Talk:Afghanistan/Archive 8

{{editprotected}}

The first line in the 3rd paragraph of the introduction which starts as "The political history of Afghanistan begins with the Pashtun tribal leader Ahmad Shah Durrani who created the Durrani Empire in 1747..." is misleading. This was added by a Persian-ethnocentric POV pusher (User:Tajik) whom I believe is prejudice toward Pashtuns. The Hotaki Afghan Kingdom was established in 1709 by native Afghans from Kandahar (Afghanistan) who have successfully defeated and crushed the powerful Persian Empire. [1]

Although the state of Afghanistan was not officially declared at that time, these Afghans played a very important part in the nation's history. My point is that if they didn't defeat the Persians there would not have been an Afghanistan nation created in 1747, so the line in the intro should include them as well. Ahmad Shah Durrani was a military commander by profession and also the chief of his Abdali tribe in 1747, and, he didn't create a Durrani Empire but an Afghan Empire which was ruled by the Durrani dynasty. Ahmed shahi (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are two points to consider:

• First, the Hotaki Dynasty which was founded by Mir Wais Khan Hotak in 1709, was then defeated and conquered by Nader Shah of the Afsharid dynasty in 1738. The Afghan Hotaki dynasty was completely dissolved years before that Ahmad Shah Durani founded his empire. Ahmad Shah Abdali conquered Kandahar as the Military Chief of the Persian "Afsharids", not as an independent ruler.
• Secondly, Ahmad Shah Abdali is considered by numerous scholarly sources to be the founder of Afghanistan (although the dynasty was never called Afghanistan at his time and he was known as the Emir of Khorasan). Putting Mir Wais Khan Hotak instead or in addition is not appropriate.

I suggest that instead of writing "...the Pashtun tribal leader" we can write "Pashtun tribal leader and a Military Commander". This is more appropriate.Ariana (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Hotaki Afghans gained independence from Persian rule in 1709, at this point the political history of Afghanistan begins. Ahmad Shah Durrani's father and grandfather were killed in a battle by the Hotaki forces during his youth years. He was probably called Emir of Khorasana by his Persian subject but the Afghans, Uzbeks, Punjabis, Indians, Baloch, and others didn't call him that. Durrani was a military commander and a tribal chief of the Abdali tribe. And, I didn't mention of putting Mir Wais Khan Hotak instead of Durrani, where did this come from? The Afghan Hotaki dynasty needs a mentioning in the intro before the Durrani Empire because they played a very significant role in the history of Afghanistan.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 12:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

But Persians (Afsharids) again conquered the region. So there is nothing like "independence" from Persians. Please keep it in mind that Ahmad Shah Abdali was a commander of the so-called "Persian" Afsharid dynasty. So going into the same argumentation as yours, Ahmad Shah Abdali allianced with the enemy (i.e. Persians) then? If Persians were the enemy, then how come Ahmad Shah Durrani is called Ahmad Shah "Baba"?

The fact that Ahmad Shah Durrani called himself "Amir-e Khorasan" is mentioned in his own historical book "Tarikh-e Ahmad Shahi" which was written under his own supervision.Ariana (talk) 06:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Nader Shah and his Afsharid forces were not ethnic Persians but mainly Turkmen, and were helped by 4,000 Abdali Pashtun soldiers when they conquered the Kandahar region from the Ghilzai tribe whos rulers were the Hotaki family at the time. All of this is well documented so why are you calling all these people Persians? I don't even understand what's your point in telling me all this here, and your assertion that Ahmad Shah Durrani called himself "Amir-e Khorasan" is Original research which is not allowed. He called himself Amir of Khorasan not because his kingdom was called Khorasan but because he and his tribe originated in Khorasan. He was born in Herat, a city which was historically one of the capitals of Khorasan.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 07:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to be informed that you are mixing up the real meaning of Original research. The WOR says: Original research The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources.

So I am not the author of the book, nor it is my "personal research". It is a reliable source which has been published many times in Afghanistan and in Iran. In short, please provide a reliable source which states that Afghanistan's political history begins with Hotaki's rising to Power and not with Ahmad Shah Abdali's.Ariana (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What I mean by W:OR is that you're claiming Ahmad Shah Durrani popularly called himself "Amir-e Khorasan" but you have no proof except the words your typing to us here. If this was a popular name he was known by and many knew about it, then maybe we can understand your point but it's something unheard of. There are so many books written about him but none of them mention his title as Amir of Khorasan or Amir-e Khorasan. This is where the problem is.Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

"Persian" is a Western term for the nation of Iran. The term "Iran" covers the entire area where Iranian languages are spoken, including modern Afghanistan that is listed as an "Iranian land" in the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica ([2][3]), and is the nativeterm of the land. In the past 1000 years, no dynasty in Persia was "Persian" by ethnicity. It is a Western term derived from the old Persian empires (comparable to "Roman"). Nadir Shah, the Safavids, and even the Hotakis considered themselves "Iranians" which is equivalent to the English/Western word "Persian". In the past 1000 years, most armies in Iran were made up of Turks/Turkmens, Kurds, Daylamis, Afghans/Pashtuns, etc. Persians were usually administrators and advisors of the king ("divan"), and that tradition also continued in the Afsharid and Durrani reigns.

As for Ahmad Shah Durrani: he was not born in Herat but in Multan, see Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Tajik (talk) 17:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're basically explaining that Persian was a nationality and we're aware of that. But Ariana310's statement But Persians (Afsharids) again conquered the region (of Hotaki Persians). So there is nothing like "independence" from Persians is confusing. If everyone were Persians then we should only mention Safavids, Hotakis, Afsharids, Abdalis, and etc. Why have double standard?

Encyclopaedia Britannica is not sure about Ahmad Shah Durrani's birth place, it states that he was born 1722?, Multān, Punjab [now in Pakistan], or Herāt [now in Afghanistan; see Researcher’s Note])... [4] His older brother, Zulfikar Khan, was probably born in Multan and Ahmad Khan (Durrani) was born in Herat. This doesn't really matter though because my point is that Khorasan was his hometown and so that is the reason why he may have called himself Amir of Khorasan.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that I am supporting Ariana310's statement. I just explained the meaning of "Persian", a word that is virtually non-existent in the Persian-speaking world. As for Ahmad Shah Durrani: whether he was born in Heat or Multan is irrelevant. He was as foreign or as native as other kings and rulers of that time (Shah Abbas the Great, the most powerful of the Safavid Shahs, was also born in Herat). Claiming that the Durranis were "locals", "indigenous" or "natives" only because Ahmad Shah was born in Herat and at the same time claiming that the Safavids were "foreign Persian invaders" is double-standard and reflects extreme Pashtun-nationalistic and anti-Persian (including anti-Shia) ethnic and religious bias.

As for the article: you have deleted and partially falsified an almost word-to-word quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam. You have also deleted a reference to the Sassanians who controlled large parts of the region for more than 400 years. Therefore I have reverted your edits and restored the sourced version. As for "Amir of Khorasan": he called himself that way and minted his coins with that expression because "Khorasan" is since the Sassanian era the name of the region. "Afghanistan" was only a small tribal region to the east of Khorasan, in and around Peshawar. The name was expanded to what is now Afghanistan after the British conquests in the 19th and 20th centuries. Tajik (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you're getting all this stuff from but I didn't delete anything from any Encyclopaedia of Islam or any reference to the Sassanians. I don't care if Afghanistan was a tribal region, why are you telling me this? I also don't care if British expanded the name Afghanistan. I really don't understand what your problem is with telling me all this irrelevant stuff. You have ethnic and religious issues buddy, I suggest you just calm down and relax. You must show a reliable source that supports your argument otherwise it will be removed or changed.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Just check your own contributions history ([5]). You have deleted an almost identical quote from EI (I have now added the source to it) and you have deleted a reference to the Sassanians. You have also added a totally unreliable website (Sabawoon, which is a Pashto newspaper with focus on entertainment) as a "source" for your claims. The EI clearly says that the political history of Afghanistan began with Mir Wais and Ahmad Shah. Prior to that, there was no "Afghanistan" and the political history of the region was part of Iranian and Indian empires (Safavids, Mughals, etc.)Tajik (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

So just because Sabawoon has Pashto stuff it qualifies as an unreliable source for you? This is exposing your attitude toward Pashtuns. I believe that the information is accurate in the article "Last Afghan Empire" found on their site. I didn't say there was Afghanistan prior to Mir Wais and Ahmad Shah and neither does the article say that. It says the Afghan Empire began in 1747 and I cited that for what the Wikipedia article states, basically the same exact thing.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What you "believe" is irrelevant, because it is your POV - the POV that you are stubbornly trying to push on Wikipedia. Sabawoon is not reliable because it is not a scholarly publication, it is a Pashto (and partially Pashtunist) news-paper, focused on entertainment. The fact that you have actually deleted a quote from Encyclopaedia of Islam (including the reference to its authors) and replaced with your unreliable "Sabawoon" nonsense proves that a) you have no idea how to write an encyclopedic article and b) that you have a clear non-encyclopedic agenda and that your only aim is to push for your ethnocentric POV. Tajik (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You're putting ethnic BS in the introduction of Afghanistan article and I'm telling you that's not needed. A reliable source doesn't have to be a scholarly publication. To you this may appear as unreliable but to others it's reliable. What information in that Afghan Empire article do you disagree with?

Ahmed shahi (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What you call "ethnic BS" is the published work of leading scholars, presented in the Encyclopaedia Iranica and Encyclopaedia of Islam. It only proves that you have an ethnocentric agenda that is aimed to push for POV. It is clear that you are no expert on the subject and only want to publish your own biased point of view. That's the reason why you have no idea what "reliable source" means (see WP:Reliable sources) and why you delete the published works of leading scholars in order to replace them with nonsense from unreliable websites such as "Sabawoon" (which is known as a Pashtun nationalist newspaper). Tajik (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What I meant by "ethnic BS" is the mentioning of people's ethnicity or religions in the introduction. Why are you only mentioning Pashtuns and not the other ethnic groups? All of the history books on Afghanistan say the people in those days were called Afghans, not a single history book mention Pashtoons. Were there Tajiks and others in the Kandahar region or no all (100%) living there were Pashtoons? I didn't delete anything but just rephrased the sentence to make your writing more encyclopedic instead of a bloggish. If you believe that Sabawoon is an unreliable source then you should at least bring a few neutral third party editors here to agree with you.Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:45, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently this article seems to be quietly floating towards an edit war, and frankly i prefer preventing the issue over solving it. Therefor i would ask all editors to keep the following in mind:

• The WP:3RR rule. Also keep the spirit of this rule in mind. 3RR is not a license to revert trice; if you know you are in a content dispute you head to the talk page. Period. You don't revert over and over in the hopes of having your preferred version on top.
• Consensus should be formed on the talk page, and not in the article. Talk this over and then change the article, not the other way around.
• There is assistance available in the form of dispute resolution if you cannot seem to find consensus on the article. Please use that option over reverting, as that will only lead to hostilities, page protection and blocks for edit warring. I really, REALLY don't want to use those methods unless i have to. So please, don't force me.

Note that i really don't care who is "Right" or "Wrong" here. Neither do i really care for mud slinging and claims that other editors are incivil, POV or whatever else negative as i never heard a case where an editor agreed he was. Also i ask everyone to ignore the reverts of another editor. Consensus lasts, reverting over and over doesn't. If there is apparant consensus or an agreement man should not be going against that either way. Now, good luck solving the issue :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was searching for a place to discuss this issue and you've directed me. The editor (User:Inut18) refuses to discuss anything and makes blind vandal-style reverts so can you please not count when I revert his vandalism edits? If that's not appropiate can you protect the article until this issue is resolved? I'm basically against people's religion or ethnicity being mentioned in the introduction, instead would like to explain the important things about Afghanistan as how it's done on other nations' articles.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 23:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest Semi-Protecting the article. The IP address Special:Contributions/98.28.172.69 is continuously adding texts without discussing it. It is trying to add Indian nationalistic claims (Mauryans conquering Afghanistan) in the Introduction which is totally irrelevant. In addition, he created a separate section about the Mauryans. Mentioning briefly Mauryans in the History section is completely enough. No need to create another section for them, while ignoring other Empires and Dynasties which are way more important and which deserve to be talked about more than the Mauryans. I am sure other editors also agree. Ariana (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is also using the IP Special:Contributions/156.63.59.93. Ariana (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I fully protected the article for 3 days, in the hopes that several of the content disputes can be resolved on the talk page in this time. As i said before, once you notice an edit war you head to the talk page and discuss it, rather then reverting over and over. I hope this will also point the IP users to the talk page in order to discuss their changes.

I also noticed that only three users (Ahmed shahi, Tajik and Ariana310) have been debating issues on the talk page, while the other involved editors have made no attempt to find consensus whatsoever. Entering an edit war and reverting a user without as much as dropping a note on the talk page and then quoting 3RR is disruptive in my eyes as it has the appearance of gaming the system to get another editor to cross 3RR.

Other then that it seems that everyone here is capable of sensible discussion, so i would ask that the reverted changes are discussed before any more related changes are made to the article. That way thing will likely end up in a more positive way as edit wars have keep known to cause some bad blood among editors. Again, good luck discussion! :). Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

What is weast? Did you mean to put west?--98.85.192.134 (talk) 19:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

  Fixed Someone made a typo. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It was actually South. Ariana (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed these paragraphs. The informations are historically incorrect and just providing a link to an unknown book is not enough evidence. Furthermore, this article is not about the history of Punjab and second the Sikhs never controlled whole present day Pakistan except Sindh as the author of these paragraphs claim and neither the Sikhs ever reached Jalalabad. The Sikhs had actually never managed to go further westward of Jamrud. Domasch

The Sikhs, under Ranjit Singh, rebelled in 1809 and eventually wrested a large part of the Kingdom of Kabul (present day Pakistan, but not including Sindh) from the Afghans.(Source: Nalwa, V. (2009), Hari Singh Nalwa – Champion of the Khalsaji, New Delhi: Manohar, p. 18, ISBN 8173047855.) Hari Singh Nalwa, the Commander-in-Chief of the Sikh Empire along its Afghan frontier, invaded the Afghan territory as far as the city of Jalalabad.(Source: "Hari Singh Nalwa Foundation Trust". Harisinghnalwa.com. Retrieved 2009-12-29.) In 1837, the Afghan Army descended through the Khyber Pass on Sikh forces at Jamrud. Hari Singh Nalwa's forces held off the Afghan offensive for over a week – the time it took reinforcements to reach Jamrud from Lahore.(Source: Nalwa, V. (2009), Hari Singh Nalwa – Champion of the Khalsaji, New Delhi: Manohar, p. 198, ISBN 8173047855.)

This book doesn't seem unknown to me... it's on google books for example[6]. The point is that the section is on the Durrani Empire and that country encompassed afghanistan as well as Pakistan. If you have verifiable contradictory evidence then we should insert both views.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll restore the article to what it was before the conflict and then we can reach a consensus.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 02:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Just being on Google alone doesn't make that book unbiased, undisputed and neither the author of that book is considered world authority on Afghan history. FATA, Balochistan, the Northern Areas and Sindh were never under the control of Sikhs but only Punjab and some parts of the Peshawar valley. I didn't find any information whatsoever in the renowned Encyclopaedia Britannica regarding these parts being part of the Sikh confederacy at any period of time, let alone Jalalabad(Afghanistan), and neither these areas were ever invaded by the Sikhs. As I have said you earlier that Sikhs were stopped at Jamrud which is a small town near Peshawar. The link of the website, that you have cited as a proof for Jalalabad being under Sikh control, doesn't mention it anywhere and that information will be removed unless you provide a substantial proof. I have not been able to find any information from any neutral source even on the net that support your claim. (Domasch (talk) 17:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Domasch, I have to agree with Profitoftruth85; in order to challenge an established reference, you need some sort actual proof that it is unreliable, not merely your own personal suggestion that it might not be reliable. Otherwise, it's not really appropriate to remove referenced material from an article. Another option is to produce a reliable reference which provides an alternative explanation, which could then be included in the article. In either case, you really need to stop removing the text and references since you have been reverted several times now. Doc Tropics 19:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Tropics, as I have said earlier there is nothing I could find in Encyclopaedia Britannica that support Profifortruth85's claim and nothing I could find in Olaf Caroe's renowned book "The Pathans" either. Even the link that he has provided for Jalalabad being invaded by Sikhs doesn't mention any such thing and even if we start citing dubious websites then you can imagine what will happen. Both of these sources that I have provided are neutral and reliable unlike that book that has been written by an unknown Indian writer.(Domasch (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC))

Are you asserting that the Sikh's never rebelled in 1809 and they never controlled part of the region? Or have you repeatedly deleted an entire paragraph because you object to the phrase "...a large part of..." the region? If the latter, then we can probably reword that phrase rather than discard all the information in the paragraph. Doc Tropics 22:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I did not add this information, I simply restored it. Also, the Encyclopedia Britannica and Olaf Caroe's book are not the only sources allowed in this article. You shouldn't label editors as vandals simply because you disagree with their edits.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica may not be the only source but it is considered a very reliable source through out the world, unlike that book that has been referred here. And Olaf Caroe was a British and his book "The Pathans" is considered the best book ever written on Pashtun history. (Domasch (talk) 08:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

Tropics, Did I ever say that they didn't "rebel"? I have said it time and again that two things that have been mentioned in that paragraph, namely,

1-eventually wrested a large part of the Kingdom of Kabul (present day Pakistan, but not including Sindh) from the Afghans.

2-Hari Singh Nalwa, the Commander-in-Chief of the Sikh Empire along its Afghan frontier, invaded the Afghan territory as far as the city of Jalalabad.

cannot be proved from any reliable and neutral source. And if these two points cannot be considered accurate and and can be removed then the remaining paragraph doesn't make any sense sense at all and the entire paragraph has to be removed, that is what I had done.

Now read these line that I had also removed,

Not only had Durrani and his Afghans invaded the Punjab region many times, but have destroyed the holiest shrine of the Sikhs – the Golden Temple in Amritsar, defiling its sarowar with the blood of cows and then killing Baba Deep Singh in 1757.

Ironically, according to Profitoftruth85 he never added these information and just restored what I had deleted but surprisingly these lines were not restored. It would not be inappropriate here to mention that Profioftruth85 is a very active member and has created various articles about Sikhs and their "empire".

This article is about Afghanistan and everyone is welcome here to contribute, but all those who use WIKI to spread their hate-filled propaganda and wrong information should be discouraged.(Domasch (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

You've got me all wrong man. Look at articles I've created. Battle of Attock for example is an article that involves both Sikhs and Afghans and represents both neutrally. Another one with both groups, Battle_of_Multan#Background is a very well-cited section on the conflict between Fateh Khan against Mahmud Shah.Battle of Shopian is also NPOV. I haven't spread any hatefilled propaganda or wrong information, just read the articles I created.

• When you removed those lines and said "Please don't use this article for you propagands. This article is about Afghanistan and not about the history of Punjab" I actually agreed with you and didn't insert it back in because it seemed WP:undue and also a bit POV against the Durranis.

That whole section needs to be improved, Battle_of_Multan#Background covers it better and in more detail, I'll actually add that in now.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You did us really a great favour by not restoring those ludicrous comments. I can bet my bottom dollar that hardly any Afghan would have ever heard of those great bloody battles that were fought between the Sikh "empire" and some unknown Afghan warlords in the Indus Valley. Hardly any Afghan ever go and edit articles created by Indians but here some "Budhista Afghans" want to add the golden era of Moryans that had left hardly any impact even on those areas that were under their control, others want that something should be said about ancient India and Hinduism and some others are adding details about glorious Sikh conquests that can not be supported by any reliable source. No wonder people don't take Wiki seriously, it is becoming a bigger joke by every passing day.(Domasch (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

I didn't do you any favors, it was pov so I didn't put it back. Get a grip on history: Afghanistan didn't exist in a vacuum. Those "unknown aghan warlords in the indus valley" had a huge impact on afghanistan's history, it's unfortunate your book doesn't mention it. --Profitoftruth85 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

the government type is listed as an Islamic republic, but what does that really mean? the UK article has three terms to describe its government, so why not Afghanistan? is it parliamentary, presidential, constitutional, federal, unitary? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that if we are able to report a train crash from three days ago, we should definitly be able to fix this article. All it takes is a source, fellows.u

--Noodle1234567890 (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Noodle

Why is everything under this section, including the police and military, written in such a negative way? I think it should explain the history of Afghan politics and military very briefly instead of just telling us the present situation in the country. It should just say that the current Karzai administration, which began from scratch in December 2001, is still a very corrupt government and provide a few short references or good examples if needed. No need to go into unnessary details in trying to convince readers.--Jrkso (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I must agree with User:Jrkso that this section is unfairly biased. According to every credible source, the realities of the Afghan government, police and military are much, much worse than presented in this section. Again, according to every credible source, all three are overwhelmingly and undeniably corrupt and ineffective -- with no objective evidence of improvement. This sad but true reality should be more strongly presented in the section.

Thank you. Danieldis47 (talk) 20:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you Danieldis47. The section that I tagged needs some positive points in order have a balanced view. It appears that you're only focusing on the negative side and not considering anything good coming from the Afghan government. The issue is not over the reliability of the sources but it's the tone of the section that is not balanced.--Jrkso (talk) 21:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As a random passerby, I must note: Danieldis47, please do not attack/insult even by implication, other editors. You may benefit from reading WP:CIVIL. Cheers, Brambleclawx 22:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back to the article Danieldis47, I recall our productive discussions last year. Hopefully we can all work together again to keep the article a winner. You can explain that the police, army, etc etc is widly corrupt (which is the case for many police and armies around the world no?) without making the article sound like it is bashing Afghanistan. If you sound like you're bashing the country, it'll detract from its credability. :) Netsquall (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan was culturally and historically linked with Hinduism and ancient India. Even on wikipedia there is a page called Hinduism in Afghanistan and it mentions 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) 11:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Afghanistan was culturally and historically linked with Zoroastrian Persian empire with huge presence of Buddhism in the North East (Gandhara). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.250.4 (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And before that it was linked with India. This own article mentions links to India. And in Indian religious scripture there are mentions of areas in what is now Afghanistan. Your going by history after arrival of Islam. But your not going back far enough before Islam. 71.105.87.54 (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am the director of the Afghanistan Institute for Rural Development under the Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development - Afghanistan. I would like to add to Section 4 "Government and Politics" a new artical "4.2 Local Governance and Politics" mentioned below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashirzai (talk • contribs) 11:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd be fine with its inclusion, assuming more RS are added. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 22:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

We would like to request the viewpoint of other editors concerning the starting point of the Modern history of Afghanistan: whether or not to include the Hotaki dynasty and Afsharid dynasty in the Modern political history of Afghanistan or not. Please provide your viewpoints in Template_talk:History_of_Afghanistan#Section_titles. Cabolitæ (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am removing File:Map_of_Ethnic_Groups_in_Afghanistan,_by_district.svg. Its information page says that the info was obtained from a map that was deleted because "incorrect map, falsified information". --Enric Naval (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with removal: it was not only inaccurate, but it was also using a representation which was unnecessarily distorting the distribution of ethnic groups in the country. Furthermore it appears to have be based on WP:OR. Pretty much the same situation exists with File:Map of Languages in Afghanistan, by district.svg. Is unclear how this can be precise if based on the given source, and why is in use when a better and more recent map is available. --Elekhh (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The "better" and "more recent" map you are proposing is still based on assumption and guesses only. It is in no way better than the maps you are criticizing. Just for your information: the language-map is based on this one, the last official ethno-linguistic map published by an Afghan government (in the 1980's). In addition, it uses the most recent (post-Taliban) numbers available for each province and district. You can check the numbers here. I do not support your concept of deleting maps without a proper discussion and without re-checking the given sources. Tajik (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a discussion about the best map to illustrate the article, not about any deletion. It seems to me that the map I indicated appears to be more detailed as it does not use districts as the smallest unit of representation. The problem of only representing the largest ethnic group in a district is that small ethnic groups are discriminated against and the overall image does not reflect the real geographic mix. This is evident if you compare the two types of maps: 1 and 2. --Elekhh (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

1) Map is based on WP:OR, and what makes the case worse is that it is the work of a few Tajik nationalists, 2) AIMS does not cover all the provinces/districts, so, how can it be based on that source? 4) When there are credible maps like this, then why use POV maps? There is a much more recent map created by Institute For The Study of War, however, I was not able to receive their permission to use the map at Wikipedia. It is very similar to this and most other credible maps. (Ketabtoon (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Instead of getting back to name-calling and insults, you should try to work constructively. I see no reason why the map you have proposed should be considered "reliable". I understand the point that a map that is based on provinces is not as accurate as others. But that does not mean that it is wrong. The map shows the largest ethnic group of each provincial district. It could be used a good addition to other maps. As for accuracy, this map by the Columbia University (you can download a large version here) is perhaps the most accurate and most detailed one available right now. There is a similar map regarding the distribution of languages: small and large, as well as a map about the cultural zones of the country: large Tajik (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good links. I think this language map you linked to, clearly highlights the shortcommings of the one in the article, namely an overly simplified representation which leads to a distorted view of the distribution of languages in Afganistan by excluding small language groups (like Pamiri, Kirghizi, Kazah, etc.) and by missrepresenting the real mix within districts (most apparently in Dawlatabad, Waras, etc.). Given that this, for the encyclopedia non-advantagous representation, was chosen by a Wikipedian, I think is fair to scrutinise its utility. IMO an external link to the Columbia university map would be far more educational than placing the districts majority map in the article. --Elekhh (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The province map has Kabul and Kandahar switched. I don't know how to edit the map though. Loki28 (talk) 14:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Also,"Helmand" province is labeled inaccurately. it should be number 11 not 12 on the current map in use on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.6.128 (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I was reviewing a pending change here, and my thought was that the section title should match the Main Article Title below: War in Afghanistan... so I altered it to that.

Just for consistency, if the linked article is thus titled, then the same section title seems correct.

I didn't feel strongly enough about it to reject the subsequent change - perhaps a discussion would be profitable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Begoon (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2010 July 15

You're right about that but the main article "War in Afghanistan 2001-present" can be re-named, and I think we may do that as well. The militaries involved in this country call it "NATO mission", and you can see that in many news reports. It started as a mission although the US leaders called it "War on Terror" but the war on terror was not intended for Afghanistan, it was a global war. The Afghan situation is a mission, to defend the nation from militants (criminals) and help rebuild its institutions and provide aid, and etc. When you call this "war" then it ignores all these good things that NATO is doing but only concentrates on the fighting between Taliban militants and NATO forces, which is only in parts of the country.--Jrkso (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That was going to be my logical progression - if this is correct, then why not rename the other article. I see you already have it all in mind, and shall leave it in your capable hands :)  Begoon^talk 00:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but have a look at the sources. They speak about the war of Afghanistan. I think you have very unique opinion and i suggest to you to start a renaming discussion of the Article "War in Afghanistan 2001-present" but i can tell you the chance than this article gets renamed is very very low. IQinn (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Source is not needed to re-name a section in the "history of Afghanistan". The obvious choice would be to come out with a best suited name and that's what I did. The West (manily the United States) spent 10 years and $100s of billion dollars to secure and develop Afghanistan and this is what needs to be highlighted more in the section because that made the biggest impact on the nation. The war is not with the Afghan government or with the ordinary people of that country but it is with a small group of militants (helped by foreigners crossing from Pakistan). The NATO nations are defending Afghanistan and rebuilding it's key infrastructure. I can get you 1,000s of sources from the internet for this but what's the use for doing that?--Jrkso (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I can give you 1.000.000 sources that call it the War in Afghanistan. This section is about the war in Afghanistan with ist's main article War in Afghanistan (2001–present). The NATO mission is part of this. Your unsourced opinion is quite unique and sources that would back up your claims would be helpful. I suggest you start a discussion of renaming War in Afghanistan (2001–present) at the relevant talk page but as i said i do not see that you could find consensus for that. It is called the war in Afghanistan in the sources (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) no matter what you personally think. The section about the war of Afghanistan from 2001 to present is a very important topic for the article and our readers. The NATO mission is part of the war and if you want to address other topics than i suggest you start a new section for that. IQinn (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about changing the article "War in Afghanistan (2001-present)" which is about the US-led war against the Taliban. The history of Afghanistan is to explain EVERYTHING not only the war. Since 2001 to present, Afghanistan's government and military became modernized by the help of USA and other NATO nations, its economy, educational institutions, agriculture industry, and everything else become modernized by the help of USAID [7] and other U.S. government agencies. This is a major event that re-shaped Afghanistan since 2001. Obviously this makes a major part of Afghanistan's history and this is what I'm trying to highlight in the section. There are 1,000s of official sites which can be linked as references to this. You're trying to pretend that you can't see this happening.--Jrkso (talk) 14:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We have other section for other stuff. This section is about the War in Afghanistan (2001-present) and it should be a summary of the main article War in Afghanistan (2001-present). IQinn (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"We have other section for other stuff"? It's not a section but a "sub-section" in the section "History of Afghanistan" in the article on "Afghanistan" and that is where we explain what happened to Afghanistan from 2001-2010. This is the way all articles are written.--Jrkso (talk) 14:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Your suggested title is a whitewash as the image you choose is a whitewash as it neither shows casualties or fighting. This section is about the War in Afghanistan (2001-present) and it should be a summary of the main article War in Afghanistan (2001-present). The war is the main topic for this time. IQinn (talk) 15:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There is alot more going on in Afghanistan than just dealing with the Taliban insurgency (US-led war).--Jrkso (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutrality policy is to reflect what is stated in the balance of reliable sources. If the reliable sources describe this as a war, then we do too. If they describe it as a mission, then we call it a mission. Jrkso, if you want to change the section title, then please list sources indicating how major media outlets are describing it. If I were you, I would start with the English newspapers listed here, Al Jazeera, CNN, and BBC. Otherwise it should be whatever it was before this edit-war started. But in the near-term, no one should revert it until we've got this issue sorted.--Chaser (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources is irrelevant here and you are also missing my point. Let me explain again, the section "History" in this "Afghanistan" article is to cover ALL RELEVANT HISTORY of the nation, NOT JUST WARS. I can go and bring you 1,000s of reliable sources that state many things happened in Afghanistan but it's not appropiate to make the sub-sections filled with so much unnessary information when these are suppose to be short. Look at the United States#History for example, someone can add 100s of paragraphs there and provide reliable sources but why are those sub-sections made there so short? There are already many different main articles available for the current US-led war in Afghanistan (i.e. War in Afghanistan (2001-present), Afghan civil war, International Security Assistance Force, Provincial Reconstruction Teams, Operation Enduring Freedom, Taliban insurgency, War On Terror, and others) and there's no reason to create a sub-section for these because like I said earlier the war with Taliban militants is only part of Afghanistan's history. The other major part is the rebuilding of the nation, just look at it like a junked car being restored. The main reason the Americans and NATO troops are in Afghanistan is to rebuild the nation and this needs to be highlighted in the 2001-present part of the "current history of the nation". More on the US-led war may be added to the Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military and the argument about minority groups in Afghanistan being unhappy with their President can be added to Afghanistan#Government and politics.--Jrkso (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

There are many people from different places on earth who have very different opinions about the US-led war in Afghanistan. We already had a discussion a while back that the sub-sections should not be long and not contain biased views.--Jrkso (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely the section should not be to long and they should not contain biased views. I can only agree with that. Unfortunately your view is biased. Reliable sources are irrelevant? I must say you have a very unique view how Wikipedia works. WP:RS is one of our three core policy and everything has to start from there. No i disagree WP:RS is absolutely relevant. Your personal view is interesting but it does not reflect the sources as your chosen title does not meet the sections content and the situation on the ground. This period starts with the US-led invasion of Afghanistan so the title should mention that as well the word "modernization" is misleading. Corruption is mounting in the country and after 9 years Afghanistan is still one of the poorest countries in the world. The voter turnout in this months election went to record low. The casualties numbers for US, NATO, Afghan military and police and civilians are increasing and at record high this year. IQinn (talk) 23:35, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso, this isn't a game of arguing for the best title. You said above you could provide 1000s of reliable sources. OK, please provide one. Provide one source that a) is one of the sources I listed above, and b) predominantly describes what has been happening in Afghanistan the last nine years as a NATO mission rather than a war.--Chaser (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@IQinn, I said "Reliable sources is irrelevant here", meaning in this specific discussion. Don't waste my time with nonsense please, I don't have time for that. The US-led war to remove the Taliban only lasted few months in late 2001 and what started after that is the Taliban insurgency. The NATO forces were sent to Afghanistan by Kofi Annan on his December 2001 UN order to help the Karzai administration, and the corruption with Karzai's government is already mentioned a number of times, which is the case in most countries today. If you think Afghanistan hasn't become modernized that's your own uninformed view but looking at what Afghanistan was before 2001 (no schools, no hospitals or clinics, no banks, no hotels, no roads, no TVs, no music, no internet, no phone service, no food, and so on) to now having all these things and much more in the future, I call that "modernization era" for Afghanistan. Despite the nation as a whole being one of the poorest for now, some Afghans are living in homes such as these [8] [9] in almost every city now. They have cable TV, internet, cell phones, drive new cars, etc. This may mean very little to other nations but this article is specifically about Afghanistan so it is very useful that we give readers the complete image of the history of this nation. BTW, "modernization of Afghanistan" doesn't mean it became but is still in the process. Also, they have recently discovered trillions of dollars of minerals and that will boost the nation's economy and help modernize the nation rapidly. The finalization of the TAPI gas pipeline project is also about to be completed so then work can start [10], which will generate 100s of millions of dollars a year to the government as well own usage in the country.--Jrkso (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

@Chaser, calm down. Provide source for what? Just type "NATO mission in Afghanistan" on any search and you'll get over 3 million hits. See NATO's official websites. [11], [12], also see International Security Assistance Force "Wars" are usually fought between two or more nations and this isn't the case for Afghanistan.--Jrkso (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I want to express my support for Chaser's compromise for the section title: "War, NATO mission, and rebuilding (2001–present)". Another solution that might defuse the above argument would be simply "2001 to present"; I've seen that solution used in more than one "History of..." section. It can be difficult, without the benefit of historical distance, to evaluate what a recent era of a nation's history is "about" in just a few words. AtticusX (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This was just changed to "Recent history (2001-present)". Papers and news sources of record call it a "war": al Jazeera, NY Times, CNN, Times of India, Telegraph, etc. We should, too. Calling it "recent history" does not do justice to what that history actually consists of, which is war. At some point the war also became a humanitarian mission, so I suggest changing it back to "War, NATO mission, and rebuilding."--Chaser (talk) 13:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Recent history (2001-present)" and I think that is suitable for now because so many different things are happening in Afghanistan's history at the momment. As I've pointed out that the actual war with the Taliban government lasted from October 7 until around December 2001, when a new government came to power. After that, we are only seeing "Taliban insurgency". I hope this is ok with all of you.--Jrkso (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

@Chaser, your argument keeps focusing on the article War in Afghanistan (2001-present), but this is Afghanistan article. In here we are concerned about the entire 2001-present history of Afghanistan, not only the US-led war which toppled the Taliban government in 2001. Basically to write about what happened to them and their nation in the last 10 years. It was intitionally IQinn who decided to change the name of the sub-section several days ago from "NATO mission in Afghanistan" but hasn't showed up to oppose the new name "NATO mission and rebuilding of Afghanistan". I'd like to ask why you came and changed it to "War, NATO mission, and rebuilding (2001–present)"? NATO's official website uses a very good and simple name "NATO in Afghanistan: Security and Development". Therefore, we could use "NATO mission and development of nation", "NATO mission and rebuilding of nation", or "NATO mission and Taliban insurgency". The reason I opposed "War, NATO mission, and rebuilding (2001–present)" is because there was already an active war prior to NATO's invasion in 2001, it was between Taliban and Northern Alliance, and before that there was the civil war and before that there was the Soviet war. Plus, it is unnessary to add "(2001-present)" in the section.--Jrkso (talk) 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In the foreign relations and military section I came across some problems while reading it. [13] It has a very strong anti-Pakistan, pro-Iranian and pro-Indian tone. I think we need to neutralize this a little. There was only one incident of border skirmishes in May 2007 but the way it is written tries to make us believe that many incidents occurred, and that didn't happen because Pakistan wanted to invade Afghanistan, and that's most likely as a result of the poorly-marked Durand Line border between the two. The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is unrecognized by Afghanistan. Since people from both countries usually go back and forth everyday without any documents, and there are no visa fees, and I don't see why I can't explain this. In fact all Afghans who were leaving from their country to go else where over the last 20 years used Pakistan's airports. The Afghans living in the west all have been to Pakistan. Just as India and Iran is involved in Afghan reconstruction so is Pakistan, but why isn't anything about Pakistan's $250 million contribution mentioned?

I removed [Afghanistan has strong historical and cultural links with neighboring Iran as both countries were part of Greater Persia before 1747.] because this is irrelevant and POV. In fact Afghanistan fought many wars with Persia, which is now Iran. See Battle of Gulnabad and Hotaki dynasty for example. Foreign relations is the diplomatic government to government relations, not cultural ties. The modern nations of Afghanistan and Iran didn't exist before 1747. Iran is ruled by radical Shia (Supreme Leader of Iran) and is not an Afghan friendly nation and it doesn't have much interest in Afghanistan except only to watch over its Afghan Shias, which are estimated by the CIA to be 19%.--119.73.7.124 (talk) 20:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid most of your points are you personal point of views.

• There were several clashes between Afghan and Pakistanis forces on the border.
• The issue of free circulation without any visa in Pakistan is over the papers and has never been implemented. Afghan nationals cannot enter Pakistan through the airports without having the Pakistani visa. Apart from Peshawar, Quetta and some other cities close to the Afghan border, Afghan nationals cannot freely circulate into the Pakistani territory without any visa.
• India actively engaged in the reconstruction process and granted funding for several projects, with and without the Afghan government's intervention, while Pakistan's commitment of a few million of dollars of grant left without any implementation. Can you name any single project in Afghanistan which Pakistan funded? Or any written or official document for the transfer of such funds/grants from Pakistan to the Afghan government? I am afraid, you can't.
• Iran and Afghanistan share the same history; they are related to the Ancient Iranian civilization from at least since the Persian empires (550 BC); they share the same language, the same culture and the same history. How can you blindly cover that up? Ariana (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not my personal views and why are you judging my knowledge by saying "I am afraid, you can't" when you're not really sure? Anyway, when did the several clashes occur other than the May 2007? The visa issue covers 1979 to present, for the last 30 years Afghans used Pakistan as an escape route to the west and they were never asked for visas. Only in recent years, after 2007, visas are required for those who want to visit the cities or outside the tribal areas but remember the visas are free. This is for security reasons after USA and Afghanistan pressured Pakistan to stop militants from crossing over the border. Before that Taliban, al-Qada and other militants were going back and forth very easily. Pakistan built the Jinnah Hospital in Kabul, built the road from Kandahar to Chaman, partially build the Jalalabad to Peshawar road, spent $10 million on the University of Balkh in the north and a number of other projects. The point is they pledged $250 million which is alot for poor nations like Pakistan and Afghanistan.[14]

Not all of Afghanistan was connected to Persia, most of it was part of the Indian Mughal Empire, especially the capital of Afghanistan, Kabul, and as I explained that "foreign relations" is mainly refering to the current diplomatic government relations between Kabul and foreign nations. If someone wants to add details about culture that should be done in the main articles or in the culture section. Afghanistan was created by Afghan Pakhtun tribes who defeated Persia (Iran) in the 18th century and since then Afghanistan has been ruled by these people so how do you figure these Sunni Afghan tribes and Shia Persian Iranians share the same language, the same culture and the same history? Have you read about how Afghans are treated in Iran? What you have to say about this and the forceful deportation of 100,000 Afghans[15]? On the other hand, the Pakhtun Afghan tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan share the same language, the same culture and the same history and yet that is not mentioned. Additionally, when Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari was being sworn into office he invited Afghan President Hamid Karzai as the only outsider. The Awami National Party is one of the biggest political party in Pakistan and is heavily influenced by Afghanistan which is not a secret in Pakistan. Pakistan's and Afghanistans's military work very closely with one another and this is also part of foreign relations.

Here are some points which makes Afghanistan and Iran very different:

• • Iran is ruled under Shia Islam / Afghanistan is ruled under Sunni Islam.
  • Iranian history is mainly tied to Western or Northern section of Iran, where their capitals have been, however, Afghanistan's capital Kabul is no where near Iran but has belonged to Mughal India since the 1500s.
  • Iranian language is not the same as Afghanistan's Pashto or even the same as the Afghan Persian.
  • Iranians don't dress anything like Afghans, Iranian dress like Europeans while Afghans wear South Asian style clothing.
  • The history of Iran and Afghanistan is nothing but brutal wars with one another. Even until today Afghans are hanged in large numbers inside Iran without even bothering to notify the Afghan government. Just imagine if Canada was to hang Americans like this what will the reaction be in USA.
  • Afghan Ambassador Said Tayeb Jawad speaking to a roomful of government analysts, scholars and journalists in 2008 stated: "Iran has become a more and more hostile power" [16]
  • Ali Larijani, the chairman/speaker of the Iranian parliament, stated: "The Americans will have the same success in Afghanistan as in Vietnam. Years ago the Soviet Union made exactly the same mistake. Many many people were killed and it finally pulled out. History repeats itself. We know Afghanistan. We know that Afghanistan will never submit to foreign armies."[17]
  • A senior commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards warned that Afghanistan will be engulfed by "terror".[18]
  • U.S. senior military officials such as Robert Gates [19], Stanley McChrystal [20], David Petraeus [21] and others believe that Iran's Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution are involved in helping the enemies of Afghanistan, the Taliban.[22]

This man is quite ignoramus and know nothing about Afghanistan, he is just here to propagate his own agenda. This man doesn't seem to know that the Mughals were based at Kabul before they went further eastwards to conquer India. This man also doesn't seem be aware of the fact that the Indians used to wear un-stitched clothes and only during the Mughal rule they adopted Afghan/central Asian food and attire, actually only recently the Indians started to wear the Afghan dress.

The great Iranians wear western clothes but it still doesn't make them western, they are still called middle easterns. And it doesn't make the Afghans and Indians same same just because they have adopted Afghan clothing.Domasch (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes it clear that Iran is interested in seeing another failed Afghanistan. After all this there are some who claim that Afghanistan and Iran have very close relations. I think this is very ridiculous.--119.73.7.124 (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You can take your such type of POVs (or may I call your "mission"?) to some other place; don't think that those who edit the Afghanistan article continuously are so uninformed about the region.

I have lived for 13 years in Pakistan, in different cities, and I know very well the situation there. Whatever you said is inaccurate and seems very politically motivated (for whatever reasons?!). Afghans were allowed to enter Pakistan without any visa in the beginning, but later on they were required to have visa, especially those living in Islamabad, Karachi and Lahore, and were continuously annoyed by the Pakistani police. The very first time that Afghanistan and Pakistan officially signed a document to lift the visa restriction was a couple of years ago when Karzai made an official visit to Pakistan. It was even like a memorandum and not a final agreement.

Pakistan funded the reconstruction of Jalalabad-Torkham and Kandahar-Chaman, which were strictly for Pakistan's own interest. It never donated anything to the University of Balkh and neither there exist any hospital under the name of "Jinnah Hospital" in Kabul (I've been living in Kabul since 2002, and I know very well the city and all the hospitals).

For the rest of your POVS on Iran-Afghanistan ties, I refrain from commenting. You have no knowledge of the history of the region; and it will be a waste of time for me to reply. Please do a little bit reading in wikipedia (at least) about the History of Iran, Afghanistan, and the region. I'm done, I will not reply back. Ariana (talk) 08:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as a side note, since you stressed so much on the friendly relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, please check this which was published just yesterday. Ariana (talk) 08:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't really follow you but here is the source for the University of Balkh. Pakistan grants $10m for Balkh University Sources for Jinnah Hospital / Kabul University and other Pakistani help. [23], [24], [25], [26] You live in Kabul and not know all this? I already stated that since 1979 Afghans were not required visas when visiting Pakistan and that's a sign of good relations. The new visa rule came into effect in late 2006 after the Afghan refugees were registered in Pakistan. But that doesn't stop many who still continue to go back and forth without documents. What do you mean by "Afghanistan and Pakistan officially signed a document to lift the visa restriction"?

You claimed "but later on they were required to have visa" and what year is that if I may ask? According to the information I have here the deadline was December 2006 for Afghans to start getting visas to visit Pakistan, but that doesn't apply to the large number who are registered as refugees or the Afghans who have applied with the UNHCR and are waiting to seek immigration to 3rd countries. Before 2006, all the way back to 1979, Afghans were not required visas or any document to enter Pakistan.

I have no knowledge of the history of this region? What makes you think that? I just clearly explained that Kabul, which is the cultural capital of Afghanistan and the headquarters of the Afghan government was part of the Indian Mughal Empire since the early 1500s. The Sunni Mughals and Shia Persia (Iran) were always enemies to one another. Before the 1500s Kabul was ruled by Arghunds, Turks, Mongols, Turks-Indian Shahis, and etc. I don't understand how that become Iran-Afghanistan historical ties?

I've read many reports since 2001 that try to make Pakistan as a helper of Taliban but none of that is accepted by US military, its intelligence agency (CIA) or the White House, and Pakistan's government reject them as baseless media articles written by people sitting in offices in the west who have no real knowledge about the Pak-Afghan ground situation. If Pakistan's politicians say the kind of things that Iranian politicians have said then we know what Pakistan is upto. The American CIA and FBIs are present in Pakistan but they don't think Pakistan's government is helping Taliban. Pakistan is killing Taliban in military operations and I guess some people view that as helping them. You may add that report about Pakistan being accused of helping Taliban, I have no problem with that.--119.73.7.124 (talk) 12:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your POV pushing. Pakistan's grants in compare with other countries such as the US, Japan, the European countries and India, is way smaller and insignificant. It only "pledged" $250m, but has never given "effectively" this amount to the government of Afghanistan.

To be just vis-à-vis Afghanistan's neighbouring countries, I removed the sentence "Iran has also actively participated in the Afghan reconstruction efforts". If there is no mention of Pakistan's contribution in the construction, so neither there should be any mention of Iran's. Pakistan and Iran's grants and contribution in reconstruction projects are way insignificant compared to the other countries. Now please stop pushing your POV and adding again and again your biased and partial edits. Ariana (talk) 15:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain your edits here; be as precise and as short as possible; writing long paragraphs is sometimes boring to read.

My explanation for reverting your edits:

• The sentence "the people of this region had co-existed for centuries, sharing many commonalities such as history, religion, ethnolinguistics, and cultural heritage." is completely inaccurate and purely your own POV. Pakistan was created as an independent state in 1947; it's not even more than a century from its creation. The new modern Afghan state (with its modern name "Afghanistan") exists since the 18th century. So how can they co-exist for centuries?? If you had said Afghanistan and India, I wouldn't have had any objection.
• Please skip using the texts from the websites of the Embassies and Foreign ministries of the two countries. In such diplomatic areas, both parties tend to show relations between them to be healthy and friendly; while that's not necessarily the case in reality. There are numerous sources, such as the media and other scholarly sources, which verify the fact that tensions have always existed between Afghanistan and Pakistan; especially over the Durand line issue and over the interference of Pakistan in Afghanistan's internal affairs. I just gave you as an example the Journal of International Affairs where it says: Since 1947, serious differences and tensions have existed between the two respective governments at various phases of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations. link.
• Iran and Afghanistan have close historical, linguistic and cultural ties. Check the template "History of Afghanistan" and tell me how many dynasties who ruled over Afghanistan since the 5th century BC were Persian? and how many of them had their capitals in modern Afghanistan but ruled also over Iran, and how many of them had their capitals in Iran but ruled over modern Afghanistan too? In addition, check Greater Khorasan and Greater Iran articles, and please inform yourself a little bit on this issue. The Persian language is spoken in both countries; it is the native language of 50% of the population in Afghanistan (27% Tajiks, 15% Hazaras and some 5% Aimaqs). Check Dari (Persian) article. In both countries, Persian language has an official status. While the linguistic ties between Afghanistan and Pakistan is considerably insignificant. Pashto is not even recognized as an official language in Pakistan; it's Urdu and English which have a national or official status in Pakistan.
• For the rest of your edits, I don't have any objection. Please don't remove the sources I added, because that's considered vandalism. Skip using the Afghan and Pakistani embassy's websites as sources, and base your edits on impartial, independent and unbiased sources such as the media and reliable scholarly works.

This my last attempt to resolve this issue. Your complain at the ANI was closed, and I honestly don't have too much time to invest on this discussion, or to go back and forth on the same point again and again. Ariana (talk) 12:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Resume:

• "Afghanistan-Pakistan relations formally began after the creation of Pakistan in 1947. But even before that, the people of this region had co-existed for centuries, sharing many commonalities such as history, religion, ethnolinguistics, and cultural heritage." <--- POV & un-sourced
• "Afghanistan has limited historical and cultural links with neighboring Iran as southwestern Afghanistan was part of Greater Persia before the rise of Hotaki dynasty in 1709." <--- Inaccurate & un-sourced which also contradicts the next sentence which says: "The western city of Herat is still under Iranian influence."

The previous version which I support:

• "Relations between Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan often fluctuate". Source: Hasnat, Syed Farooq, "Pakistan & Afghanistan: Domestic Pressures and Regional Threats" in Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 63, Fall/Winter 2009, page 141-155, Columbia University link "Since 1947, serious differences and tensions have existed between the two respective governments at various phases of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations." More sources: Resolving the Pakistan-Afghanistan Stalemate, United States Institute of Peace (Afghanistan and Pakistan have had largely antagonistic relations under all governments); Pashtunistan Crisis 1960-1963.
• "Afghanistan has close historical, linguistic and cultural ties with neighboring Iran as both countries were part of Greater Persia before 1747." Source: Bruno, G., "Iran and the future of Afghanistan", Council on Foreign Relations, March 30, 2009 [27] "Iran has close linguistic and cultural ties to Afghanistan.". Ariana (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Not POV and it's all sourced. [28] It's refering to the Pakhtun rulers and Pakhtun people. They rule modern Afghanistan since 1747 and modern Pakistan was part of their Kingdom when both were one unit, that's what "the people of this region had co-existed for centuries, sharing many commonalities such as history, religion, ethnolinguistics, and cultural heritage" is refering to.

• • Iran and Afghanistan have limited historical and cultural links, as I have explained over and over that Kabul, Afghanistan's cultural center and headquarters of the Pakthun government was not part of greater Persia, only the southwestern section of Afghanistan was connected with Persia. Kabul was always part of the Indian Mughal Empire (which obviously includes Pakistan) and before that it was connected to Delhi Sultanate of India going as far back to 1200s. Persia's border was at Ghazni, look at that map for details, at which point Afghans had many wars with Persians since 1709 during the Hotaki dynasty, then in 1800 when Persia re-took Khorasan and agan in and around 1850 when Persia invaded Herat and British helped re-take the city. Britain controlled Afghanistan's foreign affiars until 1919(1921), Britian was anti-Persia all that time. Afghanistan's foreign relations with Iran began in 1930s with then Kings Mohammed Zahir Shah and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, after when the modern state of Iran was created in 1935. Going back to the 1500s, it was the sects of religion (Shia/Sunni) that had divided Afghanistan and Persia in the 1500s. Mughals were Sunnis and Persia was Shia. The Uzbeks and Turkmen in the north share history and culture with Central Asia (Turmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan), they were part of Bukhara kingdom, the Pakhtuns, Baloch, and several other groups share history and culture with Pakistan (including India). The Hazaras in Central Afghanistan are believed to be Mongols. Ignoring these facts is really stupid if you ask me. BTW, click on these links and quickly read some information in it so you can understand my point.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

119.73.1.34, wikipedia articles are not valid sources for articles. You have to provide reliable sources that are not wikipedia articles. Currently, your additions are simply unsourced.

You hardly know what you are talking about. The Balochs are Iranic people and share their history with the Balochs of Iranian Sistan and Balochestan. Pashtuns are also Iranic people who have hardly anything in common with the Indians who are altogether different people, their diet, look, physique everything is different from Pashtuns. You are talking nonsense and the only agenda you seem to have is to create hate between different ethnic groups of Afghanistan. Afghanistan has its own history and culture and we the Afghans are not dying to be connected with the "great" Iranians. Domasch (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One suggestion; you can go to those articles, look at the sources that are listed in them, and provide the adequate ones here in this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Enric Naval, I didn't use Wikipedia articles as a valid source. The source I used is the official Afghan foreign ministr website.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

119.73.1.34; as I said earlier, we cannot use Afghan embassy as a reliable source; such type of declarations are for politico-diplomatic intentions. Can you provide anything from a scholarly work or from the media? As to the Iran-Afghanistan case, please don't re-write the history for me. Just provide a reliable source where it says "Iran and Afghanistan have limited historical and cultural ties." End of the discussion. Ariana (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not Afghan embassy but the official website of Afghanistan's foreign ministry, mfa.gov.af. The "mfa" stands for Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that's equivalent to United States Department of State. Next you will say we can't use the Constitution of Afghanistan as a reference.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the website of the Afghan Embassy in Islamabad. Just pay a good look at the top title and the left menu. The webaddress is http://islamabad.mfa.gov.af. Of course, the Afghan embassy is under the Foreign Ministry's operation.Ariana (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

See, you couldn't provide a reliable source for your claims, and yet you are insisting on your point. For the Afghan-Pak relations, you provided only one source, which is from the Afghan Embassy in Islamabad and which is not reliable at all to use for the scholarly matters; while I have provided you with three reliable and scholarly sources. For the Iran-Pak relations, you were unable to provide a single source to back your point, while I have presented a reliable source which directly supports my point. I am sorry, but I have put the points which are backed with reliable sources in the article. Ariana (talk) 19:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You just want to argue. Click on home and you'll learn that it is not Afghan embassy's website. [29] Just like all U.S. Embassies are under U.S. State Department, so is Afghanistan embassies, all under Afghan foreign affairs. And with all that writings of yours you are just showing your anti-Afghanistan sentiments. You're not here to learn but to promote your Persian culture only not matter what it takes. This is why Afghanistan is the worst country on earth, it's because of people like you. And I believe that these nations are all examples from God, one nation is the most civilized and progressing one and another is the one that goes backward on daily bases.--119.73.1.34 (talk)

If that's the English language, then I see "Afghanistan Embassy - Islamabad" at the top, and at the bottom of the page it's written: Copyright Afghanistan Embassy in Islamabad Feb 2008. Yes, I am not here to learn anything, I am here to contribute in Afghanistan-related articles in wikipedia and to improve the articles based on reliable secondary sources. Ariana (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any of your contributions in the history other than edit-warring on very minor issues and you only promote your Persian culture. I just got done fully explaining to you that all Afghan Embassies are part of Afghan Foreign Affairs and you still not able to understand this. Like I said, you are here just for arguments, edit-warring, trying to settle scores with people you hate because of their ethnicity, and promoting your Persian culture anywhere possible, and etc. You will one day face God and must answer all this to Him.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Judging from the discussion that's been taking place, I cannot discern any merit to the changes the anon wants made to the article. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 20:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want anything changed, I want Ariana310 to stop deleting sourced information that is coming from the Afghan foreign ministry [30] in the "Foreign relations and military" section of Afghanistan page. Ariana310 is not only repeatedly deleting that sourced info but she is basically trying to push her POV by some how trying to make the words speak that Afghanistan is enemy with Pakistan but friendly with Iran because of history and cultural ties. If you read history of the region you'll learn that starting with Afghan Hotaki dynasty in 1709 all the way until 1935 there was no friendly ties between Afghanistan and Iran (known then as Persia) except major wars. In the 1722 Battle of Gulnabad Persia (now Iran) was defeated and destroyed by Afghans. Before that in 1709 to 1713 battles anywhere from 30,000 to at least 60,000 Persian army soldiers were killed by the Afghans. In the 1729 Battle of Damghan Afghans and Persians faught until 1738, then in 1800 they faught, then in 1850s they fought, there was no contact between the two until after 1935 when the modern state of Iran was created.

Iran has a very special policy for Afghans (especially Sunnis) that when they are caught with drugs they are to be hanged in public as examples, in most cases they don't even notify the Afghan government. [31] While Iran is arresting 1,000s of Afghans and hanginging them in public, Ariana310 who is Afghan is ignoring this but insisting that Iran and Afghanistan are close friends. Not to mention that Iran deported 100,000 Afghans recently. I can show you many sources about Afghans being tortured, raped and killed in Iran just because they are Afghans that's all. My point about all this is that we show the true relations not fake ones and try to cover evil things being done to poor Afghans. I stand for humanity and I will expose all evil doers whenever I find the chance.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 22:60, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You replaced information sourced from a peer-reviewed journal with information sourced from an embassy. There is no way that is a better source. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any knowledge about what's being disputed? You're not explaining much. It is ignorant to call Afghanistan's foreign ministry an embassy. I'm adding this latest Wikileak report.... Iran offered a group of eight Taliban leaders more than $1,700 in bounty for each Afghan soldier killed and around $3,500 for each Afghan government official. Each of the Iran-based leaders were crossing into Afghanistan to raise recruits and prepare to attack coalition forces in Helmand and Oruzgan provinces....--119.73.8.27 (talk) 00:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You deleted information sourced to, and the source, of a peer-reviewed journal. That's all I need to know that your edit was not an improvement. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:58, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You deleted information sourced too, and the source, and you're just helping Ariana310, I can see it clearly. I'm tired of this and I don't care anymore. I try to help the situation and fix the article but nobody listens, instead they point fingers at me as if I'm the trouble, oh well. Tomorrow I'll hear of more Afghans, Tajiks, and NATO troops reported killed in Afghanistan, all this because they follow ignorance. I'll go smoke some hash and log on myspace now.--119.73.8.27 (talk) 02:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Everyone currently involved in this discussion needs to stop and think about what they're saying before posting please. This is highly unprofessional, and the attitudes portrayed here by some editors is uncalled for. WP:CIVIL and all that. In regards to the problem, I'm not an expert in Afghanistan but I've had my eye on the article for some time to be sure it isn't flooded by POV like it was last year. Don't automatically assume POV when someone posts something that might seem remotely controvercial, as alot of things that happen in Afghanistan are beyond controvercial! Just make sure you can back anything you say up with multiple sources if need be! Netsquall (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The Soviet occupation resulted in the killings of between 600,000 and two million Afghans, mostly civilians. Over 6 million fled as Afghan refugees to Pakistan and Iran, and from there over 38,000 made their way to the US (87). The footnote reference is to the US state department re refugees. I have no expertise but what is or are the "verifiable" references for the 600,000 to 2 million death toll. sorry if this breaches you guidelines I've used wiki for years now and haven't commented before. Unfortunately many readers don't check footnotes and judge check where the information was produced and by whom.Tonybwik (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is a good source for that. Afghanistan (1979-2001) 1 800 000

• War Annual 6 (1994): 1,000,000
• Britannica Annual (1994): 1,500,000
• Wallechinsky (1995): 1,300,000
• D.Smith (1995): 1,500,000
• B&J (1997): 1,500,000 (1979-95)
• Dictionary of 20C World History (1997): 1M
• CDI: 1,550,000 (1978-97)
• 29 April 1999 AP: 2,000,000
• Dict.Wars: >2M
• 23 May 1999 Denver Rocky Mtn News: 1,800,000
• Ploughshares 2000: 1,500,000
• [MEDIAN of latest five: 1,800,000]--Jrkso (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The history section from the 1980s to 1990s is very long. This large addition by the User:JCAla has a very pro-Ahmad Shah Massoud and pro-Northern Alliance tone. Someone should re-write this in line with W:NPOV. In most media reports they were one of the worst warlords and terrorists. My personal thought based on my study of the history is that there was no good vs. bad, all those involved in the civil war were the bad guys.--Jrkso (talk) 03:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

To Jrkso, you clearly have a problem with the reality of Afghan history. You cannot call Human Rights Watch or the Wall Street Journal a "dubious" source. It is getting ludicrous. There are never only evil guys, bad guys or terrorists like you want to name them. There always also good guys, or those somewhere in between. Massoud was the only legitimate force in Kabul, since he was the defense minister of the Islamic State of Afghanistan (Peshawar Accords). He further had tried everything in his power to keep guerilla forces from entering Kabul. If you think me naming those facts is pro-Massoud, then so be it. That does not change those realities. Maybe you should study Afghan history a little or (let's say) a lot more. Maybe you should also consider the following findings (if you have honest interest in the topic instead of simply pushing an agenda):

"... the sovereignty of Afghanistan was vested formally in "The Islamic State of Afghanistan," an entity created in April 1992, after the fall of the Soviet-backed Najibullah government."

- Human Rights Watch

"As in some of the other instances of violence against civilians documented in this report, there is no indication that senior Shura-i Nazar leaders [that included Massoud] ordered the abuses."

- Afghanistan Justice Project

"I reported from Kabul for The Economist and the Associated Press from 1991 through 1994 during the new government in Kabul, with Massoud as defense minister, which basically upheld the liberal provisions of the National Constitution of 1964 - including the right of women to health care, education, and professional work. [...] Afghanistan's unfriendly neighbours joined hands to destroy the city [...] Massoud never stopped negoiating with his enemies behind the scenes [...] He [Massoud] can hardly be blamed for the presence of irresponsible armed groups in the capital, having done everything within his power to prevent it."

- J. J. (Associated Press and Economist)

The "source" you give is RAWA. Proclamations by the Revolutionary Association of WA (RAWA) are not media reports. They do very valuable humanitarian work, but they are a very bad source for political discussion. They have a clear communist agenda. They are based in Quetta, Pakistan, and not only have strong connections to Pakistan's communist movement, but disturbingly also have a pattern of attacking other Afghan women rights organizations or Afghan women who rise to prominence outside RAWA. That they do the same with every political force of "greater evil" (as they must perceive it) is a logical consequence.

I suggest to you to read one or more of the following books: "Modern Afghanistan - A History of Struggle and Survival" by Amin Saikal (one of the five best books on Afghanistan according to the Wall Street Journal), "How We Missed the Story: Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Hijacking of Afghanistan" by Roy Gutman of the United States Institute of Peace, "Ghost Wars" by Steve Coll (won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction), "Pakistan and the Emergence of Islamic Militancy in Afghanistan" by Rizwan Hussain, and if you are honestly interested in learning about Massoud (whom you call a warlord, terrorist and bad guy - now if that is not a strong POV) "Massoud: An Intimate Portrait of the Legendary Afghan Leader" by Marcela Grad with Webster University Press. Before you have not read at least one of those books and instead derive your information from unsophisticated (or non differentiating) sources such as RAWA, maybe you should leave your hands from Afghan history. (no offense) Thanks. --JCAla 8 September 2010

Whatever you call Rawa is your personal opinion but to us it is a source of sources. The following are few news items relating to Ahmad Shah Massoud and his faction.

• The Afghan Who Wouldn't Fight, Bruce G. Richardson, June 22, 2003 "Massoud sometimes used to stage sham skirmishes with the Russians to put off chances of suspicions about his activities among other Mujahideen groups"
• Ex-Soviet commander unveil Masoud's secret pact, The News International, May 17, 2001 BUREAU REPORT
• "In 1983 Masoud agreed to a temporary cease-fire with the Soviets", Los Angeles Times, April 26, 1999 By DEXTER FILKINS
• Ahmad Shah Masoud: The Janos Savambi of Afghanistan, Massoud and peaceful Afghanistan are incompatible, Weekend Post, By J.K. Sufi June 6, 1999
• Ahmad Shah Masoud provides shelter to most wanted terrorists, The Frontier Post, April 16, 1999
• Masoud and the killing of 85 educated men of Panjsheer
• 10,000 killed in 8 months in Kabul, The Frontier Post, November .28,1993
• The images... "Jehaid" terrorists belonging to Shora-e-Nezar of Ahmad Shah Masoud in action in the Interior Ministry...
• images... Three innocent young Afghans, Mohammad Gul, Sher Sikandar and Mohammad Rafiq were hanged by the so-called government of Rabbani-Massoud in Kabul on Sep.7, 1992.
• Amnesty International condemns execution of 6 people by forces of Ahmad Shah Massoud, BBC News, 15 February, 2001 By Kate Clark

Don't attempt to teach us who Massoud was when we know more than you (no offense). Thanks.--Jrkso (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I am "impressed" by your sources. Each single link you provided is linking to rawa. The information provided by the BBC talks about six Taliban that had been convicted of homocide and which were susequently sentenced to death. Since Amnesty International strongly opposes the death penalty it is obvious they will condemn this. The only actual information was provided by the Los Angeles Times stating that Massoud agreed on a cease-fire with the Soviets for some month. There was close to no aid arriving to the Panjshir by Pakistan, who handled American support to Afghans, his people were nearly starved out, even though he was the most effective leader against the Soviets. Massoud then used the time to regroup (as did Mullah Omar after the U.S. arrived in Afghanistan in 2001) and to create an organization which unified 130 commanders from 12 northern, eastern and central regions of Afghanistan. This organization subsequently was able to deliver vital and major blows to the Soviet Union when the cease-fire ended (considered by many experts as one of the reasons why the Soviets were defeated in Afghanistan alongside the usage of the U.S. stinger).

Sometimes rawa cites Pakistani newspapers such as "The Frontier Post" (published i. e. from Quetta and Peshawar) and "The News International". Now, considering that Pakistan during the time of release of those articles, unfortunately, was not enjoying freedom of press and was led by a military responsible for sending thousands of Pakistani nationals to fight Massoud (the poor families of those fighters often didn't even know about where their children went to fight), these articles are not to be considered reliable.—JCAla (talk) 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged the article and some sections for requiring an expert editor. The sections are "Saur revolution and Soviet war", "civil war" and the next one, they all need to be rewritten professionally. Currently the "civil" and the one below are a mess. It will be a good idea if JCAla stops editing those sections and allow someone else do it.--Jrkso (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone is exaggerating the number of Pashtuns and the Pashto language on this article and the article on 'Pashto language'. They've gone as far as coming up with exaggerated numbers and then linking them up to the CIA World Factbook that shows the real numbers. I propose that all edits be reverted to the original numbers and the area be blocked from further editing.

There's a large population of Pashtuns and Tajiks who are creating these edits. Pashtuns usually try to exaggerate the number of Pashtuns and Pashto speakers, while Tajiks try to put a good light on warlords like Ahmad Shah Massoud. Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.134.208 (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Guys, someone is seriously exaggerating Pashtun numbers in that section and everywhere else in the article.

User in question is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Kaki_joe

I have reverted one of his edits, but I'm not sure I can stop him. Can an admin take notice of this please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casimiri (talk • contribs) 17:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the section on the "Hotaki dynasty and the Durrani Empire", specifically the line "He defeated the Sikhs of the Maratha Empire in the Punjab region nine times, one of the biggest battles was the 1761 Battle of Panipat.". The "Battle of Panipat" article has the following line "The Sikhs, did not support either side and decided to sitback and see what would happen. The exception was Ala Singh of Patiala, who sided with the afghans and was actually being granted and crowned the first Sikh Maharajah despite the Sikh holy temple being destroyed by the Afghans.". Further reading shows that the Sikhs weren't part of the Maratha Empire, this should be corrected in the Afghanistan article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.244.179.210 (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This site [32] has no credibility and should not be included in the languages of Afghanistan section. There are hundreds of websites like this and Wikipedia does not allow adding nonacademic sources like this one.--Inuit18 (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The link you posted is to Ethnologue and I think it qualifies as a W:Reliable source. If you think it doesn't then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.--Jrkso (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Kaki joe (talk · contribs) has provided a source (in Pashto) for his claim that Pashto speakers are the majority language group in Afghanistan. It appears (based on machine translation) to be an unsigned and unsourced op/ed. The op/ed was widely copied, so I don't know that taand is the originator of the editorial either. The editorial itself seems to acknowledge that the numbers are not widely accepted, blaming a conspiracy of some sort. In the face of reasonably good data from the CIA World Factbook and other sources, I suggest this op/ed should have little or no weight per WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. But perhaps I am misreading the situation. Thoughts? --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tajik added "Tajik (may include subgroups, such as Qizilbash and Farsiwan)" but none of the 4 given sources support this claim. [33] [34] [35] [36] As a matter of fact, two of the sources have them as separate groups from Tajik.

• Paṧtūn about 4,800,000, Tajik about 3,500,000, Fārsīwān about 600,000, Qizilbāš they are scattered throughout Afghanistan and are primarily urban. Hazāra about 1,000,000, Uzbek about 1,000,000, Aymāq about 500,000, Turkman about 400,000, Balūč about 200,000, Nūrestānī about 70,000, Kōhestanī about 60,000, Hindu about 20,000, Brāhūī about 10,000, Sikh about 10,000, and others unknown numbers (1979-1982).
• In 1996, approximately 40 percent of Afghans were Pashtun, 11.4 of whom are of the Durrani tribal group and 13.8 percent of the Ghilzai group. Tajiks make up the second largest ethnic group with 25.3 percent of the population, followed by Hazaras, 18 percent; Uzbeks, 6.3 percent; Turkmen, 2.5 percent; Qizilbash, 1.0; 6.9 percent other.

Even the Afghan National Anthem appears to make Qizilbash a separate ethnic group. Also, none of these sources claim Tajiks at 33.7%, I only see Tajiks at 25-27%. [37] [38] [39] [40]--Jrkso (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

3 sources are given which put the number of Tajiks at 30-40% (one of them is the authoritative Encyclopaedia Iranica which puts the number at 33.7%). Please revert your latest change. Thank you. The mentioned references are listed below.

(1) Louis Dupree in Encyclopaedia Iranica (the percentages were calculated based on the numbers given in the article; they were checked by Wikipedia admins in 2008; see the talkpage history/archives):

• 39.4% Pashtun
• 33.7% Tajik, Farsiwan, and Qezelbash
• 8.0% Hazara
• 8.0% Uzbek
• 4.1% Aimak
• 3.3% Turkmen
• 1.6% Baloch
• 1.9% other

(2) "A survey of the Afghan people – Afghanistan in 2006" by The Asia Foundation, the Indian Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) and the Afghan Center for Socio-economic and Opinion Research (ACSOR):

• 40.9% Pashtun
• 37.1% Tajik
• 9.2% Hazara
• 9.2% Uzbek
• 1.7% Turkmen
• 0.5% Baloch
• 0.1% Aimak
• 1.3% other

(3) "Afghanistan: Where Things Stand", a combined study by ABC News, BBC, and ARD (from the years 2004 to 2009):

• 41% Pashtun
• 38% Tajik
• 10% Hazara
• 6% Uzbek
• 2% Turkmen
• 1% Nuristani
• 1% Baloch
• 1% other

They are/were all mentioned in the article. Tajik (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I've quoted the 1982 Encyclopaedia Iranica's numbers above but no where is mentioned Tajiks 33.7% in its article. Its numbers are very old (over 30 years) and it fails to give the numbers of some of the other groups. Regarding the latest news surveys, we can't rely on that because the results of these surveys only cover or apply to a group of 6,226 Afghans. On the other hand, the "ethnic groups" of Afghanistan form 28,150,000 people.

• A total of 6226 respondents were surveyed in the study, out of which 4888 (78.5%) were from the rural areas and 1338 (22%) were from the urban areas. Almost equal percentages of male and females were interviewed. The following tables provide demographic and socio-economic details of the respondents with gender classification. They also provide the educational status, religion, and ethnicity of the respondents.
• "This survey is ABC’s fourth in Afghanistan since 2005, part of its ongoing “Where Things Stand” series there and in Iraq. It was conducted in late December and early January via face-to-face interviews with a random national sample of 1,534 Afghan adults in all 34 of the country’s provinces, with field work by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul."

Furthermore, the latest Encyclopedia Britannica [41], CIA Factbook [42], Library of Congress Country Studies [43], Center for Applied Linguistics [44], and others all state that Tajiks make up 25-27%. So therefore, the surveys you presented contradict all the major sources. I made these changes to prevent vandalism by editors who constantly change the numbers to their own taste.--Jrkso (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

To sum it up: based on your own WP:POV, you decide what's reliable and what's not (--> WP:OR). Great! And as for Iranica: I already told you that Iranica gives numbers and not percentages. But the percentages can be easily calculated using the numbers. The percentages were checked by Wikipedia admins 2 years ago. The percentage given for Tajiks is 33.7%. It's not up to you to decide whether the surveys are reliable or not. They are sources, representative polls, and they put the number of Tajiks to up to 38% (quite interestingly, it's very similar to the numbers of Iranica). Tajik (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me explain one more time, the Encyclopaedia Iranica numbers are from 1979 (over 30 years ago), and if someone was to convert them into percentages, it will match with what Encyclopedia Britannica is saying

One-fourth equals 25%. I just went through the archives but didn't find the conversion of Iranica's numbers into percentages. About the news surveys, they were not intended to determine the percentages of Afghanistan's ethnic groups, they were conducted to figure out how ordinary Afghans feel about the 2001-2009 situation in their country. This is one reason why we can't use that as a source for the "ethnic groups." The other more important reason is that the surveys go against major sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica, CIA Factbook, Library of Congress Country Studies, Center for Applied Linguistics, U.S. State Department, UN Census Bureau, Afghan Embassy, PBS, and many others. Because all these tell us that Tajiks make up approximately 25-27%.[45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]. This is not my own view but the views of the majority. If you believe I'm wrong, you may take this issue to the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts.--Jrkso (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The Iranica numbers are given above. I am sure that you know how to do the math. And again: it is not up to you to decide which source is reliable or not and which one should stay in the article and which one should not! And random samples are pretty much representative. Anyway, I have tagged the section and will ask an admin for help. Take care. Tajik (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at articles of other nations they all have recent datas for these things. The 1980 info given by Iranica is incomplete and incorrect. When you add the numbers given by Iranica it totals 12,170,000 but the official 1979 census reported the population at around 15.5 million. This means that Iranica has over 3 million people unaccounted. Dupree's 1980 numbers are as follow: pages 105-106

• Pashtuns = 6.5 million
• Tajiks = 3.5 million
• Farsiwans = 600,000
• Hazaras = 870,000 and the list goes on

I did a search but couldn't find any reliable source showing Tajiks more than 27%.--Jrkso (talk) 00:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you should stick to these numbers and describe all of it in the text in an encyclopedic way. That means, start by saying: "there are no reliable census numbers, but in 1980, it was estimated by Dupree etc etc etc." Then continue that "modern estimates, like the CIA factbook, give the numbers as ...". That is an encyclopedicway to describe the problem so that the readers understand. Your current version which mixes up different numbers from difference eras is misleading, false, and unencyclopedic. As for the numbers in Iranica: whether they are based on the 15.5m of the official census is not known. It is pure speculation on your side. It gives a pretty detailed list, perhaps different from official census numbers. And if you ad up the numbers, you get some 39% for Pashtuns and some 34% for Tajiks and Farsiwans (incl. Qizilbash; not that these groups are generally included in the Tajik community for they only represent a different religious group not a different ethnic group). A small side-note: I believe that the name "Dari" should be largely avoided. Instead, Wikipedia should use "Persian". As explained in Iranica, naming the language "Dari" is a political move by the (Pashtun nationalist) government of Afghanistan. And since Wikipedia is not political, the scholastically correct and established name should be used. Please see Iranica: "... In Badaḵšān and Panjšir of Afghanistan, Tājik was a heteronym bestowed by the local Uzbeks, and adopted by the ruling Pashtuns and the local Persian-speakers themselves in comparatively recent times. In journalistic usage it is increasingly applied to speakers of Persian (or Dari, the official term coined by a Pashtun nationalist government) in Kabul and throughout the north of Afghanistan, with the exception of the Hazāras. ..." Tajik (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The numbers shown in the Encyclopedia Iranica are based on 1890-1970s bibliography as you can see here and the 1979 Afghan census is not mentioned anywhere in that article. All sources mention Tajiks at 25-27% and claiming anything above that needs to be well sourced. These are the very basic rules of Wikipedia.--Jrkso (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Per this, this, this, and this, I'm gonna change "2008-2010" to "2004-2010" at the top of the line chart in the "Ethnic groups" section.--Jrkso (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone has reverted my edits and stated in the edit summary "Kushans did not conquer Afghanistan, they rose from this territory with their capital within afghanistan; Achaemenids & Sassanids are not the conquerers either, afghanistan was par of the greater iran". The sources which I cited say:

• "The first of the conquerors who marched into Afghanistan was Darius the Great, who in 500 BCE expanded the Zoroastrian Achaemenid Empire as far east as the Kabul-Jalabad-Peshawar area."
• "The next major incursion into the Afghan area was in the 1st century BCE The Kushans, a confederation of central Asian nomadic tribes, took Afghanistan from the Greeks and held power over the area for several centuries.
• "In the third century A.D. Kushan control degenerated into independent kingdoms that were easy targets for conquest by the rising Iranian dynasty, the Sassanians (c. 224-561 A.D.)."

Looks like someone didn't check the sources before they reverted my edits.--Jrkso (talk) 13:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we should first define what do we mean by "the land from which many kingdoms have risen to form dynasties of their own"; do we mean being "a local dynasty"? and which would be the criteria for putting a dynasty in that group? There are two possible propositions:

• First, you can choose the criteria as "having its capital or center" in what is now Afghanistan.
• Second, you can choose the criteria as "being from the same people (with common civilisation and cultural traditions)".

Going by any of these two criteria, your listing and sorting of those dynasties as the local and foreign dynasties has flaws in it, in either way.

• If you choose the first criteria, then Kushans despite being the descendants of the Yuezhi tribes of the Central Asia had one of their capitals inside of the today's Afghan territories: i.e. Kapisa or Bagram; which qualifies it to be listed among other local dynasties.
• If you choose the second criteria, then none of the dynasties of Greco-Bactrians, Kabul Shahis, Ghaznavids, and Timurids qualify. Greco-Bactrians were of Hellenistic civilization, the descendants of the Seleucids. Kabul Shahis, also known as Kushano-Hephthalites, were either of Turkic or of Tibetan origin, who came from the Central Asian regions in the north. Ghaznavids' founders Aleptagin and Subuktagin were of Turkic origin who came from the Central Asia. The same way, Timurids were of Turko-Mongol origin. On the contrary, Achaemenids and Sassanids would qualify according to this criteria because both were Ancient Iranian peoples who belong to the same territory, i.e. Iranian plateau. Afghanistan is part of the same territory and its peoples are all the descendants of the same Iranian peoples, speaking the different languages of Iranian languages.

Now I leave it to you, to choose the criterion you'd like to base your argument on, and then list or sort the dynasties as locals and foreigners/invaders. Then we'll deal with it. There are several other sources which do not consider the Achaemenids and Sassanids as the "foreign" invaders of Afghanistan, and which recognize the Kushans strictly as a local dynasty in Afghanistan. There is no use for me to cite those references - as a reference war (!) - because it depends on how the author have perceived the old/new Afghanistan and how it defines foreigners and locals.

So please choose a specific criterion, and sort the dynasties according to that, then I will have no objection. But it is illogical and irrational to have a discriminating approach in this case. And please consider reviewing Wikipedia:Civility (-->"Looks like someone didn't check the sources before they reverted my edits"). Thanks. Cabolitæ (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Going in the same logic, there is a contradiction among your own references. The first two references (which are exactly the same) consider the Achaemenids to be foreign invaders ("The first of the conquerors who marched into Afghanistan was Darius the Great, who in 500 BCE expanded the Zoroastrian Achaemenid Empire as far east as the Kabul-Jalabad-Peshawar area."), while the last reference does not do so; it explicitly says: "Urban civilization in the Iranian Plateau, which includes most of Iran and Afghanistan, may have begun as early as 3000 to 2000 B.C.... The area that is present-day Afghanistan comprised several satrapies (provinces) of the Achaemenid Empire." So here, the author considers Afghanistan and Iran the two major parts which form the Iranian Plateau. Later on, he recognizes the Achaemenids and Sassanids as the Iranian plateau's native or local empires. The sentence which you cited ("In the third century A.D. Kushan control degenerated into independent kingdoms that were easy targets for conquest by the rising Iranian dynasty, the Sassanians.") actually disproves your point and backs up the point I made, because: since Afghanistan is part of the Iranian plateau, then Sassanids is an Iranian dynasty, so it is a native dynasty and not a foreign invader!

I think it is better to read fully and thoroughly an article before citing a selected passage from it and then twist the methodological argument of the author to incorrectly support its own POV.Cabolitæ (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We mean by local dynasty as the birth of a kingdom inside present-day Afghanistan. The oldest people known to have lived in Afghanistan are the Medes (700-550 BC), Darius invaded their land and in 500 BC annexed it with his Achaemenid empire. Alexander invaded the land in 330 BC and took it from Darius III, allowing Seleucus Nicator (a Greek) to rule over it. Nicator gave some of the land to Chandragupta (an Indian) after a treaty of friendship was reached (upon terms of intermarriage and an exchange of 500 elephants, etc.). After this the Indo-Greek race developed and they established small local dynasties until the Kushans arrived from the north and took over control. The first Kushans were invaders to the land of present-day Afghanistan, as were the Sassanids.--Jrkso (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This is simplified and is partially wrong. The western parts of Afghanistan (Herat) have always been within the sphere of influence of the Persian kings. In other words: it was an integral part of mainland Persia until the era of the Qajars. Other dynasties mentioned in the article, such as the Samanids, were certainly "local", but not from what is now Afghanistan. The Pashtuns, on the other hand, are more or less "locals" in the south and east, but - from a historical perspective - they are also "invaders" of the northern and western regions. In terms of language and ethnic identity, they are even more "foreign" than the Persian invaders from the west or the Turkic invaders from the north. See the article DORRĀNĪ in Encyclopaedia Iranica: "... Northern Afghanistan has been the main target of Dorrānī out-migration. Two different waves of colonization, both sponsored by successive Afghan governments, can be distinguished. The first and least documented followed Aḥmad Shah’s imperial conquests (Ross, p. 31; de Planhol, 1973, p. 8; idem, 1976, p. 286, noting the toponym Sākzay, of unequivocal Dorrānay origin). The second, more important wave of colonization took place in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when the Afghan amirs systematically organized the colonization of depopulated Bādḡīs (q.v.) and Afghan Turkestan, relying massively on their Dorrānī cotribalists. ..."

Or the article AFGHANISTAN x. Political History: "... 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. ..."

The Encyclopaedia Iranica comprises Afghanistan's history to a post-1747 era, the "political history" of Afghanistan. Everything before 1747 is treated as part of the larger Iranian history and part of the "Lands of Iran" and "People's of Iran". Hence, neither the Achaeminds nor the Sassanids were "foreign invaders" - certainly not more than the later Pashtun "invaders".

Honestly, I do not like the Pashtun-centric and biased edits of User:Jrkso. He should discuss these things BEFORE changing the article. I have tagged the whole article for now. Much work is needed. Tajik (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is not limited to the political history of Afghanistan. The articles in Encyclopaedia Iranica are about neighboring state Iran and its people, and nothing is mentioned about "Everything before 1747 is treated as part of the larger Iranian history". I find that the Encyclopaedia Iranica is limited to articles relating to Iran and that area only. For example, you can't find an article about the powerful Indian Mughal Empire in the Encyclopaedia Iranica. Here are some excellent sources to help you understand more about Afghanistan.

• Afghanistan Country Study
• A Country Study: Afghanistan
• Afghans - History
• Afghanistan - Britannica

Wikipedia has to be based on the same info found in these major sources.--Jrkso (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

@User:Jrkso: Okay then, we take the criterion as the birth of a kingdom inside present-day Afghanistan. And according to this, the Kushans are a local dynasty. The Yuezhi tribes who lived in the Central Asia in the 2nd century BCE moved south and conquered Bactria from the Parthians and settled in the HinduKush and Bactrian regions around 125 BC. A hundred years later, one of the five tribes of the Yuezhis in Bactria, known as Guishuang or Kushan took control of the Yuezhi confederation, invaded the southern regions as far as Kapisa and Bagram, and founded the empire around 30 CE. Here is a direct citation from Encyclopaedia Britannica "Kushan dynasty" (DVD version, Ultimate Reference Suite 2010):

"The Yuezhi conquered Bactria in the 2nd century BCE and divided the country into five chiefdoms, one of which was that of the Kushans (Guishuang). A hundred years later the Kushan chief Kujula Kadphises (Qiu Jiuque) secured the political unification of the Yuezhi kingdom under himself."

In the same source, in the article of "Yuezhi", it says:

"About 128 BC the Yuezhi were recorded living north of the Oxus River (Amu Darya), ruling Bactria as a dependency, but a little later the Great Yuezhi kingdom was in Bactria, and Sogdiana was occupied by the Ta-yuan (Tocharians). A new dynasty, the Kushān, was subsequently founded by one of the five chieftains among whom Bactria was divided."

So the foundation of the dynasty took place inside the present-day Afghanistan (i.e. Bactria) in the beginning of the first century CE and NOT outside when the Yuezhis were in Central Asia in the late second century BCE; at that time there was no dynasty under the name of "Kushan dynasty" but just a "Yuezhi confederation". You listed Britannica as one of the reliable sources for Afghanistan to User:Tajik, so I think this single source is enough for now. Check any reliable source in google books and you will find the same point. I will put the Kushans among the local dynasties, because I think this is an obvious and undisputed fact.

As to the term "Iran", I think you should distinguish between Iran as a modern-state or a modern political entity, and Iran as the Ancient Iran or Aryana or the Iranian Plateau. YOUR OWN SOURCE EXPLICITLY EXPLAINS THE POINT: "Iranian Plateau ... includes most of Iran and Afghanistan". When the sources have identified the Achaemenids and Sassanids as Iranian dynasties, how can a native dynasty of the same region (Iranian Plateau) would be a foreign invader to the non-separable part of this region??

User:Tajik pushes sometimes some pro-Iranian POVs and you're taking an anti-Iran position which is obviously a POV and I am not sure if you're trying to push the pro-Pashtun POV as I have not reviewed your other edits yet. Why can't someone be impartial and unbiased in wikipedia?! Cabolitæ (talk) 09:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You have also put Timur as a foreign invader. He was crowned at Balkh in 1369, so how can he be a foreign invader?

Similarly, Babur founded his empire in Kabul in 1504: "He was driven from Samarkand and initially established his rule in Kabul in 1504.

Therefore they are not considered foreign invaders and I removed them from the list. Cabolitæ (talk) 09:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrkso, your comments regarding Iranica noted. But they are irrelevant. Keeping aside the fact that Iranica is the most authoritative source on the region's history and culture, you also need to know that the work is still not finished. Only because you miss certain articles, it does not mean that Iranica is wrong. Secondly, the article "Afghanistan" is pretty clear: Afghanistan's history begins with the poltical ascent of the Pashtuns. Prior to that, the region belonged to different neighboring powers. "Afghanistan" (and as the name suggest, it started as a Pashtun kingdom) was conquered by Pashtuns. They were as much "invaders" and "conquerors" as all others before them. Your definition of "Afghanistan" is the same as that of the former Pashtunist governments of Afghanistan: totally Pashtun-centric ... and hence totally unencyclopedic. Afghanistan is a multi-ethnic country and each group has its own history and identity. The Sassanids may be considered "invaders" by Pashtuns, but they certainly were no "invaders" in the eyes of the Persian-speaking "Tajik" population which still takes much pride in the Persian heritage of the country, be it medieval Persian poets or the Shahnama. To a Tajik or a Hazara, the Pashtuns - from Ahmad Shah Abdali to the Taliban - were and are "invaders". Therefore, your version is simply Pashtun-centric POV. The best thing would be taking out controversial names, such as Darius, Sassanids, and so forth, and only keep those who are universially considered "foreign invaders": the Greeks, the Arab Muslims, and the Mongols of Genghis Khan. That would be encyclopedic neutrality. Tajik (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the term foreign invader is always pretty politically charged, better is to use conquered by. How foreign are one's neighbors? If they share a different religious belief is that foreign? What if they use different patterns on their rugs? --Bejnar (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The foreign invaders was there before I edited the intro and I think that was specifically intended for the Greeks and Mongols. I added conquerors and that is mainly for Muslims who spread Islam and some Arab culture, as well as the Persians who spread their culture into the Kabul valley as what the sources say.--Jrkso (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrkso, can you please explain your reasons for your unexplained edits?

• You removed the following paragraph without giving any explication:

From the Middle Ages to the 19th century, part of the region was recognized as Khorasan. Several important centers of Khorasan are thus located in modern Afghanistan, such as Herat and Balkh. In some cases even the cities of Kandahar, Ghazni and Kabul were recognized as the frontier cities of Khorasan. However, the area which was inhabited by the Afghan tribes (Pashtuns) was referred to as Afghanistan.

The material was well-sourced and yet your removed it. I have added additional sources from The Encyclopaedia of Islam, Encyclopaedia Britannica and Baburnama.

• Can you please also provide a source for what you wrote in the caption of the image?

"Arabs introduced Islam to the Afghan tribes living in Afghanistan during the 7th century, which at that point was recognized as Khorasan to the outside world."

You should provide a reliable source for two points: first, for "Arabs introduced Islam to the Afghan tribes". Do you mean Pashtuns by the "Afghan tribes"? While according to the historical recordings, it was the Samanids and Ghaznavids who introduced Islam to the Pashtun tribes in the south of Khorasan. Arabs conquered only through the northern and western Afghanistan. Secondly, saying "recognized as Khorasan to the outside world" means that it was known as something else within the country/region or among the people. So can you back this up by a reliable and academic source?

• Another source is needed for the claim that "Afghanistan was recognized as Sindh or was included in Sindh". Can you provide a single academic source for this POV?

• Did you by the way look at the source I provided for the term "Afghan Persian" in here? What was your reason for reverting it? The source I provided was from the SIL International (ISO 639 code sets).

If you are not well informed about the history of Afghanistan, I suggest that you do a little bit of research before removing any well-sourced material, inserting incorrect claims and making improper edits. Thanks. Cabolitæ (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Arab armies carrying the banner of Islam came out of the west to defeat the Sasanians in 642 AD and then they marched with confidence to the east. On the western periphery of the Afghan area the princes of Herat and Seistan gave way to rule by Arab governors but in the east, in the mountains, cities submitted only to rise in revolt and the hastily converted returned to their old beliefs once the armies passed. The harshness and avariciousness of Arab rule produced such unrest, however, that once the waning power of the Caliphate became apparent, native rulers once again established themselves independent.

— Nancy Hatch Dupree, 1971

(Source: Dupree, Nancy Hatch (1971) "Sites in Perspective (Chapter 3)" An Historical Guide To Afghanistan Afghan Tourist Organization, Kabul, OCLC 241390)

I copy-edited the section, the map clearly shows two regions (Khorasan and Sind) the cities Herat and Balkh were within the Khorasan region and Kabul, Ghazni, and Kandahar within the Sind region. You can read Ibn Batutta where he explains this in the 1300s, he mentions both Khorasan and Sind. Something like that doesn't need more sources unless you are disputing the fact. Anyway, why did you remove the mention of Sind in the map? Most of the sources you provided cannot be checked, they are just references to books. Only the Britannica article on Khorasan is good.--Jrkso (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Jrkso has also a lot to account for on the more recent history parts for the period 1979-2001. Jrkso keeps editing to mislead people who come to wikipedia for information on Afghanistan.

• He mostly uses "sources" of no value.
• Jrkso has erased most of the well-sourced information on the 1992-2001 period, among other things, i. e. information relating to the involvement of Pakistan in Afghan history.
• Jrkso is not interested in evidence from other editors who provide academic sources even with page numbers. If he does not like the information given he simply ignores academic sources and page numbers and starts an annoying edit war.
• He keeps editing misleadingly. One minor example (that however is exemplary for his other more harmful edits): His edits keep implying that resistance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud was a big recipient of foreign aid during the Soviet War in Afghanistan (1979-1989) when indeed he was the exact opposite. See the following video where experts like Edmund McWilliams (former U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan), Professor Tom Johnson (Afghanistan expert U.S. Naval Postgraduate School), Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH, ret.) and other experts state what has also been written in many academic books on Afghanistan.

I will come back to the issue of Jrkso's systematically misleading edits when I have more time. JCAla (talk), 21 October 2010 (UTC)

You are pushing uneducated stupid POVs and destroying the article. Like I told you before edits like that don't last long in Wikipedia and they are either reverted or removed. Keep the history section as short as possible with only the main events without giving too many details, and don't use too many biased news reports. Stick to Library of Congress, U.S. State Department, Britannica, Iranica, and other major academic sources that specialize on the Afghan history like these [55], [56], [57], [58], etc. The Soviet war, the Taliban and the American-NATO involvement is so well documented I don't see a point why you are re-writing the history when there's plenty probably 1,000s of books written about this and 100s of encyclopedia and government reports all over the internet. You are probably bored and just want to create discussions so you can argue over nonsense.--Jrkso (talk) 01:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@User:Jrkso: If only you had read the sources you provided above and the 1,000s of books you mention and would abide to them ... JCAla (talk), 22 October 2010 (UTC)

@User:Jrkso: Nancy Hatch Dupree's text explains perfectly well the historical accounts. At the beginning, the Muslim armies reached even Kabul city, but they were pushed back to the west of Khorasan. Later on, Ya'qub-i Laith Saffari of the Saffarid dynasty conquered the eastern regions of Khorasan (including Kabul) and converted the Zoroastrian people to Islam. A short while later, the Samanids conquered the southern regions of Khorasan (i.e. South of Ghazni, and Kandahar) and converted the Afghan tribes into Islam. The Ghaznavids converted further people until the Sindh River and Punjab.

We need a source for the point on Sindh, because there is an ambiguity on the issue. The different parts of today's Afghan territories have been known under various names. For example, the northern parts of Afghanistan were called Tocharistan, or Bactria or Bakhtar. The western parts were known as Hari or Aria. The eastern parts were known as Kabulistan. The southern parts were known as Sistan, Arachosia, Balochistan and Sindh (!!). These names were more region-specific names, vaguely defined, without implying any specific political or geographic borders. Saying "Afghanistan was recognized as or was included in Kabulistan" is WRONG. The same way if you say "Afghanistan was recognized as or was included in Sindh" is wrong equally. Why not to mention Sistan? I assure you that the name "Sistan" has been much much widely used in the historical books, among the geographers of those days and even among the people of those time, compare with Sindh. Sistan has been frequently used among Persians, Arabs, Greeks and Hindustanis.

But none of these regional names (Sistan, Sindh, Balochistan, Arachosia, Kabulistan, Tocharistan, etc.) were used in the political or "governmental administration" sense. Only Khorasan was used both in the Pre-Islamic period (it was one of the four great satrapies or divisions of the Sassanid empire) and in the Islamic period (it was one of the "vilaya" (Province) of the Islamic Caliphate; both during the Rashidun Caliphate and the Umayyad Caliphate). The later empires subsequently called themselves as the rulers of Khorasan. So I disagree with your sentence (Afghanistan was recognized as Sindh); it is false, ambiguous and inappropriately used. If you insist, then please provide a direct reliable source (according to the wikipedia rules); you can't base your argument on a single map, which is just hypothetically drawn and mixes up the political names with geo-regional names.

As to what text to put in the caption for the image/map, let's write the original caption/text without further speculating on what the image signifies. The original map shows the region of Khorasan during the Islamic Caliphate in 750. That's it. The point is about Khorasan, and the image suits well.

I will also add The Encyclopaedia of Islam source. It is accessible. Check page 55.. Cabolitæ (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't access page 55 in the link you provided, what does it say? I only see Khorasan mentioned in page 57. I'm not the one worrying about which names were used for today's Afghanistan during the middle ages to 19th century. The article had claimed that Kandahar, Ghazni, and Kabul were included in Khorasan but the map as well as scholars who visited the area in person prove this wrong. Ibn Batutta describes Khorasan in 1300s exactly what that map is showing.[59]

 

About Islamic conquest of Afghanistan, the Arabs introduced Islam to the people, some accepted it and others revolted or refused to become Muslims so the Arabs moved on, by leaving the cities behind. The cities of Kandahar, Ghazni and Kabul at that time were ruled by Hindu Turks (Kabul Shahi) and were part of Greater India (refering to the land where Hindus (or Indians) ruled over). Ibn Batutta describes the Afghanistan-western Pakistan region as a Turkish land. As for Khorasan, it was ruled by Persian people and was located in Persia's territory. It was people among those early local Afghan Muslims (Ya'qub) who spread Islam followed by Samanids and Ghaznavids who made it the official religion of the area. I don't see a point in discussing this. There are so many sources which state the same thing and Wikipedia should reflect on those sources such as Library of Congress Country Studies, Britannica, Iranica, authentic non-biased books or websites that are verifiable, etc. All books you read are based on these major sources, you're not going to find a source which state something different unless it is a propaganda site. So please go by what these authentic sources say and don't push your own POVs. I hope you understand the truth now.--Jrkso (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a communication problem between we two. First, I did not put The Encyclopaedia of Islam as a source for "Kandahar and Kabul being in Khorasan"; in fact it was backed up by Baburnama, where it says that Kabul and Khorasan were at the frontier of Khorasan. Secondly, what was the point of copying that text from Ibn Battuta? Where does it say that "Afghanistan was recognized as Sindh" or that "Afghanistan was part of Sindh"? Thirdly, did you at least check Kabul Shahis article (at least in wikipedia) that where were their initial capitals were? Kabul Shahi's capitals were Kabul and Kapisa in the beginning. (Later on, when they were defeated by the Saffarids, they moved to India where they were called as Hindu Shahis) So how can you say they were part of Greater India? Finally, haven't I provided sources from Britannica and Encyclopaedia of Islam that you are accusing me of providing unreliable sources? And which POV am I pushing here?? I have provided reliable and academic sources for each point I have stated and written. In the contrary, you could not even back up your claim (the case of Sindh) by a reliable source; and now you're trying to turn around the issue at me? Good try! Cabolitæ (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

And please stop falsifying the sources. Where exactly in the source does it say that ["Kabul and Kandahar were independent and were connected by road with Khorasan and Hindustan" as you wrote here?? The cities between the brackets are supposed to explain the four main cities of Khorasan, NOT the cities within Afghanistan. The reader will know automatically which two of those cities are located in Afghanistan. Please stop pushing your POV and turning the issue around at me. If you're starting an edit war in here (over a properly well-sourced point), you're free to do so, but don't forget that I will report your such behaviour to the WP:AN. Cabolitæ (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

You are randomly arguing many things at once and I can't follow you. I'll go with you the history in step by step ladder, and you gonna have to stop calling my edits falsifying the sources and also try to be civil. The map is from the 7th century but you're using 16th century Baburnama (almost 1,000 years difference). It's my edit which state that part of today's Afghanistan was recognized as Sind and it's a fact, and as an editor I'm entitled to write that. The map clearly shows this and there are also other sources to back it up. The map maker appears to be an expert, I'm sure he has used valid historical references to prepare this map, he used the pink color for Sind to help us understand that this was a disputed territory or a buffer zone between Persia and Hindustan. The geographical name "Sind" is "Hind", depending on which language you use. As a geo term, Sind, Hind and Hindu are actually all one and the same. The land below the Hindu Kush was connected with greater India or land of Hindus since the Hindu Maurya Empire after legally obtaining it from Greek Seleucus I Nicator by Chandragupta Maurya in 305 BC. [60] The pink color in the map again helps explain that it was not a totally Hindu populated land as India but that it was claimed as part of a Hindu kingdom, etc, I'm sure you get the point.

When Arabs came to this non-Persian area in the 7th century they saw everyone as Hindu, worshipping various idols. Not being able to tell the difference, Arabs also viewed those who practiced Buddhism as Hindus, that's why no references to the Buddhas of Bamyan were made to explain the religion of Buddhism in detail. The countries (Kabul, Ghazni, Kandahar, including Bust in the Helmand valley) were under the Hindu-Buddhist Shahi rule of Kabul. The Kabul Museum is full of Hindu-Buddhist relics discovered in these areas in the 20th century. Below is a reference to help you understand my point.

• Biládurí informs us that under the Khiláfat of Mu'áwiya, 'Abdu-r Rahmán, son of Samrah, penetrated to the city of Kábul, and obtained possession of it after a month's siege. He conquered also the circum­jacent countries, especially Ar-Rukhaj (Arachosia). The king of Kábul made an appeal to the warriors of India, and the Musulmáns were driven out of Kábul. He recovered all the other conquered countries, and advanced as far as Bust, but on the approach of another Musulmán army, he submitted, and engaged to pay an annual tribute. [61]

The Persian Sassanid Empire controlled the northern and western part of today's Afghanistan, where Zoroastrianism was still widely practiced and there's not dispute on that. Now you see that Afghanistan has been a buffer zone for ages. All major sources explain that the nation sits at a crossing point where people from the north, south, east, and west have been moving back and forth with some deciding to settle and today you have a state with a unique and complex multi-ethnic society. This is done by nature and it's difficult to unite it and also you can't divide it.

The geographical name "Sind (Hind)" began to disappear during the Ghaznavids era, when the entire population was made Muslim by the 11th century. At that point and on "Hind" only referred to the land on the east of the Indus River (modern day Punjab/India and beyond, etc). Instead of continuing this never ending debate which isn't going anywhere let's just use a less controversial method, we should avoid name claims. Since Afghanistan is multi-racial, you claiming it as being part of the Persian Khorasan from middle ages to 19th century is not only false but also provocative to those who don't like to be associated with the Persian culture. You see the person below is an example, he doesn't like even the idea of being associated with Persians and I've seen many Afghans feel that way. I'd like to add that you are not even sure about your claim because in Talk:Greater Khorasan#Geography of Khorasan you stated in May 2010: Cabolitae:...Khorasan in its improper sense extended to larger areas, which might have included the whole territory of Afghanistan. That means you have no idea what you are claiming. Now, I don't want to hear too much irrelevant things from you, just show evidence that state that during the 7th century and onward much of Afghanistan was recognized as Khorasan. If you fail to show evidence then don't make such claim in the article as I said this is provocative statement to the non-Persian Afghans. After I hear what you have to say, I will then discuss the history from the 11th century to the 19th century. Be polite in your talk backs and thanks for reading.--Jrkso (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As an editor, you are not entitled to make personal (and sometimes deviating) deductions and interpretations from what has been mentioned in the sources. Your such method has two flaws. First you choose a specific period (let's say Babur's period) and you try to generalize that for the whole Middle Age which covers almost 1000 years; while the boundary of Khorasan was flexible and was determined according to the empires in the both sides (in the north-west and in the south-east; for example between Safavids and Mughals). That's why historians have coined the terms "proper Khorasan" and "improper Khorasan". Khorasan was strictly used for the regions surrounding four cities (Balkh, Herat, Merv and Nishapur) i.e. Proper Khorasan; but it was also used for the regions lying between the Caspian Sea and Badakhshan, and between Transoxiana and Sindh River. The same is the case for the frontier of Hindustan, but mostly - as you explained it well - it was until the Sindh River.

Secondly, you cannot base a very important claim on a single map. The map can show anything, but it is you who is making a personal deduction from what has been shown and then you write "Afghanistan was called Sindh". In the original source, it only says "The Califate in 750", and then you put this in the map: Map showing Ancient Persia in light yellowish and the the land called Sind (most of today's Afghanistan and part of Pakistan) in pinkish" and you totally ignore to mention "Khorasan". This is called using the source to show something else. And you still have to prove your claim (Afghanistan was called Sindh)!! This single map cannot be used a reference. If your claim is true, then you undoubtedly will be able to find academic and reliable books which mention this clearly.

Wikipedia should have a Neutral point of view. All the facts and historical accounts should be reported as what they are. You cannot modify, change or twist a historical account in order to consider the cultural, religious or ethnical sensitivities of a specific group of people. I am Muslim, and you are free to write how Sultan Mahmud of Ghazna conquered India and destroyed the temples; you have to report them soundly and authentically, based on reliable sources. The same way applies to the case of Khorasan. We have to report what is authentic and factural; we cannot be biased and partial due to the sensitiveness of a specific ethnic group.

As to the Khorasan, Britannica and EI are very clear. Britannica writes: The historical region extended, along the north, from the Amu Darya (Oxus River) westward to the Caspian Sea and, along the south, from the fringes of the central Iranian deserts eastward to the mountains of central Afghanistan. Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India. Let's see what Britannica says about "Historical India/Hindustan" and where was the frontier limit of India in order to determine the are of Khorasan:

historically, northern India, in contrast to the Deccan, or southern India. This area can be defined more particularly as the basin of the five Punjab rivers and the upper Indo-Gangetic Plain.. (Indo-Gangetic Plain: extensive north-central section of the Indian subcontinent, stretching westward from (and including) the combined delta of the Brahmaputra River valley and the Ganges (Ganga) River to the Indus River valley.) (and you yourself affirmed the point ("At that point and on "Hind" only referred to the land on the east of the Indus River (modern day Punjab/India and beyond, etc)")).

So Khorasan's boundaries stretched to the Indus River or Indus valley, which covers and includes all of present-day Afghanistan..

The Encyclopaedia of Islam writes:: In pre-Islamic and early Islamic times, the term “Khurassan” frequently had a much wider denotation, covering also parts of what are now Soviet Central Asia and Afghanistan; early Islamic usage often regarded everywhere east of western Persia, sc. Djibal or what was subsequently termed 'Irak 'Adjami, as being included in a vast and ill-defined region of Khurasan, which might even extend to the Indus Valley and Sind. (So Khorasan covered almost all of Afghanistan !) ... To the south, there lies an extensive region of landlocked deserts and salt flats, such as the Dasht-i Kawir, the Dasht-i Lut and the Hilmand basin of Sistan.

I think these two sources are more than enough to prove what I was saying: much of Afghanistan was part of Khorasan. Now if you are not accepting these direct and explicit citations from Britannica and Encyclopaedia of Islam, and you're trying to deviate the whole discussion to another angle, I'm sorry my friend, I don't have that much free time to loose. The sources are clear and direct. Cabolitæ (talk) 09:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Like everyone else my edits are never perfect, so when you come across these things it's not that I do that for a purpose, and all that is part of editing. I'll try to make it short. I have read the Britannica and EI on Khorasan but there is not much help there. What you're doing is like someone searching for a needle in a haystack. If you are that serious about this you gonna have to dig in primary sources and look for clues there. Before I talk about Sind again, do you accept that Hindus (people of Indian race) lived in the country of Kabul, Ghazni and Kandahar? And do you accept that they lived in this area between 305 BC to the 11th century? If the answer is yes, then you shouldn't have a problem accepting the name Sind along with the map. I've explained that Sind and Hind are the same, Persians called it in their language Hind but the people of India used to called it Sind. Hindu in that period of history was a term used for anyone who was a non-Persian and Hinduism is not one religion but a combination of many. All non-Muslims were called by Arabs and Persians as Hindus. The following are references to help you understand around where did the Persian territory end and where the Indian territory began, it's just like shown in that map.

• The first invasion we read of was in the time of 'Abdu-llah, governor of 'Irák, on the part of the Khalif 'Usmán. He was directed by the Khalif to send an emissary to explore the provinces of Hind;...'Abdu-r Rahmán advanced to the city of Zaranj, and besieged the Marzabán, or Persian governor, in his palace, on the festival of the 'Íd. The governor solicited peace, and submitted to pay a tribute of two millions of dirhams and two thousand slaves. After that, 'Abdu-r Rahmán subdued the country between Zaranj and Kish, which was then styled Indian territory, and the tract between Ar-Rukhaj (Arachosia) and the province of Dáwar—in which latter country he attacked the idolaters in the mountain of Zúr, who sued for peace; and though he had with him 8,000 men... In the same expedition, Bust was taken. After this, 'Abdu-r Rahmán advanced to Zábul, and afterwards, in the time of Mu'áwiya, to Kábul.* The year in which this inroad was made is not mentioned, but as 'Abd-ulla was removed from his government in 36 A.H., we may consider it to have taken place about the year 35. [62]

What that quote says is that southwestern Afghanistan all the way to it's center around Kabul was all Indian territory and the population was polythiest praying to Hindu idols, and Britannica is refering to this exact place where it mention "Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India". Below is another reference to help you with understanding the geography of the area

• The letter which Anandpál wrote to Amír Mahmúd, at the time enmity existed between them, is much to be admired. ‘I have heard that the Turks have invaded your dominions, and have spread over Khurásán; if you desire it, I will join you with 5,000 cavalry, 10,000 infantry, and 100 elephants, but if you prefer it, I will send my son with twice the number. In making this proposal, I do not wish to ingratiate myself with you. Though I have vanquished you, I do not desire that any one else but myself should obtain the ascen­dancy.’ This prince was a determined enemy of the Musulmáns from the time that his son, Nardajanpál, was taken prisoner; but his son was, on the contrary, well-disposed towards them.” [63]

The above statement is found in Al-Biruni's Táríkhu-l Hind (history of Hind (Sind)) and includes Afghanistan. So, after seeing these evidences I disagree with your view about all of present-day Afghanistan being Khorasan and I hope you also learned something from this research.--Jrkso (talk) 11:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think we have stop the discussion here, if not, we will start another whole discussion. The people who lived in Afghanistan before the arrival of Muslims were people of the Iranian and Aryan race. The fact that they were Buddhists or Hindus by religion, does not make them become "Indians by race". That's as illogical as to say that all those who are muslims are arabs. The presence of Buddhism before the arrival of Islam in Afghanistan is undoubtedly correct, but calling those people "as of Indian race" is incorrect, and I don't want to start another whole discussion. Let's finish it here. Cabolitæ (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed a dubious claim regarding an alleged letter by Alexander the Great in which he praises the present inhabitants of Afghanistan. That information is given by only one author (who happens to be Afghan) and cannot be found in any other sources. It is, so far, unknown to the EI and EIr. I think a much better source is needed for that! Personally, I consider it forgery. It is just a claim made by the author without any valid proofs. Tajik (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

In such cases you shouldn't remove sourced info, but you're free to add a dubious tag or an additional source needed tag. Further, you shouldn't judge written-work based on nationality or ethnicity. It took Alexander about 3 years to move his army from Bactria (Central Asia / northern Afghanistan) to reach the Indus Valley (or Indus River) and that is well documented, so I believe that the letter is true. It is also documented that Alexander did send letter(s) to his mother. I'm restoring this info and will add a citation needed tag.--Jrkso (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It is totally irrelevant what you believe. And it is my right - and it is the best for Wikipedia - to doubt dubious authors who are not regarded experts. If there is such a letter, then it should be no problem to find a good and reliable source. Even if you google that claim, you either find that one author or clones of the Wikipedia articles using it. Wikipedia is not about posting nonsense and then asking all others to accept such a nonsense. It is about giving accurate information and using accurate sources for it (and in case you do not know it: an "accurate source" is not the same as "random book on google.books"). If you are not able to find accurate, reliable, academic sources for it, then that information will be removed. That easy. So please: before you restore that false and fabricated claim, at least try to find a REAL source. If you are not able to find a single academic to support your claims, you should not bother us with such a nonsense. Tajik (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Alexander didn't speak English so the quotation is the author's own interpretation of what Alexander has written to his mother in Greek language. To me the author and the book qualify as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. If you think it isn't so then take the issue to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. By the way, the author of this book is not from Afghanistan but from India. On the issue of the survey you re-added, that is considered Wikipedia:Original research.--Jrkso (talk) 01:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing is extereme POV-pushing and WP:OR. Although I asked you to provide a RELIABLE source, you stubbornly persist on your opinion that the one author - apparently the ONLY one who makes such a claim - is a "reliable source". In fact, you are not even able to prove that the author is an expert (is he an expert on history? has he studies Greek? has he seen and translated that letter personally?). I will ask an admin, and I will get that fabricated nonsense out of this article. But you stance in here proves that you are an extreme POV pusher. I have tagged the article because of your aggressive POV-pushing, your unscholarly and ethno-centric propaganda, and the fact that you actually believe to "own" this article. Tajik (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you attacking me? It was there for a long time. I only didn't like to see you delete something without giving a good reason. Your reason so far is not good. The author whether you like him or not is a reliable source. If you disagree I told you take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and let others decide whether it is or not. This is how things work, it will save you all that frustration. I happen to trust the source, and you need to realise that it is only you who turned against it.--Jrkso (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

See my notes further below. You are falsifying sources. That is something that should be solved here. If this discussion does not work out, then we will have to take it to the next level, i.e. asking the community for help. I am asking you for the 3rd time: why do you consider that author who is a total no-name and whose claims are not supported by ANY serious scholar a "reliable source"? He makes a claim without giving any further explanation. That claim cannot be supported by any standard reference work or by any other scholarly work. You are refusing to provide us with further information and you are refusing to provide any information regarding the author. Is he an expert on Afghanistan?! And since this is about Alexander: is the author an expert on Greek history or language?! And why did you falsify a source in order to "prove" your claims?! Why are you not able to find a valid work to support your POV?! Tajik (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrkso is inserting wrong information in the article. And to make his edits look "sourced", he is actually violating WP:OR by selectively quoting and linking unrelated sources. For example, he stubbornly sticks to the fabricated claim that in an alleged letter (which seems to be completely unknown to real scholars), Alexander called the inhabitants of modern Afghanistan "lions". To mislead the readers, he links this fabricated nonsese to another quote which has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. From that source, he selectively picks a few words which suite him, totally falsifying the message. Here is the original quote from the book:

• The importance of this particular route has always been minimal because of the harsh conditions along the way. Alexander the Great followed this rout in the opposite direction, thereby almost losing his life and his army. (The Afghans; Vogelsang, Willem; 2002; p. 11)

It is very obvious that the author is talking about the harsh geographic conditions, i.e. the hot and rough desert terrain south of the Hindu Kush in which Alexander and his army almost died on his way back to Iran from India (they had no water in the desert of Makran and Gedrosia). It is mentioned in the article Alexander the Great in the section Alexander_the_great#Indian_campaign. Jrkso, on the other hand, selectively picks the last part of the information, and turns it into this:

• Almost losing his life and his army, Alexander is believed to have described in a letter to his mother the inhabitants of what is now Afghanistan as lion-like brave people: "I am involved in the land of a 'Leonine' (lion-like) and brave people, where every foot of the ground is like a wall of steel, confronting my soldier. You have brought only one son into the world, but everyone in this land can be called an Alexander." —Interpretation of Alexander's words by contemporary writer, Abdul Sabahuddin

He falsifies the source, making it look like "lion-like Afghans almost killed Alexander and his army". That is POV-pushing, source-falsification, and original research at its worst! And Jrkso also fails to provide any information regarding Abdul Sabahuddin. Who is this guy?! What are his sources for this alleged letter?! Is this guy a scholar and expert on Afghanistan's history?! Does he know Greek and is he an expert on Greek history or language?! And why is Jrkso stubbornly claiming that this man is a reliable source, although the fabricated nonsense regarding that alleged letter cannot be found in any scholarly source?!

I have tagged the article, because Jrkso is propagating wrong and falsified information, his own POV, and because he is violating WP:OR and Wikipedia's rules on reliable sources! Tajik (talk) 14:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to relax a bit. I added the new sentence to let readers know that Alexander was having real hard times in this region. There is a comma after "Almost losing his life and his army", that happened after he won the great war with Persia. Then it continues to say that he is believed to have wrote to his mother a letter describing the inhabitants... You should do a good research on this before you start calling the letter a bogus. Have you seen the 2004 Alexander (film)?--Jrkso (talk) 19:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

In any way, it is wrong information. And the comma does not change the meaning - it is clear that you are trying to mislead the reader. Most of all, because the area in question is the Makran desert - now located in Pakistan and not in Afghanistan. I am asking you once again: provide information about the author and prove that the letter is real and not fabricated. The reason why you fail to do so is because I am right: the letter is just a fabrication, and you are stubbornly insisting to keep it in the article because that nonsense supports your POV. And please do not come up with movies. If you want to know more about Alexander, go and read a good book by a real scholar. Alexander had many problems, actually he had the toughest time in Sogdiana - in present-day Uzbekistan - where a large Greek army was totally destroyed by Spitamenes. All of that was neither located in what is now Afghanistan, nor had it anything to do with Afghanistan. And neither did the long march of Alexander through the Makran desert (modern Pakistani Beluchistan) in which many Greeks died of thirst. Your edits are not only irrelevant, but also misleading and using falsified sources. Tajik (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The movie question was off topic, I was just wondering if you saw it. I laugh when you direct me to another Wikipedia article, especially when your are questioning a reliable good book. Did Alexander fly over Afghanistan? How did he get from Uzbekistan to Pakistan? Was mountainous Afghanistan at that time a flat ground and uninhabited? The Wiki articles about Alexander's conquests don't mention locations of Afghanistan, only Kandahar. So yeah, let's not use Wiki as a reference in this dicussion. The info in the book you have difficulty with can easily be checked, send an email to them. Contact info is here--Jrkso (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For someone who sticks to a fabricated fairy-tale about an alleged letter and fails to provide any reliable (!) source for that, you should not laugh at others - especially not when at the same time you try to prove your point by hinting at a Hollywood movie (!). The path of Alexander is well known - especially his way back from India. The only one in here who does not get it is very obviously you. That's why you are selectively quoting from irrelevant passages and linking those quotes to fabricated claims. So, again, for the 4th or 5th time, I am asking you to either come up with a really good and reliable source for the "Afghans are lions" claim or at least provide some useful information regarding the author (and I mean the AUTHOR; not the publishing house), or the fabricated nonsense that you are trying to propagate as a gospel will be removed. Tajik (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

And by the way: it is not my job to send an email to a publishing house and ask them if any info written by an author is reliable or not. It is your job to provide the community with reliable information and sources. If it were the other way around, then anyone could write nonsense and then force the community to figure out if the information is right or wrong. If you fail to provide valid sources or if you fail to provide relevant information regarding the author (the simple fact that you are totally unable to find ANYTHING about the author is already the best proof that the source is not reliable; if the author were an expert or a reliable source, it would have been very easy to find a biography or information regarding his qualification!), then the community has the right to remove it. So, if you defend this fabricated nonsense, it is YOUR JOB to write an email to that publishing house, find information about the author, and then PROVE that he is a reliable source. I'll give you one more chance, then I will take it to next level, and I will promise you that this nonsense will be removed with the support of admins. See it as a benevolent move on my side: I want to spare you and embarrassing moment which could hurt your reputation as a reliable contributor. :-) Tajik (talk) 22:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't call the letter a fabrication when you have no clue. If you're lazy to do a research why don't you just say so? That way I can help you with this. Let's see.. A. Sabahuddin cited these sources as references in his book and I think that's where he found the mention of Alexander's letter to his mother. It makes no sense why Sabahuddin would make this up, so it's gotta be true. If you hold your horses maybe we'll be able to find where Sabahuddin got the letter info from. By the way, as you may know that there was no Pakistan in 330 BC, the area west of the Indus valley was Arachosia and its people were eastern Iranian tribes (Pactyans) that would be ancestors of today's Afghan tribes.--Jrkso (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have to laugh. You want us to believe your word and that of the no-name author as gospel, because you think (= you do not know!) that he took that letter from one of the sources he has mentioned?! If it is that easy, why don't you just give the source?! So far, you consider it to be such an important information that you almost started an editwar. And now you are defending it with weaselwords, while constantly failing to provide it with a valid source. That not only shows that you have absolutely no clue, but your work is totally unencyclopedic. And when faced with valid questions and asked to provide reliable sources, you come up with more weaselwords. That's it. I am taking this to admins. I hope you can come up with better than your weaselwords. And you certainly have to understand that - according to Wikipedia - it is the duty of the author to provide valid and reliable sources (and to prove that the sources are reliable) and not that of the community. If the author (= you) is not able to come up with good sources, then the community (which includes myself) has the right to remove it. Tajik (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Unreliable_source_and_falsification_of_sources_by_User:Jrkso, I am removing this nonsense. As pointed out by User:Paul Barlow, "it's palpable nonsense" and "there are no letters written by Alexander surviving". And he also states that "misrepresenting sources is a blockable offence" that could be taken to WP:ANI. Tajik (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I was very surprised to see Alexander the Great talking about a wall of steel. As far as I'm aware his army used bronze weapons and iron was too precious to be used in war. He'd have talked about men of bronze or as hard as diamonds or something like that I'd have thought. Is there a mistranslation or is this all made up? Dmcq (talk) 13:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso, could you please explain this edit?! Why is it a "correction"?! And why do you still claim that the poll was only conducted in Kabul while the survey explicitly states the collective includes people from 32 of 34 provinces?! Besides that, The Asia Foundation conducted only one survey while BBC/ARD/NBC evaluated data from 2004 to 2009. So again: which part of your edit is a "correction"?! Tajik (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• The percentages you made were incorrect and I made appropiate corrections. Low and high numbers from all the years (2004-2009) must be added.
• The sources state location: "Kabul". The Afghans were face to face interviewed in their provinces but field work was done by the Afghan Center for Socio-Economic and Opinion Research in Kabul. I don't think that's important, in the Asia Foundation survey it states in the Preface: "...The instability and frequent fighting in some provinces caused a few sampling points to be adjusted or replaced to keep interviewers out of areas with active violence"...
• This is the Asia Foundation percentages for 2006 = D-8.* Which ethnic group do you belong to? SINGLE RESPONSE ONLY Pashtun 41%, Tajik 37%, Uzbek 9%, Hazara 9%, Turkmen 2%, Baloch 1%, Nuristani 0%, Aimak 0%, Arab 1%, Pashaye 0%, Other 0%. (Source: page, 128)
• The results of the 2004-2009 surveys are as follow:
• Ethnicity: 1/12/09 - 11/7/07 - 10/19/06 - 10/18/05 - 3/13/04
• Pashtun 40 - 38 - 42 - 40 - 46
• Tajik 37 - 38 - 37 - 37 - 39
• Hazara 11 - 6 - 12 - 13 - 6
• Uzbek 7 - 6 - 5 - 6 - 6
• Turkmen 2 - 2 - 3 - 1 - 1
• Noristani 1 - 4 - 0 - 0 - 0
• Baloch 1 - 3 - 0 - 0 - 0
• Kirghiz 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
• Aimak * 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
• Arab 2 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
• Other 0 - 1 - 1 - 3 - 3
• No opinion * - 2 - * - * - 0

You have used these numbers (40.9%, 37.1%, 9.2%, 9.2%, 1.7%, 0.5%, 1.3%) but no where are these mentioned in the survey reports.--Jrkso (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining to us that your claim, that the survey was conducted in Kabul only, is wrong. You should restore the original version! Secondly, the numbers I used were average numbers. Feel free to calculate them - you will get the same numbers. So nothing wrong about that. But isn't it interesting that 5 different representative polls in the course of 5 years reproduce almost exactly the same numbers?! And yet you still claim that these representative surveys are "unreliable". Sorry, but the only thing that is unreliable is your contribution to Wikipedia. Tajik (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't average them, just put in the figures from the latest one and then the citation will correspond with the data. Dmcq (talk) 00:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is "representative surveys" mentioned? They call them "opinion polls" and that is exactly what they are. How are 40-38-42-40-46, 11-6-12-13-6, and 1-4-0-0-0 almost exactly the same? My contribution to Wikipedia is not much but the little that I did is all nothing but improvements made.--Jrkso (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That looks much better with the ranges, one should report what one gets. And that's why there is variation. the 13 to 6 variation is larger than I'd expect and I'd hope they investigate it but the rest is fairly normal. The bit about representative sample is given in the preface of the Asia Foundation one which also properly describes the methodology if you are interested. One's ethnicity is largely an opinion at this fine detail. Dmcq (talk) 08:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why the Aimak comes out as 0-0-0-0-0, they are 4% according to the CIA and according to latest Naval Postgraduate School Provincial Overview: "The best estimates of the Aimak population in Afghanistan hover around 1-2 million." map here out of 28 million total population of the nation. Another way to determine Afghanistan's ethnic composition is through the nation's vote counts. See Afghan presidential election, 2004#Results. Majority Afghans generally vote for their own tribal leader (i.e. Hazaras vote for Hazara leader, Uzbeks vote for own Uzbek, Tajiks vote for Tajik, etc.)--Jrkso (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The link you mention is original research, and looking at those presidential election figures is quite clearly too weak to be of any use in the way you suppose. Dmcq (talk) 20:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice the article on the Aimak say between 250,000 and 2 million, and perhaps more importantly that they are counted as Tajik in the NPS census. It may be that many of them self-identified as Tajik when asked. You can always send an email to ask though the result can't be put in the main article it could give some explanation in the talk page. Dmcq (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're saying by "The link you mention is original research". The 250,000 and 2 million in the article Aimak comes from Naval Postgraduate School, the same link I posted above:[64]

Chapter 1, article 4 of the current Constitution of Afghanistan and the current National Anthem of Afghanistan both mention Aimak as a separate ethnic group. They are also mentioned as a separate ethnic group in all major sources such as CIA World Factbook, Library of Congress Country Studies, Encyclopedia Britannica, Encyclopedia Iranica, etc. You said "may be that many of them self-identified as Tajik when asked", that's your opinion only and we can't go by that. If that was the case at least one or 2 would have self-identified themselves as Aimak but all we see is 5 zeros. This is another reason that the opinion polls are unreliable.--Jrkso (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The link between votes for the president and statistics of the population is original research. And from your statistics it is obviously not strong enough to be any use as an estimate. Dmcq (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

As to why they got low figures I suggested you email them. That would be far better than you engaging in original research and bringing in irrelevancies. I suggested one reason, that doesn't mean I know the answer or that is the only possible answer. There are not five zeroes and the accuracy of the survey was said to be plus or minus 2.5%. Dmcq (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Email them? Hahaha. This is not a place to joke around. The simple thing for you is to say "I don't know". Do you realize that I'm only defending the CIA's estimation with the Afghan presidential election, 2004#Results? Afghanistan is divided between ethnic lines, it always has been like this, and in most cases every ethnic group votes for their own kind. The reason why Hamid Karzai got over 55% is because his running mates were a Tajik and a Hazara which helped him pull some Tajik and Hazara votes.--Jrkso (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso's suggestion to estimate the population statistics by voters' count in national political polls is POV and OR. First of all, because candidates are NOT solely voted by a single ethnic group. In the 2004 election, for example, some 40% of Tajik voters had voted Hamid Karzai. While the Pashtun vote was in fact overwhelmingly for Karzai, the Non-Pashtun votes were much less ethno-centric. Back then, the Washington Times reported:

In the current parliamentary 2010 election, on the other hand, Karzai has also lost support among Pashtuns, while Tajik and Hazara candidates made big wins. It is estimated that the Tajik fraction won at least 20% more than in the previous election - that is way more than the estimated 27% of the population. In Ghazni province, all 11 seats were won by Hazara candidates, although - according to official statistics - Pashtuns are some 50% of the population of that province. See this article. Tajik (talk) 10:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The Afghan presidential election, 2004#Results in which over 8 million Afghans voted speaks for itself, opinions are not required. Eveything is not about Pashtun and Tajik, my suggestion was to focus on the smaller groups and work your way up. For example, the Uzbeks and Hazaras got 10% votes each, and if you look at the latest CIA percentages for these 2 ethnic groups they are 9% each. The 16% Qanooni recieved is 11% (40%) lower than then total CIA 27% for the Tajik ethnic group so yes some of the Tajik population (40%) voted for Karzai and others. Some non-Tajiks also voted for Qanooni. The current political situation is alot different because the majority of Afghans didn't vote, and the result of these few votes cannot tell us anything. The Taliban are Pashtuns and they made the majority of Afghans not vote.--Jrkso (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What you do is simply POV and OR. And, like always, you only take the numbers that fit your POV. Going by your logic, then how do you explain Karzai's 54% in 2004?! 84% of Pashtuns voted for him, 40% of Tajiks voted for him, 21% of Hazaras voted for him, and so did 16% of Uzbeks. And yet, he still had only 54%. Going by this, and considering that almost 90% of Pashtuns voted for him (while Pashtun votes being some 50% of Karzai's entire vote), that would mean that the Pashtun population of Afghanistan is ca. 1/2 of Karzai's 54%, some 25%. Do you agree with that?! Tajik (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

In my above message I'm defending the CIA's estimation, which are widely used by everyone everywhere. Even the Afghan government which is made up of all ethnic groups accepts the CIA's estimation and agrees with it. So stop calling this a POV and an OR. You, on the other hand, found opinion polls and try to use them, but these opinion polls only tell us the ethnicity of around 7,000 people and Afghanistan's population is around 28 million. I just told you that the Afghan presidential election, 2004#Results speaks for itself and no need to go further with that. Your argument is based on surveys but mines is on the actual outcome of over 8 million voters. In Wikipedia we use what experts (official government, CIA, Library of Congress, scholars, etc.) say about the ethnic groups, and they all say Tajiks are 27%. You are the only one disagreeing with these experts. I don't want to proceed with this argument.--Jrkso (talk) 04:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

No one has said that using the figures from the CIA's World factbook was OR, quite the opposite their inclusion has never been disputed. The problem is they don't seem to have tried to actually collect the relevant figures where others have so the others should be included too. As to emailing I suggested you contacted the compilers of a survey if you had doubts about a figure they gave. What has been called OR is you trying to use the election figures to estimate something else. There is nothing funny about asking the compilers of a survey about their figures, they are normally perfectly happy to answer anyone who is interested and asks politely. Dmcq (talk) 08:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The CIA estimation is based on academic researches. [65] "where others have so"? Asking 7,220 people about their ethnicity is not a reliable way for figuring out the ethnicity of 28 million people. I keep repeating to you that the opinion polls were conducted only to see if whether the American-designed democracy was working in Afghanistan or not and you are using these polls to estimate the ethnicity of 28 million people. This is wrong and you know it. Telling a Wikipedia editor to email Asia Foundation, NBC, BBC, and ARD media groups is very funny to many of us. We can't use email replies as proof even if I hear something from them. So far it's just you and Tajik who keep sticking to these polls and this is getting boring.--Jrkso (talk) 11:59, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dmcq. I have the impression that Jrkso simply does not want to understand ... Tajik (talk) 10:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already explained that how accurate a poll is does not depend on the size of the original population but on the sample size. Whether the population of Afghanistan is 1 million 20 million or 300 thousand million does not affect how good a sample is, what affects its reliability is how big the sample is, how representative it is and how well the questions are phrased. This is a reliable way of finding out the figures. I know a lot of people who have no mathematical training think the original population size matters but it does not. The CIA figures are included because cutting them out on the grounds of unreliability would be original research even though it is obvious from their returns saying 50% or 30% for regions that they just stuck their finger in the air and never did a proper survey. I wasn't suggesting you put an email in the article, in fact I said it could not be put in as it would be original research. It would only be eligible if it was in a reliable source. I suggested that because you were querying a reliable source and Wikipedia is not the place to ask for answers like that. If you want an answer why not ask them? Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso: first of all, it would be very helpful if you stopped putting your answers in the middle of the discussion, ignoring the chronology. Just write your answers at the bottom of each discussion. Readers and participants are not dumb!

Secondly, it is totally irrelevant what the main purpose of those opinion polls was. Because that does not define the quality or reliability of a poll. What matters is the questions asked. And when it comes to ethnicity, there is only one relevant question: what is your ethnicity? And that question was asked. In this regard, it does not matter how many other questions were asked. Even if 1000 questions in the poll were about the color of houses in Afghanistan, if that one specific question is asked in the poll and if the answer is given, then it is reliable. Do you think the outcome of the poll would have been any different if the majority of the questions asked were about ethnicity?! It would not have changed anything, the result would have been the same. And that is exactly why these polls are a reliable. I do not blame you for not understanding the simple fact that as long as the sample questioned has a proper size (and 6500 people is very acceptable), then it does not matter what the population of the country is. You do not understand this because (and that is very obvious) you lack basic mathematical knowledge and understanding. In this case, I do not think that you are the best person to judge that. It should be left to people who understand the mathematical base of opinion polls. Tajik (talk) 15:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

User:JCAla's edits are unencyclopedic and very confusing to follow. He's a new editor who filled the 1979-present history with his own personal thoughts and all that needs to be re-written. He created 3 separate articles for the 1992-1996 Afghan civil war. The section titled "Islamic State, Foreign Intrusion, Civil War and Taliban Emirate" needs a better name. Everytime I fix this area of history he reverts my contributions so I left it for someone else to get involved in this. Thanks. To JCAla, please don't remove the tags until this is resolved.--Jrkso (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't really followed User:JCAla's edits, but I find the title of the section a bit too long. I think only "Civil war and Taliban emirate" would be completely enough. But the creation of three sub-sections, I think, is totally appropriate. As to his edits, if there are any major unsourced POV-edits - according to you, - you can point them out in the talk page for the discussion. Cabolitæ (talk) 14:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be very helpful for you to stop lying, Jrkso. I never created any article on wikipedia. What Jrkso has been claiming (also elsewhere) is that I created the following three articles:

• Civil war in Afghanistan (1989-1992)
• Civil war in Afghanistan (1992–1996)
• Civil war in Afghanistan (1996–2001)

That is obviously nonsense. I contributed to them but others created them. Now his claims have become even more bizarre with him claiming I'd created three articles for the 1992-1996 period alone (when I never created even one).

As for the Afghanistan article, we had very good names for the sections until Jrkso kept putting many sections into one which makes it complicated to find an appropriate title. Although I think the long title is factually the most correct I shortened it to "Foreign Intrusion and Civil War" since that is a correct description for the whole 1992-2001 period. As Jrkso was not able to point out - what he claims are - unsourced edits made by me I am removing the nonsense tags. If people are interested in my sources (I already provided tens of times to User:Jrkso) I am going to put some of them below. Jrkso is not interested in sources however but instead in ignoring them so he can continue misleading. My sources with page numbers regarding the issues Jrsko has been disputing the last months by starting edit wars are the following:

For the 1996-2001 period:

• Human Rights Watch

"Official denials notwithstanding, Pakistan ... has openly encouraged the recruitment of Pakistanis to fight for the 
Taliban. ... Pakistani aircraft assisted with troop rotations of Taliban forces during combat operations in late 2000 and 
that senior members of Pakistan's intelligence agency and army were involved in planning military operations." 

• George Washington University National Security Archive:

1996
"Similar to the October 22, 1996 Intelligence Information Report (IIR), this IIR reiterates how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily 
involved in Afghanistan," but also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan 
uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies 
that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary - combat."

1998
"According to a variety of Pakistani officials and journalists, including Ahmed Rashid, Pakistan has "regressed to a point 
where it is as hard-line as ever in favor of the Taliban." Pakistani government officials have given up "the pretense of 
supporting the U.N. effort," and have become unabashedly pro-Taliban. ... The cable speculates the spike in pro-Taliban 
Pakistani feeling can be attributed to the political fallout of recent nuclear testing and increased regional tension. These 
developments have increased Pakistan's need for a pro-Pakistan, anti-India regime in Kabul."

"Taliban ranks furthermore continue to be filled with Pakistani nationals (an estimated 20-40 percent of Taliban soldiers  
are Pakistani according to the document), which further solidifies Pakistan-Taliban relations, even though this does not 
indicate not outward or official Pakistani government support." 

"The parents of ... know nothing regarding their child's military involvement with the Taliban "until their bodies are 
brought back to Pakistan."

1999
"Pakistan's alliance with the Taliban is stronger than Iran or Russia with Massoud ..."

2000
"... in September 2000 an alarmed U.S. Department of State observes that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been 
long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented." 

"[The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight 
for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct 
Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased."

For the 1992-1996 period:

• Human Rights Watch: Blood Stained Hands(2005) (see the pdf version for page numbers):

p16
During most of the period discussed in this report, the sovereignty of Afghanistan was
vested formally in “The Islamic State of Afghanistan,” an entity created in April 1992,
after the fall of the Soviet-backed Najibullah government. ...
With the exception of Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami, all of the parties listed above were
ostensibly unified under this government in April 1992 ...
Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami, for its part, refused to recognize the government for most
of the period discussed in this report and launched attacks against government forces
and Kabul generally.

p34
Numerous Iranian agents were assisting Wahdat forces, as Iran was
attempting to maximize Wahdat’s military power and influence in the new government.
Saudi agents of some sort, private or governmental, were trying to strengthen Sayyaf and
his Ittihad faction to the same end.
Rare ceasefires, usually negotiated by Jamiat commanders [Massoud's party], representatives of Mujaddidi
or Rabbani, or officials from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC),
commonly collapsed within days.

p39
Hekmatyar continued to refuse to join the government. Hekmatyar’s Hezb-e Islami forces increased their
rocket and shell attacks on the city. Shells and rockets fell everywhere.

• Amin Saikal (2006): Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival; I. B. Tauris ("One of the "Five Best" Books on Afghanistan" according to the Wall Street Journal) (the parts of the book can be viewed here):

p204
Despite repeated warnings by serious analysts of Afghan politics, and by the British government form 1986 on, Washington 
continuously turned a blind eye to the ISI’s transfer of a lion’s share of its arms to Hekmatyar. 

p211
Sayyaf ... was strongly backed by Saudi Arabia, whose agenda was to disseminate its primarily anti-Iranian Wahhabi Islam, given 
Saudi Arabia’s traditional claim of leadership of Sunni Islam against Iran’s promotion of Shia Islam. ...

Combat units affiliated with this party [by that Saikal is now referring to Wahdat not Sayyaf] were often directly linked to 
particular religious leaders in Iran and were supervised by Iranian intelligence officers who knew (or cared) little about … 
politics in Afghanistan. 

p220
Pakistan was keen to gear up for a breakthrough in Central Asia. ... Islamabad could not possibly expect the new Islamic  
government leaders, especially Massoud (who had always maintained his independence from Pakistan), to subordinate their own 
nationalist objectives in order to help Pakistan realize its regional ambitions. ... Had it not been for the ISI’s logistic 
support and supply of a large number of rockets, Hekmatyar’s forces would not have been able to target and destroy half of Kabul.

• Roy Gutman (2008): How We Missed the Story: Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Hijacking of Afghanistan; United States Institute of Peace (the parts of the book can be viewed here):

p 54
Pakistan invited Dostum to Islamabad in an effort to draw him closer to Hekmatyar, and Iran’s deputy foreign minister made 
several trips to Afghanistan, attempting to draw Wahdat and Hekmatyar closer together.

For the Soviet war period (1979-1989):

• Roy Gutman (2008): How We Missed the Story: Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban and the Hijacking of Afghanistan; United States Institute of Peace (the parts of the book can be viewed here):

p30-31
After several weeks of surveying Afghan military commanders and politicians in Peshawar and Quetta, covering much of the same 
ground as McWilliams, [State Department's] Tomsen was convinced of the enormous and growing distrust [among Afghans] of Hekmatyar 
and his Pakistani patrons. ... And Tomsen, using his ambassadorial rank and privileges as special envoy, made it a practice to 
send cables from anywhere but Islamabad. Back in Washington, he marshaled the evidence, secured backings from conservatives (and 
some liberals) on Capitol Hill, and guided an interagency review that produced a new set of goals. Reviews are the place where 
policy changes. Tomsen feared that Hekmatyar might capture Kabul with ISI and Saudi support, thereby putting Pakistan in direct 
control of Afghanistan and changing the strategic balance in Central Asia. The new aim was "to break the monopoly of the ISI, and 
CIA support, of the extremists and to strengthen the moderates." The CIA would continue arming the rebel forces, but U.S. 
officials would try to sideline Hekmatyar, strengthen Massoud's role ... Tomsen would also encourage military commanders, the 
crucial figures in the anti-Soviet war who had been largely excluded from the ISI ... The ISI, with strong support from the CIA, 
was well along with a different plan ... 

p41
He [Massoud] saw the war as an Afghan national struggle, not a proxy war. This put him at odds with Pakistan, whose ISI was eager 
to influence the fighting and hoped to use the U.S. aid it distributed to further its own national agenda in Afghanistan.

p42
As Massoud went his own way Hekmatyar, with Pakistan's backing, did everything possible to thwart him. 

p43
In November 1982, after receiving intelligence of a "massive" Soviet offensive planned for midwinter ... he [Massoud] pleaded for 
weapons, cash and food, and, finally, for "the people to go to the mosques and pray for the success of the mujahideen". But the 
supplies did not arrive.

• Defense Intelligence Agency report provided by the George Washington University:

p2
Rather than allow the most gifted Afghan commanders and parties to flourish, who would be hard to control later, Pakistan  
preferred to groom the incompetent ones for the role of future leaders of Afghanistan. Being incompetent they would be fully 
reliant on Pakistan for support. The principal beneficiary of this policy was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. His credentials were that 
of an anti-western Islamic fundamentalist who reportedly boasted about throwing acid in the faces of women who did not wear 
the traditional all covering Afghan chadof at Kabul University. 

p3
In tandem with favoring the incompetent Hekmatyar over more enterprising and gifted commanders such as the Ahmad Shah Massoud, 
the Tadjik commander from Northern Afghanistan, Pakistan also encouraged, facilitated and often escorted Arabs from the Middle 
East into Afghanistan.” 

• Neamatollah Nojumi (2002): "The rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan", published by PALGRAVE some pages can be seen here:

p129
This situation led the ISI to act against any Mujahideen organization both inside and outside who wanted to run the war against 
the Soviets in accordance with Afghanistan interests.  

• Coll, Steve (2004): Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 9, 2001 (won the 2005 Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction) Book Excerpt: Ghost Wars

"In their dim meeting room, Schroen handed Massoud a piece of paper. It showed an estimate of just more than two thousand 
missiles provided by the CIA to Afghan fighters during the jihad. Massoud looked at the figure. "Do you know how many of 
those missiles I received?" He wrote a number on the paper and showed it to Schroen. In a very neat hand Massoud had written 
"8." "That was all," Massoud declared, "and only at the end of the fight against the communist regime."
Later, after Schroen reported his conversations by cable to several departments at headquarters, the CIA determined that 
Massoud was correct . It seemed incredible to some who had lived through the anti-Soviet Afghan War that Massoud could have 
received so few. He had been one of the war's fiercest commanders. Yet for complicated reasons, Pakistan's intelligence service, 
the CIA's partner in supplying the anti-Soviet rebels, distrusted Massoud and tried continually to undermine him. Massoud also 
had shaky relations with the Islamist political party that helped channel supplies to him. As a result, when the war's most 
important weapon system had been distributed to Afghan commanders, Massoud had received less than 1 percent, and this only 
at the very end of the conflict, in 1991."

• Also watch this video (although it is on youtube). There are real experts in it including Edmund McWilliams (former U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan), Professor Tom Johnson (U.S. Naval Postgraduate School), Senator Gordon Humphrey (R-NH, ret.) and others.

"The actual aid that was getting to the Panjshir and to Massoud was minimum. Nothing close to what Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and some 
of the other parties received." - Professor Tom Johnson (U.S. Naval Postgraduate School) at 1:10 into the video

These samples prove the validity of the information given by me. Any further tag adding by User:Jrkso should be correctly identified as vandalism. —JCAla (talk) 08 November 2010 (UTC)

All the above sources provided by User:JCAla are reliable and come from distinguished institutions and academic sources. I am not aware of the dispute or the discussion, but if the other party is trying to negate these sources by providing contrary sources from the Pakistani media and/or biased sources - which is very frequent in the discussions over political issues - then that's inappropriate. Cabolitæ (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please include some of these sources in the article where you have edited by writing over the connection between the Taliban and Pakistan. If such points are unsourced, anyone can remove them by considering them a POV or a false claim. Cabolitæ (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not sources, there are 10,000s of news reports, books, videos, and encyclopedia reports on the 1978-2010 history of Afghanistan and basically they all explain the same thing. I was saying that JCAla is presenting only selected details of the 1978-2010 history in here, but all of this belongs in the main articles. This article is about Afghanistan and the history should be told in a very brief way like in the articles of other nations. I've noticed that JCAla is furiously defending Northern Alliance-Iran and encyclopedia shouldn't be written that way. His edits are politically motivated, if he thinks he will gain anything good from this he's wrong. Afghanistan will remain one of the poorest and in civil war unless its citizens realize that they are destroying their own home. There is no unity among its people, it's impossible to see peace and prosperity without that. Each group is used as a proxy by neighboring countries and the Afghans always blame one another. This is an example of what happens to a country when it lacks unity. JCAla is blaming all the destruction and bad things on the non-Northern Alliance groups. At the same time he's making Northern Alliance the heros. He also defends Iran.--Jrkso (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso, your comment actually proves that you are the one with a political agenda. As you have correctly explained, this is an encyclopedia, and it should present relevant information in an appropriate and neutral way. It is not supposed to propagate "unity", "diversity", "democracy", "theocracy" or whatever. It is not supposed to bash Afghanistan's neighbors or to mobilize Afghanistan's population against neighboring countries. It has the sole purpose to educate, not to incept political ideas in the heads of Afghan readers. That's the part you have not understood yet. Tajik (talk) 04:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jrkso, your above post just proves your own personal political involvement and your false perception of the content of my edits. Everything I wrote is quite relevant for the specific periods and corresponds with the above provided sources. If - from those historic realities - you get the impression that someone is a hero or not then this is your subjective perception. If you think a relevant issue is still missing, then you are free to add it to the article - if and only if you correctly present a reliable source. Your frequent "source" rawa is not a reliable source. Until you do not have a specific point to dispute I ask you not to insert the tags again. And I ask the other editors if we can agree on removing the tags until Jrkso does not come up with a justified and specific point to dispute and discuss.

On a personal note, who exactly (according to you) are the "non-Northern Alliance" groups as you call them, Jrkso? —JCAla (talk) 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I tagged the article because This looks like something written by a 10 yr old kid. Let the tags remain until a neutral 3rd person edit the sections appropriately and I don't see a point in you removing these tags. You, Tajik, and Cabolitae do not qualify as neutral editors because you claim to be Afghans but you are acting more like Afghan bashers. You are defending the neigboring country of Iran and bashing Pakistan. I have told you before that you don't decide which source is unreliable. Something like that is determined at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard but you never took the RAWA issue there. My political agenda is to see a stabalized independent Afghanistan and its people living peacefully with each others and with all its neighbors. My edits here are only to improve the article on Afghanistan.--Jrkso (talk) 13:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jrkso that the writing style is absolutely horrible and unencyclopedic. Yet, the message should stay. What's needed is an acceptable wording. I suggest JCAla rewrites the section and tries to be more encyclopedic. As for the rest of Jrkso's comment: of course, it's pure nonsense, as always. He has a very clear political agenda (and he admits it), and it is in the best interest of Wikipedia to keep his POV out of the article. Tajik (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Keep your bizarre and false accusations to yourself, Jrkso. Your version of the sections was out of touch with reality plus outright misleading. You were the one to include Iran into the article by falsifying your own sources. I took a look at your sources and rewrote the article in accordance to what they really state. You can go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with RAWA, see what they tell you. My edits are factually correct and sourced very well. I agree that there was some unfortunate wording in the sections due to the long dispute, frequent changes and adjustments. I rewrote the sections and emphasized the direct quotes (to avoid further confusion over wording). The emphasizing of quotes can be undone if people think that it does not look that good. —JCAla (talk) 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not agree with you in this case, JCAla. The wording is still horrible and absolutely unencyclopedic. Sentences likes "Amin Saikal concludes in his book which was chosen by The Wall Street Journal as 'One of the "Five Best" Books on Afghanistan'" are totally irrelevant. You are trying too hard to make a point. Just leave out useless information and add the name of the book and a link to it in the references. "The Taliban imposed on the parts of Afghanistan under their control their interpretation of Islam. See an analysis by the Physicians for Human Rights." is another good example for this unencyclopedic wording and style. You should take some time and correct all of it. You should not expect others to correct the many styling mistakes you have inserted in the text. Please note that this is not about the message, but simply about the style of your writing. You should work harder to improve it. Tajik (talk) 21:06, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Tajik. I see nothing "horrible" in the version as it is right now. I do not think that a proper description of a source is "useless information" or "trying too hard to make a point". Most people do not know Amin Saikal nor his work. It is useful to classify the value of a work (since there are hundreds of books on Afghanistan). Nevertheless, for the sake of compromise, I rephrased it. As for "The Taliban imposed on the parts of Afghanistan under their control their interpretation of Islam. See an analysis by the Physicians for Human Rights." ... this wording was actually a compromise version. I had it written down in a clear and encyclopaedic way which made Jrkso contemplate that it was unnecessary information and too long. After a long dispute, as a compromise, it was shorted to what it is now. But, I see your point. That is why I made another overhaul of the "Foreign intrusion and civil war" section. A final one. Everything is sourced with reliable sources. There is no more "horrible" wording as you described it nicely. There is no need for me to take another look at the "Recent history" part. I checked everything I added to that section. If someone has a problem with sentences added by others everyone is free to rephrase. On a last note, I do not expect anyone to correct anything and sincerely think you should take a step back regarding what you believe are "many styling mistakes". Everyone should take care of their own spelling first. Having said that, I am grateful for your input since it made me think more carefully about wording.—JCAla (talk) 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If an author is unknown is unknown, then he is potentially unreliable. In any way, this article is about Afghanistan and not about certain authors. Please feel free to write an article about that author or to properly source the citations in the references. And when quoting, please try to use blockquote or cquote. I changed small parts of the two sections, I hope you do not mind. Tajik (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not mind. There already is an article on Amin Saikal on wikipedia. I do not think that a majority of readers knows the specific experts and frequent analysts on certain issues such as Amin Saikal. Yet, many of those experts are considered to be reliable. Is there an agreement on the current version now? Regards.—JCAla (talk) 16 November 2010 (UTC)