof?  Let there be M males and F females, who read at rates P and Q respectively.  Then the total reading rate will be R = (PM + QF)/(M+F).  If P >= Q, then evidently PM+QF >= Q(M+F) so R >= Q.  Likewise, were Q >= P, then R >= P. Thus R is at least the minimum of P and Q.   Phrenophobia 14:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The national census of Afghanistan will be held in 2008. They are preparing the work this year and the final outcome will be revealed next year. This was delayed because the UNHCR wanted to count all the Afghans living in Pakistan and Iran first, which was completed by March 2007 and now it's time to count all the Afghans living inside Afghanistan. So, we will learn next year about the official numbers of each ethnic group and the total number of people living in the country. The CIA numbers are not official but just rough estimates.--LloydKame 17:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

questionable court decisions
Doesn't it break the "NPOV" neutruality rule to refer to any of the Supreme Court's decisions as "questionable"?

Soviet invasion vs US conflict
Why "Soviet invasion of Afghanistan" and "conflict with the US" ? I mean, why is the Soviet one an invasion, and the US one a conflict? If this is to imply that the Soviet Union managed to invade successfully, and the the US got mired in fighting and never succeeded, I'd submit that this is not so, and that the US has actually had as much success in its invasion as the Soviets had -- really, even more success!


 * The Soviet Union entered Afghanistan on December 24, 1979, in a well planned "full scale invasion" with 100,000 troops. The United States on October 7, 2001, went to Afghanistan on a "special mission", with less than 5,000 troops, to help the Afghan people. As soon as this mission began, in December 2001, the United Nations ("world community") gathered and prepared an international "peacekeeping force" (ISAF) to help the new government of Hamid Karzai. This does not constitute an invasion but only a helping hand from the "world community". The United States and NATO forces are in Afghanistan "ONLY" for peacekeeping purposes, which has been done in many countries. As a matter of fact, the people of Afghanistan do not want the US and NATO peacekeeping force to leave their country. This was the opposite with the Soviet Union in the 1980s, nearly every Afghan wanted the Soviets to leave their country.--LloydKame 15:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, the US invaded Afghanistan. The difference between this and the Soviet incursion was the USSR was trying to add Afghanistan as a satellite country to the USSR, which they forcibly occupied and subjugated the country. The internal security and rebuilding of the country is an international effort, sure, but ISAF was created after the US well into its invasion. Shadowrun 00:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So, "helping hand" is a diplomatic euphemism to keep the US propagandists from anger? Works for me :)

well if we gave away our plan to slowly and strategically rape the world of oil and kill anyone that stands in our way and replace their governments with drones who sellout their own people, then how could we get away with it? of course, if we made it seem like this was impossible, by pretending to be completely unprepared, sending troops into a warzone with minimum supplies and limited intelligence, then we could make it look like we didnt know what we were doing, when in reality, the whole thing was planned out and our pockets line with paper. dont be upset that you dont have a piece, just hold your sign, and keep telling yourself you can make a difference ;)

Afghan Calendar http://www.nongnu.org/afghancalendar
I suggest to add a link to the following online GPL Afghan calendar to the wiki article: Any suggestions/ comments ?
 * Historical Afghan Calendar with Gregorian, Hejrah-e shamsi and Hejrah-e qamari dates

Dilemma for Koreans in Afghanistan
Koreans in Afghanistan are in dilemma while South Korean Government have banned travel to certain places including Afghansitan since the abduction of 22 Koreans social worker. Read 2007 South Korean hostage crisis in Afghanistan. Hundreds of Koreans stayed in the dry country have given help to the Afghan people. But they were hard to differ the friendly Afghan and the bad Taliban. back to goguryeo 07:12, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible Directions
This section sounds like original research. Also, isn't there another possible direction where things just stay the same? --MarsRover 21:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it seems to be original research. I also note that your OR tag was removed without sources being added. I'll remove the section.- gadfium 20:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One-Sided Speculation on Future
"The overall good news is the country has potential to quickly come out of poverty and become an economically stable country."

This sentence, in the Economy section, seems to be made within a non-critical framework. Since one can also argue and bring up historical evidence of what has most often happened during western political or economic intervention in a resource-rich, global south country, I believe that this statement is one-sided, and therefore should be changed to address this, or eliminated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.236.67 (talk) 07:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Demonym
The people of Afghanistan are called Afghans by both them and the rest of the world, the term Afghanistani is usually used by people who truly don't know what to call afghans, or to mock afghans (this term is mostly used by the people of Pakistan for this purpose), similarly Afghani is used to designate the currency not the people, although some Iranians do use the term Afghani which is almost always followed by some kind of racial slur. This error must be corrected.--Naseer n nasrat 00:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Afghan is synonymous to pashtun. its an ethnic identity.--Anoshirawan 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anoshirawan (talk • contribs)

That is completely incorrect, pashtuns are called pashtun. You probably have heard someone say Awghan, that is the name given to pashtuns by ignorant and racist elements in Afghanistan, I have heared it used this way many times, I have never heard an afghan call him or herself afghanistani, none of us do. I am not sure where you are from but if you ask the nationality of any citizen of the republic of Afghanistan they will respond Afghan. It is used in most if not all the literature. Listen and read all the news that come out of Afghanistan produced by both afghans and foreigners, Afghan is always used. Its AFGHAN it always has been. You must change this. --Naseer n nasrat 05:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. Afghan is a name since at least 7th century. These people who change Afghan to Afghanistani are school students, or school drop-outs, they come here and start thinking like history writers, while boogers are pouring down from their noses. Their parents used to cook and eat grass in Afghanistan due to lack of basic education, now they are living in the west as runaway refugees and from there they think Afghanistan is in their hands. These are typical people of modern age who have access to the internet, they can't see just like the Kafirs who provided them shelter in their countries. I have no idea what is their interest in doing these stupid things by spreading falsehood. According to Islam, each falsehood carries 85,000 years of punishment in hell.--Dilbar Jan 15:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dilbar, can you please leave the insults and gross language out of this discussion. It is difficult to take any of your arguments seriously with all that hate in your rhetoric. Kingturtle 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite the penalty for a grammar error. Now if we calmly look at the facts:
 * Wikipedia itself says "Afghan" (Template:Adjectivals and demonyms for countries and nations)
 * The CIA says "Afghan"
 * Most places you google say "Afghan"
 * Several wp debates resulted in "Afghan" (Afghan people debate, Afghanistani singer debate)
 * Its clear it should be "Afghan".
 * --MarsRover 07:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No it is not clear, not even close. That term for a citizen for Afghanistan is a misnomer and incorrectly adopted by the West back in the 1800's. Read this article for starters: Origins_of_the_name_Afghan -- Behnam 07:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Dilbar, I ask that you please refrain from your provocative language. We are trying to have a civil discussion about this. Kingturtle 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You won't find 'Afghanistani' in a dictionary, not even in the OED. That settles it. Carl.bunderson 23:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My change was changed back, and I wish to expand on my arguments. Having looked at some of the debates on this, it would probly be better for 'Afghan' to refer to an ethnic group, and have 'Afghanistani' be the national identifier. However, that isn't yet the case in English. I think it would be interesting to have a WP article on the matter. But back to my point...Wikipedia is positive, not normative. Our use of words must be the way they are used, not the way they "should" be used. And the dictionary is perfectly clear that 'Afghan' should be used for persons from Afghanistan; until that changes, we're obliged to follow that use. Carl.bunderson 00:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well now that Pashtuns are no longer in total control of the country, the term Afghanistani is beginning to be used increasingly. Here is one dictionary that uses this term. It's from dictionary.com but the original source is WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.-- Behnam 01:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And here's a source for Afghani Oxford Dictionary. So we any one of these 3 terms can be used as a denonym. Now please stop rv'ing. -- Behnam 04:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's a list of dictionaries that use Afghani. -- Behnam 06:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I did searches in BBC, CNN and CBC websites. Afghani is by far the most preferred descriptor. CBC never uses Afghanistani. BBC uses Afghanistani rarely, and usually when quoting someone or as a descriptor of the nation, not of the people. A google search of Afghanistani brings the result of "Did you mean: afghanistan?" Kingturtle 13:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, KingTurtle. I noticed you included all three choices, but that wasn't good enough so someone sorted it to list "Afghanistani" first (which is the least commonly used one). If the term "Afghan" is synonymous with "Pashtun" wouldn't "Afghanistani" translate to "Citizen of land of Pashtuns"? I still don't understand how it is a big improvement. But, unless someone funds a million dollar advertising campaign to explain the etymology of the word "Afghan" and how it a misnomer, your average English speaking editor will keep reverting it to the most commonly used word. --MarsRover 23:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to work out a solution for this soon. Afghan and Afghani are the common usages in the English language. There need to be some pretty strong arguments against them to change it all to Afghanistani. But I am willing to listen. Kingturtle 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no single correct denonym, it depends on who or what you're referring to. Any one of the denonyms can be found in dictionaries or used elsewhere. The solution would be to list all three of them. -- Behnam 03:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Beh-nam this debate is not over. The concensus of the debate appears to be in support of just Afghan. Please wait until we get a decision. Thegreyanomaly 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The debate asked for sources, there are the sources and they are authoritative. -- Behnam 01:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Thegreyanomaly, you are playing a real dirty game with your buddy there trying to get me a 3RR violation! What's there to debate now? It's referenced know with two authoritative sources. THERE IS NOTHING to debate! YOUR opinion does not matter once a source is provided! Follow the rules of Wiki and stop playing games! -- Behnam 01:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would actually prefer to see the words mentioned or used in something other than a dictionary. Preferably something authoritative that directly addresses the issue. A few months back someone tried to change the general relativity article based on what his own notions and sourced it with a dictionary as well; it did not go over well. --Cronholm144 01:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dictionary not good enough? Articles from major news networks not good enough? Then what else do we need? And that's not a good comparison, this is not general relativity, its just a denonym. -- Behnam 01:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would prefer something of scholarly value(ie a journal entry), since this is a pretty heated dispute. I agree the GR article doesn't parallel strongly, but I don't think the dictionary is the best thing to fall back on in a dispute.—Cronholm144 02:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why aren't dictionaries good enough sources? I gave up once Behnam provided sources for Afghani and Afghanistani. My only problem was that prior to that, I hadn't seen any sources for those. But yeah, returning to your point, why aren't dictionaries valid sources? Is there a WP policy that addresses this? I've used the OED as a source several times in debates on here. Carl.bunderson 05:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)I thought there was an issue with the other terms being possibly offensive, but if they are not then the dictionary is fine. I just worry that an English dictionary might not grasp such an issue, hence the request for another source. However if there is no such issue, then sure, they are fine for establishing that the terms are indeed used.—Cronholm144 05:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As a national of Afghanistan, I assure you that Afghani and Afghanistani are not offensive terms. -- Behnam 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why the heck was there a revert war, and why has an rfc been set up? What is the issue here?—Cronholm144 05:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Idk how it started originally, but we ended it in October I think saying that it should be 'Afghan'. Then I looked at the article and it had been changed to 'Afghanistani', without any discussion. So I began discussing it again. Carl.bunderson 05:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I haven't looked into this a lot, but the only time I've heard it asserted that the terms other than 'Afghan' are pejorative was by naseer. I'll google them and see what I can find, but absent any proof of their being used pejoratively I think we should include all three, and list 'Afghan' first because it is most often used in English. Carl.bunderson 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I can't find anything to suggest that either 'Afghani' or 'Afghanistani' are pejorative. Anyone who wants to say so, please provide sources. Carl.bunderson 06:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Carl, that's exactly what I did, I listed Afghan first since it's most common then Afghani then Afghanistani then I referenced Afghani and Afghanistani since a few users (who weren't from Afghanistan) complained that those weren't real words. And it Afghani is definitely not offensive and neither is Afghanistani (meaning someone from Afghanistan same way as Pakistani, or Uzbekistani, or Khazakstani, etc). -- Behnam 07:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree with you Behnam. You'll notice that after you provided the dictionary source for I think it was Afghani, I didn't revert your change. Best wishes. Carl.bunderson 08:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hopefully this means that a new consensus has been reached and the RfC will not be necessary. —Cronholm144 08:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I was born in Afghanistan and still have my citizenship. I said I was born in Germany as an example to make someone understand. I do live in Canada though. Now... how would you know of my edit from such long ago if you are a new user? You must be familiar with me and the only other user from Afghanistan that I knows me well on Wikipedia... is that you NisarKand? -- Behnam 11:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * For those categories, Afghan was decided over Afghanistani because only one term can be used for a category and Afghan is used more common (even though many writers, poets, etc from Afghanistan on those lists are not ethnic Afghans). Whereas, here, we can list all three. These terms can be found in dictionaries as well as news articles and other publications. You are right that Afghan currently is most commonly used... but if you are from Afghanistan you should know that we use Afghani alot and we use it exclusively for certain things (eg. naan-e-Afghani, saz-e-Afghani, etc) and Afghanistani is also used inside Afghanistan and is increasingly gaining usage among non-ethnic-Afghans (eg. Latif Pedram, head of the National Congress Party of Afghanistan, prefers Afghanistani). So really, there is no just one correct denonym. Any one of these can be used and we have listed all three of them with an or meaning either one can be used and we've listed them in order of most commonly used (by Google search for them). -- Behnam 11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, it's funny that you tell the other editors here that as non-nationals of Afghanistan that they don't understand basic things... while you (as a national of Afghanistan) think we only use Afghani for currency? You need to interact more with the Afghanistani diaspora's community whereever you live or simply listen to some Afghanistani music and you'll easily learn that we use Afghani for much more than just our currency. Here, let me help you out, here's a new song that's really popular. The singer says Bacha-e Afghani (Afghani boy) not Bacha-e Afghan... listen. -- Behnam 11:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Once you read up on the Origins of the name Afghan, you'll realize Afghanistani is the most accurate term. It is not popular yet, but it is the most accurate. Afghan is the most common usage, but it is not an accurate term. Anyways, we are mentioning all three as a denonym. All three terms can be used and anyone has the option of choosing which term they wish to use. -- Behnam 15:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "The focus here is not the 'usage' of name but to determine the true and correct word or name which is given by the government and people of Afghanistan." Nope, WP:V, not true and correct. —Cronholm144 18:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes; ditto. WP is not to be used to advance linguistic agendas. If we have verifiable evidence that English speakers call persons from Afghanistan Afghans, Afghanis, or Afghanistanis, we need to include each in the demonym. We are not here to direct culture, and say how words should be used. We just report the manner in which they are used, good or bad as it may be. The way the page is now, there are references for the disputed terms, and that's the only requirement for inclusion in WP. -- Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have not mentioned this, but user: Anoshirawan touched on this. Indeed, the term Afghan is a synonym for Pashtun according to The British Library (an authoritative source), see here. This is yet an additional reason to include Afghanistani as majority of Afghanistani is not Pashtun (see Demography of Afghanistan). -- Behnam (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hate websites
Forum admins, please ban AfghanProfile.net from posting their link on the Wikipedia. It contains hate-speeches such as 'This site will provide information on just how barbaric and primitive these Pashtuns have been and still are. The Pashtuns have not offered anything useful or good to Afghanistan.' ... and: 'They do not have any kind of ties to civilization. Civilization is when you have a permanent settlement in a region, and clearly, the Pashtuns do not have this. And yet, as a minority themselves, they wish to control and dominate everything.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrRiyadh (talk • contribs) 16:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Opium Production under the Taliban
I noticed the line, "Meanwhile, the Taliban managed to nearly eradicate the majority of the opium production by 2001.[53]" under the heading, "Soviet Invasion and Civil War." I have not read Afghanistan, Opium and the Taliban but Ahmed Rashid's book Taliban: Militant Islam, Oil, and Fundamentalism in Central Asia says in chapter 9 that under the Taliban Afghanistan rivaled Burma as the world's largest producer of opium. In fact, in 1997 Afghanistan supplied 80% of Europe's heroin and 50% of the world's supply. This book was published before 2001 so the line quoted above may be correct, but even if it is it gives the wrong impression. The Taliban used opium for much of their tax income and early on had no intention of stopping its trade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.39.29 (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I will set up a request for comment
User:Thegreyanomaly has stated tonight that "the concensus appears to support Afghan only" for demonym in the article's infobox. I am not sure if there is such a consensus. To help us through this, I am going to set up a "Request comment." Kingturtle 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. I am sending out two different requests for comment - one for History and geography, and one for Language and linguistics. Kingturtle 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a little frustrating. Two days and no comments on my requests for comment. Kingturtle 12:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am a bit shocked that my requests for comments have attracted no responses. Did I set them up incorrectly? Kingturtle (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well when I've gone to them they redirect back to this page, so I think we just kept on talking aobut it here (i.e., a little bit above us). Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Language and linguistics: What is/are the acceptable terms to be used as the demonym on the Afghanistan article's infobox?

 * We've come to a new consensus, at least for this page. There are citations for Afghani and Afghanistani, so they should stay. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have achieved consensus on that point. See Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's freezing the article because of your edit warring.  In addition to the previous extensive discussion, "Afghan" is still the most common term of the three in English, despite attempts to invoke political correctness by those pushing "Afghani" and "Afghanistani". --Bejnar (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We had consensus. It contained the three demonyms for about a week, until Hurooz decided to unilaterally change it, without discussing in talk first, even though he had been party to the discussion on the last day we brought it up (16 Nov). Cavalry's response to edit warring does not

mean there was no consensus. It just means that one editor was choosing to operate outside the avenues of the talk page like a civilized person, and I repeatedly reverted his changes. When the article was stable, as a result of discussion, for a week, and then was changed by one user, it shows that he is working against established consensus. Saying that 'Afghan' is "still the msot common term of the three" is demonstrative that there are three terms in English. We have reputable sources for all three, and so they must all be listed. If it's verifiable, we include it in WP. We don't include merely what is both verifiable and popular. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To further demonstrate that we achieved concensus on the 16th, please see here. Cronholm obviously felt we had achieved consensus, and Hurooz has done nothing to demonstrate that the sources for Afghani and Afghanistani are not reputable. He simply doesn't like them, so he wishes to act like there aren't (possibly ignorant) English-speakers who use the terms. It doesn't matter what Afghans like to be called. It sounds callous, I'm sorry, but it's true. WP isn't here to make people feel good, to be affirmative. It is here to record information, and like it or not there are people who call persons from Afghanistan Afghanis, and there are people who call them Afghanistanis. Unless the sources can be shown to be disreputable, they need to be included in our encyclopedia. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Given that Article 4 of the country's constitution states that The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan., I think it's quite clear that Afghan is the preferred demonym. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  15:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but doesn't the very fact that it is preferred demonstrate that there are multiple options? You don't prefer A to B when there is no such thing as B; it doesn't make sense. "Afghan" should certainly be listed first, but the others are used as demonyms. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, I really feel like appealing to the "preferred" demonym is trying to make WP normative rather than positive. I really don't think that is what WP is about. (And going for the normative comment) Nor do I think that is what WP should be about. Carl.bunderson (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Carl. There was never a "new consensus." As see it, there was a bold initiative taken, which is commendable for being bold, but which turns out being incompatible with the July 2007 consensus. And yes, we should also take to quite seriously the Constitution of Afghanistan, which states "The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan." That Constitution was not created by a dictator or a cabal, but was approved by consensus by the 2003 Loya jirga. Kingturtle (talk) 13:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Actually the constitution written in 2004 was rushed, not reviewed, and also forged (several signatures were forged). Also, I have not mentioned this, but user: Anoshirawan touched on this. Indeed, the term Afghan is a synonym for Pashtun according to The British Library (an authoritative source), see here. This is yet an additional reason to include WordNet's Afghanistani, since majority of Afghanistan is not Pashtun (see Demography of Afghanistan). And if you don't believe that the constitution was rushed, not reviewed, and also forged... below is the transcript from a program on Tolo TV (Afghanistan's most watched TV channel):

-- Behnam (talk) 13:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Another authoritative source, the Oxford English Dictionary (the most comprehensive guide to English), is also quite clear about the use of Afghan: "A native or inhabitant of Afghanistan". It includes Afghani only as a currency, and does not include Afghanistani at all. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  13:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)