User talk:Afghanvisa

re:
Ahmad Shah Baba does not mean father of the nation. You just removed all the content that was referenced by Encyclopaedia of Islam. You are clearly not an expert as you claim.


 * I know that, the people in Afghanistan do not use "Ahmad Shah Abdali" or "Ahmad Shah Durrani". Ahmad Shah Baba is just a famous figure which refers to the man who they claim is the founder of today's Afghanistan.


 * Pashtuns call him Ahmad Shah Baba. The rest call him Ahmad Shah Durrani or Abdali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KabuliTajik (talk • contribs) 02:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If you know that why did you put (father of the nation)" beside Ahmad Shah Baba"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KabuliTajik (talk • contribs) 02:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, that's a POV. I personally saw a TV program on Pashtun channel and they called him Ahmad Shah Abdali in Pakistan, I swaer. His last name and place of birth is always disputed among many people including among the Pashtuns, that's why Baba is used instead of Abdali or Durrani. Those disputing are saying that he was not from Abdali or Durrani tribes but from other and that he was born in different cities...Herat...Kandahar....Multan....


 * If you don't like (father of the nation) you can remove it. You make your own conlusions when you see this. In english, it means Afghanistan was founded by him. And it is refering to the Afghanistan nation we know today. Same as George Washington is founder of USA despite USA being only 13 states at the time.--Afghanvisa (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I re-wrote the sentence about him being considered founder of the nation, but you still reverted it. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KabuliTajik (talk • contribs) 03:00, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If he isn't considered the founder then who founded Afghanistan? I also want to teach you that most Pashtuns with last names as "Khan" are Pakhto speakers. Those who use "Shah" as their last name or title is Pashto speakers. He was first Ahmad Khan and then changed his name to "Shah", which means he spoke Pakhto dialect at birth but then changed it to Pashto dialect. Pashto speakers are close to Persians while Pakhto speakers are close to Indian culture more than Persian. This is something many people don't know.--Afghanvisa (talk) 03:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that he was the founder of Afghanistan and you reverted it. You are wrong about that. See Khan, then read Shah. They are different different meanings. And the last part what you mean to say is that Durrani Pashtuns are close to Persians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KabuliTajik (talk • contribs) 03:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You should go by what I told you because I study alot of the region and people. The last names Khan is mostly used in NWFP areas where the dialect is Pakhto, they use "Kh" sound too much. Nadir Khan was from NWFP, his later sons changed Khan to Shah (Mohammed Zahir Shah). Pashto is used in areas close to Persians, such as Herat, Kandahar, Kabul, and in Kandahar Persian culture is more than Indian culture. Most people has last names with "Shah". Anyway, keep the article at my version and slowly fix it down the way, but keep it simple and free from POVs. It should just be a general view and not too long with unimportant details. This is how all Wikipedia articles should be because this is not the ultimate source, that's why we use other sources as references. This way we all can just relax and stop this unessary edit wars, while others may be laughing at us. Remember we are from a very poor country, we need to fix that image instead of showing the world that we are idiots.--Afghanvisa (talk) 03:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I know all this. I agree we should work together. I am trying to compromise but you are not cooperating.

re Ahmad Shah Durrani
I know that. So when I wrote that he had Tajiks in his army why did you revert it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KabuliTajik (talk • contribs) 03:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I told you just start adding info instead of reverting to the complicated version. You don't have to do all the work now you may do some later. Just avoid reverting the page because it's easiar to start fom here.--Afghanvisa (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So you want me to put that stuff all over again? Alot of things have been fixed and improved. I bet if you nominate for Good Article status on the version I am reverting to it will pass. On yours it will not pass, the tone is not neutral and it's just a mess. For example, you have it referenced 4 times that he is the founder of Afghanistan. But 2 of them are both Britannica. That doesn't count as 4, it counts as 3. And CIA gets that info from Britannica also so that does not count either. Also, Encyclopedia of Islam is authoratative and should be used. Too many changes have been made and it's best if you write what ever you want to add from the version I insist on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KabuliTajik (talk • contribs) 03:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

- Alis o n  ❤ 01:39, 25 December 2007 (UTC)