Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 9

Edit request from Vaidyanathanramani, 2 April 2010
editsemiprotected

Under 'Geogrpahy' tab for the page on 'Afghanistan', the text "Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan border Afghanistan to the north, Iran to the west, Pakistan to the south and the People's Republic of China to the east." should be changed to read "Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan border Afghanistan to the north, Iran to the west, Pakistan to the south, India to the south east and the People's Republic of China to the east." This is because the disputed territory of Jammu & Kashmir, currently administered by Pakistan but claimed by India, borders Afghanistan. For political correctness, the edited text should be used.

Vaidyanathanramani (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, I have added some text to the article regarding the disputed territory of Gilgit-Baltistan, SpitfireTally-ho! 08:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest to remove this new addition. The Durand Line problem has not been resolved yet between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the state Jammu and Kashmir is disputed between Pakistan and India. As long as these disputes are not resolved the acceptance of current boundaries as international boundaries, and all other countries accept the current boundaries between these countries, will be very reasonable. We don't want to have another senseless political debate here.(Domasch (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

What India claims or does not claim has got nothing to do with reality of borders. Kashmir is a disputed territory (including the Indian administered area- from which they are connecting borders)- Putting some ones claim on the opening paragraph is ridiculous. Secondly, according to International Laws, Durand line IS the border between Afghanistan & Pakistan as successor states claim boundaries according to the U.N law. There is no international backing of this far-right claim in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.250.4 (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Introduction is bias

 * About 13 powerful and well known kingdoms were based inside (with their capitals, courts, seat of power or headquarters inside) Afghanistan, including the Greco-Bactrians, Kushans, Indo-Sassanids, Kabul Shahis, Saffarids, Samanids, Ghaznavids, Ghurids, Kartids, Timurids, Mughals, Hotakis, Durranis, and Barakzais. My point is that if you look at a map of the country, every major city of Afghanistan was once the capital of a well known kingdom in Asia. This makes Afghanistan very unique because not many countries are like this. However, nothing at all about this is mentioned in the introduction.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro again (first line in 3rd paragraph) has an obvious error, where it states by User:Tajik: The political history of Afghanistan begins south of the Hindu Kush with the rise of Pashtun tribes (known as Afghans in Persian) in the 18th century, when in 1709 the Hotaki dynasty established its rule in Kandahar and, more specifically, when Ahmad Shah Durrani established the Durrani Empire in 1747 - the first Afghan Empire and the forerunner of modern Afghanistan. How can the Durrani Empire be the first Afghan Empire when much prior to that there were a number of other Afghan empires such as Lodi dynasty (1451 - 1526), Suri dynasty (1540 - 1556), or even the Khilji dynasty (1290 - 1320) of Delhi Sultanate because rulers of that dynasty were treated as Afghans. The 3 sources cited by editor (User:Tajik) to satisfy his POV do not mention "the first Afghan Empire", they mention only "Afghanistan"., , [3rd source (Encyclopaedia of Islam) cannot be verified].


 * Ancient kingdoms were much different from modern nation states that are based on the Napoleonic state-model. That means that they did not have fix capitals, at best certain headquarters and kingly courts. Even if we regard their royal courts as "capitals", then the Mughals (centered in Lahore and Agra), Samanids (centered in Samarqand) and Hotakis (who reigned from Isfahan) would not fit in your definition. Leaving that aside, the intro is supposed to give a very short summary of the entire article. There is no reason to mention these 13 kingdoms. They should be mention in the history only.
 * The second part you are criticizing is based on authoritative scholastic works. Your definition of "Afghan Empire" is totally irrelevant, because you are no scholar and - quite frankly - do not have much knowledge of the subject. The Durranis were the founders of Afghanistan and were the first to unite the Pashtun tribes and hence create a kind of Pashtun nationalism. Prior Pashtun dynasties never ruled as "Afghans", but only as a single tribe or family. The Lodis are a good example: they were Persianized and quite assimilated in the Indian civilization. There is not a single work in Pashto left from their time, there are no proofs that they had any kind of an "Afghan" national identity. The Khiljis were Turks and not Afghans, and claiming that they "were treated as Afghans" is your POV and not supported by the Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica. The Suri dynasty was only nominally Pashtun. Sher Shah Suri only claimed Pashtun descent, but you won't be able to provide proofs or sources that he or his descendants had an "Afghan/Pashtun identity". Sher Shah Suri was born in East India and is reported to have descended from an "Afghan adventurer of the Suri tribe". He did not speak Pashto (if you claim otherwise please provide sources and proofs), he never attempted to create a "Pashtun/Afghan empire", and he and his descendants are not known as "creators of an Afghan Empire". The first nationally Afghan/Pashtun movement was that of the Hotakis, but they did not have the support of other Pashtun tribes. Hence their dynasty collapsed after a short time. Ahmad Shah Durrani was the first who successfully united the Pashtun tribes and created an empire that was essentially "Afghan", meaning Pashtun. He attacked other regions (Herat, Balkh, Kabul, etc), conquered them, and placed Pashtun governors in those regions. Ahmad Shah Durrani was the first Afghan king whose reign was based on his ethnic identity. He favored Pashtuns and had a generally unfavorable policy regarding Non-Pashtuns. Read Encyclopaedia Iranica: "... But the unity of the empire was fragile. Chronic uprisings in the north and northwest clearly indicated that the submission of the non-Paṧtūn populations was more superficial than real, especially since they were burdened by a deliberately unfavorable fiscal policy. ..." Tajik (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first point of User:Ahmed Shahi, but User:Tajik is also right, we can mention those dynasties in the history section and the Intro is supposed to be the short. But at least, we can mention the fact that the modern territories of Afghanistan were once the center of powerful and important empires. Someone removed the sentence a source from which local powers rose to form empires and influence neighboring regions. It has been home to various peoples through the ages, among them were ancient Aryan tribes who established the dominant role of Indo-Iranian languages in the region. We should re-add that sentence.


 * As to the second point, I totally agree with the points put forward by User:Tajik.


 * As a side not, the Mauryans are not so important to be mentioned in the Intro, alongside the Alexander the Great. After the removal of the Full-protection, we should ask for the Semi-Protection of the page, so that the IP address does not vandalize the article every hour.Ariana (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The sentence you have highlighted is correct and totally enough for the intro. It was not me who deleted it and even if, it was by mistake. I think it was the one IP who kept removing this sentence. Tajik (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Tajik keeps changing the subject by talking more about Pashto language and other irrelevant stuff when I'm only dealing with land and empires. The Lody and Suri dynasties were made up of ethnic Afghans (known today as ethnic Pashtuns or Pathans). Tajik explaining his theories about how ancient Afghan kingdoms were, the language they spoke, being Persianized or Indianized, and etc is totally irrelevant because the Afghans are not limited to one language or one specific location. The fact is they belong to the same ethnic group as the Hotakis and Durranis of Afghanistan. Therefore, they were obviously ethnic Afghans with own kingdoms. Another source explaining what I've just explained isn't required here because one can determine this without needing a historian's view. Their ethnicity is well documented and is mentioned in the article of each of these dynasties, and they are well sourced.


 * I'm not requesting that we mention all 13 dynasties or kingdoms but I'd like to see something like this or similar written the land of Afghanistan has been the center of many powerful Asian kingdoms such as the Kushans, Samanids, Ghaznavids, Timurids, and many others. I think this is a very neutral way to present the pre-creation of Afghanistan history.


 * If the Intro is supposed to be short then why Tajik added the extra irrelevant stuff such as "south of the Hindu Kush with the rise of Pashtun tribes (known as Afghans in Persian)"? This creates confusion because Persians in Afghanistan are also called Afghans and north of Hindu Kush is also Afghanistan. And, not all Pashtun tribes rose because those in the Peshaware area and others who were subjects of the Mughal empire did not rise up or join. Tajik's edits are backfiring on him, he's eracing the history of non-Pashtuns of Afghanistan, his edits are actually trying to explain that there were no Persians or others living in Afghanistan during the the early-18th century but I believe there may have been some. It seems that no matter which way Tajik arranges the words, the history of Afghanistan cannot be made in his favor.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have told you before: Wikipedia is not a place to promote ethnocentric (in your case Pashtun nationalistic) propaganda. The Afghans (which is just another word for Pashtuns) were not a united ethnic group until very recently. Even at the time of Ahmad Shah Durrani, they were opposed to each other, were fighting each other - to an extent that British scholars, such as Mountstuart Elphinstone, classified the Durranis and Ghilzay as two separate ethnic groups. The POLITICAL HISTORY of Afghanistan begins with the Hotaki and Durrani Pashtuns (Logworth Dames/Gibb/Morgenstierne/Dupree in Encyclopaedia of Islam: "... The country now known as Afghanistan has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race became assured: previously various districts bore distinct appellations, 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. ..."). Tajik (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Explain how do you figure that I'm promoting Pashtun ethnocentric propaganda? The Afghans are citizens of Afghanistan, which includes non-Pashtuns as well. Mountstuart Elphinstone called all of them Afghans. I agree that the political history of Afghanistan began during the long struggle of Hotaki and Durrani Pashtuns with foreign powers in the early-18th century. I disagree with the Durrani being "the first Afghan empire", as I explained above there were Afghan empires before that. I'm aware when the country was named Afghanistan ("1750 - Southern Khorasan is officially renamed Afghanistan...").

Ahmed shahi (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article
I have fully protected this article for 1 month. I have no knowledge of this subject, so do not know who is correct and who is incorrect (hence why I just protected the version of the article as it currently stands, not knowing which version is the "correct" one).

Please discuss the issues here, and when you have decided on what should/should not be in the article, please leave a editprotected request on this page. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 14:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Among many other things, User:Tajiks keeps removing this important mention in the intro "Afghanistan, meaning land of the Afghans," and, "the last Afghan Empire" both of which are sourced. Tajik is changing the "last Afghan Empire" to "first Afghan Empire" and he has no source to back that POV.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Afghanpedia" is not a reliable source. The information that User:Ahmed shahi is stubbornly putting in the article is not supported by any other source. It does not appear in the most authoritative sources of oriental studies. Of course, Ahmed shahi does not understand that because he has absolutely no qualifications in this regard. He does not even have an access to to the Encyclopaedia of Islam. He has removed the phrase "The territories now comprising Afghanistan", which is a word-to-word quotation from the aforementioned encyclopedia. He has also many times removed quotes from scholarly sources, only because they do not support his POV views. That clearly proves that he is not here to write an accurate encyclopedic article, but promote nationalistic POV. The phrase "last Afghan empire" is his own WP:OR and does not appear in any reliable source. That's the reason why he uses unrealiable websites, such as Sabawoon. "Afghanpedia" is unscholarly, does not mention its scholars (obviously because they do not have any qualification), and promotes Pashtun-nationalist nonsense ("Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan"). Not to mention the fact that Ahmed shahi is insulting other users (for example by calling me a "racist", because I have removed his unrealiable sources ). Tajik (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been mentioned at the WikiProject Countries Talkpage  --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been mentioned at the WikiProject Afghanistan Talkpage  --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been mentioned at the WikiProject Central Asia Talkpage  --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * User:Tajik keeps removing the sourced phrase "Afghanistan meaning land of the Afghans" from the intro only because may be it bothers him. Tajik proudly claims on his user page that he is from Afghanistan but goes around defaming Afghanistan, its history and its people. So I just reverted his vandalism.


 * Afghanistan is only one territory, anyone who writes "The territories now comprising Afghanistan" doesn't know what he's talking about. The information I used as a reference for the "last Afghan Empire" from Afghanpedia is backed by 100s of other sources, including Encyclopædia Britannica.


 * The information from Encyclopaedia of Islam cannot be verified and I didn't call anyone a racist.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.28.172.69, 2 May 2010
editprotected

There should be a inclusion of the Indian Mauryan Empire in the 2nd intro. paragraph. I am a Buddhist from Afghanistan and was forced to flee because of the Talibans in 1990s, this is a very important part of our history. Afghanistan was greatly influenced by the Indian Mauryan Empire and the religion that it brought. For some reason, the Muslim world does not want to recognize the other religions that influenced the region apart from Islam. For example, the Talibans destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan in the Hazarajat region of central Afghanistan. Bamyan was part of the kingdom of Gandhara. It was the site of several Buddhist monasteries, and a thriving center for religion, philosophy, and Indian subcontinent art. It was a Buddhist religious site from the 2nd century up to the time of the Islamic invasion in the 9th century. Afghanistan was a very peaceful country but there has been a constant effort by the Muslim world to erase that past. I request the administrator to - PLEASE Don't erase our Past.

As an Afghan Minority this is very important to us. Thanks.

98.28.172.69 (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That information doesn't belong in the intro, this is an article about a state (nation or country). Only southern Afghanistan was controlled by the Mauryan Empire. I think you need to learn how articles are written in Wikipedia then you won't be edit-warring and saying all these things.


 * There were many other Empires before and after the Mauryans. We don't need to mention all of these in the intro.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.. there were many Indian Empires that influenced the region but the Mauryan Empire was the crucial one since under Chandragupta, the Mauryan Empire conquered the trans-Indus region, which was under Macedonian rule. Chandragupta then defeated the invasion led by Seleucus I, a Greek general from Alexander's army. Under Chandragupta and his successors, both internal and external trade, and agriculture and economic activities, all thrived and expanded across India thanks to the creation of a single and efficient system of finance, administration and security

If the article mentions Alexander and other empire why exclude the Mauryans?? And one more thing its only one word that needs to be included and thats MAURYANS. I am not telling to give a history on it, if you are mentioning other empires why exclude the Mauryans??
 * I know about the Mauryans, they brought Buddhism into the land of Afghanistan. Only the name of the empire may be mentioned before the Muslim armies, but please don't write extra stuff about them in the intro. You may write more about their accomplishments in the history section. You're the first Afghan Buddhist I have ever met and I find that very strange.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats what I have been trying to do just include Indian Mauryans but you keep on deleting it!!! I am not writing the history.. many have written and know about the Mauryan Empire. As far as you finding that its strange that I am the first Afghan Buddhist, I bet you'll also find it strange that Zoroastrianism which was for many centuries was followed in Persian Empire before it was gradually marginalized by Islam and many Zoroastrians were forced to migrated. Among them several groups ventured to Gujarat on the western shores of the Indian subcontinent, where they finally settled. The descendants of those refugees are today known as the Parsis. Just as the whole world recognize Islam as a religion follwed in some parts of the world, I think the Muslim world should also recognize other religions still exists and florish too. Thats goes to the heart of the issue here---If the article mentions Alexander and other empire in the intro why exclude the Mauryans?? All I am asking, and I agree with you, is that just include the Mauryan name. 98.28.172.69 (talk)

Buddhist kingdoms and empires in Afghanistan have been included in the introduction. Kushans are responsible for the much great development of Buddhism in Afghanistan; and the product of their civilization is the Buddha Statues of Bamyan. Unlike other heterogeneous buddhist dynasties such as Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians and Indo-Parthians, Kushans spread the Buddhism in Afghanistan. However, Mauryans ruled mostly the southern parts of Afghanistan, and they did not conquer beyond the Hindu Kush mountains. During the presence of Mauryans in southern Afghanistan, Seleucids and Greco-Bactrians were present in the major parts of Bactria and their civilization (religion and language) were dominant in the region. Mauryans may have or do have a large importance in Indian and Pakistani territories, but their influence in Afghanistan is not significant. There are many other empires and dynasties which deserve more than Mauryans to be mentioned in the Introduction. You added some information on the Mauryans in the History section, no one removed it (except for the very details which were irrelevent), but adding Mauryans in the Intro is irrelevent. Ariana (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In that Case why add Greeks and mentions Alexander since they were in Afghnistan for a very brief period and there are no Greeks to be found. You mean to say Mauryans did not have major influence in Afghnistan, I am sorry to say that your historic knowledge is based on Indophobia. For example, Kandahar derives the name of the city from Gandhara became part of the Indian Mauryan Empire under Chandragupta Maurya, after the departure of Alexander. The Mauryan emperor Ashoka erected a pillar there with a bilingual inscription in Greek and Aramaic. The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom occupied Kandahar after the Mauryans, but then lost the city to the Indo-Scythians.

Buddhism in Afghanistan has a long history of thousands of years. Many monuments, such as the famous Buddhas of Bamyan, testify to the Buddhist culture in Afghanistan. It was during Ashoka The Great reign that Buddhism was introduced to what later became Afghanistan. Kanishka (120 to 160 B.C.) was a Buddhist who built many stupas. Many of the Iranian forebearers of the Pashtuns, including the Scythians followed Buddhism until the arrival of Islam. Hinduism in Afghanistan dates back to the Vedic periods when small areas of the country shared a common culture with India. Along with Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, Hinduism was practiced but to in much smaller numbers. Afghanistan gradually converted to Islam with the advent of Islam. The Mahabharata, a sacred text amongst the Hindus, mentions about King Shakuni who was the ruler of Kandahar region in Afghanistan[3]. The Kushanas worshipped Hindu gods as well as Buddha and local deities [4]. Some of them like Vasudeva were named after Hindu gods and heroes. The Shahi rulers of Afghanistan followed Hinduism and also supported Buddhism. The Shahi king Khingala installed one of the earliest Ganesha images, which was found in Gerdez. There are Hindu populations in major cities of Afghanistan. The Hindu-Sikh population in Afghanistan in 1990 was estimated to number around 30,000. Afghan Hindus and Afghan Sikhs often share places of worship. The main ethnic groups in Afghanistan which practice Hinduism are the Punjabis, and Sindhis who came as merchants to the region within the last few centuries. Along with Sikhs, they are all collectively known as the Hindki.Linguistic demographics among the Hindu community are diverse and generally follow regional origins: those hailing from Punjab generally speak Punjabi, Sindhis speak Sindhi, Kabulis and Kandharis speak both Pashto and the northern and southern dialects of Hindk. The Afghan Hindu community in Afghanistan is mostly based in the cities of Kabul and Kandahar. The Loya Jirga has two seats reserved for Hindus. More so than other ethnic groups, Afghan Hindus have fled to Pakistan and the West to escape religious persecution from the Taliban or to improve their economic well-being.

This is all due to the Mauryans, at least there are still Afghan sikhs and Hindus presently living in Kabul and Kandahar and some in Pakistan. WHERE ARE THE GREEKS????? apart from being bankrupt in Europe. So If you ask an Afghni he or she will relate to Indian Subcontinent rather than Greek. So If you are going to mention Alexander the Great, I think the Indians are also due their Credit.


 * No one is denying the deep impact of Buddhist civilization on the earlier inhabitants of Afghanistan. Buddhism and Zoroastrianism were practiced and developed in Afghanistan. Please do not deviate the discussion towards other issue.
 * You want to mention an iconic empire of Buddhist civilization in Afghanistan? then we have mentioned the Kushans. All the editors already agreed anonymously that the Intro should be short and we cannot mention all the empires. As to the Buddhist civilization, Kushans worth more than the Mauryans. For two reasons: (1) Kushans extensively and exclusively contributed in the development of Buddhism in Afghanistan, while Mauryans could only rule the southern regions; the other major parts of the country were still in the Greek culture; (2) Kushans reigned in Afghanistan longer than the Mauryans, and ruled over the entire territories of Afghanistan unlike the Mauryans.
 * Therefore, we have mentioned the Kushans in the Intro, that's all enough.
 * Why Alexander the Great has been mentioned? That's because his empire was the largest in the world at that time. The way the Alexander the Great influenced the cultures, civilizations and regions, the Mauryans (or more specifically Ashoka) didn't. Ashoka only reigned over the southern Indian-subcontenant, while Alexander ruled between Southern Europe to Central Asia. In addition, when Alexander left, the community of Greeks remained in Bactria who formed the Seleucids and Greco-Bactrian dynasties. Most of the today's Afghans living in the north have genetic heritage from the Macedonians, e.g. blue eyes, blond hair, etc. To the extent that Alexander the Great influenced the region, Ashoka couldn't (I am only speaking strictly about the Afghan territories - Of course Ashoka is THE most greatest influential king in the Indian Subcontinent.) Ariana (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Alexander the Great the largest empire in terms of Land Mass ok no one is denying that, as far as lot of Historian know that Alexander did not wish to engage the Mauryans and Nanda Dynasty of fearing to loose thats why he turned back. But that not the issue, to say that Indian Mauryans did not have much infulence proves my point of the your world of romanticize Alexander, and having Indophobia mentality. The region was greatly infulenced by Mauryans and Especially Ashoka the Great. (in this case by finding a couple of people with "blonde hair, blue eyes" by the way how many Afghanis have you met recently). genetic heritage?? Are you serious if thats your best shot, than why not include and talk about Africans why exclude African Culture.

Buddhism spread slowly in India until the time of the Mauryan emperor Ashoka, who was a public supporter of the religion. The support of Aśoka and his descendants led to the construction of more stūpas (Buddhist religious memorials) and to efforts to spread Buddhism throughout the enlarged Maurya empire and even into neighboring lands—particularly to the Iranian-speaking regions of Afghanistan and Central Asia, beyond the Mauryas' northwest border, and to the island of Sri Lanka south of India. These two missions, in opposite directions, would ultimately lead, in the first case to the spread of Buddhism into China, and in the second case, to the emergence of Theravāda Buddhism and its spread from Sri Lanka to the coastal lands of Southeast Asia consisting of Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam and Peninsular Malaysia while the maritime section consists of Brunei, East Malaysia, East Timor, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, the Philippines, and Singapore. The Indians don't like to brag about thier infulence in the world history. As Hu Shih, former Ambassador of China to USA said: India conquered And dominated China culturally for 20 centuries without ever having to send a single soldier across her border. So All I am saying if you mention Alexander just add two more word Indian Mauryans -which rulers adopted Bhuddism as a state religion and influenced the region culturally and economically.


 * Comparing the size of the Mauryan Empire with that of Alexander the Great, the Muslim conquests and the Mongol Conquests, it does not even make up half of their sizes. The three latter empires shocked the world with their "conquest". Here in Afghanistan's article, these three empires are worth mentioning because they all came from far regions of the world and conquered Afghanistan, while Mauryans were just in the neighborhood.
 * Once again, if you are reasoning in terms of cultural influence over Afghanistan, it was the Kushans and not the Mauryans, it was Kanishka and not Ashoka the Great. Mauryans only conquered half (or probably less than half) of Afghanistan's territories, and it could not impose the Buddhism on "all" the regions of Afghanistan. Greeks (Seleucids and Greco-Bactrians) were present in the northern part (Bactria) all along the 3rd and 2nd millennium. It was the Kushans who imposed the Budhhism in all over Afghanistan.
 * If you are still not convinced by the reasons I and User:Ahmed shahi presented, then you can ask for the view of other editors. If the majority agreed that Mauryans conquest of Afghanistan worth mentioning, then you can add it. Ariana (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Request disabled because i cannot see a clear consensus for a specific change. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 21:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all I am not comparing the Empire's LAND SIZE, I am talking about Empires influence. You are saying in terms of cultural influence over Afghanistan, it was the Kushans and not the Mauryans. You would need to do more research Kanishka Sanskrit: कनिष्क was a king of the Kushan Empire in Central Asia, ruling an empire extending from Bactria to large parts of northern India in the 2nd century of the common era, and famous for his military, political, and spiritual achievements. And guess what the great Kushan king Kanishka a great patron of Buddhism. Along with the Indian kings Ashoka and Harshavardhana, and the Indo-Greek king Menander I (Milinda), he is considered by Buddhists to have been one of the greatest Buddhist kings. Like I said and Chinese says Indians did not need to send armies to Conquest land or to boost their self esteem. From the spiritual, cultural influence in the region to the art of Love Making Kamasutra to the Golden Age of India Gupta Dynasties. From Buddhism followed from Afghnistan to the coast of Japan Actions Speaks louder than Words.

So If there is a mention of Alexander, I think Chandragupta should be mentioned too. or don't mention it It seems that you need to stroke your ego much more than an afghani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.172.69 (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you are still not satisfied by the mentioning of Kushans in the Intro, and is still insisting on adding the Indian (as you said) Mauryans, it seems that you are pushing your Indian nationalistic sentiments and POV. First you argued in terms of Buddhist influence, and here you go, Kushans have been mentioned. Now you are not satisfied. I guess that's because Kushans were a local from the current territories of Afghanistan and came from the Yuezhi tribes of Central Asia; while Mauryans were locals of India and were from Indian or Aryan race. It makes sense now. Please do not push your Pan-Indian sentiments and POV. Ariana (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The intro should mention the Maurya Empire something like this: The land has witnessed various invasions since antiquity, including by Alexander the Great and his Macedonian army, Buddhist Mauryans, Muslim Abbasids, Mongols and others. These are worth mentioning because they brought new cultures or religions into Afghanistan. The Kushan Empire did not introduce Buddhism and they were not invaders but a local kingdom. And, User:Ariana310 is once again making the list of local dynasties in the intro too long when it suppose to be short naming only 3 or 4 most popular local kingdoms. It even falsely includes the Hephthalites (which was added in the list by User:Tajik) as a kingdom that rose to power in Afghanistan, this is wrong because they are mentioned in all sources as invaders to Afghanistan. I don't need to show evidence you can read anywhere and see for yourself. This is another example of User:Tajik who has no real knowledge about Afghanistan's history. Ahmed shahi (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Only adding the Greco-Bactrians made the list long? Hephthalites rose from this land, just as a local dynasty. If you are reasoning in terms of ethnicity, then Kushans came from Yuezhi tribes of Central Asia, Ghaznavids were Turks, and Timurids were also the descendants of Monguls, then you have to call them as invaders too then?!
 * "Muslim Abbasids" is inaccurate. Afghanistan (more precisely the western parts) were conquered even by the Rashidun Caliphate, and then by the Umayyads. Abbasids came later on.
 * I still do not agree with the importance of Mauryans being added beside Alexander the Great, Muslims and Mongols. Ariana (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you added more than one. The Greco-Bactrians were descendants of the Greeks, they are already mentioned with Alexander and his Greek army. The Hephthalites did not rise from within what is the nation of Afghanistan today, they have risen to power somewhere else, from outside of Afghanistan's current borders, and came as an invading force. This is why I only add the well-recognized and undisputed kingdoms or dynasties in the lists to avoid possible edit-war. Sorry to say this but you're doing the opposite, because your edits create edit-war by giving a chance to POV pushers to add their favorite kingdoms in the lists or remove some that they don't like. The intro should be short and written in a professional NPOV wording, even you agreed early to make it short, so let's keep it that way. Take your POVs and fact-finding mission to the individual articles and there you may add as much info as you can.


 * Whoever was the first Arab group to enter Afghanistan should be mentioned or instead "Arab Muslims". I agree with you on the last part, but the Maurya era is when Buddhism was first introduced to the country. If the arrival of Islam is told then we must also explain by whome Buddhism arrived.


 * You removed the important Mughal Empire from the local dynasties list, whos founder was a Kabuli named Babur. He lived in Kabul for 20 years which naturally makes him Kabuli, this is why he loved Kabul so much and is buried there today. Kabul was one of the capitals of Babur and his Mughal Empire from 1504 until 1738 when Nader Shah and Ahmad Shah Durrani confiscated it. The rise of that dynasty occurred in Afghanistan so that's why it is important to mention that in the list. And, Babur being born outside the country is not important because he became a local resident and his army were all local people.Ahmed shahi (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you on removing the Hephthalites from the Intro in order to have a short listing. You should not mix up Greco-Bactrians with Seleucids. It was Seleucids who were the direct descendants of Alexander the Great's army. Greco-Bactrians are important to be mentioned.

We should add Muslim conquests; not mentioning the name of the caliphate (Umayyad or Abbasids).

Babur was NOT a Kabuli. He lived almost 20 years of his early life in Farghana and Samarkand. During the next 20 years (between 1504 and 1525), he did not live continuously in Kabul either. He was in move for capturing Herat, and re-conquering Samarkand and Bukhara. He might have stayed a couple of years, but not for a long time. We don't have any good reason to call him a Kabuli, or to call his empire a local empire. Ariana (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom came from the Seleucid Empire, they are all one group of people (Ancient Macedonians) who first arrived to Afghanistan with Alexander the Great in 330 BC. I prefer we only mention the most well recognized and undisputable kingdoms such as Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Timurids, and Mughals in the intro and add "and many others" following it.


 * I think you don't know what the term "Kabuli" means, and I didn't request that we call him a Kabuli in the article. I'm calling him that here in the discussion because anyone who makes Kabul their hometown is called Kabuli. Just as if you go live in America or in Europe you are called "American" or "European", even if you were not born there or have no citizenship.


 * Babur lived in Afghanistan for 20 years where he got the support from the locals to build his own kingdom with Kabul as the capital and his residence. The Timurid dynasty ruler, Timur, around the same time abdicated and acknowledged Babur as the new Sultan. Babur's army and followers were the local tribes of Afghanistan. Your comment about him staying inside Kabul or going on conquests is irrelevant. He loved Kabul and considered it his hometown, and nobody was available to tell him he cannot be a Kabuli or citizen/resident of Kabul. He described Kabul as:If there is a paradise on earth, it is this, it is this, it is this!


 * Babur is buried at the Gardens of Babur in Kabul. The map on the right was created in 1747 and as you can see even until then half of Afghanistan was part of the Mughal Empire. When Babur and his Afghan army departed to conquer India, he didn't sell or abandon Afghanistan. He only added a new territory to his empire, and shifed his residency from Kabul to Delhi. I also have Babur's statements in which he is insulting India very badly, its people and everything there but I don't want to post it here.


 * I explained all this so you understand that Mughal Empire began from Afghanistan or originates from there, and that Greco-Bactrians were Greeks in culture, language and religion. User:Ariana310, I'm surprised to see that you claim to be from Afghanistan but your edits are not friendly toward Afghanistan. I find this strange about you and User:Tajik because most Afghans I run into are very proud of their country and history, but you and Tajik's edits are trying to give away the history of Afghanistan to neighboring states.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From the Pre-Islamic period, Greco-Bactrians and Kushans are the two most important dynasties which mark our history. In terms of culture and language, they both linked to other territories, but they were local dynasties.
 * If we come out of the context of wikipedia, you might find me more proud of my country Afghanistan, more patriotic and more loving my homeland, even more than yourself. But in wikipedia, the feelings don't have any weight, there should be scholarly reference and facts, without any bias or POV. Now other editors will ask for a reference from you, do you have any reference to support your argument that Moghuls can be considered a "local" dynasty from Afghanistan?
 * Let's finish this debate. I'm done. Ariana (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It being important or not is irrelevant. There is zero proof that the Greco-Bactrians rose to power from within the borders of the modern state of Afghanistan. In the case of Babur, the Encyclopædia Britannica states:"Bābur, a descendant of Genghis Khan and Timur, had made Kabul the capital of an independent principality in 1504. He captured Kandahār in 1522, and in 1526 he marched on Delhi. He defeated Ibrāhīm, the last of the Lodī Afghan kings of India, and established the Mughal Empire, which lasted until the middle of the 19th century and included all of eastern Afghanistan south of the Hindu Kush. The capital was at Agra. Nine years after his death in 1530, the body of Bābur was taken to Kabul for burial." (source: )

"Kabul was the capital (1504–26) of the Mughal dynasty, under Bābur, and it remained under Mughal rule until 1738..." (source: )
 * Babur a ruler and resident of Kabul (Afghanistan) marched with his army to conquer India and formed the powerful Mughal Empire. This qualifies Mughal Empire to be added in the list because it says Afghanistan has been a source from which rulers or kings rose to establish empires.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 13:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * For some reason some people here dont want to link Afghanistan with India and / or Hinduism. I mean before the arrival of Islam Afghanistan was part of Ancient India and / or had a big Hindu population. Even on wikipedia there is a page called Hinduism in Afghanistan and it mentinos this. Yet here there is little to no mention of Afghanistan being ilnked and apart of Ancient India and / or Hinduism then ? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 11:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sections tagged
I have tagged the history sections from around the 1980s to recent 2010 because it all reads like a blog. Someone needs to re-write this stuff like an encyclopedia. I feel that User:JCAla, User:Tajik, and User:Cabolitae should not remove the tags since they belong to the same particular group.--Jrkso (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No only the appropriate tag should remain. Why do you think separate templates are supplied if they all have to be applied at the same time? Dmcq (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't always start a new section for the same discussion, Jrkso. We were discussing it here. The "appropriate tone" has been worked on extensively. So, we should be able to remove this tag also. Jrkso is the only one to constantly contemplate. After several demands from other editors for Jrkso to provide specific issues he wants to contest, he has not provided even one. JCAla (talk) 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am now removing the tags. None has come up to agree with Jrkso's perception. Four editors are in favor of removing the tags.JCAla (talk) 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Factor out detailed history
I'd have thought a lot the history section here was a bit too detailed and much of it should be factored out to the History of Afghanistan and History of Afghanistan since 1992 and what's here should mainly be the lead sections of those articles. Dmcq (talk) 14:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * agreed! Tajik (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree - The 1978 to 2010 history in this article should tell us the major events briefly, similar to this, this, or this.--Jrkso (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Do not agree. I think the detailed history is of importance in the main Afghanistan article. The history part is not that long and gives a good overview. Also, it is not really that detailed considering the complexity of the history. If the history is shortened, then all of it including "Hotaki dynasty and the Durrani Empire", "Pre-Islamic period", etc. Jrkso, as stated above, obviously only wants to shorten the 1978-2001 sections in order to remove details he does not like.
 * Comment - The pre-1978 history covers 1,000s of years so of course that needs to be little more than the 1978-2010 which is only 30 years. The section "Hotaki dynasty and the Durrani Empire" covers roughly 200 years and that could also be shortened a little.--Jrkso (talk) 20:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The more recent history is generally of greater importance to contemporary readers and is thus very often covered in more detail wherever information on history is being presented.JCAla (talk) 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive users Tajik and JCAla at it again
The disruptive User:Tajik is removing a dubious tag and the disruptive User:JCAla is making too many repeated Wikilinks in the same area of the section. The statement below found in Afghanistan must be verified or removed. Tajik has argued last month extensively about needing verifiable sources for the Alexander letter but now he's trying to say that verifying things isn't important. Tajik also states that Hudud al-'alam is not a travel literature, then what is it?--Jrkso (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By the 17th century AD, it seems that some Pashtuns themselves were using the term as an ethnonym - a fact that is supported by traditional Pashto literature, for example, in the writings of the 17th-century Pashto poet Khushal Khan Khattak:"Pull out your sword and slay any one, that says Pashtun and Afghan are not one! Arabs know this and so do Romans: Afghans are Pashtuns, Pashtuns are Afghans! Source: extract from "Passion of the Afghan" by Khushal Khan Khattak; translated by C. Biddulph in "Afghan Poetry Of The 17th Century: Selections from the Poems of Khushal Khan Khattak''", London, 1890."


 * Jrkso, you are by far the most disruptive user in this article. That is the reason why everyone is opposed to your edits. The nonsense about Alexander was removed because it was pure nonsense and totally un-academic (the only person who was denying this was - of course - you, trying to disprove leading scholar by citing a Hollywood movie and violating WP:OR). The information about Khushal Khan Khattak is different, because it is a translation of his poetry. It is a primary source, and the source of that poem is given in the article. You can find the translation also here. The complete poem is:
 * Caravans of silk, beautiful lads, and sharp swords,
 * Are what a brave Afghan with pride hoards
 * When the swords of Afghans glitter,
 * The caravan and its merchandise shiver.
 * The camels moan and the riders groan,
 * As they near Khybar with their spirits blown.
 * Caravans and merchants whine and weep,
 * When onto the Pass mighty Pashtons leap.
 * If a Pashton extracts no tolls from a trader,
 * His tribe considers him a sellout traitor.
 * The Arab boys and the Frang women,
 * Crave the strength of Pashton men.
 * From Hindustan to the distant west,
 * Afghans have put all to this test.
 * O son one word I have for thee,
 * Fear no one and no one you flee.
 * Pull out your sword and slay any one,
 * That says Pashton and Afghan are not one.
 * Arabs know this and so do Romans,
 * Afghans are Pashtons, Pashtons are Afghans
 * Whether you like it or not is totally irrelevant. And next time you put a tag in the article, USE THE DISCUSSION and EXPLAIN why you did. You have been asked by so many users so many times to use the discussion BEFORE you edit the article. Ignoring that simply shows that you do not have good intentions, but only want to propagate your POV - no matter what it takes. As for the Hodud al-alam: it is NOT travel literature. It is a geography book, written by someone who had never visited the places mentioned in the work. He collected all information he knew and tried to give a detailed description of the geography surrounding his native place (Juzjan in modern Afghanistan), then the regions surrounding that area, and also places far away, such as Africa or Inner Asia. Why does it not surprise me that you neither know this nor understand it?! Tajik (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't waste my time please, provide a source that mentions the poem. I searched everywhere but was unable to find it. As for the Hodud al-alam, it should tell readers what it is. I didn't remove the quote, don't call me disruptive.--Jrkso (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The only one who is wasting other people's time is you. The source has been mentioned above. Not everything has to be visible on Google Books. It simply needs to be referenced correctly. It can be checked in any university, since universities usually have unlimited or better access to academic sources in the internet (again: if you are not able to check it, it does not mean that others can't do it as well). But that site used to be visible, that's where many others have copied the translation from, for example this Pashto forum dealing with Pashto literature. Tajik (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Dead links
Please see Link rot for guidelines on dealing with links that no longer work. Removing them is not the automatic option. Dmcq (talk) 09:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Native speakers of Dari and Pashto
CIA lists "languages spoken in Afghanistan" but all other references are talking about "native speakers". Most sources, such as Encyclopædia Iranica, Encyclopedia Britannica, SIL International (Ethnologue), and others give the following estimates for native speakers of Dari and Pashto.
 * Dari (Persian): 25-35% "About one-third of the population of Afghanistan, i.e., about 5,000,000 people, speak Dari. It is the primary language of the Tadzhik, Hạzāra, and Chahar Aimak peoples."

--Lagoo sab (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pashto language: 35-60% "Paṧtō (1) is the native tongue of 50 to 55 percent of Afghans..."


 * This is source picking and selective quoting. The first sentence dealing with Persian is taken from the article "Dari" in Encyclopaedia Britannica. The sentence about Pashto is not taken from Britannica, but from the 1980's article of Encyclopaedia Iranica. In fact, the "language" section of the article "Afghanistan" in Britannica says: More than two-fifths of the population speak Pashto, the language of the Pashtuns, while about half speak some dialect of Persian.
 * It is also POV to claim that "most sources" claim this or that, because we simply cannot objectively figure out what "most sources" say. Tajik (talk) 01:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the Britannica reference to the article "Dari language" with that of "Afghanistan: Languages", because the "Dari language" article does not mention any numbers. Next time you add sources to the article, please check them first, otherwise it's falsification of sources. Tajik (talk) 03:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Lagoo sab, stop changing the article and DISCUSS it first. You change WITHOUT any discussion. Your interpretation that the Factbook is not saying anything about native speakers is ridiculous. Is here anyone else who sees things as you do?! But even if your interpretation was correct, why are you then using the article "Dari language" in Britannica as a source. Because it does not say anything about "native speakers" either?! I have tagged that section, and I have asked an admin for support. Tajik (talk) 03:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will remind you to maintain civility in your behavior towards me and there's no need to get emotional about this. Actually it was you who changed the language info in the article without a discussion. Read the Factbook's languages definition and tell me if it mentions "native speakers". The words used in Britannica's Dari language article, "about one-third", equals to "about 35%" and that interpretation is correct, but if you don't trust me then ask an expert. The 35% are "native speakers" of Dari who mostly belong to Tajik, Hazara, Chahar Aimak groups. Dari is actually the mother tongue or first language of Tajiks but may include Chahar Aimak and unknown numbers from other groups. The native tongue of Hazaras is Hazaragi but they speak Dari and others as second languages. According to Britannica:

"The people of Afghanistan form a complex mosaic of ethnic and linguistic groups. Pashto and Persian (Dari), both Indo-European languages, are the official languages of the country. More than two-fifths of the population speak Pashto, the language of the Pashtuns, while about half speak some dialect of Persian. While the Afghan dialect of Persian is generally termed “Dari,” a number of dialects are spoken among the Tajik, Ḥazāra, Chahar Aimak, and Kizilbash peoples, including dialects that are more closely akin to the Persian spoken in Iran (Farsi) or the Persian spoken in Tajikistan (Tajik). The Dari and Tajik dialects contain a number of Turkish and Mongolian words, and the transition from one dialect into another across the country is often imperceptible. Bilingualism is fairly common, and the correlation of language to ethnic group is not always exact. Some non-Pashtuns, for instance, speak Pashto, while a larger number of Pashtuns, particularly in urban areas, have adopted the use of one of the dialects of Persian. "

I have quoted Britannica as my reference so that the Wikipedia community can understand my point. The mention of "larger number of Pashtuns, particularly in urban areas, have adopted the use of one of the dialects of Persian" is saying that many Pashtuns who live in cities use the Dari language, although Pashto is still their native tongue. These native Pashto-speaking Pashtuns are counted in CIA's 50% Dari, but in the other list it is showing percentage of native speakers of Pashto, not the numbers of speakers.--Lagoo sab (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am happy to see that you finally have come to terms with the situation that not every pashtun speaks pashto as their native tongue. Darn (BK) you still misinterpret. I still don't understand the issues with the two official languages and the ew that surrounds them. Pashtuns are the larges ethnic group followed by Tajiks. Persian is the most widely used language. Who cares what the first language is. Important is what people use and can read and write and that is all in all still way to little. Analphabetism is high in war-torn Afghanistan. Chartinael (talk) 09:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It states " Some non-Pashtuns, for instance, speak Pashto, while a larger number of Pashtuns, particularly in urban areas, have adopted the use of one of the dialects of Persian." "Some non-Pashtuns" and "large number of Pashtuns adopted the use of one of the dialects of Persian" are ambiguous, indeterminate, vague figures hence we can't conclude anything on that. Explaining a little about the "first language" is relevant information, it doesn't mean that just because you don't care about this we have to delete and hide it.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * We can conclude that non-pashtun ethnic groups actually speak pashto as their primary language and that some ethnic pashtuns have adopted Persian. That is exactly what the source says. The source clearly states that there is no 100% congruency of ethnic and linguistic groups. Hence, although the Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group they do not have the largest speaker population.Chartinael (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't tell us the numbers of non-Pashtun ethnic groups speaking Pashto as their primary language or the numbers of Pashtuns who may have adopted Persian. The rest of your argument is your own opinion. Let this be your warning to stop removing valid sourced material from the article.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * @ Lagoo sab: you are misunderstanding and misinterpreting the sources. Both Britannica and the CIA Factbook are referring to native speakers. "Adopting a language" means that that particular language has become the first language. Pashtuns who have adopted Persian are still being defined as "Pashtuns" in terms of ethnicity, but they are native Persian-speakers. You interpret sources according to your POV, you twist words, and you quote selectively. That is by no means in accordance with Wikipedia rules. Tajik (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You are forcing your opinions on others. I am native speaker of another language but I have adopted English as my language, but that doesn't make English my first language so therefore you are wrong.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If your children grow up learning English as their first language then they will have adopted English. Anecdotal evidence is nice but does not suffice. Furthermore Tajik is not forcing his opinion on others but instead is helping you understanding the source you (mis)quote. Chartinael (talk) 12:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin. I had a look at that bit following 'Encyclopædia Iranica, Encyclopedia Britannica, SIL International (Ethnologue), and others give the following estimates for native speakers of Dari and Pashto.' and there is one thing that is glaring obvious. The Dari figure has citations for two publications after it, and the Pashto one has citations to three completely different ones. That is just a totally wrong way of dealing with figures, they should come from the same source if they are presented together, and if a couple of sources are shown their figures should only be amalgamated if they are pretty close to each other. What's there is is just synthesis and original research and a mess. As to this business of 'native speakers', that term is not referred to in the citations I read. The only two figures that normally matter are the primary language spoken - these should add up to about 100%, and the percent that speak a language which would add up to quite a bit more than 100%. The Factbook ones add up to 100% so they are obviously talking about primary or native language. Factbook is considered a reliable source but I'm a bit leery of its figures so I think it is good that other sources are quoted as well. Dmcq (talk) 10:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am about to shorten this crappy section again. It is a wirrwarr of numbers and percentages. Chartinael (talk) 10:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Shortened, please keep in mind this is to give an overview of the language situation. If more detail is needed, refer to the Languages in Afghanistan lemma. Chartinael (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Dmcq. That's exactly what I was talking about when I said that he is selectively quoting and picking sources. Tajik (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Language Section
I am about to request a 3O again. Right now the section is a concise overview. All the additional sources, numbers and percentages are not needed as they differ not that much. Especially considering the last two surveys. If editors want to expand, expand in the main language lemma instead of here. If there is going to be constant reverting, I will again give two versions and request 3O. Please explain why you feel that there needs to be more in the section. Chartinael (talk) 11:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources clearly contradict one another so it's nessary to cite all reliable academic sources, especially Encyclopedia Irania which is more authoritative. CIA Factbook is not always reliable, which usually contains errors and outdated information but we still left that in the lead.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chartineal. And I once again state my opinion that Lagoo sab is violating WP:OR by selectively quoting and source picking. He makes a POV statement and then picks sources or twists words in order to "back up" that statement - he does not even care if there are 30 or more years in between of those sources. That is unencyclopedic and unscholarly. Tajik (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will remind you one more time to maintain civility in your behavior towards me. Just because you don't accept sources such as the Encyclopædia Iranica, Encyclopedia Britannica, SIL International (Ethnologue), and others it doesn't mean you have to become so emotional and start rioting everywhere.--Lagoo sab (talk) 13:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * There is nothing uncivil in my statement. May I remind you that you have been warned by an admin to maintain civility yourself? I accept all of these sources, but not the way you present them, because you only pick the sources and sentences you like, but reject them in other parts. That is POV and OR, and that's why I do not accept your edits. Tajik (talk) 18:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you accept all sources than why you keep removing the Britannica's one-third figure from the Dari language article? You are picking the sources and sentences you like but reject them in other parts. And then you blame me for this sort of action. Your overall behaviour towards me is uncivil because you're excessively accusing me of wrong doing but without evidence. If you're talking about this, the admin didn't mention civility. He was just telling me that the deletion of sources by User:Chartinael was not precisely a vandalism, the admin later blocked Chartinael for another violation. If you don't like how I present something in the article all you need to do is adjust it to the way you believe is more appropriate instead of rioting everywhere, calling my edits POV, OR, this and that, and falsely revealing my intentions. This is uncivil behaviour and you do not own any of the Wikipedia articles. See Ownership of articles--Lagoo sab (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling something "vandalism" that is not vandalism, is uncivil. As for Dari, the article does NOT say "one third", it says "half": Britannica. You are falsifying sources. Tajik (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Calling something "vandalism" that is not vandalism, is uncivil? Hahaha, where do you get this from, nvm. The Britannica article was changed yesterday from "one third" to "half". UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages explains that Dari language is the native tongue of around one-third of the Afghan population.--Lagoo sab (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here we go again. If Britannica is not enough anymore (meaning: if it does not back up your POV), you quickly come up with a new one (which is just a copy of the older Britannica version). Anyone can find all kinds of sources to back up whatever information. Do you think that there are no sources that say the opposite of what you are saying?! Let me show you one: Afghanistan: Languages Map, The Gulf/2000 Project, Columbia University, 2009: "Persian [...] serves as the first language of a majority of the citizens of Afghanistan [...] Pashto is spoken as the first language by over a quarter of the citizens of that country [...]". The source goes even further and explains: "[...] The most recent step [in the direction of Pashtunization] has been the composition [...] of the national anthem [...] solely in Pashto -- a language that at most only a quarter to a third of the population may speak or understand [...]" To sum it up for you: according to this source, Persian is the first language of more than 50% (= "majority") and Pashto is the language of some 25% ("a quarter"). I have so far not added this source to the article, because source picking and selective quoting is POV and OR. One can find all kinds of "sources" for everything - even sources published by universities. But that's not what Wikipedia is about. You still have to learn that ... Tajik (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me refer you to my talk page. Lagoo Sab has called me a vandal and was told my Magog the Great, he might read up on vandalism. However, reading isn't enough. Understanding is the key. What we have got here is a POV pusher, who quotes selectively and doesn't understand what he quotes. It is a major issue.  BTW, Tajik, you are aware of the fact, that Lagoo Sab thinks, that you and I are identical? Chartinael (talk) 14:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I am not aware of that. But honestly, I do not care. If he thinks so, he should contact admins and ask for an IP check. I have no problems with that. Tajik (talk) 16:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, just in case you care, here is he hypothesizing about my identity: . And the ANI on Pashto: Especially interesting how he changes stance on sourcing. Chartinael (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem with CIA estimates for languages of Afghanistan
In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s several major sources explained that Pashto is 50-55% and Dari 25-35% in Afghanistan. The CIA Factbook's estimates in 1990 and 1991 stated "Pashto 50% and Afghan Persian (Dari) 35%". Then all of a sudden the following year in 1992 this was changed to "Afghan Persian (Dari) 50% and Pashto 35%". Since 1992 to the current 2010 version it hasn't been changed back or provide with an explanation why that occurred, click every year below for details. Since CIA Factbook has a major flaw, we need to cite all reliable sources (including this and this from UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages as well as this and this) in the article so it can be considered fair and balanced.--Lagoo sab (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1990 - Language: 50% Pashtu, 35% Afghan Persian (Dari), 11% Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen), 4% thirty minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai); much bilingualism
 * 1991 (same as 1990)
 * 1992 - Languages: Pashtu 35%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 50%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%; much bilingualism)
 * 1993 (after this same as 1992)
 * 1994
 * 1995
 * 1996
 * 1997
 * 1998
 * 1999
 * 2000
 * 2001
 * 2002
 * 2003
 * 2004
 * 2005
 * 2006
 * 2007
 * 2008
 * 2009
 * 2010


 * What you are doing is WP:OR. It is not up to you to decide what's right and what's wrong. The Factbook is regarded a reliable source in all of Wikipedia. And it does not matter what it stated before 1992 (that was almost 20 years ago). The sources you use are not uniform either. For example: this one states in the intro that "roughly one-third of the population of Afghanistan" speaks Dari Persian. Yet, in the same text, it says later: "Dari plays an important role in Afghan society. It is one of the national languages of the country and is used by roughly 50% of the population. In addition, it represents the primary means of communication between speakers of different languages in Afghanistan." It is obvious that the article is contradicting itself. Yet, while you take the first part of it (which suits your POV), you ignore the other part. That is selective quoting, original research and POV-pushing. Tajik (talk) 19:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That source you mentioned is explaining that roughly one-third (around 33%) are Dari-speakers and that 50% of all Afghans use the language as lingua franca on daily bases. If you don't understand English very well that's your problem.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * UCLA, as we have noted before is not up to date. You said so yourself when we were talking about the Pashto figures. Take the recent survey. Latest figures dating to 2009. Pashtun and Tajik ethnic population is almost identical. Tajiks speak Persian as their mothertongue. Other ethnicities speak Persian dialects as well. This alone suffice to evaluate the figures as close to correct as possible. Chartinael (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The article should report their current figures. The statistics would only be updated when a good survey was done so it would change just occasionally, but I agree the change is suspicious. If you believe there may be a problem in the figures you could write to the publishers and ask about the rather abrupt reversal of figures, just be nice and you've got a good chance of getting them to investigate and give an explanation or point where they got the figures from. If they say the present figures are wrong you could reply here asking people to WP:Ignore all rules and put in the correct figure - or they might fix the figures on the web and then of course the problem disappears. Dmcq (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What's shown in the CIA reference is not current figures, it's from 1992. The current figures are from Ethnologue (here). The basic rule of Wikipedia is to help readers understand this situation, and to do so we must report the older and the newer estimates. Let readers draw their own conclusion. The CIA Factbook doesn't do their own independent researches, they find reliable sources and copy their info into its data. The CIA actually copied these figures from the 1986 Library of Congress Country Studies (LoC) on Afghanistan and LoC got this same info from Louis Dupree and Nancy Hatch Dupree, a husband and wife team who've done 20 years research while living in Afghanistan from 1960s to early 1980s. I don't understand why everyone here are aggressively making the percentage for the Dari language as high as possible and making Pashto as low as possible. They are also totally ignoring the academic sources but make up reasons to only cite sources that show higher percentage for Dari. Now this Dmcq is telling me to email the CIA agency in Washinton so they can explain to me why the 1990-1991 language info changed in 1992.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The numbers are supported by the most recent surveys. Chartinael (talk) 21:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The ethnologue figures are not current. Do you actually look at the sources: G. Buddress 1960; A. Farhadi 1967; A. Grjunberg 1968, 1971; T. Sebeok 1970; R. Strand 1973; G. Morgenstierne 1974; L. Dupree 1980; J. R. Payne 1987. Sunni Muslim, Shi’a Muslim, Hindu. Blind population 200,000 (1982 WCE).
 * The Data accuracy estimate: C. Do you know what "C" means? Chartinael (talk) 21:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't ask me these questions, of course I read every word. If you read up, you'll see that I had write "In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s all the major sources explained that Pashto is 50-55% and Dari 25-35% in Afghanistan.".--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously you do not. Otherwise you wouldn't have called the ethnologue current when most of its data is backed by pre-1980 publications. The ethnologue gives the data a "C" rating, which means: Needs extensive checking by linguists on the field and more research in published sources. Chartinael (talk) 21:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What you fail to understand is that Afghanistan never held a national census, it is the most least developed nation on earth, for the last 30 years it was in a state of war and the people haven't had education since 1980. In other words they didn't have the resources to collect this info (percentage of ethnic groups, percentage of languages, or even the number of the population). So it is an exceptional case for this country, and we can only find old figures from 1960s to 1980s, there is no current estimates. It is appropriate to add the sources that I've selected, which are the only reliable ones available for now.--Lagoo sab (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The recent surveys support the figures. Chartinael (talk) 21:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But the surveys only involved 7,500 Afghans, not much help there, and still we presented them as additional info. What we now need is the presentation of what experts believe and that is the academic sources I selected.--Lagoo sab (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the best there is at present. And it is recent. Chartinael (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But why are you wanting to only add the sources that show higher percentage for Dari-speakers and lower for Pashto? You don't call that "source picking" or "cherry-picking?--Lagoo sab (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Loagoo sab, writing that "In the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s all the major sources explained that Pashto is 50-55% and Dari 25-35% in Afghanistan" is POV, because you and I do not know what "all" major sources explained. Your collection of sources is NOT "all major sources", it is YOUR collection. You actively looked for sources that back up your POV (i.e. to keep the number for Persian as low as possible and that for Pashto as high as possible), and you found them.
 * As for the Factbook: I do not know why they changed the numbers in 1992 and what these numbers are based on (or the pre-1992 numbers), but is not up to you and me to decide whether they're correct or not. In fact, the modern CIA figures are much much closer to the recent representative poll results than the numbers which put Persian at 25% and Pashto at 60%. And just for your information: 7500 people are enough to give a pretty exact distribution of the languages. Questioning 7500 randomly selected people from 30 provinces of Afghanistan in the course of 5 years and asking the same question every year is actually - by means of mathematics - a pretty safe way to figure out the distribution of languages in Afghanistan. Do you think that L. Dupree and others had any better sources?! Where did they get their numbers from?! What makes Ethnologue more reliable than the Factbook or the Asia Foundation? By the way: here is another evidence for Lagoo sab's POV-pushing and source picking. Tajik (talk) 22:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tajik, you are always arguing over unnessary minor words. Let me correct my self, "in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s several major sources explained that Pashto is 50-55% and Dari 25-35% in Afghanistan". Do you now feel better? I have nothing against the polls in which 7,500 Afghans volunteered for, I didn't remove it. What I'm trying to explain to you is that we explain a little about the pre-1992 figures. We have discovered this so why should we keep this a secret from other interested readers? You may find sources that say Dari is spoken by every single Afghan and cite that, I will not remove it.--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The Map is nice. It also states that about one fifth of ethnic pashtuns are not L1 pashto speakers. So, this now attributes a figure to the encyclopedia ref.ed by Lagoo Sab and certainly contradicts his assertion that all pashtuns speak pashto and thus ethnic and speaker population are congruent. In fact the map state they aren't. I am getting tired of trying to make an unwilling individual be a cooperative editor. Chartinael (talk) 22:44, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * But I never said all Pashtuns speak Pashto. In fact, I have quoted Britannica which says the opposite of that. I said we have no figure on how many Pashtuns speak Persian as a first language instead of Pashto. It will be alot better if you stop adding the unnessary lies, you aren't going to win any special prizes with this. I have nothing against the M. Izady map, only that it is made visible so readers can verify the info.--Lagoo sab (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Your memory has large holes: Chartinael (talk) 00:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This article should only have a summary. It should not be talking about differences with old figures. The languages article might have a history but it is totally out of place in this article. I do wish people would stop trying to stick everything into this article instead of the sub-articles. See WP:Splitting which advises articles should be split up if they are over 100K. This article is already 170K. There is a lot of variation in the figures so more han one set is okay to show there is problems, butr starting on aboiut figures from twenty or more years ago compared to now and wanting a whole spiel about it is just wrong. Please take all this stuff to Languages of Afghanistan. Chop down what's here to the most recent figures. And by the way 7000 people is quite enough people for a good survey to within a few percent. Dmcq (talk) 08:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I totally agree! Not only the language-section, but many other parts need to be shortened. Tajik (talk) 09:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The language section is pretty short now. It is I guess as concise an overview as possible at present. Chartinael (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah the language section looks okay in size now. A small statement saying the sources differed considerably would explain why four different sets of value are given. If the history section could be chopped down that would be good. The history articles should be developed first and then this article should give a summary of them. The easiest way is to make the history sections here be mainly a rehash of the leader sections of the history articles. Dmcq (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Lagoo sab
Lagoo sab, what is this about?! Can't you just stop for a while until the discussion is over?! Why can't you just be honest to yourself? At Reliable_sources/Noticeboard you were told by others to keep cool and to try to find a consensus. Everyone agrees that your edits are POV and that you are cherry picking the sources that suit your POV. If you disagree, why can't you just tag the section instead of deleting reliable sources and restoring your own cherry picked POV version?! Your behavior is very unhelpful and very tiring! And I am sure that most of the users in here agree with me! Tajik (talk) 02:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I just cited three new sources (UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages)  . My edits are POV? I only added the sources that specifically deal with languages of Afghanistan in the appropriate location, if you call this cherry picking I don't know what to say. Isn't this the correct way to cite sources? If you believe that these sources are unreliable we can start another discussion at the board.--Lagoo sab (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this is not only about the sources, but also about your unencyclopedic behavior. You are neither interested in nor willing to accept a consensus. You only want your POV in the article, and you are stubbornly pushing for it. The sources you have picked are in fact selectively quoted. I have explained to you 3 times by now that, for example, this one is contradicting itself. It says in one part that Dari is spoken by 1/3, while later in the text it states that Dari is spoken by 1/2. Be it so, you only cherry picked the first part that suits your POV - that is selective quoting! Not to mention the fact that you are vehemently rejecting and even insulting the Gulf/2000 Project by Columbia University, calling its author a "Kurdish nationalist" and "unreliable" only because that source does not support your POV. You are ignoring all current discussions, you are ignoring what other users tell you, and you are stubbornly pushing for POV. Why can't you just hold on for a while?! If you have a problem with a section, do not edit it automatically, hence provoking an edit war, but instead use tags and the talkpages! You and your sources are subject of so many discussions right now. Your behavior is very tiring and unhelpful! Tajik (talk) 02:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's wise not to reply to your accusations. I'll just explain my latest action one more time.... I noticed someone removed these 3 sources and so I figured that I just re-add them. If they are unreliable for whatever reasons take the issue to the board, and I'm sure they will prove to be ok. I also wanted to add this one from UCLA but the page is now protected, oh well.--Lagoo sab (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Which part of that source were you going to add to the articles? That the total number of Pashto-speakers worldwide is 17 million and not 60 million as you claim, and that it is spoken by 8 million in Afghanistan (out of reported 32 million)?! I am interested to know ... Tajik (talk) 03:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By looking down at the references, I believe that the UCLA article on Pashto 50% is based on 1980s to early 1990s, when CIA claimed Pashto 50% and Dari 35% and when Iranica claimed Pashto 50-55% and Dari 25%. Do you also believe this?--Lagoo sab (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Warning
FYI - the next person in the locus of this dispute who makes use of an ad hominem or assumes bad faith for another editor (e.g., "You are neither interested in nor willing to accept a consensus" or an accusation of sockpuppetry) instead of talking about the content and/or a way to compromise, on this or any other of the Afghanistan-language related pages, will be blocked for violating WP:NPA. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Let us look at those sources again. Last time. The following five sources should thus be included in the table: Agree? JCAla (talk) 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Iranica is from the 1980s, way outdated.
 * UCLA is also way outdated. This one from UCLA (which Lagoo sab wanted to add as he/she stated above) for example cites 9 million as being 13 % of the population of Pakistan. That would make a total population of about 69 million. But - the problem is - Pakistan has a population of over 180 million people.
 * Omniglot - with all due respect to its author - is not a reliable source. It is a personal website with no references for information provided on the site regarding the percentage of languages spoken.
 * Concise is - obviously - flawed. Doing simple math proves it. I am sincerely interested in where they got the 60 % from. But considering wikipedia rules (although I am not an expert on them) concise would probably nevertheless be considered a reliable source - although obviously it is not.
 * Afghan government estimates - considered a reliable source on wikipedia
 * CIA World Factbook - identified as reliable source on WP:RS
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica - considered a reliable source on wikipedia
 * Columbia Gulf Project - identified as reliable source on WP:RS
 * Concise Encyclopedia - might officially be considered a reliable source on wikipedia (although the numbers are certainly unreliable)


 * You have an interesting opinion. Give me one good reason why iranica's 1980s figures (PS 50-55% and DR 25%) would be affected by elapse of time? The same question for UCLA's 1992 figures (PS 50% and DR 35%)? If you believe Omniglot is unreliable for whatever reasons take it to the admin boards, but I think it's ok and the same goes for Concise Encyclopedia.--Lagoo sab (talk) 04:24, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

We now have my interesting opinion and Lagoo sab's interesting opinion. Anyone else? ... so that an editor consent of some sort can be created.

Sources already agreed on WP:RS to keep are: Sources generally accepted on wikipedia: Sources to keep or not to keep are: For now I have said everything that I had to say about this issue. JCAla (talk) 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * CIA World Factbook
 * Columbia Gulf Project
 * Afghan government estimates
 * Encyclopaedia Britannica
 * Concise Encyclopedia
 * Encyclopaedia Iranica in question because it stems from the 1980s
 * Omniglot in question because it is a personal website thus may not comply with RS
 * UCLA in question because numbers are far outdated (see Pakistani population numbers, in the language article in question UCLA puts them at about 69 million but as of 2010 they are estimated to be about 180 million)


 * May I ask what's wrong with the current format of listing all of as many of the different sources as possible? Once we can agree on what a reliable source is, and (presuming there are no interpretation issues), can't we just hand pick them from there? Say, choose the outliers to represent the widest diversity of opinion, and maybe a few others. (PS. what I'm doing is trying to mediate, something which I have suggested several times for this dispute). Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's kind of frustrating to see one editor leaves but then another one comes with the same view in mind to remove the same valid sources just because they don't like. BTW, I'm not saying they are socks. I have to explain the same thing over and over to each one. Let me brief everyone about the Demographics of Afghanistan, specifically the two major languages.
 * L. Dupree's 1970 book called Afghanistan represents the only anthropological overview of the entire country. Dupree along with other scholars who've done research on Afghan society in from the 1960s to the 80s have put the numbers for pashto c.50-55% and dari c.25%, which is presented in Iranic. The U.S. Library of Congress Country Studies (LoC) on Afghanistan (1986) states that Pashto is the mother tongue of about half the population; Dari (Afghan Farsi or Persian) is the first language of about 35%.... (4 mb original pdf,  Introduction page) (or quick version here). This entire LoC info was transferred to and began appearing at the CIA Factbook since at least 1990. However, in 1992 it was some how flipped or switched around from 50% Pashto; 35% Dari to Dari 50% and Pashto 35%. Until 2010 this information has not been updated. All the other sources (news or gov. agencies, independent research groups, encyclopedias, and so on) base their language info on Dupree's or CIA's figures. What do we do now?--Lagoo sab (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will remove Lagoo Sab's last addition as it mixes different sources in one column and puts in a 60% figure where the source just says its is reportedly 60%. Reportedly does not make a result of a survey. The figures should either be like they were at the very start where it explicitly said the figures disagreed and just gave the ranges and list of sources and left it to the languages article for more, or else be like this with explicit sources for each column showing the differences. The section is quite big enough for a summary without this messing around being stuck in again. Dmcq (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, the 60% is a scholarly estimate made by a number of experts in the field. To support this, and article on languages of Afghanistan in Iranica states: "Paṧtō ...is the native tongue of 50 to 55 percent of Afghans; as a second language it is spoken by less than 10 percent of the population." 50-55% +less than 10% = around 60%.--Lagoo sab (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * We also have the two polls which are the most recent numbers and the only numbers that are from Afghanistan and are representative. @ Magog the Ogre: it would be OK to add all sources, but Lagoo sab is source picking and removing the ones that do not suit his POV. For example, he removed the Gulf/2000 Project source, claiming that it is "unreliable" and that its author, Mehrdad Izady is an "unreliable Kurdish nationalist". See Dmcq'S comment above: Lagoo sab is cherry picking and mixing sources, hence violating WP:OR and WP:Synthesis. Tajik (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please try to be sincere in your accusations and maintain civility in your behavior towards me. I accepted the "over a quarter" opinion of Mehrdad Izady. I reverted your edit in the Pashto language article because of the fact that you mispresented the source.--Lagoo sab (talk) 06:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, I see its being edit protected with that rubbish in. Well I expect that's what they mean about it always being the wrong version that is protected. Lagoo sab, I said before about it being wrong mixing different figures and sources in one column and you corrected it before to something that looked fairly reasonable. Why have you gone back to the sort of stuff you stuck in now? And why isn't this all agreed in the languages article first rather than arguing in this article? Dmcq (talk) 11:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, calling UCLA (one of the well known leading universities of the world) rubbish is inappropriate here. You are not my boss or the owner of Wikipedia articles for you to talk this way to me. The last time was something different, the colum clearly states "Others" at the top, meaning "other sources", which give the percentage numbers below/at the bottom. You may not understand the chart but others do, and if you have a better way to do this you go ahead but you're not suppose to remove sources you don't like or agree with. You may re-name "Others" as "UCLA" and so on. If you keep being aggressive or hostile towards me and removing essential info or sources then I have no other choice but to report you.--Lagoo sab (talk) 03:28, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to point out Lagoo sab's source picking: he claims that the Library of Congress Country Studies is backing up his POV. But as anyone can see on the official website of the LoC, there is a new and updated (yes, the website explicitly states so!) PDF file. And that PDF states that "Dari is spoken by 50%" and "Pashto by 35%". Since we have an official new and updated version, there is no reason why the old and outdated version should be used, only to give Lagoo sab's OR some kind of credibility. Tajik (talk) 11:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You missed the point of my argument, and Library of Congress Country Studies (LoC) and CIA are considered one source, the U.S. Federal government, based in Washingtong, DC. Before 1992 they showed Pashto @50% and Dari @35% but in 1992 this was flipped over or switched around and not have been updated and I've shown every single CIA Afghanistan reports from 1992 to 2010 as proof.--Lagoo sab (talk) 03:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys for being absent this morning, had to do some christmas shopping. Needless to say, I so agree with Tajik, JCLA and Dmcq. I disagree with Magog calling Tajik's statement a PA. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It appears to me, then, that we have four editors in agreement on one side (JCLA, Chart, Dmcq, Tajik), and one editor on the other (LS). That comes close enough to consensus I may consider unprotecting the page and blocking for any continued edit warring. Are there any disagreements here with my analysis? Anyone want to speak up for LS? Speak now or forever hold your peace. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ogre, may I remind you that this part of the discussion didn't start as a consensus, and also not to focus on me but rather on the 3 new sources I've added into the chart in the Language section. You warned Tajik to stop accusing me wrongly but he's doing this over and over and I'm getting sick of it. He's ignoring the main point here but repeating that I called a map maker a Kurdish nationalist, which Tajik thinks is insulting. Anyway, clarify what is this "agreement" you mentioned? JCLA, Chart, Dmcq, and Tajik, are collaborating against me for other unknown reasons.....? This is considered an inadequate and biased consensus if that's what you thought it was. I have provided accurate information but everyone here has ignored it, which explains that before 1992 all sources (leading experts) stated that Pashto was the mother tongue of 50-55% and Dari 25-35% but inexplicably this was switched around in 1992 and never updated since. I don't see a point in trying to become blind to it, the least we can do is explain this to the readers otherwise its censoring significant information. As I said that the info on lang. listed sources in the chart (cia world factbook, britannica, ethnologue, encyclopedia iranica and the others) all lead to one source (L. Dupree).
 * Dmcq wants to avoid these 3 source (UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages, Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world and Omniglot (writing systems & languages of the world)). Calling them rubbish, Dmcq does not want to see them presented in Wikipedia. This is censorship and against the policy of Wikipedia. If these sources are removed from the article then I have no other choice but to involve admins who are more familiar with things like this.--Lagoo sab (talk) 02:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Surveying this thread, I can see no reason to support LS. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, this discussion is not about me, it's about why we should avoid or exclude these 3 sources from the language section in the article. 1)UCLA International Institute: Center for World Languages, 2)Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world and 3)Omniglot (writing systems & languages of the world)). If you believe we should not include these give your reason or opinion please.--Lagoo sab (talk) 06:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I said how you presented them was rubbish. You again did what you did before of picking and choosing figures from different sources and mixing them up in a column. I haven't looked at the sources in detail except to see that the very first figure of 60% was a 'reportedly' figure rather than the result of a survey so taken together I see little reason for anything to be done with the column except for it to be completely deleted. The section is large enough already. Discuss this in the languages article first and if it really looks then as if more columns are needed here then come back. But at the moment the column should be removed. And yes I am annoyed that you keep on pushing this sort of thing again when you seemed to have taken what I said before to heart and was starting to edit fairly reasonably. Wikipedia is here to summarize what is written not to engage in original research or pushing of agendas. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair to LS, he seems to fervently believe this POV. The problem comes that he hasn't considered that his POV may be biased towards his own circumstances (e.g., he has communicated primarily with speakers of the language he is pushing - whichever that is, I don't even know to be honest). That is the very definition of WP:OR and why we discourage it. LS - if the sources are wrong, that is unfortunate, but we should include what they say in the article. If there are other sources that disagree, we can include them too, but if it's true that you're cherry picking for a column, then it appears you care more to push your own POV (per the OR note above) than to report on what the sources say.
 * If the sources are utterly wrong and improperly biased, then this discrepancy will certainly appear in other notable sources that have done their own research and found it to disagree with the first ones. In other words, if the CIA was basing its analysis off flawed information, then it will appear somewhere else that the information is flawed.
 * As for your comment about "censorship", it is utterly ridiculous. We report on verifiable fact, not just something that one editor says and who uses a patent double standard to support his own POV, no matter how ridiculous. See WP:NOTANARCHY. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we reach an consensus on the below table to be used? (Simply state "yes" or "no".) The most recent sources available have been used (all sources are from 2000+ - only Britannica I am not so sure of). All these sources will probably be considered reliable on wikipedia.

Sources not used are:
 * Iranica (outdated because from the 1980s)
 * UCLA (not reliable because of flawed numbers in the language article; the language article cites 9 million as being 13 % of the population of Pakistan; that would make a total population of about 69 million; Pakistan undisputedly has a population of over 180 million people)
 * Omniglot (not reliable because it is a personal website with no references for information provided on the site regarding the percentage of languages spoken)
 * CIA World Factbook (Afghan Government Estimates and Library of Congress which have similar estimates were instead used)
 * Ethnologue (because unprecise and outdated)

In order to include Lagoo sab's point of view I propose a short text passage mentioning the historic numbers of a reliable sources, namely Encyclopaedia Iranica. The text could be something like: ''According to most recent sources today Dari Persian serves as the first language for a majority of Afghans. (see table) According to Encyclopaedia Iranica in the past Pashto served as the first language for a majority of Afghans. Encyclopaedia Iranica basing its estimates on research done in the 1960s and the 1980s stated that Pashto "is the native tongue of 50 to 55 percent of Afghans".'' JCAla (talk) 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * JCAla, I think that the numbers shown by the Afghan Embassy are taken from the CIA Factbook and not the other way around. Therefore, we should use the CIA numbers instead of using the embassy website as source. Encyclopaedia Iranica is an authoritative scholastic source. But it also explicitly states that the article and its numbers have not been updated since 1983. Therefore, as you have correctly pointed out, it's not useful anymore for the demography section (the numbers in respect of the ethnic makeup of the country are already taken out).
 * All other sources, including the Gulf/2000 Project, are guesses. I think we should leave out all of them and use only 3 sources:
 * 1) CIA Factbook
 * 2) Encyclopaedia Britannica at best (not because I think the numbers are correct, but because Britannica is generally considered a respected and reliable source)
 * 3) the 2 polls by The Asia Foundation, Kabul University, and ABC/BBC/ARD. Why? Because the polls are - unlike all other sources - NOT guesses and wild estimates, but actual numbers from Afghanistan. They are statistically representative. Even though people like LS will disagree: the poll numbers are by far the most reliable numbers currently available.
 * These 3 sources have numbers for all relevant languages, not just for one or two (like the one source cherry-picked by LS which only has a number for Pashto). Presenting the sources as they are - WITHOUT mixing them - is the most NPOV way to update the section. That, so far, is my opinion.
 * Merry Christmas to all of you. Tajik (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes agree that sounds very reasonable. The languages article might include more if there is some real disparity but those recent surveys seem to have been better conducted than some older surveys. It might be worth including the spcific question that was answered. The problem with single numbers like 60% is one doesn't know if it means people who use the language regularly or whether it means a first language. Dmcq (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Dmcq, you should respect an editor who has done extensive research in this. My agenda in this is to help Wikipedia's reputation in reliability and neutrality. There is no doubt that all of these percentages presented in the chart are made up figures (guesses).
 * "Experts in 1985 provided various estimates of the country’s population: all of these estimates were, of course, based on the earlier censuses. The Population Reference Bureau, a respected nonprofit agency in Washington, D.C., estimated the population at 14.7 million people, including refugees, whereas the United States Bureau of the Census used the same figure of 14.7 million but excluded refugees. The Population Reference Bureau’s figure is significantly lower than the Afghan government’s 1983 estimate of 15.5 million..."


 * So let us not criticise or praise one source over the other. According to Afghanistan: a country study (1986), in which many leading experts on Afghanistan were involved and among them were Dr. L. Dupree, professor at Duke University, and and Dr. Jon Anderson, assistant professor of anthropology at the Catholic University of America. They state:
 * "...within the national society the term Afghan usually refers specifically to a Pashto (or Pakhtu) speaker who is recognized as a member of one of the several Pashtun tribes (see Ethnicity and Tribe, ch. 2). An estimated 50 percent of the population-and reportedly over 50 percent of the refugees-are Pashtuns. The royal families from 1747 to 1973 were Pashtuns, and Babrak Karmal, who was installed as president by the Soviets in 1979 and who remained in nominal power in 1986, was a Pashtun. Although the figures were actually guesses, some observers suggested that Tajiks account for about 25 percent of the population and Uzbeks and Hazaras for about 9 percent each. Baluch, Turkmen, and other small ethnic groups compose the remainder (see fig. 5). The mother tongue of about half the population is Pashtu; Dari (Afghan Farsi or Persian) is the first language of about 35 percent..."


 * According to the 1991 CIA World Factbook:
 * "_#_Language: Pashtu 50%, Afghan Persian (Dari) 35%, Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen) 11%, 30 minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai) 4%; much bilingualism"


 * All of this was pre-1992 info, and when prominent scholars of today give us estimates on Afghan languages they do their own analysis, and of course they first study the prior researches done by the leading experts as I named (Dupree, Anderson and others). So, the results of the current-day academics are to be respected as scholarly guesses. And since all of them are just guesses (including the CIA and Britannica) why not just add in the chart all the scholarly guesses instead of only some?--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can clearly see that JCAL, Tajik and Dmcq cherry-picked all the sources that give higher Dari (Persian) percentages. It is proven with clear and convincing evidence that none of these estimates are current.--Lagoo sab (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I said before about going and asking the CIA fact-book crowd about the change if you wanted to find out an answer. Please do not do your own analysis. And no the way to get better figures is not to do more studies and interpretations of yet older figures, it is to take the results of well conducted surveys as reported in reliable sources. Surveys are not guesses. And please move this to the languages article first and when it is resolved there come back to this article. If you want to go on about ancient figures this is the wrong place. Your extensive research is original research, get it published and peer reviewed if you want it here. I think though even if it was published people would wnat the results of surveys rather than figures born of extensive cogitation and reading old sources as far as the figures are concerned. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're being very unfair to me. I'm not doing any analysis but providing words of leading experts and quoting it to you so but I don't think you're reading any of this. I didn't say surveys were guess, I said all these estimates are guesses and even Tajik agreed. My research is original research? I don't think you're paying any attention but still you involve yourself as if you do. Anyway, like I said I will take this matter to admins or people who are more knowledgable. Below is how I think the chart should appear.


 * I think this is more easy to understand and covers everything so that everyone can be satisfied with. All the columns should be same size.--Lagoo sab (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is everything wrong with that. Why provide pre 1992 figures if they have been updated? Why provide a single figure where we aren't certain what it means? Why leave out the most recent good surveys which give figures for all the rows and have the variance quantified? And why Mehrdad Izady when doesn't cover Afghanistan, what survey was done for those figures? Dmcq (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question concerning Mehrdad Izady. Ask Tajik about him because that's a source he wants added. I've shown clear and convincing evidence that the CIA's current figures were "first made in 1992". Just because it's shown in 2010 Afghanistan report it doesn't mean these were made in 2010. Since a switch took place between 1991 and 1992 that is considered crucial and it must be shown or noted. The recent survey? This discussion became too long so let's take it to Talk:Languages of Afghanistan. I will not comment here anymore, and one of my g/fs just called me so I have to go for a while.--Lagoo sab (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need to include outdated information. I also do not see the need to specifically name Mehrdad Izady (who btw goes by the name of Michael Izady) if one decides to include the figures from the Gulf 2000 Project. For which again I see no need. There is absolutely no need to show pre 1992 and post 1992 numbers. I really don't see the issue. Alls Persian speaking ethnicities present the majority of the population as it is. The figures thus are sound. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 14:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we all agree that Lagoo sab's suggestion is not acceptable, because it is POV and OR. I have stated my suggestion above: I am supporting the idea of keeping only the CIA 2010 numbers as well as the recent polls, and remove all others. These other sources (including various older ones) can be mentioned in the article Languages of Afghanistan, but in a very NPOV manner and not the way Lagoo sab wants it. What do you think? Tajik (talk) 15:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a pity the CIA factbook does not give its sources but it is a generally highly respected source for figure like this. Other than that it should be the results of recent properly conducted surveys. Dmcq (talk) 16:50, 24 December 2010

Suggestion
Suggestion: We keep only the CIA Factbook 2010 numbers (and update the numbers whenever needed, based on the newest version of the Factbook) and 2 polls from Afghanistan (until newer survey numbers are published). All other sources will be removed and/or moved to the article Languages of Afghanistan where they will be listed in a NPOV manner. If you support this suggestion, please sign below.
 * support Tajik (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * support I'm happy for the Britannica figures to be removed. Dmcq (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * support without being restrictive on ref. But reliable source required. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be hard to argue why the CIA source is generally to be preferred over other recent sources considered reliable on wikipedia. Also, polls are not always scientifically reliable. But, the Asia Foundation poll numbers (49% Persian, 40% Pashto) are similar to those of Britannica (50% Persian, 40% Pashto). The CIA Factbook, Library of Congress and the Afghan embassy all have the same numbers. Not need to repeat the estimates three times. That leaves only Concise and the Gulf Project as recent sources. Fine with me if they are both left out. JCAla (talk) 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't really defend the CIA figures, just they are very widely used for other countries. I really would like actual primary source survey figures as well. The problem with the Gulf Project and Concise is that they haven't done surveys themselves, they are doing basically the same thing as the CIA or the Encyclopaedia Britannica, or in fact Wikipedia itself if it didn't point to some primary sources. Dmcq (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the CIA factbook is preferred to Encyclopaedia Britannica on Wikipedia mainly because the CIA factbook is free and seems just as good in general. Dmcq (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * All the sources have their pros and cons. Most of us would consider the CIA world fact book as a very reliable source, but their info related to Afghanistan's demographic seems to change with the regime. Their estimate for Pashtuns was 50% at one point, it dropped down to 35% and moved back to 42%. But, it is better than nothing and since it is widely used here in Wikipedia, we can add it for Afghanistan as well. At the mean time, Britanica should not be ignored either.  (Ketabtoon (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC))

Temporary solution
As a temporary solution I changed the language section to as neutral as possible. I reduced the table to CIA World Factbook and Library of Congress only because of the agreement above and because the same sources were also used in the ethnicity section. JCAla (talk) 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your effort. However, in my opinion, the following sentence is OR:
 * According to most reliable sources Pashto served as a first language for a majority of Afghans in the past[205] while Persian serves as a first language for a majority of Afghans today.[206]
 * It suggests that there has been some kind of shift which cannot be determined objectively. It is pure speculation. The percentage of Persian-speakers may have been higher than Pashto back then, despite estimates by experts. And, likewise, the number of Pashto-speakers may be higher than that of Persian-speakers today. We simply do not know. All we have are estimates and - at best - limited surveys.
 * I think the sentence should be removed (as suggested above). Only the CIA numbers and the 2 recent polls should be kept in the article. Tajik (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the sentence represents the sources at hand which were discussed above. It also includes the older sources in a way. But, I don't mind if the sentence is in the section or not. JCAla (talk) 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I have already explained, it suggests a shift from Pashto to Persian, and that's POV. I am not saying that the sources are wrong, but they way they are presented. But since you do not mind, I will remove the sentence. All the rest should be explained or discussed in Languages of Afghanistan. Tajik (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan was established in 1747?
This information is for sure wrong. The birth of current Afghanistan was in 1983 under Abdurrahman Khan when his british master and the czaristic Russia had drawn it´s borders. Officialy, Afghanistan´s creation was in 1911, unofficialy in 1919 with the independance from the British Empire. Someone should change this part which is only claimed by Pashtun nationalists.--188.107.12.104 (talk) 10:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

@Lagoo Sab/@Nisarkand how comes you NOW use sources from Dupree and other european scholars to manifest your claims? On articles like Ghaznavids, Ghurids, Persian, Dari you were insulting them and calling them as unreliable. But now you use their sources to support your own claims and that of Pashtuns Daud Khan? Interesting--188.107.12.104 (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ibn Batuta´s statement was uncorrectly translated
Hello,

Ibn Batuta´s statement was uncorrectly translated. His saying about Afghans has not been understood correctly. In the original Arabic tradition, he uses بَلَد which can means state or land, but not city. If he meaned the city, he had used بَلْدَة. Today, we would say Afghanistaniyya al-balad (the state of Afghanistan). In Cairo we have some copies of his writings. I could try to get a dublicate and upload it here. He meaned a state lying between Kabul and Peshauar and not a city or Kabul self.62.119.28.111 (talk) 11:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Common name
The overwhelming majority of our articles about nations begin with the most commonly used name of the country (usually the article's title), and list the official name second. WP:PLACE states that this is the prefered style. I started a disussion about this at Wikipedia talk:MOS, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. As such, I am adressing the articles that list the official name first one at a time. Is there any objection to beginning this article: "Afghanistan, (officially the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan),..."? Joefromrandb (talk) 01:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree and prefer that. Feel free to adjust lead. छातीऀनाएल - chartinael (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Thanhas, 21 February 2011
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan د افغانستان اسلامي جمهوریت (Pashto: Da Afġānistān Islāmī Jomhoriyat) جمهوری اسلامی افغانستان (Persian: Jomhūrī-ye Eslāmī-ye Afġānistān)

Thanhas (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC) HELLO, The majority of Afghanistan ARE pashtoon's and the first national language is Pashto, so just replease the lines above, for your kind info please check this link to know the reality, http://www.worldpassports.org/asia/images/passportAfganistan.jpg THANKS

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The link you give does not meet our reliable source guidelines, so you'll need to provide a reliable source to add that. In any event, the ordering of the languages doesn't imply that one is more important than the other. If there were a convincing reason to change (like the order right now doesn't have a good reason, and you had an RS to support Pashto being the majority), though, I guess it could be changed. If you do find a reliable source, please make a new edit request. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Wrong history, Afghanistan was not source of various empires
For example, Mughals were not from Afghanistan. Mughal Babur was from Farghana which is in modern day Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan. He made pillars from heads of modern day Afghons. Please don't ruin credibility of wikipedia because some inferiority complexed tribes want to fake their history. Also Ghaznavids were Turks not Afghan either, so is the case with Ghauris and Safavids. So please correct where it says it was source, as they were mainly invaded and defeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.166.139 (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Addition of more right information
Afghanistan was a totally hindu country but nowhere in wikipedia it is mentioned.Why it is so afghanistan's captital Kandhar which mispronunciation of the Sanskrit term “Gandhar” which was the capital of a flourishing ancient Hindu kingdom. And this "Gandhar" names comes from the wife of King Dhritarastra who's wife name was Gandhari and it was her maternal place.It was a totally hindu country at that time and all the religion develop later invade bharat or hindu society because these was full of peace,fertile soil,prosper culture but newly develop religion were in desert and full of cruelty.Later afghanistan was invade by arab muslims,turk and mongols.Afghanistan people was lord shiva worshipers it was well explained in pakistan writer Dr. Rehman's book with collection of coins and some segments of lord shiva,ganesha and durga's idols.And during mahabharata war some Kaurva's descendants  migrate to afghanistan then to iraq and saudi arab.I don't know why muslim country always hide such information truth is truth.But everyone knows who is he,from where he comes so hiding information is nothing but looser's work.Most of the religion now is very recent so they must be accurate about past.I am sorry for any misinterpretation but this is everyones right for right information.

A man from Matrix (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Get some WP:reliable sources to show WP:Verifiability. Dmcq (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Further Edit: Massud Wais is also one of the remaining Jews in the country of Afghanistan.

Surveys / Edit request
The survey "Afghanistan: Where Things Stand" from 2006 has been replaced with that of 2010. I think it would be better to keep both surveys, that of 2006 and of 2010, because these are not definite numbers, but simply surveys. The change of percentages does not mean that a certain group has become bigger, smaller, etc. Please copy the table below (taken from the article Demography of Afghanistan) into the article. Thank you.


 * Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

offical point
aslam o alaikum i hope is all this well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.177.94.149 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

History section is unjustice to Indian links and Indian history
Ok this is going to seem complicated, but give me a chance to explain.....Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan was predomenantaly a Hindu area......Lets go by what we know.......Afghanistan, before the arrival of Islam, was all one land connected with Ancient India and Ancient Iran. And the article even says, that Hinduism has been in Afghanistan almost as long as Hinduism itself. And the Hinduism article says that that Hinduism is the oldest religion. And, not only that, but there are places in Afghannistan that were Hindu, before the arrival of Islam. And, not only that, but the Aryans, followed Hinduism, and were in India, Iran, and Afghanistan, which was all one connnected land......And in this article it even says how Afghanistan is connected with India and Iran, and how there was a Hindu sphere before the arriveal of Islam....but....this article is not just....because.....when you go through the history section, it makes it seem like Afghanistan was only alittle Hindu, and more linked with Iran then India...And then later in the article it mentioens India and Hinduism to a lesser extent....Thats not just....It should be the other way around....The start of the history section should be more in linke with India and Hinduism, and then later mention Iran...I mean this did it bacwards....why?......iTS MIS LEADING.....because there people, including Afghans, who dont know about the links to India and Hinduism, and who dont want to be linked to India and Hinduism.....and so by writing more about Islam and Iran, you make it seem like Afhganistan is more linked with Iran and Islam, and was lesser linked to HInduism and India then.......

Even in other articles on wikipedia, there are articles that give the link more to India and Hinduism....and yet here....They give the history more with Iran and Islam, and then lesser mention to Hinduism and India then...why? 71.106.83.19 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The main answer to 'why' in Wikipedia is because things are in WP:Reliable sources because of the requirement for WP:Verifiability. Have you some book or suchlike saying what you say? Dmcq (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

unsourced, and historically wrong
"Babur, a descendant of both Timur and Genghis Khan ..." - both of these cannot be true, as Timur was a Turk who was not descended from Genghis Khan (a Mongol). I seriously doubt that he was descended from Genghis, either - these various warlords claimed to be family of more famous warlords to gain more "honor" for their names. The statement is also unreferenced. This should be addressed. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC) HammerFilmFan


 * This is referenced in his article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Afghan666, 16 June 2011
HEI! i strongly request that wiki page about Afghanistan is totaly (vandalized. it is protected so i cant edit. seems like one afghan party (jamiatis) own this page. that is fine by me but as long as they atleast partioly care about our image. i am ashamed what people would think of reading this misinformation. these people destroyd our country physicaly now they want to wipe its history and honour too! where are the Afghans? the garbage about afghan civial wars and pretending that we were invaded by pakistanis is just to disgusting with no relaible source. my Afghan brothers any of u could this act now. Millions of non afghans read wiki and its a spit in our face.

Afghan666 (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Try to phrase your request as "Please change "X" to "Y" so that it can be clearly understood and considered. Thanks, Doc  Tropics  14:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * i think he is saying the entire article is biased, that i agree with ! The Taliban article suffers from same thing--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Change a sentence
At the end of chapter "Islamic conquests and Mongol invasion", the last sentence actually. Afghanistan was ruled by 3 powers: Bukhara, Safavids and Mughals, and not Sultanate of Delhi which was replaced by Mughals at that time.

(Getzze (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC))

Origin of name
Different articles disagree, see Afghana, Afghan (ethnonym) and Pashtun people. I'm not getting involved, but maybe someone should? Dougweller (talk) 11:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The legend of "Afghana" is just a legend and is rejected in modern scholarship. The article Afghan (ethnonym) was changed (and falsified) by User:Dr Pukhtunyar Afghan (see: ). The same problem also in the article Pashtun people. I won't waste my time by correcting this. Because there is a general disinterest in this field. Neither admins are interested nor experienced and knowledgeable community members. It is a hopeless and lost case. --Lysozym (talk) 11:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been doing some work on this. Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Undue Weight -- Sports
I've added the tag after restoring an edit which completely deleted the section. True, the number of words devoted to one sport or the other are disporportional but this is not justification for the total deletion. Balance can be obtained by editing the section -- and by making sure the Sport in Afghanistan page is balanced. This is a tag that should not have to remain long. --S. Rich (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Someone who probably has no idea about sports in Afghanistan added Buzkashi and a description of a dog (afghan hound) in the lead of the sports section, I find this is very awkward. If you look at the Pajhwok Afghan News, which is one of the leading national news agency, its "sports" section talks mostly about cricket games. Keep clicking on the numbers at the bottom. ... That should convince anyone that cricket is the popular sport in Afghanistan. Buzkashi is not something Afghans play very often or hear about in news, it's a game only played on special events and only by the northern minority groups. This Times magazine article explains that cricket is today the most popular sport in Afghanistan. When you watch Afghan news channels all they talk about is cricket. The point I'm trying to make is that we should list the most widely played sports first followed by the least ones.--Dupree fan (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Why undermining the Hindu history and link to Ancient India in article
I am not understanding why the article does not give much needed attention to the fact that Afghanistan was a part of Ancient india and its people were all Hindu at one time. Afghanistan is a old province of Bharat (ancient india) but this article does not show it. Hinduism was the dominant religion of all Afghanistani and in recent years, more and more afghans are marrying indians and becoming hindu again. I think this article needs to discuss this very important and key part of afghan history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.1.2.2 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Foreign text
I assume the text in the lede and sidebar is Pashtun and Persian, but which is which? or are they Arabic? Someone who can read them, please add the lang template or somehow specify it. — LlywelynII  14:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The article needed some updating, and I did some restructuring, re-wording, swapped few images, and some cleaning up... I hope nobody has issues with my work but if you do you may write your concern here.Thanks!--Jorge Koli (talk) 17:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

resource here?
Afghanistan's Buried Riches; Geologists say newfound deposits in the embattled country could fulfill the world's desire for rare earth and critical minerals and end opium's local stranglehold in the process by Sarah Simpson in September 22, 2011 issue of Scientific American. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 10 October 2011
The word "brite" under "Mining in Afghanistan" is spelt wrong...

124.150.42.177 (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Bility (talk) 15:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Heavy Bias
This article is incredibly bias, here's just on example: "After the 1978 Marxist revolution, the Soviet Union began a 10 year war in which hundreds of thousands of Afghan civilians were killed. This was followed by the Afghan civil war (1992-1996), the rise and fall of the extremist Taliban government and the 2001-present war. In December 2001, the United Nations Security Council authorized the creation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) to help maintain security in Afghanistan and assist the Karzai administration. While NATO and other countries are rebuilding war-torn Afghanistan, terrorist groups such as the Haqqani network with alleged support and guidance from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) spy network are actively involved in a nationwide Taliban-led insurgency, which includes countless assassinations and suicide attacks. According to the United Nations, the insurgents were responsible for 75% of civilian casualties in 2010 and 80% in 2011." This is a clear pro-nato bias and should be removed or edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.247.69 (talk) 11:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What is bias about it?--Jorge Koli (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think he is alluding to the fact that the paragraph fails to mention U.S/NATO civilian causalities. I do agree there should be an addition of that. The Scythian 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * When people read the sentence "According to the United Nations, the insurgents were responsible for 75% of civilian casualties in 2010 and 80% in 2011"< I'm sure they understand that the remaining 25% in 2010 and 20% in 2011 were done by US-NATO.--Jorge Koli (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing is biased in this section. Can you explain about "pro-nato bias"? What is it? Xooon (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * See above. The Scythian 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Images in the "ethnic groups" section - to be deleted.
The two images
 * "File:Khost children in 2010.jpg" - It hasn't been mentioned anywhere in the "original image source" that they are pashtun children. They are simply kids from "khost". Now, why are they put up in the pashtun row (in the table)?? - Just because Khost has a pashtun majority? Isn't that original research?


 * "File:Afghan children and Norwegian forces in Balkh.jpg" - Again, where is it mentioned that they are tajiks??

All three images in that section should be removed on grounds of "propaganda & original research". Hari7478 (talk) 07:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe they are all Hindu children. The Scythian 19:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Dealing with ethnicity is complicated in Wikipedia. I.e., suppose I'm ISAF soldier and I take photos of Hazaras in Bamiyan Valley and upload them to Flickr with a description stating that they are ethnic Baloch, will that make them Baloch just because a source says so? These images are in fact showing Pashtuns, Tajiks and Hazaras. We don't need sources in this case because they are used for very general educational purpose (i.e., Pashtuns are mostly tribal society, Tajiks are mosty city-dwellers, Hazaras are mostly oriental looking). The images are excellent for now, and until we find something much better, there is no reason to remove them.--Jorge Koli (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Whoever took Central Asia out of the beginning, put it back
In the beginning of the article, it said afghanistan was in south and central asia. Now it just says south asia. Please stop the vandalism and put central asia back, and possibly west asia as afghanstan can be either, but mostly it is considered central asian or middl eeastern.\} Metalman59 22:50, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Title should be Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
The article begins with: "officially the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan,". I assume there must have been a discussion about this but just from someone new to this article, it seems very wrong to not have the official name as the title. It seems to me as wrong as if the United States of America article would be titled simply "America". Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:COMMONNAME is the reason. Same reason Iran isn't called "Islamic Republic of Iran" and Mexico isn't called "United Mexican States". --MarsRover (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The same reasoning could apply to the United States of America then as it is much more commonly referred to simply as "America". The official title of a country should be used in all cases; that's a no-brainer. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The common name policy governs here, as you can see in any number of other country's article titles. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

More accurate language needed
The introduction to the article uses the word "countless" in the context "...nationwide Taliban-led insurgency,[21] which includes countless assassinations and suicide attacks..." However, there is no reference validating the notion that there are any assassinations or suicide attacks which have not been accounted for. Thus, it is inaccurate to claim that the number of attacks are "countless," and a different descriptor, such as "numerous," which indicates a large number but not an unaccountably large number, should be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.91.161 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism
Can someone revert this vandalism in regarding Ethnic groups.--KleeroyJ (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Demonyms
The "alternative" demonyms "Afghani" and "Afghanistani" shouldn't be listed here. It's true that they are sometimes used, but they are just plain wrong, officially and linguistically, and if they're going to be mentioned at all it should be in the context of somewhat common mistakes. 192.138.41.10 (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 * We had a long discussion about this a long time ago, its the result of consensus. Moreover, we report usage and are about verifiability, not truth. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 16:49, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2012
Afghanistan is mentioned to be in the central of Asia forming Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia. From many sources such as tradtional fghan books, and a few pages on Wikipedia, Afghanistan is in the Middle East and sometimes Central Asia - South Asia is a mistake, maybe you meant Southwest Asia, here are a couple of pages from Wikipedia to prove it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Currencies_of_Asia

Please change it, as I don't want Wikipedia to be based on biased opinions, it should be based on facts - Afghanistan is in Central-West Asia.

81.100.31.227 (talk) 10:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The location of Afghanistan in the article is currently supported by multiple reliable sources. If you can provide reliable source(s) for your claim, it can be added here. The sources you provided are Wikipedia articles, not reliable source. -- S M S  Talk 11:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I checked the sources in the article; UN places Afghanistan in South Asia; Brittanica places it in south-central asia. So I've removed the reference to West Asia. But South Asia is supported at least by UN statistical encoding, which is as reasonable a source as any...--KarlB (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are some reliable sources: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?TPL=RETR&ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=0&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=1&IPS=&METH=0&ORDER=1&PID=92333&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=No&StartRow=1&SUB=801&Temporal=2006&Theme=80&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dosya:LocationWestAsia.PNG&filetimestamp=20051103041337 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.213.251 (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 April 2012
Afghanistan is west-central asia

86.25.213.251 (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Duplicate request to below.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

From experience and Afghan persepective Afghanistan is West Asian, regularly Central Asia, but hardly South Asia

I have found a source for you to add West Asia to Afghanistan again http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?TPL=RETR&ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=0&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=1&IPS=&METH=0&ORDER=1&PID=92333&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=No&StartRow=1&SUB=801&Temporal=2006&Theme=80&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

86.25.213.251 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Duplicate request to below.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan is West Asia

Here is an actual source from Wikipedia: http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dosya:LocationWestAsia.PNG&filetimestamp=20051103041337

86.25.213.251 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I looked at the links above, they don't seem to work. In addition, wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source. You would need to find 3rd party, reliable sources that list Afghanistan as being part of 'West Asia' (which is unlikely, since I think 'West Asia' was a nomenclature mainly used by the United Nations, and they didn't put Afghanistan within. Here is the UN Geoscheme --KarlB (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. I'm also unable to open those links. If you can find some quality reliable sources that document your proposed change, feel free to reopen the requested edit template. Please only open one, however; opening three doesn't make it more likely your request will be processed faster. Thanks!  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 April 2012
Hi, I have 3rd party proof to show Afghanistan is West Asian: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/topics/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?TPL=RETR&ALEVEL=3&APATH=3&CATNO=&DETAIL=0&DIM=&DS=99&FL=0&FREE=0&GAL=0&GC=99&GK=NA&GRP=1&IPS=&METH=0&ORDER=1&PID=92333&PTYPE=88971&RL=0&S=1&ShowAll=No&StartRow=1&SUB=801&Temporal=2006&Theme=80&VID=0&VNAMEE=&VNAMEF=

This is a Canadian Census which puts Afghan national under West Asian, and not Central or South Asian

Also, the offical language is: Persian, and the University of Edinburgh highlight the fact that Persian is the 3rd most popular language in the Middle East (West Asia)

Please add Afghanistan being West Asian, thanks.

81.100.27.117 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: See below. Celestra (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2012
Afghanistan is Middle Eastern, the 3rd party source I have found are:

[] - this source shows that Afghanistan has been placed on the Middle East/West Asia colum, if you look on the left hand page

[] - this source shows that Afghanistan has been placed under West Asia alongside its neighoubrs, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, etc.

[] - this source as you can clearly see than in 2006, "Afghanistan are runners-up to Bahrain in the Middle East Cup.""

Please add Afghanistan to being Middle Eastern too, I understand that this topic is severly contrevsersial, so Afghaistan can be identified as West-Central Asian. Thank you, please add Afghanistan as West Asian/Middle Eastern

AA193 (talk) 09:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is clearly not a change supported by consensus, so it is inappropriate for being added using the template. If you can reach a consensus for change with the other editors, one of them can implement the change. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 April 2012
81.100.27.117 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * See above. --joe deckertalk to me 13:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2012
Afghanistan is Middle Eastern, the 3rd party source I have found are:

[] - this source shows that Afghanistan has been placed on the Middle East/West Asia colum, if you look on the left hand page

[] - this source shows that Afghanistan has been placed under West Asia alongside its neighoubrs, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, etc.

[] - this source as you can clearly see than in 2006, "Afghanistan are runners-up to Bahrain in the Middle East Cup.""

[] - this is the Canadian Cenusus that provides information showing that Afghanistan is West Asian, under the sub-heading 'Questions', it highlights "West Asian (e.g., Iranian, Afghan, etc.)", this shows that some evidence does prove of Afghanistan being West Asian

Please add Afghanistan to being Middle Eastern/West Asian. Wikipedia cuurently says "..is a landlocked sovereign state located in the centre of Asia, forming part of South Asia and Central Asia." I want it to be changed into "is a landlocked sovereign state located in the centre of Asia, forming part of the Middle East and Central Asia." As evidence here proves that Wikipedia have left this out. Thank you for understanding

AA193 (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan in the Middle East
Before we start making requested edits, I think we should have a discussion here. What is the standard we apply for listing a country in a specific geographical region? What is the criteria for being part of the 'Middle east'? For example, here Middle east it is listed as being part of 'Greater middle east'. I looked at several of the other articles in 'greater middle east' and none of them I looked at listed the country in question as being part of the middle east. It seems there are conflicting sources. I don't think we should remove the 'South Asia' listing, because that is well backed up by the UN which is a significant source. I also feel that the crafts council and cricket listings are not that relevant; whether Canada and New Zealand statistics office categorization places them there is meaningful is up for debate. I think the key question is, in the broader context, when people talk about 'the middle east', is Afghanistan often understood to form part of that? The AP style guide may be useful here. In any case, let's not talk about 'proving' things here, because this is not a scientific experiment.--KarlB (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment some older discussions on this topic here and here. --KarlB (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with AA193's view. First, we must list Pakistan first because that country shares the longest border with Afghanistan, not to mention trade links and many other stuff, and then Iran and the rest. This is clockwise, appropriate and less confusing. Any other way is stupid. Secondly, Afghanistan as a territory is not officially part of the Middle East because no reliable source mentions this, and "Middle East" is not a territorial term but culutral. If Afghanistan becomes part of NATO, it doesn't make it part of Europe.--TAzimi (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted another change by AA193 which placed Afghanistan in Western Asia; unfortunately, this is not backed up by references. The change also suggests that Afghanistan uses a different timezone in the summer. According to this, that is not true: however it's certainly possible that this site is wrong. Does anyone have an authoritative source on this? --KarlB (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * AA193 made another edit, which resulted in a block (however his change was not yet removed). What do eds think of 'greater middle east' - Afghanistan does seem to be part of that entity, but it also seems like a made up american designation - it has a wikipedia article, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough to classify Afghanistan in this way. Any thoughts? Also any responses to the question about timezones in the summer appreciated. --KarlB (talk) 01:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Pls add the footnote
The Government of India regards Afghanistan as a bordering country, as it considers all of Kashmir to be part of India. However, this is disputed, and the region bordering Afghanistan is administered by Pakistan. Source:.
 * ❌ This article is about Afghanistan, not India, thus their claims cannot be included here as per WP:NPOV.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You aren't a neutral person. Maybe non Biased people on this web site can make up their own view  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.88.26 (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am just echoing the official stance and majority position which is that the Government of Afghanistan does not claim or regard India as a bordering country, and that is the only WP:POV that matters as far as this article is concerned. Neither does the international community acknowledge India as a bordering country for that matter, or the United States (India does not have a common border with Afghanistan: US). Wikipedia gives preference to majority views over minority views, thus this footnote wouldn't survive here. Let's start with the fact that the Indian portion of Kashmir itself is internationally disputed territory. This footnote is best left out of here and discussed on the Kashmir conflict article. But I'll let you have second opinion from someone else.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks for openness in controversial stuff. I feel it important to express all issues you see.Btw where does it say Afghanistan doesn't see India as border country.?. I looked for statement on google but cannot find it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.88.26 (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I can ask you the reverse. Which country does recognise the boundary? Not just Afghanistan, but the entire world doesn't recognize a physical border existing between Afghanistan and India. Perhaps that clarifies the official majority position better.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 16:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Countries of the world are neutral in the respect. Most nations' maps will show land is disputed territory. (http://map.soso.com/)  However absence of the statement does not mean the official unrecognition.!.  Let us postpone discussion until anyone else comes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.88.26 (talk) 17:17, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Map of J&K state does touch Afghanistan. sources: [| gov.in website mentioning common border], per UN Cartographic Section, Map of Afghanistan [| link], per google map [| link]इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 21:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment on just that last Google Maps link: It is Google Maps in India and curiously unlike the way Google Maps shows the situation in other countries (eg,, "disputed"). Perhaps this is because it is, if I understand right, illegal to show the border as disputed in India? Pfly (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is clear that Pakistan borders on Afghanistan. Whether India does or not is a matter up for dispute (e.g., who controls J&K), so it's best left out of the article for now. Placing it in Kashmir conflict seems reasonable. --KarlB (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It's incorrect to say that the POV of the Afghan government matters. Neither does the footnote break NPOV, it seems neutrally written. However, whether it is notable enough for inclusion in this article is up to debate. India has never controlled the territory bordering Kashmir, so any Afghan-Indian border has never had any practical application or effect. Unless a case is made demonstrating its importance, I think it's best to leave it out as trivia. And I'm also fascinated by the Google map, I hope there's a story behind that somewhere. CMD (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember, this was in the article a long time ago. Someone (possibly the infamous NP) removed it; I briefly remember reinstating it.  Who removed it this time is another question. --Rvd4life (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Whoever inserted it, they did it without consensus, so I support the wise person who removed it.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't think of many people here who would call NP 'wise'! You might just be the first ;) --Rvd4life (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 May 2012
some of this thungs are wronfg my oen is hug

205.202.34.34 (talk) 20:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome! Kindly specify what is wrong, so an editor can address your concern. As of this edit request I am marking it as answered, when you come again with a specific mistake add a new request or replace yes with no in the answered= field. Thanks -- S M S  Talk 20:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Abdali invasions into india/punjab are grossly mis-represented and incorrect in the article
First of all Sikhs are a separate people from the Marathas

All his invasions were not victories as wrongly stated in the article. Below are the facts.

The Fifth Invasion and Encounter with the Marathas Ahmad Shah Abdali’s first four attacks were devoted to annihilating the Mughal power in the northern India. In his fifth invasion he had to face the Marathas in the third Battle of Panipat. When Ahmad Shah Abdali annexed Sirhind, Punjab, Multan, Sindh and Kashmir, Adeena Beg the faujdar of Jalandhar invited Marathas from Delhi. He invited the Sikhs to conquer Sirhind, because he knew that the Sikhs were ever-ready to invade Sirhind and owing to the martyrdom of the younger Sahibzadas having taken place there called it “Gru damned Sirhind” (Guru Mari Sirhind). This way, the Sikhs and the Marhattas captured Sirhind and the later on they overran Lahore. The Abdali rule in the Punjab thus came to an end. The Marathas had their sway upto Attok and they appointed Adeena Beg the governor of the Punjab. Ahmad Shah Abdali could not tolerate the seizing of the territory in the Punjab by Marathas and, therefore, he again invaded India with a fuller force. This was the fifth invasion by him. The Marathas also marched northwards from Deccan fully prepared. Abdali was commanding less troops, but by means of daring and superior military strategy, he carried the day against the Marathas who fell in the Battle of Panipat. Now, Abdali had one power in view, which he wanted to crush and it was the Sikhs.

Sixth Invasion the Massive Massacre of the Sikhs – Wada Ghullughara – 1762 The destroyer of the Mughal rule and the conqueror of the Marathas considered the Sikhs to be insignificant. The Sikhs had been affended by Afghans as they had destroyed Darbar Sahib, Amritsar. When Ahmad Shah Abdali’s son, Tamur Shah, and his general, Jahan Khan were returning to Kabul after ransacking Delhi, along with a lot of booty, the Sikh bands raided them seized a good quantity of plundered goods and chased the Durrani forces over a sufficient distance. It happened that in March 1757. Thereafter to wreak vengeance on the Sikhs, the Afghans attacked the town of Kartarpur (near Jalandhar) founded by Guru Arjun Sahib and set ablaze the Gurdwara Tham Sahib. On his way back from Delhi Abdali halted at Lahore where from he sent his troops to Amritsar and desecrated Sri Darbar Sahib.17 When Ahmad Shah Abdali was returning after his victory over Delhi, the Sikh bands attacked him near Goindwal and liberated about 2200 Hindu women from the clutches of the Afghans. The Sikhs bands pursued the Afghan forces upto the river Attock.18 In 1761 A.D. Ahmad Shah Abdali before leaving Lahore appointed Khwaja Ubaid the governor of Lahore and Khwaja Mirza Jaan the faujdar of Char Mahal (These char Mahals were Sialkot, Pasroor, Gujarat and Aurangabad). Mirza Jaan was killed while fighting the Sikhs, and thereafter Ahmad Shah sent Nooruddin to establish law and order in the Punjab. He was defeated by Charat Singh Shukarchakhia and he retired to Sialkot. Hearing this, Khwaja Ubaid who was the governor of Lahore gathered a large force and attacked Gujranwala, the capital city of the Shukarchakkia Misl. Charat Singh called upon the other Misaldars including Jassa Singh Ahluwalia, Jai Singh Ghanayya and Hari Singh Bhangi to come to his aid. The assembled Sikhs put Khwaja Ubaid to flight and he fled to shelter inside the Lahore fort. The Sikh chiefs pursued him and conquerred Lahore. Jassa Singh Ahluwalia made Saadat Khan faujdar flee. This way the Sikhs carried the day everywhere. The Sikhs decided to set right Aaqil Das Niranjania of Jandiala as he had been spying upon the Sikhs and reporting to Abdali. When Niranjani came to know of it he called Ahmed Shah Abdali to his support. Zain Khan the governor of Sirhind appointed by Abdali in Cis-Sutlej area was ill-at-ease on account of the Sikhs. He also persuaded Ahmad Shah to invade the Punjab to mend the Sikhs.19

Ahmed Shah Abdali made several invasions to occupy and annexe Punjab to Kabul kingdom. On every occasion he was harassed by the Sikh bands. The Sikh warriors bands, called Missal, began to occupy territory at various places. They conquered Lahore in 1765 and struck coin in the name of the Gurus. The Inscription of the coin was the same as that issued by Banda Singh Bahadur, viz Dego Tego Nusrat bedrang – Yaft as Nanak Guru Gobind Singh. The kettle and the sword (symbols of charity and power) victory and ready patronage have been obtained from Guru Nanak – Gobind Singh. The same inscription continued uptill 1849 when the Punjab was annexed. Most of the Punjab was occupied by the Sikh Misaldars. Ahmad Shah Abdali, the best horseman of his times in Asia, conqueror of Delhi, the age old capital of the Mughals, the victor of the Battle of Panipat where he gave crushing defeat to Marathas felt exhansted before the valiant Khalsa. He left Punjab and died in 1769 AD.

Writings about the Sikhs by a muslim:

A Tribute by Qazi Nur Mohammed Qazi Nur Mohammad son of Qazi Abdullah belonged to village Gunjaba in Baluchistan). He was with Nasir Khan of Kalat when the latter joined Ahmed Shah Abdali in his jehad against the Sikhs.  Qazi Nur Mohammad has written the account of seventh invasion, of Ahmad Shah Adbali.  Out of contempt for the Sikhs he calls them sag which is Persian means dog.  dog of hell, pig eaters, accursed infidels, etc. But he has paid the highest tribute to the character of Sikhs of eighteenth century.  A bigoted writer who has got strong prejudice against Sikhs paying such glowing tribute to their character, is a matter of pride for the Sikhs.  he writes : Leaving aside their mode of fighting hear you another point in which they excel other fighting people. In no case they would slay a coward or put any obstacle in way of fugitive They do not plunder the wealth and ornament of women be she be a well to do lady or maid servant. There is no adultery among the dogs nor are these mischievous people given the thieving. Whether a woman young or old they call her 'budhya' an old lady and ask her to get out of the way. The word ' Buddya' in Indian lauguage means an old lady. There is no thief at all among these dogs nor is there any house breaker born amongst these miscreants. Because they do not make friend with adulterers and house breakers.32

The end result of Abdalis defeat and history onwards:

Subjugation of Afghan Turbulent Tribes of North Western Frontier The rule of Maharaja Ranjit Singh (1799-1839) will ever remain watershed in the annals of the trans-Indus regions especially Peshawar, Bannu as well as Hazara. All these areas alongwith Kashmir were a part of the Afghanistan. Olaf Caroe writes, "Ranjit Singh had wrested from Afghan their fairest provinces not only those east of Indus where Kabul rulers could claim no recial affinity, but Peshawar itself and Bannu, fertile gardens inhabited by proud people of Afghan and Pathan stock"33. Maharaja Ranjit singh undertook strong measures to subdue and control the ferocious tribes of north western frontier. These tribes had not ever been subjugated and brought under control as Attock District gazetteer, writes, "The Mughal sway was more nominal than real. They appear to have been content to levy revenue and there is nothing to show that any serious government was attempted.  The whole district paid only half of a lakh of rupees and heads of each tribe were practically independent."34  After the conquest of Afghan principalities Kasur, Kashmir and Multan he led his legions across the Indus. This was a big challenge to the valiant Afghans who raised a cry of Jehad under Azim Khan ruler of Kabul. A big army was collected on the bank of river at Naushehra. (Distt Peshawar). Ranjit Singh won the decisive victory and surging crowds of Ghazis was dispersed in 1823 AD. Azim Khan died of the shock.35 After this decisive battle army of Ranjit Singh conquered Peshawar and its surrounding areas. Peshawar was annexed to Sikh kingdom in 1834 and Hari Singh Nalwa who has been described as an ideal Sikh soldier" by Olaf Caroe36 was appointed as its Governor. All these trans-Indus areas were never under any regular administration as it has been rightly stated by Olaf Caroe territorial link of administration has to be traced to its beginnings in the Sikh occupation of Peshawar."37  Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his general Hari Singh Nalwa dealt with the north western frontier tribes in two phases dividing it into two sectors viz(i) Hazara sector and (ii) Peshawar sector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.202.252 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan Listeni/æfˈɡænɨstæn/ (Persian/Pashto: افغانستان, Afġānistān), officially the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, is a landlocked country located in the centre of Asia, forming part of Central Asia, South Asia, and Greater Middle East,[9][10]

I can not find any information that supports Afghanistan as being part of the Greater Middle East. The references identified don't attribute or support Afghanistan as part of the Greater Middle East.

I would recommend striking the Middle East as it is not part of Afghanistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crucible6 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 July 2012
Afghanistan Listeni/æfˈɡænɨstæn/ (Persian/Pashto: افغانستان, Afġānistān), officially the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, is a landlocked country located in the centre of Asia, forming part of Central Asia, South Asia, and Greater Middle East,[9][10]

to read

Afghanistan Listeni/æfˈɡænɨstæn/ (Persian/Pashto: افغانستان, Afġānistān), officially the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, is a landlocked country located in the centre of Asia, forming part of Central Asia and Southwest Asia.

Note: [9] [10] don't support Afghanistan as being a part of the Greater Middle East. Afghanistan is CLEARLY not part of the Middle East. Recommend deleting the two cites [9] and [10] and deleting "and Greater Middle East."

Crucible6 (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Floating Boat  A boat that can float!  10:40, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 August 2012
please add to bibliography: Rob Johnson, The Afghan Way of War (Hurst and OUP, 2011)

Drrobj (talk) 11:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- S M S  Talk 12:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 August 2012
Afghanistan has never been considered to be East Asian

86.25.215.78 (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Where does it say that in the article? A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  08:23, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 September 2012
{{edit semi-protected|answered=no}

Under Demographics the population of Kandahar is listed as 3,200. Kandahar lists the population as 512,200 cited by


 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done, it seems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

70.176.166.8 (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2012 (UTC): Table still shows 3,200

Battle of Gandamak
The narrative should include a mention of the utter British defeat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.121.204.129 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Time Zone
The Time Zone says "D† (UTC+4:30)" (The 'D' is what assume Delta Time Zone, a military standard). Shouldn't this be "AFT (UTC+4:30)", so that it follows the time zone indication of all other countries on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.133.253 (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is this content relevant to this article?
"The grain exports had been beneficial to people employed in agriculture, and the Carter embargo marked the beginning of hardship for American farmers. That same year, Carter also made two of the most unpopular decisions of his entire Presidency: prohibiting American athletes from participating in the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, and reinstating registration for the draft for young males. Following the Soviet invasion, the United States supported diplomatic efforts to achieve a Soviet withdrawal. In addition, generous U.S. contributions to the refugee program in Pakistan played a major part in efforts to assist Afghan refugees."

This is relevant to the US perspective, but I do not find it pertinent to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.30.179.86 (talk) 22:25, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV intro?
Ok, I am reluctant to start messing around with this first without asking, but isn't the last paragraph or two of the intro not really very neutral? It mentions the ISAF being in Afghanistan to 'maintain security' (when it was working with the very people who had invaded Afghanistan in the first place and was taken over by NATO, which cannot be considered as some kind of neutral peacekeeping force in the country); secondly, to talk of the international community as 'rebuilding' Afghanistan is deeply misleading since it was the 'international community' that destroyed it in the first. Yes, I know the Afghans themselves and even further back the Soviets played their part too, but presenting the presence of NATO, the ISAF, America, Britain etc. as being there to maintain security and rebuild the country, just seems bizarre. No matter what you think of the rights or wrongs of it, the fact is that it was they who invaded the country back in 2001, starting the current war.Gerrynobody (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013
In the paragraph beginning "The political history of the modern state of Afghanistan...", "ultra-conservatives" at the end of that sentence is misspelled "unltra-conservatives".

KnownIssues (talk) 16:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia! WikiPuppies  bark dig 18:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

"On the positive side"
Someone with the privileges please Ctrl+F for two instances of "On the positive side," and remove them. This isn't the place to convey information with patronizing judgment value, it's the place to convey information, period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.35.135 (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done: Minor edit only. "I removed the quote for the first "On the positive side," because the reference was not valid. The second one I just took off the "On the positive side,", the reference is valid, so I can not remove the whole quote!" &mdash; 84singh84 Talk 07:26, 04 April 2013 (UTC)

Inter-Ethnic Lnguages
Other languages besides the 2 official languages should be added to the page. Uzbek, Turkmen, Kyrgyz, Hazaragi, Russian, and some other langusges are also spoken in their respective areas by several million of the population and should be added to reflect this fact.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Afgzee (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: They are already mentioned in the Afghanistan section. The infobox should only list the official languages. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this presentation is not objective. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is not explicitly mentioned,giving the false impression that the US played the same role with the Soviet Union in the events prior to 1990. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.0.32.214 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)