Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 5

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language and Princeton University's WordNet are also both authoritative. adj. Of or relating to Afghanistan; Afghan. n.  pl. Af·ghan·is A native or inhabitant of Afghanistan"'' (LINK)
 * The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: "''AfghaniAf·ghan·i      (āf-gān'ē, -gä'nē)  Pronunciation Key
 * WordNet: "Afghanistani: adjective 1. 	of or relating to or characteristic of Afghanistan or its people [syn: Afghani] noun 1. 	a native or inhabitant of Afghanistan" (LINK)

-- Behnam (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Kingturtle and Number 57, can you tell me why the American Heritage and WordNet entries don't settle the matter? While I go to the OED first in matters like this as well [see above, when they were unreferenced and I didn't find them in the OED I wanted them out], I don't see why it should be the only source allowed. The sources provided seem good enough to me. I don't see how sourced info can be removed. Unless you can demonstrate to me that they don't meet the criteria for reliable sources, they need to be included. And honestly I don't think the constitution argument is strong. Yes, we can use that as a source for Afghan. But, I don't see how we can use it as a source for Afghan, to the exclusion of all other demonyms. I still do not think taht a country's constitution has jurisdiction over what words may and may not be used in a foreign language. Additionally, Hurooz's arguments on that basis struck me as POV. I can't really sort out what the deal is with him and Behnam, I'm not sure about either one of the. Also, how was there not consensus? Like I honestly thought it was over. Hurooz had taken part in the discussion, and then he dropped it for like a week. There was nothing to indicate that he had a problem with it. Also, I've cited somewhere that Cronholm explicitly stated he understood consensus as well. And you need no reminding I'm sure, but consensus can change. But the main issue: I do believe in keeping info once it is sourced. Thats the only deal for me. Show me the sources aren't reliable and I'll give up. Carl.bunderson (talk) 06:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The real point is what is English usage, and the answer is "Afghan", period. The others are affectations, as is shown by the OED, not compelled by the OED.  Unless Carl.bunderson wants to take this to mediation, I suggest quietly removing the seldom used and depreciated demonyms. --Bejnar (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, there should only be a single demonym listed in the info box, because that is not the place to make it clear that Afghani and afghanistani although used, are done so in the severe minority of instances, and are not the preferred terms. --Bejnar (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge they are not the preferred terms. In a manner of compromise, would you be open to a footnote that mentions this? My complaint is simply that Afghani has a reputable source, so it should not be completely ignored; if it's in the Am. Heritage Dictionary I don't think its appropriate to call it an affectation. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Bejnar, so far I don't really see you providing a solid reason not to mention these terms other than that you don't like them and you don't think they are preferred. What does preferred mean? Preferred by who? Everyone has different preferences, some prefer one of over the ohter, and these don't matter. These two terms are sourced and also used and that you think they are not preferred isn't enough reason to remove them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HariRud (talk • contribs) 22:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The perference that I speak of is not mine, it is that of the overwhelming number of English speakers, and the overwhelming number of Wikipedia editors at the July discussion. Feel free to look at actual usage of the various terms.  I agree with Carl.bunderson that a footnote is not inappropriate. --Bejnar (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop bringing up the July "discussion" please. There was no discussion. All the sources that have been provided here where not provided in that discussion. If it was, the result would have been different. Regardless, preferences doesn't matter. We have them sourced by authoritive sources and that's all that matters. And I don't buy your so called "compromise". These terms are as valid as Afghan and should be mentioned in the infobox, not hidden where no one will ever see them! You have something personal against those terms and keep making up bad excuses to remove them. They are sourced by authoritive sources and after considering that there shouldn't even be a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 16:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Bejnar. I think your edit satisfies both facts: that Afghan is by far the most commonly used term, but the others are documented as well. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


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

Mentioning 2 more words does not change it from a summary to an article. No the primary use is still as a denonym for Afghani. How many English speakers even know what the currency of Afghanistan is? Only a very small percentage. So you're claim is false. It's sourced by an authortive source and these other excuses to remove it are not valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.219.106 (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


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

So it should be a mere footnote that no one will ever see any just because of YOUR preference? You keep saying "preferrence", who's preference? Yours? I know that's not my preference and atleast 10 editors would prefer the other two not to mention thousands of people from Afghanistan. Do you actually have a source from let's say a university or other scholarly source that says that Afghan is preferred? If not, please stop removin content that is references just because of your preference or what you think is some other people's preference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.216.199 (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


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

Carl, please don't fall for Bejnar's tricks. No one can ever see these alternative denonyms in the reference section. That's what Bejnar's trying to do. He can't remove them because they are referenced, so now he found a way to hide them within the article. Please continue to discuss this issue. You did a great job so far and it would be a shame to now just quit and let Bejnar (the Afghan nationlist) have his way by hiding them which is as good as removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.252 (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Footnotes are not hiding places. The info is still in the article, and that's all that matters. This is the most sensible solution that has been offered. Footonotes are where extra information is added, as well as references, which you can see from almost any article in a scholarly journal. 1/3 of the page in those are often taken up by footnotes. If people are too lazy to read footnotes to see what they say, that's their own problem. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Carl, Bejnar knows that 99.99% of people who read this article won't bother to go look for other denonyms in the footnotes. Considering this, Bejnar is basically hiding this. There is no reason to put well reference denonyms in the footnotes where no one can see them. And now the issue is, who says one is preferred over the other? According to who? Bejnar? There is scholarly source that says one is preferred, it's a personal preference. If Bejnar wants those two in the footnotes, then we should also put Afghan in the footnote and in the place of denonym have "see footnote". Having Afghan there and not the other two is Bejnar's personal preference. Don't let him push you into agreeing with his preference. He's an Afghan (Pashtun) nationalist and has his own POVs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.211.252 (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is already an example of a footnote that is explanatory in the article; see what foonote 5 says. Do you think that should be included in the article? Footnote 5 is precedence for having a footnote for Afghani and Afghanistani. It shows what footnotes are used for. They include information that is interesting but not of such prime importance that it goes in th body of the article. He is not hiding the other demonyms. Its a practical solution. Seriously, google Afghan Afghani and Afghanistani. Afghan is the preferred, ie common/most-used term. I have said several times that I myself use Afghan; I also think that people should use Afghan, simply because it is the most common. The fact that Afghan is in the OED but Afghani [as demonym] and Afghanistani are not yet is demonstrative of the fact that Afghan is the 'normal' term in English. A footnote shows that the others are also used. Don't tell me he is pushing me into agreeing with his preference. My only interest here is having sourced content maintained, which has been done with the footnote. I could care less that both he and you may be POV-pushers, so long as sourced content is maintained--and this is done with the footnote. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The infobox is not the body of the article. There is no harm in mentioning them there other than there might be harm to Afghan nationlists like Bejnar. Afghan might be most common, I'm aware of that. But it also incorrect. Just take a look at the Etymology section (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan#Etymology) within this article and you'll easily realize that it's a mysnomer. Bejnar just doesn't like it because it hurts "Afghan nationlism" and is a threat to the "Afghan state". Wikipedia shouldn't be concerned with maintaining a country's nationalism and should take the neutral stance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.218.184 (talk) 01:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bring this up before, but have any of you seen the denonym for other ---istan countries? See their articles:
 * Kazakhstan - Kazakhstani
 * Kyrgyzstan - Kyrgyzstani
 * Pakistan - Pakistani
 * Tajikistan - Tajikistani
 * Turkmenistan - Turkmenistani
 * Uzbekistan - Uzbekistani

If we don't include Afghanistani here (and it is referenced) then Afghanistan would be the only istan country as an exception here on Wikipedia.

Poll?
Although I don't believe that polls are all that useful in general, I think now is the time to determine where we stand on the issue. As I see it, there are three options:
 * 1. mention all three terms
 * 2. mention Afghan only with a footnote for the other two.
 * 3. mention only Afghan

There seems to be no one prevailing opinion, but eventually we need to make a decision, so let's try to aim towards a consensus rather than furthering individual arguments. Everybody is not going to be happy with the result, but the alternative is mediation, which I don't think we want. I personally think #2 has to best chance to be stable long-term. Thoughts? --Cronholm144 23:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment The voting here is irrelevant as the terms are sourced. Voting does not remove the sources. It does not matter what the preference of a few editors is. If these terms were not from scholarly sources, then a vote would apply. However, in this case, the terms are sourced by scholarly sources, and voting does not apply.


 * Support #2 --Bejnar (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support #2 Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support #2 I know I haven't given any input until now, but I have been following this discussion closely. sdgjake (talk) 15:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Support #1 Kabul-Shahan2020(talk) 16:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (note: this user is a banned sock of Beh-nam—Cronholm144 01:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC))


 * Support #2 for consensus sake. Kingturtle (talk) 16:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Consensus is for cases where there are no sources or the sources are questionable. Here we have, Princeton University's WordNet and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. There is no need for consensus when the sources are authoritative like these. -- The preceding comment was added by 65.95.147.112 on 17 December 2007, believed to be Beh-nam.
 * You have to look at what is being sourced. Yes, the terms Afghani and Afghanistani occasionally appear in English publications, and that appearence has been documented.  That does not mean that they are in regular usage, or anything else.  --Bejnar (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no reason not to agree to #2, seeing as how it maintains all the demonyms in the article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * According to that reasoning, there is no reason not to vote for #1 either. The fact is, #2 hides 2 of the denonyms in the references section where no one will see them anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.216.171 (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're just being difficult and I expect no one is taking stock in what you're saying anymore. #2 does not hide the demonyms; they are still in the article. Please accept compromise. Not doing so makes you look like a POV pusher. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just want to remind you all that the only person who supports the word Afghanistani is the banned editor Beh-nam. He is a great deceiver, he falsely changed Turmen to Turkmenistani on the Turkmenistan article. The IP is 100% him (Special:Contributions/65.94.218.184). He probably also did it on the articles of other -stan countries. This person is either mentally retarded or is having fun with you guys by arguing with you over things like this since he probably has no real friends in life. He just want to feel important by being here trying to act like he knows something. All the IPs that are similar to 65.94.218.184 is him, from boring Toronto, Canada. He is just seeking attention.--Afghansuperior (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Just as a side note, this person is also a sockpuppeteer, like Beh-nam. This page has attracted more socks than I have ever on any other article page. —Cronholm144 07:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

My Discussion with user:Carl.bunderson

 * Have you ever read a footnote? That is what foonotes do, they give extra information. Look at the talk page. And that 3rr can go on ur page just as easily. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I have. I know what they do. But 99.9% of the readers will not think to go find needles in haystacks in the footnotes section. Yes, but I did not violate the rule yet... you did. I won't report you, but please stop being silly by calling it a "compromise". KabuliTajik (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We should not pander to lazy-ass readers. If they don't bother to read footnotes, that's their own fault. And I am not being silly, seriously, go and read the conversation, I'm not the only one who thinks its a compromise. I wasn't even the one who came up with it in the first place. You should realize that the fact that you haven't bothered to participate in the discussion, and reverted without discussion first, makes you look like you are unwilling to be reasonable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to understand the audience of this encyclopedia. They are not professors, they are average people. Only a scholar would go and search the footnotes for additional information. Maybe you are a scholar, but 99% of people are not. If you didn't come up with this so called "compromise"... then please first of all stop calling it that and secondly stop blindly following it. The person who came up with it has certain POVs and is not a neutral editor. He supports Afghan nationalism, which should have no place on an encyclopedia. If you are dedicated to providing scholarly information that can be easily accessed, then switch sides please. I haven't participated in the discussion yet because so far a good enough reason to remove referenced content has not been provided. KabuliTajik (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Look at the discussion. The people do not have POVs. They're don't have anything to do with Afghanistan. They just want to make a good encyclopedia. And you really can't spurn the discussion because you don't like it. Make a case that there isn't a good reason, and people will listen to you. Until then, you come off as a POV-pusher yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking at Bejnar's edits and he clearly edits clearly support "Afghan nationalism". What POV? This is referenced content. It is Bejnar the is REMOVING sourced content because he claims it is not preferred. That is what is called a POV. KabuliTajik (talk) 18:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Looking at your contributions, both of you seem to have a particular, if not vested, interest in Afghanistan. But that doesn't change my belief. The majority of editors, who agree with tthe footnote compromise, are not removing sourced content. It is obviously still there. Footnotes do not remove content, they just move it. For the sake of something everyone can agree on, jut accept the footnote. And as I mentioned above, there is precedence on WP, even on this article, for footnotes such as this one. I believe footnote 5 is an example on this page. No one bitches about that information not being the article, seeing as how it is clearly still there. This situation is analogous. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Man do you have a problem understanding that the AUDIENCE of Wikipedia are NOT scholars? How many times do I have to tell you? 99% of the people reading Wikipedia will not go searching footnotes for additional info! Get that through your head! Look at Bejnar's contribs, the guy is an Afghan nationalist and he has manipulated you and others to his side.


 * NO ONE has still provided a good enough reason for HIDING sourced information in the footnotes? The only reason provided by Bejnar is that he doesn't think it's preferred. That is HIS POV!


 * Until Bejnar provides a source that states that Afghan is preferred, sourced material STAYS . End of story and no I will not accept Bejnar removing sourced material just because he feels it's not "preferred". KabuliTajik (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not hidden. Footnotes are not used to hide information. And that Afghan is preferred is not POV; it can be demonstrated by a simple googling of the three terms. Moreovor, Afghani and Afghanistani are not even used enough yet to warrant being in the OED, which is very inclusive. This show that it is not POV. Furthermore, in this very article there is precedent for this sort of footnote. Please address both of these points with substantive arguments. Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please everyone note that KabuliTajik has been blocked as a vandal sockpuppet. All editors who have not been blocked as socks have agreed upon the compromise for compromise sake, as it retains the information in a footnote. If anyone disagrees with this idea of consensus, please say so. Changes to the demonym will be reverted with extreme prejudice by myself if they are not discussed here beforehand and clearly agreed upon by consensus. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No, user: Anoshirawan disagrees strongly with user: Bejnar's so called "compromise" and there is no consensus. Don't make things up. A poll does not count as concensus. Check the Wiki guidelines here, it says,

This means that polling alone is not considered a means of decision-making, and it is certainly not a binding vote, and you do not need to abide by polls per se. Polling is generally discouraged, except in specialized processes such as AFD.


 * According to that, there is no consensus yet, except for Bejnar's POV pushing and source removal and a few editors who have carelessly voted in favor of Bejnar's POV pushing and content removal. AntiFascism (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The only users who don't accept this are socks. It looks as though you yourself are a sock, evading your block. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * user: Anoshirawan is not a sock. You are confusing him with user: Anoshiravan39 (sockpuppet of user: NisarKand). AntiFascism) (talk 00:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, he is a sock. He had sock on his user page, until you removed it a few moments ago. I have no reason to believe anything you say, seeing as how you are a sock of Bamyan, evading your ban. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * So you're saying he is a sock of user: Khampalak? So he was disagreeing over edits with HIMSELF!? LOL! I removed that from his user page because it's obvious he is not user: Khampalak, check their contributions and you'll see they were arguing and were at conflict with each other. You should look into things more before jumping to conclusions. AntiFascism (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * AntiFascism is yet another banned sock....what a surprise. Perhaps this page should be permanently semi-protected? Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)