Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KP Botany (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 30 November 2006 (Excessive linking = linksmog). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.
To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.
Scope
This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Misplaced Pages, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.
Navigation
This WikiProject helps Misplaced Pages's navigation-related WikiProjects (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Misplaced Pages's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.
Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but
much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).
We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).
Goals
Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Misplaced Pages, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia)
The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the
like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The primary purpose of a Misplaced Pages lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article.
The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, and where. It should be in plain English.
The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting and naming disputes, may be dealt with in the etymology section. Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may also belong in the etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER.
Example:
Y Sweden, formally the Kingdom of Sweden, is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe. N Sweden,(Swedish: Sverige) formally the Kingdom of Sweden,(Swedish: Konungariket Sverige) is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, excessive numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. The lead prose should provide clear, relevant information through links to relevant sub-articles about the country an relevant terms, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.
There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.
Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. ]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.
The contents are as follows:
The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map
There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).
A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.
Comparison table of section sizes in country articles as a percentage of article size. Click image for latest data.
Articles may consist of the following sections:
Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).
References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links
Size
Graphic showing article quality, size, contentiousness, protection, and vital level. Click for live data.Shortcut
Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually 250 to 400 words as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles should be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for more recommended hatnote usages.
As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams that lack any context or explanation such as; economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.
As noted at Misplaced Pages:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.
Transclusions
Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.
Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.
{{excerpt}} and related templates may require using <noinclude>, <includeonly> and <onlyinclude> markup at the transcluded page to have selective content; that would require monitoring that the markup is sustained.
Excerpts cause editors to monitor transcluded pages for "section heading" changes to ensure transclusion continues to work. (To help mitigate this, see MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS)
Excerpts can result in content discussions over multiple talk pages that may have different considerations or objectives for readers.
Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).
For consistency with other Misplaced Pages articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Misplaced Pages articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.
Last week the Italian secretary of state of Foreign Affairs D'Alema said at an interview at Italian newspapers that the militairy ISAF-strategy doesn't work. They will organize a conference, about what they can change at this situation. The Italians think the unilateral attitude of the US is a wrong attitude. This I also discussed with NisarKand, see below. I think this is a very important topic, because the last months the number of casualties became 4 times as high as it was. And at my opinion, every casualty is a casualty too much, of course. Rob van Doorn12:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to ask Afghan people. Our soldiers, from the Netherlands, went to Afghanistan to help the Afghan people, to help with reconstruction, this was told to the soldiers and the people of the Netherlans by our government. But now, they are almost daily under attack, by what our government is telling "suspected Taliban fighters". Are our soldiers really welcome there, to help the Afghan people? All the news we get from there, is first controlled by our Ministry of Defence. THE BULK OF OUR TROOPS ARE AT URUZGAN, AT THE SOUTH. Do the people really want us to be there??? Rob van Doorn01:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC) (By the way, I am even interested in the point of view, of the people there, as what the government maybe wants.)
RE:Netherland troops in Uruzgan. As far as I know, the Netherland troops have a base in Uruzgan and yes they are involved in reconstruction of the province, and to help the local Afghan government in that province. I am sure the local Afghans there welcome them for helping but the attacks are not specifically aimed at Netherland troops only. These "suspected Taliban fighters" are trained to attack all NATO troops and all Afghan government forces throughout the country. Their aim is to see all foriegn troops withdraw from the country. NATO and Afghan forces, on the other hand, are hunting them down everywhere. Uruzgan is a very isolated province with no proper road connecting to nearby cities, so now there is a highway under construction linking the capital of Uruzgan, "Tarin Kot", with Kandahar city. There are several other major projects under construction in Uruzgan, which will benefit the local people from that area. For example, like health clinics, schools, water, electricity, government institutions and etc. I don't think the Afghan people are against such benefits.
The aim is that by 2010 Afghanistan as a whole will stand on its feet. This is due to the $10.5 billion dollars that was donated to Afghanistan at the London conference in February 2006, which will be spent slowly until 2010. So for the time being, these attacks will occurr here and there until the government of Afghanistan is strong enough to handle the security of their country. You must realize that the entire country is being rebuilt from scratch, and so far, things are going well. The faster the reconstruction work completes...the faster these attacks will end. From my own point of view, the longer NATO and US troops remain in the country...local people will simply start getting adjusted to their stay and attacks will slow down or start fading. In other words, people in the country will learn to live with them, as long as they see improvements in their daily lives. NisarKand23:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your clear answer. But day in day out we hear that the attacks of the Taliban at the British, Canadian and Dutch in Helmand, Kandahar and Uruzgan are getting worse. NATO commanders are asking much more troops, but member countries are unwilling to send them in. Also sometimes we hear, the Afghan army is well equiped, but this weekend at a Dutch newssite we heard the report of an independent traveling journalist, saying the Afghan army and police is not so well equiped. Many British (the majority at a poll), Canadians and Dutch want their troops out of there). It is a very difficult situation. Rob van Doorn19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC) (Also when you read the independent reprots of the Senlis Council, a think tank, their conclusion is the NATO/international strategy is failing at the south of Afghanistan (somebody brushed the link away from the list with Organisations, but they give very worthful conclusions, some devastating conclusions for the Afghan government (widespread corruption for example) and international community. And it is a group of independent scholars, scientists, policians, who simply wants the best for the Afghan people.) ----- By the way: saturday evening out secretary of state of Defence was at television. He told that they do not know who this Taliban fighters realy are. They think they can be trained fighters, or maybe people who who get payed to take part in one or the other attack at NATO and Afghan National Army soldiers? But 19 October 2006 the Dutch government decided to sent 130 soldiers more, only to protect the soldiers who are already there. So worse the security situation is, and it is only getting worse we hear: Taliban using tactics like road-bombs, suicide attacks and hit-and-run guerrilla tactics.
A report from a British journalist. It is again a big difference we hear from governments, and independent sources. . Contemporary history will maybe later give us the answers??? One of the UN philosophies, is never to send countries who were former colonizers, two: not to send neighbour countries.
opium
How does this entry not have any information about Opium production, forever a long historial staple to the Afganistan economy, which underwent an explosion after the Taliban was removed from power? --Howrealisreal 18:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I went ahead and did this. --Howrealisreal 17:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
One of the conclusions of the Senlis Council is NOT to destroy the poppy fields of the south, because the people will turn against NATO and Afghan government, hunger can come to the people, and at this time the people over there need the money. Their advise is: try to chance the cultivation of it to medical use, because worldwide there is short of medical pain releavers. Also Canadian and British commanders at the ground decided not to destroy, otherwise the insurgent will grow worse.
It is easy to say, out of Washington or New York, what to do, but is it realistic? This can be to discuss frankly.
History, Organisation of the article
One day somebody said the article became too long. But it is not longer than other country profiles. But maybe it can be a good idea to add some sub-paragraphs into the chapter about the history, and to re-organise this discussion page into subdivisions. It is just an idea to work on. By the way: the new picture of the painting is really beautiful! was it not a problem, at that time, to picture people?
A suggestion:
About the lead/introduction of the article
At the introduction is written: (...) "This force, composed of mainly US and NATO troops has protected (...)". But the US are a NATO country (So now it looks like a pleonasm, or tautology, or contradiction?). Maybe it is better to write something like: "composed of NATO troops and NATO partner nations?
Note: I don't know why somebody brought the Second Anglo-Afghan War below the article European influence in Afghanistan, because at a "new" article there is always the possibility to give further and more information about a topic.
And possible sub-paragraphes, and internal links ...
The BBC News gives some (very brief) profiles of the most influential figures in the struggle to shape Afghanistan's future. Maybe the source can be useful to other writers, or to start new articles? It is last updated by the BBC Tuesday, 4 July 2006.
It looks like nobody wants to remember that Taliban was strongly supported by Pakistan and CIA when it took power in 1997. Since this is non-government project I would like to remind it in this Article.
Oh, I did put some refernce to it in; unfortunately, it got wiped out. Arno 00:42, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Because that sounds a lot like speculation. The CIA officially ended all operations in Afghanistan in the 1991. We can discuss unofficial CIA operations in the country as well, but then again, those would be unofficial, and therefor unverifiable. And I believe whether or not the CIA supported the Taliban doesn't deserve a mention. The fact the Taliban was present in 1997 and they were there is canon.
Note about methods of research: unofficial facts can be, for sure, verifiable. Evidence on the ground, pieces of paper, interview, and so on. At an article it is also possible to give different opinions about situations.
The CIA certainly supported the Pakistani intelligence agency who where prime supporters of the Taliban but I am having trouble finding (of course) mention that the CIA directly helped the Taliban after the Soviets left. I would not be surprised if it were true but it needs support. --rmhermen
To spell the name
Of all countries Afghanistan comes first in the alphabet. It also has 3 consecutive letters ("fgh"), that are consecutive in the alphabet and in alphabetical order.
It only looks like it are 3 consecutive letters, but /gh/ is just one sound. It is the Romanisation of the Arabic "gayn", a sound which also exists in Dari and Persian. There is a better way to spell it, for example one /g/ with a dot on it: /غ/ = /ġ/. (Rob).
Meanwhile the United States decided to destabilise the regime by arming the ultra-religious tribes and using the Pakistan Army as a conduit to help the religious extremists. The Americans were laying a bear-trap and the Soviet leadership fell into it. They sent the Red Army to topple Amin and sustain the PDPA regime by force. This further exacerbated the crisis and the United States gave the call for a jihad against communism. The Pakistani military thought it would help the jihad if a Saudi prince came to lead the struggle, but volunteers from that quarter were not forthcoming. Instead the Saudi regime suggested Ossama Bin Laden to the CIA. He was approved, recruited, trained and sent to Afghanistan where he fought well.
hope this helps.
As I said before we know they supported them during the war with the Soviets but what about afterward. This quote is about the Soviet War. I will search the link some and see if there is anything there. Rmhermen 06:34 Aug 28, 2002 (PDT)
Removed from article: It was expected in advance that cutting off truck transport of food and making mass food transport to and in Afghanistan even more difficult by the bombing attacks would cause about 50% of 7.5 million starving people to die. According to the definitions of the International Criminal Court, this known action of killing millions of people defined by their national group is termed genocide. The final death toll by this genocide-by-cutting-food-supplies is poorly known, but "fortunately" estimated as maybe only about 1 million.
This is an extremely POV statement and needs to be backed up by a source. This was all I could find and it certainly does not agree. Afghans Still Dying by Ian Traynor "Guardian" February 12, 2000]
“In a new study, Carl Conetta of the Commonwealth Institute estimates that up to 1,300 civilians have been killed by US bombs and at least 3,000 other Afghans
are dead because the American campaign worsened the humanitarian emergency.”
Genocide or Peace By George Monbiot Published in the Guardian 2nd October 2001
“The 19-day suspension of aid which came to an end yesterday” (Normal distribution did take a 2-3 months longer to be resumed, I believe.)
That is not true. Afghanistan is a republic, and Hamid Karzai is President and Head of State. The former king does play a role in the country, but I don't think he has any official role. Perhaps it's comparable to France, where the late Comte de Paris frequently had roles on official state occasions. john 18:40 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)
No there is no king of Afghanistan. -fonzy
It took a fair bit of work to enter what was said about the history of Afghanistan. It would be appreciated if it was not arbitarily deleted.
The history of this section should only give a brief overview. The more detailed history belongs at History of Afghanistan. See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countries for a guideline on how to apply the country template. The history section goes first and should not be ridiculously long. --Jiang 15:43, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this template until now. However, it is still a poor show to simply throw away a fair bit of research without warning or explanation. I'll have to integrate what I've written later - I'm too pressed for time now.
I will put back the earthquake stuff. Arno 06:57, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Afghanistan (1911 Encyclopedia) was listed on VfD, but suggestions made that it be merged here instead. It currently redirects here, but from the page history, the original can be found if anyone wants to merge this information. It is also listed on Cleanup. Angela. 22:30, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
USSR intervened in the conutry not invaded, as reflected int he UN resolution A/RES/37/37 If we call "Invasion" we will need to call Invasion also to the intervention of USA in Vietnam. Milton 16:32, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)
What's the government called?
The article refers to the Afghan Interim Authority (AIA) but I don't know about that. I am reliably informed that at least a year ago it was called the Afghan Transitional Islamic Administration -- at least that's what was on the Ministry for Communication's letterhead.
Why... (Southwest Asia or South Asia or Middle East)
It overlaps in many ways and is sometimes also considered part of Central Asia. It is a Middle Eastern due to its relationship with Iran which goes back a long way.
Why is the website of Mohammed Zaher Shah considered an "official government website?" Listed as site of the king, sure. But I don't think it counts as official. I'm not getting into a revert war --Golbez 15:14, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
Last I heard the Afghans had been given their own top level domain but was being held by US/UN until the countries infrastructure was developed enough. Darthmalt 22:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just read in one of Paul Krugman's columns that some experts think that the number of registered voters exceeds the numeber of eligible voters. (A large percentage of the country is not under the control of the US/U.N./whatever there is of the Afghan government, so this might well be true. Anybody want to check this out?)
I'm interested in hearing about that. Should we also add some details about how the election was held? I understand that voters had their thumb stamped to prevent double voting. It's certainly very different than what I'm used to here in the US. Anyone have the facts on this? Jgardner 17:19, 2004 Oct 14 (UTC)
Can link nation-state: ...enghis Khan]] and ]. The Afghanistan nation-state as it is known today came into existence in ] under ... (link to section)
Can link ethnic groups: ...he ], and a mix from other regional and ethnic groups formed from the transition government by the ]... (link to section)
Can link defense minister: ...trol of warlords. On ], ], Afghan deputy defense minister and powerful warlord General ] create... (link to section)
Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):
In Afghanistan timeline 1991-1995, can backlink Islamic State of Afghanistan: ...mes caretaker president on April 28. The country is renamed Islamic State of Afghanistan. When peace seems imminent, fighting among the various guer...
counter-argument against "Pashtun majority because of recent elections" theory
The following article is taken from the "Washington Times":
The IRI conducted a one-day, public opinion survey on Afghanistan's election day.
Over 450 Afghan volunteers interviewed more than 17,000 respondents at 177 locations
across Afghanistan and in neighboring Pakistan where more than 700,000 refugee voters
also cast their votes.
According to this survey, Karzai received support from 86 percent of Pashtun voters.
This was not surprising as Karzai also belongs to this ethnic group, which is the largest
in Afghanistan. But unexpectedly 40 percent of Tajik voters also said they cast a ballot for Karzai.
Tajiks are the second largest ethnic group in Afghanistan and the relations between the Tajiks
and Pashtuns were strained during the Taliban era because most Taliban leaders were Pashtuns.
The Taliban regime persecuted the Tajiks, forcing many to leave the capital, Kabul, and seek
refuge in the Tajik-dominated northern provinces.
That's why when Karzai's Defense Minister Mohammed Fahim, who is a powerful Tajik militia
commander, broke with the Afghan president when the election campaign formally started, many predicted
the election could turn into a conflict between the Pashtun and Tajik ethnic groups. Fahim severed
connections with Karzai and decided to support a rival candidate, former Law Minister Yunus Qanooni,
bringing along other powerful Tajik personalities, such as Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah. ...
Besides Pashtuns and Tajiks, according to the survey, Karzai also received the support of 16 percent of Uzbek and 21 percent of Hazara voters. These are the other two large ethnic groups in Afghanistan.
... His main rival, Qanooni, received the support of 5 percent of Pashtun voters, 34 percent Tajik,
9 percent Uzbek and 5 percent Hazara. Thus, although he is Tajik, Qanooni received fewer votes from his own ethnic group than Karzai.
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20041012-031213-5906r.htm
In other words: 86% Pashtuns + 40% Tajiks + 21% Hazaras + 16% Uzbeks = Karzai's (very weak) 54,6%. On the other hand: assuming that Qanooni was voted only by Tajiks (15% of the total results = 1/3 of the total votes), that would mean that Tajiks are ca. 45% of the population (1/3 of Tajiks voted for Qanooni, 2/3 for others --> Qanooni's 15% * 3 = 45%).
So, the recent elections are not a proof that Pashtuns a majority but rather that Pashtuns are NOT the majority.
Nature of the people of Afghanistan
Afghanistan has hardly ever been a single country. It does not even completely represent a people as such, since the Pashtuns are almost evenly split between Afghanistan and Pakistan, Tajiks between Tajikistan and Afghanistan and Uzbeks with Uzbekistan. A census has never been taken, and various pieces of land has belonged to different people. In addition, almost noone can be considered indigenous of the land, due to non-stop invasions throughout the history. The approximate area of Afghanistan has also shifted quite a bit. Ancient Khwarazm was slightly to the north including Bokhara and Samarkand, and so was Bactria and Khorasan. Before the Soviet and British 'Great Game', the size of 'Afghanistan' or Khorasan was more than twice of what it is now. At times it has included lands upto the Indus river, and other times, it was a large remote province of the Persian empire.
Afghanistan for most of its history has been a collection of loosely-connected tribes, most of which lived quite autonomously. This reduces the meaning of 'rules Afghanistan' to ruling Kabul or Kandahar. Afghanistan could never be seen simply as a 'nation' or country of a 'people'. The name 'Afghanistan' was coined by a Pashtun at a time when many other ethnic groups lived autonomously within the region. The central highlands was referred to as Hazarajat or Hazaristan, and the King of Kabul or Kandahar actually paid the Emir of Hazaras for the safe passage of soldiers or traders. Afghanistan in history is best seen as a collection of Khanates in a border only visible to outsiders, who would only deal with the rulers of Kabul.
The demographics and history of Afghanistan are therefore highly disputed. Percentages of population are very frequently overstated, each ethnic group claiming 80% of the population is not uncommon. The population also fluctuates with the movements of the large number of refugees.
While the history of smaller ethnic and religious groups are lost, historians in Iran, Turkey, Pakistan etc constantly view Afghanistan as a part of greater 'Turkistan', 'greater Persia' and so on. This makes the history of the country highly biased and unreliable, and it should be viewed as such.
On the other hand, the various peoples secured their own history better, the history of Pashtuns are best read from a Pashtun perspective, Hazaras from Hazara perspective, Tajiks from Tajik perspective, and always with a grain of salt. Going further back in history, before 1600AD, the people were grouped differently, Tajiks being simply Persian, Hazaras and Uzbek being Turkic/Mongol... and going even further back, Pashtuns are split between tribes of Greek, Jewish and Aryan ancestory, and the Baloch quite possibly being an ofshoot of ancient Persia as well.
This makes the history very interesting, but very difficult to dig up.
Actually, the groups have arrived at different points in time as well. The Persian language originates in southern Iran and spreads to what is today afghanistan later. The Hazaras arrive much later as well. The Pashtuns and related Iranian tribes such as Bactrians are the earliest natives. For the record the Pashtuns are mainly related to the greater Iranian people and there is no genetic evidence to suggest that there is any substantial Greek or Jewish ancestry. It's all myth. The lack of a census makes the numbers very difficult as Tajiks claim that Persian is the majority language, while Pashtuns claim they are the majority etc. This gets down to the bickering over the demographics of cities like Kabul, which are important to both of the main ethnic groups. Very problematic actually and shows the deep ethnic and religious rivalries and frustration in the country. Tombseye20:18, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Although they are split into many smaller ethnic groups, they are still in one larger ethnic group (Arabs). → JarlaxleArtemis 23:21, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Check the demographics section of this article. I don't think that there are many Arabs at all in Afghanistan. The tribes in Afghanistan are thought to be Turkic, Persian, Mongol and some other (Pashtun?). See the Arab artcile to see what group Arabs are. Jeltztalk 14:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Oh no, they are definitely not all Arabs, or even under the larger classification as such. In fact, Arabian is rather small ethnicity in that country. Gibson Cowboy05:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Afghanistan has gone through a few names changes in its long history. One of the first ancient names was Ariana ("Land of the Aryan"), then it’s name later changed to Khorasan which means "Land of the Sun", and today it is known as Afghanistan, meaning Land of the Afghans.
The claim that Afghanistan was once called "Ariana" is a recent falsification and you cannot find one single credible document that shows any part of Afghanistan was ever called "Ariana". This claim was made after WW-II for the first time. Some Afghans who have been challenged to prove this claim refer to "Aryana Vaego" in the Avesta, but that is clearly not anywhwere near modern Afghanistan (scholars believe Aryana Vaejo would be either right next to the Caspian Sea or the Aral Sea -- nobody has even suggested a third possibility). As for Khorasan, the name Khorasan is a Persian name and it was created during the Sassanid time (specifically, Khosraw-I) and was applied to the eastern region of Iran, because the sun arrives from the east and that is exactly what "Khorasan" in Persian means. Modern Afghanistan contains only parts of what the Old Khorasan (or the Greater Khorasan) was. Mansour17:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
I am reverting back your deletion of my edit. You are in no position to refute the Embassy of Afghanistan. It clearly states it here:
That's just a web site with no academic authority. Just because you are providing a link doesn't mean you can include any bullshit that you want in Misplaced Pages articles. Here is a link to Iranica's index, with multiple entries on both Afghanistan and Aryana. Show me where it says Aryana or Ariana is or was in Afghanistan. I think encyclopedia Iranica with hundreds of scholars working on it, each a world authority in his/her respective area of experties, is a little more authoritative than a web site of the embassy of Afghanistan. Also etymology of "Khorasan" doesn't mean "Land of the sun" it means "The place the sun comes from". And only parts of today's Afghanistan where part of the old Khorasan province. Why do you insist on inclusion of your misinformation when you are clueless on a subject? Besides, what are you trying to achieve by including this wrong information in this article? Who benefits from it and in what form? Mansour104:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I repeat, you are absolutely in no position to call the OFFICIAL website of Afghanistan's largest embassy in the world as "Bullshit", and dismiss it.
Thank You for providing the EI link. I used your link and found the following statements which I am quoting from page 405 of The Encyclopedia Iranica below:
"The Latinized term Ariana...is based upon Old Iranian Aryana- (Avestan Airiiana-, esp. in Airiianem vaejo, the name of the Iranians' mother country...)"
"Aria,...Old Persian Satrapy which enclosed chiefly the valley of the river Hari-Rud,..., the modren Herat,..., the land south of Margiana and Bactria, in the east of the Carmanian desert, north of Drangiana , and west of paropamisadae ,... and corresponds to the province of Herat of today's Afghanistan."
I've monitored your posts. What do you benefit from defending Akhond-philic retrogrades like Ahmadinejad in the recent elections, portraying American elections as undemocratic instead? That says volumes about you. Are you ashamed that Ariana is identified as being in today's Afghanistan?
Kheili kor kori mikhooni. Next time before calling me "clueless", do some research first. It will save you some aberoo.--Zereshk17:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
You *ARE* indeed clueless. Yes, "Ariana" is a different spelling for "Aryana" which does indeed come from the Avestan's "Aryanem Vaejo" (specifically, in Vandidad, Fargard-e Yekom). But the "Aria" that you mention above is Greek for what is in Old Persian "Haraiva" which is modern Herat (Hari-Rud). Looks like you can't even read and understand a simple text in front of you. The Greek "Aria" has NOTHING TO DO with "Arianem Vaejo". Not even a single scholar has ever suggested that Arianem Vaejo is the same as "Haraiva or the Greek "Aria". The Greek "Aria" (Avestan: Harôyu -- Old Persian: Haraiva) is comparable to how in ancient greek texts "Hagmatana" is written "Ekbatana" or many other examples. The Old Persian satapry of Haraiva is clearly mentioned in both Darius I's Behistun Inscription as well as two of Xerxes' inscriptions. "Arianem Vaejo" on the other hand, is mentioned in the Avesta where I told you above, and numerous scholars have published works on the whereabouts of it (including our own late Dr. Bahram Farahvashi who has a full book by that title, called "Iran Vij"). Nobody (other than our great resident scholar "Zereshk" of course) thinks it is the same as Hari-Rud/Haraiva/greek "Aria".
As for "aberoo", I honestly feel sad for you, because your beahviour and edits in Misplaced Pages clearly reveal that you suffer from an inferiority complex and nearly all your edits are about image and not about contents. It is obvious that you try to present an image instead of contributing to contents. I suspect this has to do with the fact that you live in USA (according to your user page) and they have probably called you a camel rider or something along those lines, so this has resulted in the sort of pathetic behaviour that we observe from you here. Mansour118:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Stop vandalizing the page. The reference you provided specifically defines Ariane. And it con sisted of today's Afghanistan. I provided you direct quotes from here, and The Embassy of Afghanistan.
Attacking other users is strictly prohibited on Misplaced Pages and can lead to your account termination. Stop attacking me.--Zereshk23:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, you claimed that "Airiianem vaejo" is the same as the "Ariana" that you claim to be Afghanistan. I provided you a link to Iranica and asked you to show me where I can find this in there. You failed to show me. I also provided you with academic information which I don't think you deny its correctness. I have also mentioned three of the Achaemenids inscriptions which clearly mention both the words "Arya" (Arya in Old Persian) and the name of modern day Afghan province of Herat (Haraiva in Old Persian, which the Greeks recorded as "Aria") which is the source of this confusion and/or false claim. I have also given you the name of a highly respected scholar, Dr. Bahram Farahvashi, and the title of his book on this very subject of "Aryanem Vaejo". And you still revert to your bullshit on the account that an afghani web site says so?!! I see that you are really brilliant. As for your "proud to be American" -- how boring. Trust me, you are neither Iranian nor American. Torke tabloye taze be dorun reside cheghad zer mizane. Mansour05:20, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Zereshk, aren't you the person who has uploaded an image of Fravahr and called it Ahura Mazda and included it in that article?! I had to make a correction on that one. If you don't know the difference between Fravahr and Ahura Mazda which is fairly trivial, it would be surprising if you knew about Aryanem Vaejo which is more technical. So instead of getting upset with Mansour who is just correcting a piece of misinformation here, why don't you try to change your attitude and be thankful that someone has taken the time to correct your mistakes and even go the extra step of trying to explain to you a bit of the details? -MJ
Just because someone got x wrong doesn't mean that said user also got y wrong. Can you explain how and/or why the content that was added here is incorrect? siafu01:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
There is detailed explanation right here in this very discussion about the error. Mansour's explanation is absolutely correct. The Greek "Aria" (for Old Persian Haraiva) has nothing to do with the Old Persian Arya that Darius and Xerxes called their clan or the "Aryanem Vaejo" that Zereshk seems to have mistaken for Haraiva. In other words, "Aryanem Vaejo" would not be in Afghanistan. -MJ
The detailed description, laden as it is with invective and personal attacks, is a bit too muddled to wade through. Can this be explained plainly to those of us who are not speakers of the languages in question, and not necessarily experts in Afghani and Persian/Iranian history? siafu22:36, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't know anything about this but I think that you should wait with readding it untill it has been discussed further. To me Mansour seems to have shown more evidence for his case. People should stop removing and readding the paragraph and try to resolve the issue. Jeltztalk10:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Mansour's revert war against "Ariana" and "Khorasan"
Here is why there is a revert ar going on:
Mansour (or MJ and his anonymous signatures), disputes the fact that Afghanistan was once called by the names: 1. Ariana (Aryana) 2. Khorasan. Yet the Ariana claim is verified by referring to the following sources:
The Embassy of Aghanistan in Washingtin clearly states this here.
Ariana was also the name of an Afghan Quarterly printed in Kabul managed by Rahnavard Zariab.
There is an entire book called "Aryana or ancient Afghanistan".
The first Afghan Encyclopedia was compiled by a group called Anjuman-e Aryana. See: Anjuman-e Aryana Da’irat al-Ma`arif-e Afghanistan, Aryana Da’irat al-Ma`arif, v. III, Kabul: 1956
The Embassy of Afghanistan in Canada defines Aryana as: "Ancient Afghanistan" . So does Afghanistan Online: (see section: 2000 BCE- 1500 BCE). So do these websites:
"Ariana" is the name of Afghanistan's national airline.
"Ariana" is also the name of an Afghan magazine.
This website about Afghanistan is also called "Aryana Site".
This Dutch website about Afghanistan is also called "Ariana".
"Khorasan of the Middle Ages and Aryana in antiquity, Afghanistan has seen them all pass by."
"I am a Tajik from Panjsher, Afghanistan (formerly known as Khorasan/Aryana)." (scroll down to Comments by second anonymous user)
In German: "Diese drei, Aryana in der Antike, Khurasan im Mittelalter und Afghanistan im heutigen Zeitalter..."
A dozen other websites...
I do not need to prove the fact that present day Afghanistan was part of Greater Khorasan as well. That is well established too, even more.
Finally, "Mansour"'s last post on 05:20, 13 July 2005 contained a racial attack against me, which is easily verifiable by anyone who speaks Farsi. Not good.
That should put an end to Mansour's revert war. Ariana was the name of ancient Afghanistan. Period.--Zereshk00:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
The racial attack is a good reason to remove Mansour from the debate (and possibly wikipedia as a whole), but there may still be an argument against this position that's valid. Below here would be a good place to explain it, if anyone knowledgeable cares to. siafu00:36, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Wrong again. So far you have only based your claim on a bunch of obscure web sites, most probably via a google search. Iranica does NOT say that Aryanem Vaejo is in Afghanistan, nor does Iranica say that any part of Afghanistan has ever been called Ariana. If it does, paste the EXACT quote here WITH A LINK to that article. The association of Afghanistan and "Ariana" for the FIRST TIME IN HISTORY appeared after World War II and this includes the name for their airlines "Ariana Airlines". You seem to be of the mindset that no matter what, nobody should change what you put in the articles. This is indicative of poor upbringing by your parents. Your parents have produced a foolish Mr. Know It All who is not smart enough to distinguish between the real world and the our-son-is-never-wrong environment of his mommy's house. This is stupid. I have offered plenty of serious and verifiable examples that shows what you are forcefully injecting in this article is wrong, but it seems that you are only interested in a stupid and stubborn childish game of just winning an argument at any cost, no matter what the truth is. Tell me which of the following points is wrong:
1- No reputable scholar has ever claimed that Aryanem Vajo is in Afghanistan.
2- One scholar, the late Professor Bahram Farahvashi, who dedicated his life to Iranian studies and has several respectable publications, including his award winning Dictionary of Pahlavi Language, has a book by the title of "Iran Vij" which is precisely about Aryanem Vaejo which Zereshk claims to be Afghanistan. According to this book, as well as other scholars, Aryanem Vaejo is next to the Caspian Sea. Farahvashi also mentions the names of the scholars who think (and gives their reasons as to why they think) that Aryanem Vaejo is next to the Aral Sea. In no case anybody has suggested it is in Afghanistan.
3- In at least three of the Achaemenids inscriptions (by Darius I and his son Xerxes) where they mention the word Arya (that is, the Old Persian word Arya) in the SAME INSCRIPTION they also mention Haraiva (modern day Herat which was recorded as "Aria" in Greek texts) as one of the provices under their rule. The two words are DISTINCLY DIFFERENT words with different spellings. Only due to the Greek rendering of Haraiva as Aria this confusion exists today (and even then, it surfaces after World War II, because someone found a way to associate Afghanistan with "Aryan" and others picked it up.)
4- Unlike what Zereshk claims, Encyclopedia Iranica DOES NOT say that Afghanistan is the same as Aryanem Vaejo nor does it anywhere say that Afghanistan has EVER been called "Ariana".
5- Show me one authentic source from BEFORE WORLD WAR II, that shows any part of Afghanistan has ever been called "Ariana" or "Aryana". Just one source would be enough, but it has to be an authentic and academically acceptable source, and NOT a bunch of afghani web sites from the 21st century. By repeating that the "official afghanis website says so" you only show how weak your argument is.
6- Last but not least, in your revert message you offered the reason "the OFFICIAL POSITION of The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" -- well, that is not good enough. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia not the official website of Afghanistan. The "OFFICIAL POSITION of The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan" is irrelevant here. We are interested in correct information. Mansour01:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
OK Zereshk, thank you very much for suggesting that we should read the "Aria" entry of the Iranica. I paste your own EXACT link here "(look up "Aria")" -- please everybody, read his own link. Look up Aria and in there it clearly says: "ARIA, name of a region in the eastern part of the Persian Empire, several times confused with Ariane in the classic sources" and it also explains more in two sub-items about this confusion. And it basically says what I have been saying all along that simply this "Aria" is a greek/latin rendering of "Haraiva". Mansour01:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Nobody cares what Aryanem Vaejo is, because it doesnt appear in the text on the Afghanistan page.
I have provided 27 sources as proof that Afghanistan was called Aryana (Ariana) in ancient times. Strabo first gave a lengthy account of Ariana as mentioned in EI p405 item #2.
EI, p 405, item 2, defines Ariana's boundaries, starting from line 8. Today's Afghanistan clearly falls inside that territory.
Your last argument doesnt hold either because I have been quoting everything only out of item #2, hence no confusion.
Afghanistan was part of Greater Khorasan as well, a fact which you keep deleting.
Im sorry Mansour, but you simply cannot revise history. The Afghans like the Iranians were part of the Aryan family, and you know it.--Zereshk02:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
I raised 6 points, of which you did not answer any. And in your item 1 above you say "nobody cares what Aryanem Vaejo is"!! I guess you forgot that this was your first claim (it's still on this page!). Allow me to refresh your memory ... you wrote: "The Latinized term Ariana...is based upon Old Iranian Aryana- (Avestan Airiiana-, esp. in Airiianem vaejo, the name of the Iranians' mother country...)". It was you who brought up that term for the first time to support your claim, now you say nobody should care about it?!! I copied the EXACT statement from Encyclopedia Iranica from THE VERY ARTICLE which you yourself were using to support your baseless claim, and now you are pretending as if nothing happened, and you are back to your long list of meaningless google-searched mostly-afghani obscure and/or personal web sites. I will not bother to retype my 6 points above. They are legit and every observer can see them. Asnwer the points. Encyclopedia Iranica is an infinitely more reliable source than some personal web site from an afghan guy who somewho is happy to believe that Afghanistan = Ariana.
"...historians trace the origin of the country into remote prehistory, referring to it as ancient Aryana, or Land of The Aryan."p109, Encyclopedia International, ISBN 0717207048 --Zereshk09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Regarding EI page 405 item no.2, this is about ARIA which I pointed out above in bold from the start of the same article. It FIRST EXPLAINS about the confusion about this term with "Ariane" in the classic sources and then goes on to explain the two items. Can't you read and understand simple English in front of your eyes? Even if we ignore all that, STILL, it would only make modern-day Afghanistan a small part of the so-called "Ariana"; so why do you say the name was changed from "ariana" to "khorasan" to "afghanistan" ?!! that is ridiculous.
Item #2 talks about Ariana, not Aria. Aria was part of Ariana, as is stated in line 20 of item#2. Stop attacking me. Please maintain your tone civil. Attack the argument. Not the person.--Zereshk23:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
As for deleting the Khorasan part, it is because it says "Afghanistan later changed its name to Khorasan". Well, that is a gross misstatement. First because Afghanistan has never ever been called "Ariana" and secondly, even if it was called "Ariana", it is wrong to say it changed it's name to Khorasan because a) Khorasan was a much larger land/province than all of Afghanistan today, b) only parts the country today known as Afghanistan used to be part of the greater Khorasan, not all of modern-day Afghanistan, c) Khorasan was the eastern province of Iran which was named "Khorasan" (etymology: "the place the sun arrives ") during the Sassanid reign (specifiaclly, it was named during the reign of Khosraw I a.k.a Khosraw Anushirwan) and even today the eastern province(s) of Iran are called Khorasan. To say that Afghanistan = Khorasan is complete BS. Mansour04:44, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Nobody is saying Khorasan = Afghanistan. Youre twisting my words. All we are saying is that Afghanistan was recognized by that name. (but so was current eastern Iran.)
All of Aghanistan (not just parts of it) was in fact part of Khorasan. Dehkhoda clearly states:
این اسم ... بطور کلی بر تمام ایالات اسلامی که در سمت خاور کویر لوت تا کوههای هند واقع بودند اطلاق میگردید
(trans: "this name was given to all Islamic lands east of Kevir-e Lut desert, all the way up to the Indian muntains.")
Pamir and Hindukosh are then afterwards specifically mentioned in the text. See p8457 for more details.
Furthermore, if you read Baladhuri and Hamavi's accounts, the cities they name as being part of Khorasan include almost every city in today's Afghanistan. And what gives the Afghani Khorasan claim even more legitimacy is the fact that Dehkhoda quotes historians in saying that Khorasan was made up of 4 quarters: Merv, Balkh, Bukhara, Herat. Only one is inside today's Iran. The center of gravity was more to the east.
You really are astonishingly stupid AND STUBBORN. Moron, the four cities above are just 4 of many many many cities and villages in the HUGE province of the Khorasan. And unlike what you think of the above four none is in Iran; and Merv and Bukhara are not in Afghanistan. What the hell is the point of mentioning only 4 cities out of scores of cities? Modern Afghanistan is not any more or less "khorasan" than modern Iran or modern Uzbekistan or parts of modern Turkmenistan is. You clearly have no grasp on this subject. What can we expect from a Turkic mutt who thinks "Fravahr=Ahura Mazda" and thinks "Aryana=Afghanistan" and thinks "Khorasan=Afghanistan"? I honestly wish I had your brain .... I would feed it to my plants. I am done with you, you are a complete waste of time. Go ahead and put whatever bullshit you wish in the article and be happy that "you won" cuz your only aim seems to be just winning the argument at any cost, regardless of the facts, and that level of "intelligence" is more than I can handle. If you had even a modicum of a brain, I would have attempted to teach you what yeki bar sare shakh bon miborid means.
I am warning you to stop attacking me. This is your second racial attack against me. Nevertheless, I will go ahead and answer your objections this time. If you attack me one more time, I will have you dealt with properly. You and all the anonymous accounts.
They were not "four cities", but 4 regions (nahiyeh) centered around those cities. Two were in current Afghanistan. One in current Turkmenia. One in current Iran. Im not saying this. Dehkhoda is. I provided you a specific page number. I repeat: Im not saying "Afghanistan = Khorasan". Im only saying that Afghanistan was ALSO known by that name. And the center of mass was more to the east than today's Iranian Khorasan.
The text you deleted clearly said: "Afghanistan evolved into part ofGreater Khorasan,...". I will try to emphasize this in my next edit to correct your confusion.
For the Ariana case, you also deleted the text, even though I added the pharse "...according to Afghan historians..." to incorporate your view as well. And I provided clear documentation from Encyclopedia International supporting the Ariana case. In addition to the 27 sources earlier provided, not all of which were Afghani sources as you claim.--Zereshk09:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Just as an observer of this long thread, Zereshk, aren't you cheating here? You had first written "Merv, Balkh, Bukhara, Herat." as the four names and claimed one is in Iran. When Mansour pointed out that you don't even know that of those four famous places of Khorasan none is in Iran, you then changed what you had written earlier to "Merv, Balkh, Neishabur, Herat." and wrote in bold face that One is in current Iran. That's unbelievably low. --Paul Chiu
When Mansour mentioned "Bukhara", I realized that I had miscopied the names. Sorry about that. The correct 4 are "Balkh, Herat, Merv, Neishabur". This can be verified.--Zereshk21:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, no problem. But I will restore your original writing back, because it is obviously wrong to go back and change what one had written before AFTER people have responded to the original writing. Please do not do this again in the future. By the way, your "correction" to article has another problem which actually replaces a correct bit of information with misinformation. The "stan" part unlike what you have written is actually "istan" and it is not a word, it is a suffix. I advise you to refer to some academic sources regarding that particular suffix. --Paul Chiu
Reverting or changing other people's statements on talk pages is a Big no no here on Misplaced Pages. You can only point to what I did by posting a comment. But you cannot change my statements. This is a talk page, not the main article.
My argument still holds one way or the other, because I provided a source: Dehkhoda p8457.
I did not author the third paragraph about the -stan part.
Misplaced Pages does not tolerate personal attacks of any form. Abusers can and are permanently banned.--Zereshk04:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
It looks like just about all your activities (both in articles and discussion areas) end up in fights, trouble, tension and the like. the ONLY EXCEPTIONS are when you are toadying up to an admin. It appears that anything that anybody does that you dislike is immediately labelled "personal attack" or "vandalism". You have no right to go back and edit an error that you have already made in an argument that has been going on for some time and to which your opponent has ALREADY RESPONDED and then turn around and change what you had originally written and make your opponent look like a fool when it was clearly you who was mistaken. Nobody will support you for such a dishonorable behavior in Misplaced Pages and if you want we can go to the admin's board and put this up for judgement. Also, this sort of behavior is a sure bet to make you very unpopular among most admins very fast. I am restoring the text to the original posting, again. If you change it again, next step will be admin's board and I will also open an official request for judgement on this issue for the sake prevention of future dishonorable behavior in Misplaced Pages as well as ensuring someone like you is never nominated for adminship. I can't really believe your behavior. I certainly hope I don't live in a world where people like you outnumber the honorable ones. --Paul chiu
You have already violated Misplaced Pages law by turning a talk page into a personal dispute that is irrelevant to the topic of this page. That and the fact that you have personally attcaked me (instead of my argument) is enough to take you to ArbCom. And you have already attacked me according to Misplaced Pages definitions:
"It is considered a personal attack when a person starts referencing a supposed flaw or weakness in an individual's personality, beliefs, lifestyle, convictions or principles, and use it as a debate tactic or as a means of avoiding discussion of the relevance or truthfulness of what the person said." See: Personal attack
I have already requested the page be monitored by Admin surveillance. Please stop attacking me, and instead let us focus on the topic at hand.--Zereshk09:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
To "Paul Ciu",
I have been monitoring this discussion for a while. You have 14 posts in total ever since you came to Misplaced Pages. Of those, 13 were written in attacking or questioning the integrity of Zereshk, and one was a revert of his text. Other than that, you have had no contributions at all to Misplaced Pages. I strongly advise you to stop your smearing campaign against Zereshk, as he is one of Misplaced Pages's top editors in Iranian related articles. --CJ Wren
LOL .... oh my god. Man, you have some IQ. "CJ Wren" with an IP from Iran who thinks that Zereshk "is one of Misplaced Pages's top editors" ?!! LOL hehe I am creased up with laughter right now. --Paul Chiu
If you actually check info on the net about the Aryan race u can see that they resided in modern day Afghanistan, which back then they called Ariana. You wont get this info from any irani based encyclopedia. PLUS if u actually read Afghan history, when the Ahmad Shah Baba killed the Irani king he declared the lands of eastern Iran, Afghanistan, and parts of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan-dont know about paki-land. Anyways, he declared it the Country of Khorasan. Every educated Afghan knows this. Oh and the name changed during the "Great Game" Russia and Britian devised a plan to make boundary's for their "buffer zone" then they decided to call the new land (former khorasan) Afghanistan because many Pashtun's lived there and Afghan means Pashtun. End Of Story.
Therefore Afghanistan Was Khorasan, and was also ARIANA. no matter how much u try u cant say it wasnt.
- Afghan Living in Canada
Let's be fair, people
I have now twice edited an incredibly biased, conspiratorial (anti-U.S.) version of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The author calls the Soviet aggression an "intervention" which they were forced to make because the United States wanted them to fall into a trap. Give me a break, people, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. Was the U.S. guilty? Yes. But let's be fair here. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, let's use the proper terminology. This would be sort of like a pro-German writing that Hitler "was forced to intervene" in Poland in 1939.
I don't think that anyone removed your edits on purpose the first time. From looking at the history of the article] I guess that it was a mistake. I don't like the soviet bias but I think that your edit makes it a little too much American bias. I'm not really sure how to word it myself and I don't know much about Afghan history either. Jeltztalk18:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll grant you that my first edit might have gone too far the other way. I am struggling with how to word it, too, but I think "invasion" is a better term than "was forced to intervene". Forced by who? I feel that there is a bit of amnesia going on about the Soviet and it's Imperial aims. The United States was not the only superpower attempting to overthrow nations from within, funding revolutionary forces, and trying to set up puppet governments. In fact, those kind of tactics were often used by the KGB. American intervention was often a reaction to an initial covert activity by the Soviet Union. I just do not understand why people cannot be evenhanded, if you're going to claim the U.S. engaged in bad behavior, then admit that the U.S.S.R. did it as well.
But Zbigniew Brzezinski himself has claimed that he masterminded a trap to get the Soviet to intervene in Afghanistan. Read these two interviews: one - two
you can call it what ever you want to but the same terminology should be used to the US involvement in the country in 2001.
Had someone enter in my house without my permission I would call him an intruder; maybe you can have in your house somebody agree with this "new entry" and someone not just agree for, maybe, he damages in way so irreversible, the people, the land, your culture, your family; having you son's throat above his knife while he his still hurting (I say HEAVY hurting!) any other member of your family (this is my humble opinion of what the Taliban regime was), would you stay to look without "intervention", or wouldn't you pray the One God, The Merciful, for "an intervention", even a TEMPORARY (I say TEMPORARY) "invasion" of the sovereignity of your house? I know this implies, most of the times, even a mortal risk for all the people inside the house, but I think it is what any police force worldwide would do any day.
Afghanistan, as the article on Central Asia points out, is in Central Asia. It is not part of the Indian subcontinent as it rests upon the Iranian plateau instead. It overlaps and is on the fringes of South Asia, but is actually an extension of the Iranian and Turkic civilizations as well. Eastern Pakistan is where South Asia ends. It ends with the Indic languages of Punjabi and Sindhi. The edits seem to be almost arbitrary as opposed to based upon history and geography. The basic point is that Afghanistan is, in the majority, an extension of Iranian civilization. While South Asia has had a certain unique experience both historically and otherwise, Afghanistan has been on the fringes and absorbed many aspects including a Hindu minority, the majority religion of Buddhism that dominated the region and as the base of Muslim invasions that moved into South Asia. All of this consideration comes to some conclusions. First, it is geographically not on the Indian subcontinent. Second, it has no linguistic affinity to India, but does share linguistic affinity with western Pakistan which is also an extension of Iranian civilization (see Pashtuns and Baluchis). Third, the vast majority of its history is with Iran, Tajikistan etc. Fourth, aside from fitting neatly on a map when mapping out "South Asia", a term often as vague as the Middle East, there is little criteria to include it in South Asia proper. The BBC does place it within South Asia, while UCLA and Harvard do not for example. Border regions like Afghanistan, Turkey, Georgia etc. all require an assessment that is not based upon nationalism or ethno-centrism and a more overall view as to why regional labels are useful and definitive. Otherwise, there's not point at all. Turkey and Georgia are thus, for the record "Eurasian," but can be considered either or since Europe and Asia are not actual continents in the geologic sense, but cultural spheres of some relevance.
YOU ARE SO STUPID, TOMBSEYE!! The Iranian influence in Afghanistan is relatively recent. And, only a part of Afghanistan lies on the Iranian plateau. The whole eastern and central half of Afghanistan was predominantly Indian in culture and people. The Iranian people living there (Kambojas) were also culturally Indian for the most part. There was Iranian influence due to the Achaemenid and Sassanian empires, but Indian culture dominated over these. Throughout most of ancient Indian history from the era before the Persian empire, the country is known as Gandhara, a Hindu kingdom. The Greeks themselves often nicknamed this area White India. The Iranian elements began to dominate only after the arrival of Islam. And even there, it was mostly Turkic/Persian Afghans who brought Islam to India and ruled India as part of the Sultanate for several centuries before another Afghan based people, the Mughals, came in. In both periods of Muslim rule, India and Afghanistan culturally still connected and, during the Mughal era, were brought back together under formal political unification. It was only during the 18th century, during the invasion of Nadir Shah, that Afghanistan and India were finally disconnected politically. There was still some contact during the British Raj (Anglo-Afghan wars) and even today much of Persian-derived parts of Indian and Pakistani culture come from Afghanistan. So Afghanistan is not merely an extension of Iranian civilization. It was extension of Indian civilization before the Muslim era, and it became a center of Persian civilization afterwards. It is an extension and combination of both civilizations and is mostly located in South-Central Asia.
-Afghan historian
I really doubt you're an Afghan historian, and you must be really clueless if you think the Medes are 'recent'. Iranian does not mean Persian AND the Avestan itself may have been written in Afghanistan. As for 'Indian' influence, lol, you mean ancient Indo-Aryan before they went to India. They were not Indian as we know it then. Talk about stupid. Culturally Indian? How do you know that? Because Indian religious books write about them? Hinduism was still in its early stages AND Buddhism is India's main contribution, religiously, not Hinduism. Indian culture dominated over these? So the Pashtuns must be new then? And if they're 'Indian' (which means nothing here as you are clearly confusing Indo-Aryan, probably before they even moved to India, with Indian) then where are all the Indo-Aryan languages spoken in Afghanistan? The Greeks called it White India? What does that mean? Is that what this is about? Race theory? Connecting India to white people? Race itself is highly tenuous and your usage implies more of an interest in India as opposed to Afghanistan. Let's see the reference to that and since the term India was applied originally by the PERSIANS to a small part of the Punjab I doubt your point is valid. This is the result of modern nationalism and not historic record. The Afghans also have their own cultural background and the Pashtuns are Iranic. Even genetic testing that has been done links them to other Iranian peoples. Look it up and then tell me I'm wrong. Mughals/Muslims were in conflict with the Afghans, and let's not forget that actually a lot of those Muslims who came to India came from Afghanistan so the cultural influence was probably more from Afghanistan rather than from India and what does that mean anyway? Ever hear of Khushal Khan Khattak? While the Mughals favored Persian, Khattak and the Pashtuns didn't and there was conflict. Lastly, it's beyond idiotic to say that it was not until Nadir Shah that the Iranian influence took hold. The Safavids came in more than 100 years before. Lastly, Iranian civilization as in Germanic civilization is what is meant by that. Both Pashto and Dari are Iranian languages, the people bear many similar customs, and Afghanistan is much more easily accessible from Iran than it is from India, although western Pakistan is basically also part of historic Afghanistan. It is not an extension of ancient Indian civilization, but a passing point for it. The inscriptions found there, including during the brief Ashokan and Mauryan period are written in Greek, Aramaic, and Persian. Now why is that if Afghanistan's Iranian past is recent? You need to go back and hit the books and stop quoting Indo-centric history and stop pretending to be an Afghan historian since clearly you're not. And for the record my guess is you're an Indian guy pretending to be an Afghan historian as you didn't say much about Afghanistan, but lots about India instead. Tombseye17:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
-Tombseye, I'm not the person who was arguing with you above, I am an Afghan from Kabul who fled during early 90's. I dont know about whether the person arguing with you is Afghan or not but I do know that he is right about many things as much as you are. I highly doubt he was meaning "white race" when he meant "White India" which was a name for the Afghan region applied by the Greeks. The area did have a lot of Indian cultural background in the pre-Islamic era as it did have Iranian background. The Indo-Aryan languages were wiped out by the Muslim and Hunnish invaders. And I highly doubt he was saying Iranian influence took place after Nadir Shah. I think you really took a lot of what he said out of context as well as misunderstood it. And many of the Iranian tribes, especially the Kambojas, followed Indian culture and Iranian culture. And only part of Afghanistan lies on the Iranian plateau, not the whole thing. And Afghanistan was, in my understanding, an area where both civilizations had equal influence before the arrival of Islam in the 7-8th centuries CE. Both Persian and Mauryan empires ruled it for an equal amount of time, approxiamatley. Iranian culture became more strong after the hold of the Safavids. And Mauryan inscriptions there were also in the Gandhari Prakrit as well as Greek and Aramaic. A Hindu dynasty called the Shahis also ruled there for some 2 hundred years as well. Saying Afghanistan is an Iranian extension is a bit too simplistic. Afghanistan was both Iranian and Indian and All three religions, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and Buddhism were dominant here before Islam. And the term India was applied to the whole Indian subcontinent after the arrival of the Achaemenid Persians. I think you were taking the above person way out of context and I think he himself is partly right but also ultimately making the same mistake you are. Both of you should read Afghan history a bit more thoroughly. And, the Medes did not arrive in Afghanistan, the Persians did.
- Khalid Yaqabi.
-By the way Tombseye, this is Afghan historian posting. Just so you know, I'm actually a Pakistani Muslim from Peshawar, which is an Pashtun populated city. And, much of eastern Afghanistan was populated by Indo-Aryan influenced Iranian tribes such as the Kambojas as well as Indo-Aryans like the Gandharis. Persian inscriptions themselves bare witness to the Gandharis. The name Kandahar comes from Gandhara. The Pashtuns did not exist in that era. They are descended from an amalgam of various Iranian tribes, with some Greek ancestry among certain populations. And, if Indian influence in the region was only passing, then why the hell did Buddhism dominate over Zoroastrianism for so long under both the Mauryas, the Indo-Greeks and the Kushans and afterwards? The Greco-Buddhist civilization which originated in Greek-dominated parts of the Indian subcontinent and the Kabul valley had part of its base in the eastern part of what is now Afghanistan. The Indo-Aryan influence came from deep within the subcontinent so yes, it is what would today be considered ancient Indian influence. We Pashtuns may be Iranic but that is only racially and linguistically. In terms of civilization, we are a mix of Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Greek and central Asian. So as our Afghan-born friend said above, dont go trivilizing the Indian aspect of Afghanistan, which came from the subcontinent after the Indo-Aryan migration. If you want a little more proof, there is cold archealogical evidence linking early cultures in the region with the Dravidian Indus Valley Civilization, proving even more its ties to southern Asia. If you dont want Indian for PC reasons, fine. Finally, I apologize for calling you stupid. It was wrong of me.
-Afghan historian
Oh come on, you guys are one guy. Exactly the same writing style and everything. Geezus. No sign in name so as to be anonymous, which I have no problem with, but come on. I actually said, the cultural contribution of Buddhism was India's main contribution. However, it's all through an Iranic prism. The Iranian peoples in much of Afghanistan (Zoroastrianism remained in many parts of Afghanistan alongside Buddhism as per archaeological finds dating into the Islamic period) do adopt Buddhism and that is India's main contribution. The Indo-Aryan languages were pushed out by the Iranians more than likely as a split took place between the two branches. Iranian languages have been in Afghanistan for as long as the Indo-Aryans. The Muslim historians write about Iranian peoples or groups similar to them in Afghanistan so I'm not sure how the Indo-Aryans were wiped out at that point. I'm skeptical with a few things as the term Indian keeps being used as synonymous with Indo-Aryan, which in the case of early Afghanistan, is not the case as they hadn't moved to India yet and thus the culture that would emerge by mixing with the aboriginal peoples did not begin. That's an important point here. It's also speculative as to whether the Indus civilization was Dravidian or Elamo Dravidian (a theory that connects Elam is not remotely universal either) as the Indus script has not been deciphered. More evidence might come in the form of DNA testing at some point. The Iranians in the form of the Medes, Achaemenids, Parthians, Scythians, Seleucids and others ruled Afghanistan for over a millenium compared to less than 1 century for the Mauryans who ruled the southeast. How's that the same? The Shahis were in and around Kabul only and they don't really necessarily reflect the religion of the local population at the time as they came in fairly late. These are pretty peripheral contributions and the Indic influence (aside from the Indo-Aryans whom I don't count here) we're talking about is more on par ultimately with Ural-Altaic invaders such as Turks and Huns as opposed to the Iranic which is the predominant through history. Hinduism shows up on the periphery and is not on par with Zoroastrianism (dominant in the west) and Buddhism (in the east). No ancient Hindu temples that compare to the remnants of the other religions. Nor is Hinduism emphasized in Iranic studies pertaining to Afghanistan. That's just an odd thing to bring up in this discussion like the Jews of Afghanistan who were probably a small but vibrant minority. The Medes did rule Afghanistan circa 700 BCE. They make note of their control in inscriptions. Sorry, but you're incorrect here. As for the Greek ancestry of Afghanistan, it's tiny and genetic tests who virtually non-existent. In fact, genetic tests show that the Pashtuns and Baluchis cluster with other Iranian peoples and not people east of the Indus. These debates on ancestry are highly speculative unless backed up with some hard evidence. Kandahar is also hypothesized as a local name for Alexandria (Iskandar). We don't know if it's connected to Gandhara, but it's one of the possibilites, not a certainty. You may be right that the Pashtuns did not exist in Gandhara until much later as evidence is quite scant and only vague references to Pactyans and the Pactuike aren't enough to substantiate such claims. On the other hand, Gandhara may have had a mixed population of both Iranic and Indo-Aryan origin. This is of course outside of afghanistan and into northwest Pakistan where the Pashtuns are the majority now. Your other points aren't valid. Pashtuns/Afghans as well as Tajiks are not contiguous with Indian civilization, but Iranic. It's not a 'mix' of Greeks either or racial. Genetic testing aside, their languages are Iranian, their culture before Islam Iranian, most of their history Iranian (not just Persian mind you). Their connections to the subcontinent ultimately begin and end with Buddhism and some limited cultural inroads. To call Indian influence the same as Iranic is not correct. I'm not being "PC" at all actually. That's also not an accurate term. I explained what I meant by Indo-Aryan and then modern Indian. It's not the same thing. People change when they move and/or are absorbed by other populations. Afghanistan is predominantly Iranian linguistically and culturally. The influence is not at all even. The Indo-Iranian crossroads you're talking about is in Pakistan where the Iranic and Indo-Aryan worlds met and mingled. Afghanistan is solidly Iranic. For the record, apology accepted. Tombseye10:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
-Some Dardic Indo-Aryan languages are still spoken in Afghanistan. And, I did read somewhere that Pashto, despite being Iranian, has a great deal of Indo-Aryan influence. If such influence does exist, it may point to an earlier Indo-Aryan speaking population living there. I might be wrong though.
-"Afghan"/Pakistani historian again. Just because Iranic studies dont focus on Hinduism doesnt mean it didnt exist there. And, archaeological finds show that the Indus civilization was distinctly Dravidian. I mean, Shiva and south Indian symbology. Its obvious. And, Brahui, a Dravidian language, is still spoken in Balochistan and Afghanistan as well as on the Iranian border. And, Zoroastrianism only dominates western Afghanistan, not eastern Afghanistan. And, eastern Afghanistan is not just a periphery, it is the Hindu Kush mt range with Kabul and Kandahar attached. If Buddhism dominated for such a long period of time, its not peripheral.
You still don't understand what this all means. First off, just because they spoke Indo-Aryan tongues is not a link to the culture of India TODAY. Pashto has borrowed words from Urdu and Punjabi because they are close-by. It doesn't mean that Pashto was IndoAryan before, except of course both branches were once a single language as Indo-Iranian. Actually, Indic studies have not shown anything as the Indus script has not been deciphered. These are all remnants of archaeological clues that MIGHT mean that the people spoke some Dravidian language, but no one really knows for sure. Now with DNA testing of some people they find they might find out more, but that hasn't happened yet. Brahui is believed to have arrived much later actually by most academics and is no longer believed to be an early remnant of the Indus Valley. Yes we just got through discussing that Buddhism was there and was predominant in parts of Afghanistan. Religion is one aspect of 'culture' at any rate and the people still spoke Iranic languages. Sorry, but Afghanistan is an Iranic region and most evidence supports that this has been the case for most of its history. Look, Afghanistan is Iranic predominantly and has had Indic influences mainly through Buddhism. It's not comparable. Tombseye09:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
About the CIA Implications: I found an interesting chapter in Peter Bergen's Book "Holy War, Inc.", published by The Free Press, NY, 2002, titled "Blowback, the CIA and the afghan war". The most relevant part states something that we can all agree about, that although many think that Osama Bin Laden is a CIA product, and that CIA directly armed and trained the afghan arabs and the Taliban, the reality is much more subtle than that. It is true that CIA made many tactical mistakes during the afghan-soviet war, and some of these mistakes contributed to the improvement of certain anti-western factions allied with the arab militants. This statement settles the discussion for me about CIA involvement, and therefore I would be glad if someone with better wiki knowledge than me could insert this in the main article.
Can you clarify and expand a bit as to what points you want put into the article Dr. Spielmann? Is the point that OBL is a product of the CIA and was also a tactical mistake in hindsight? Tombseye20:12, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
name change
User 70.29.3.153 just took out the Official name of Afghanistan and replaced it with the Pashtun equivalent. Just thought you might wanna know about this.--Zereshk00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
The lands of Iran and Afghanistan are as complex as are its people. About two hundred years ago, Afghanistan became an independent nation under Ahmad Shah Durani. Iran and Afghanistan are nations that have analgous historical relationship to each other. It is amazing that some writer still debate Afghan-Iranian identity and both their histories. I have spent most of my life researching the Afghan-Iranian relationship, and intern my research revealed that their ancestral roots were the Aryan. Furthermore, to assess unaware readers in understanding the relationship of Iranians-Afghans better, I have provided the fallowing analogy of other nations that are encapsulated in a similar circumstance. Here are the relevant references; (England and Scotland), (Germany and Austria), (North Korea and South Korea), (Bella Russia and Russia), (Pakistan and Bangladesh with India), (Sicily and Sardinia with Italy), (Montenegro and Kosova with Albania). All these people share a common history and culture but hold their affinity to their territorial states.
Historically, for thousands of years, Afghanistan and Iran have fallen under different groups of people. The reason for this was that both countries did not exist as separate nations but were merely a geographical location on earth that people sought to prosper in. Archaeologist indicate that the first people who came to these parts where called the Aryans. They migrated from the Russian-Caucus via the Khorasan passage; a region between Northeastern Iran and western Afghanistan, approximately between the modern cities of Mashed and Balkh. Aryans spread thorough these lands and called themselfs by the cities they established. Medes, Sodganas, Bactrians, Fars etc. They spoke the same language but of different dialects. This ancient language was preserved by an Aryan priest named Zoroaster in Old-Persian (Zardasht) in a secret book called Avesta. Modern Afghan and Iranian Persian/Dari-Farsi, Pashto, Kurdish, Baluchi all are derivatives of this language. The Persian language had three stages; Old Persian spoken by the Achmianid Dynasty, Middle Persian spoken by the Sassanian Dynasty, Modern Persian that derived from Pahlavi in Khorasan is called Dari today. Both the Iranians and Afghans share this modern Farsi language. The confusion that Iranian speak Farsi-Persian and Afghans speak Dari- Persian is as false as to say American speak American and the British speak English, this holds also true for the Australians. The truth is both Afghans and Iranians speak the same language, and I will point out where the confusion is dormant. As indicated previously the Aryans established the city called Fars approximately where modern day Isfahan is located. Here, the Aryans became politically strong establishing commerce and trade. Soon their influence reached across Aryana (Afghanistan-Iran). They became known as the Achaemenids Dynasty and because of their wealth, political structure they organized a powerful military system attracting people from all over Aryana. Darius The Great extended this influence as far as China and Northern Greece. Getting back to the main idea, the Greeks had a city state system and when a city ruled over a land mass that land mass was named after that city. Much like if you would call America Washington D.C. The Achaemenids never considered Aryana to be called after their city Fars. Like in modern day politics Fars was a capital to the land it dominated, it was a region where power was centralized. The Greeks also pronounced Fars as Persia and that is what the western world has referred to this land as. Later, the borrowed Greek culture by the Romans and from them the British Empire to Modern day United States has enhanced its use of the word thorough the succession of western civilizations. To put it in a nutshell Farsi means Persia and visa-versa. As indicated before the Persian language went through three stages. The first stage was the Achaemenid-Persians whom I briefly introduced, the second and the third stage will produce our final thoughts on this subject. The second stage of the Persian language and culture came after the fall of the Achaemenid Dynasty by Alexander the Great. Here, Greek culture and language influenced the Persian language receiving many Greek loan words. After the death of Alexander, Aryana was Hellenized or (Greekized). Many factions tried to take control of this land. The land had split under three Greco-Perso ruling powers; the Selecuids, the Parthnians and the Bactrians. The Parthnians were unique in that even though they had Greek influences they held national pride in old Achaemenid traditions, in hope to rebound anther empire from Aryana. The Parthnians were successful later calling themselves the Sassianian Empire. Here is where Middle Persian/Farsi took stage. During the third stage when the Arabs arrived, they called the language Pahlavi. This was because they took control of Arayna's central power territory, the state of Khorasan also known as (Parthia). The Arabs orally pronounced Parthia as Pahlavi which is commonly used and mis-used by writers today. Parthia was the Greco-Roman pronunciation. The last stage is the invention of modern Persian/Farsi called Dari, which became the language of the kings royal courts. The Arabs had brought Persian/Farsi to a near extinction when poets concealed nationalism amongst Aryans to revive their language and culture from total Arabization. One man in particular whom brought a sense of dignity to the demoralized Aryans was Frowdosi Tossi of Khorasan. He reinvented Persian/Farsi by using Arabic letters writing a glories story about the ancient kingdoms of Aryana. This intern brought a sense of unity and nationalism revolutionizing Persian/Farsi into what is Dari-Persian/Farsi. Dari is the modern literal Persian/Farsi and has derived into several dialects. Like English, we could hear many variations from different regions. Some are close and others sound distinct. For example when you hear Australian or Jamaican you might not understand it if your from London, but it is still a literal English language. Farsi has the same properties, if your from Tehran and I am from Kabul there is a distinction in our language, but it is still literally Farsi. Persian/Farsi speaking region will have loan words from a geographically close neighboring nation. Languages like Pashto, Kurdish and Baluchi are close to Persian/Farsi but have become distinct Aryana languages of their own. These languages were all one language with Persian/Farsi during the arrival of the Aryans, but was less influenced by Persian/Farsi during its development phase in Aryana and took its own course. Theory suggests that this was because of its geographical remoteness in Aryana. In closing Dari is the new third stage of Persian/Farsi used today. When an Afghan says he is speaking Farsi he is one hundred percent correct, he is speaking Afghani-Farsi dialect and an Iranian is speaking his or her dialect, they all speak Dari-Farsi/Persian dialects. One more thing, the shah of Iran in the early 1900’s summonsed the Europeans to stop referring to it as Persia and call it by its original name “Elm- A – Aryan”, which means in English “Land Of The Aryans”.
female literacy rates
The following is in the article:
'Literacy of the entire population is estimated at 36%, Male Literacy rate is 51% and female literacy is 21%. The male is higher because of Taliban laws prohibiting education of women.'
The Taliban were in power for 6 years, that is not a primary reason for women having a literacy rate of 30% less then men. The artlce would be better to leave the "explanation" out of the statistic, it is quite telling as it is.12.20.127.22916:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I totaly agree with the fact that there is no reliable information on Afghanistan's ethnic composition. This is due to the fact that Pashton dominated governments in Afghanistan never had the intention to have the sensus of the country. Being aware of the facts in the ground, when ever they distribute the ID cards( Tazkera) they labeled all people as "Afghan". But in books and periodicals some times they put the Pashtons as majority and now they say they are "at least the largist ethnic group" with no proof. The reality is that Pashtuns make hardly one third of the Afghan population and Tajiks together with Aimaqs and Qezibash are almost 40% of the Afghan population. Based on the Bonn Agreement the UN should have helped Afghanistan to carry out its population syrvey but this was not carried out. No Pashton dominated government in Afghanistan will be ready to make a reliable survey of ethnic composation of Afghanistan people. They as always, would say: " we all are Afghans no division". On the othe hand, in official documinatation and in international media, they put Pashtons as "mojority" or at least the largest ethnic group", which is not .
Afghanistan's name section is almost as long as the history section
AND the information is repeated over and over again. Perhaps just a link to the origins of the name so that people can just know the basics, Afghan in its current usage is synonymous with Pashtun and stan means country in Persian and the name thus means land of the Afghans/Pashtuns. The rest of the theory might as well be in a separate article. Tombseye09:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Islamic Republic of Afghanistan
On very quick observation, it seems to me that the cuurent Islamic Republic of Afghanistan should be a seperate article (it currently redirects here), just as the Republic of Ireland is a seperate article. That said, I have very little knowledge of Afghanistan, so for all I know there could be a specific reason that it is all one article. Canaen04:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The only reason Republic of Ireland is a separate article is because the island of Ireland is split between two countries. Just as Hispaniola and Haiti are different articles. In our case, the name of the country outweighs the name of the region; Ireland is somewhat of a unique case, since there are two countries there which both have Ireland in their name, and it's a political issue. --Golbez04:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how beneficial this discussion would be, as politicians and warlords have already hacked out the country's official name as 'Islamic Republic of Afghanistan'. However, this is based purely on dirty politics and serves only power-mongers as they try to abuse the name of Islam to stay in the game. It has nothing to do with the way the people feel. There was no referendum, not even an opinion poll to gauge the people's will.
Of course, Afghanistan is predominantly a Muslim nation. This has been the case in the last 1200 - 1400 years, and it always will be. Nobody will ever be able to take Islam away from Afghans. The only period of threat (to some people’s religious tendencies) was during the Soviet invasion, which actually worked contrary to Russian wishes, as people's faith was strengthened even more. That is why there is no need to call the country 'the Islamic Republic of'. Afghanistan doesn't need to prove that it is Islamic. The world knows it. And the people don't care. They just call it Afghanistan. There is no need for political differentiation as there is no other country by the same name, like Ireland. China and Iran have (or had?) a reason to call themselves People's Republic of ... and The Islamic Republic of ...; in both countries, the government was/is attempting to make fundamental changes to culture and/or to portray a new image in the world. This is not the case in Afghanistan.--Breaker-One 16:17, 31 January 2006 (CET)
The link "Sououd-e-melli" is misspelled. it should be "Soroud-e-Melli". Same correction should be made it its page heading, and I don't know how to do that.
Too long sections
Some sections in the article are extremely too large and should be shortened and moved to the relevant articles which directly discuss the matter. Plesae notice that in this article we should not write any thing on Afghanistan in details but a fine introduction on various sides of the country such as its economy, history, politics etc. Thanks. DiyakoTalk+13:29, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Jewish Origin
The article claims, the Jewish origin were a "myth". Large parts of the article are copied from one linked source. And frankly, I think it should not simply brushed away as a myth. The reasoning is very weak. Just because racist arguments were used in the time of the Moghuls does not mean they were invented. And it is EXTREMELY arrogant to simply discount a people's own history records as myths. Is there any precedent for a country inventing its history?!? Why would the Afghan Muslims want to claim to be of Jewish descent? Is the name Afghanistan also an invention? What about the traditional Jewish behavior, clothing that was noticed until by many visitors at least until a century ago? This should not be debunked as a myth without sound proof, so I changed the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.137.149.6 (talk • contribs) .
If people have a lot of arguments for and against this particular theory, maybe they should all be laid out in a separate article (I suggest calling it Bani-Israel) that would be linked from this one?...? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 22:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Demographics
I updated the demographic makeup of Afghanistan according to the CIA world Factbook https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/af.html. I did so as the figures were outdated and once again someone placed incorrect information falsely stating that the CIA factbook stated the Demographic of Afghanistan was mainly made up of "Iranian People". Which is nowhere to be found on that site. The proper demographic facts have been placed on the page.
Thank you.
Demographics Again
Please do not use old figures. I am using the exact same website, the CIA World Factbook to derive the figures that are in the demographics part. If this upsets you, there is nothing I can do about that except to ask you to respect the updated numbers from the CIA website, the same site you used for figures from 3 years ago.
Thank you. Stop trying to impose your opinion on Misplaced Pages and start placing only factual information on it.
Thank you.
GA / References
I added the {{GA}} template to this page, because this article does a good job of covering its topic. However, in its current state, the references are a mess. All works used to write the article included in a "References" section at the bottom of the page, not in the middle of the prose. Inline citations can be used within the text itself to refer to specific references in the list, but full bibliographic information does not belong in the text itself. —Spangineer(háblame)20:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
How to improve this article to make it a featured article
Hello all. I noticed that this article has rise to good article status and could be a featured article if we make some changes. iyako makes some valid points regarding the length of some sections. Also, regarding Afghanistan's neighbors, Iran failed to become a featured article, while Pakistan made it. from what I can gather, Pakistan's sections are shorter and more succinct. Also, there is nothing on Afghanistan's widelife (including plants etc.). The references should all be at the end of the article (thus economic references should be moved) and the constitution should be placed within the government and politics section rather than having its own section. The pictures section as part of the View of Afghanistan should be removed as a section as the pictures could simply be placed in appropriate parts of the article. I wanted to talk about this before I started making any radical moves. What are some of the opinions? Thanks. Tombseye18:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I also move that we create an article for the Origin of the name Afghanistan as a separate article and give a brief explanation of it in the opening segment as is the case with the Pakistan article. Any objections? Tombseye16:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
Burqa is NOT Afghan culture
In the culture section, there is a picture of a women wearing a picture and is titled, "Afghan woman wearing a cultural Burqa".
The Buraq is NOT Afghan culture. It was imposed by the Taliban in the 1990's. Things that people are FORCED to do are NOT culture.
This picture should be replaced by a picture of real Afghan culture. I will remove it for now. And I will add a picture showing real Afghan cultural/traditional clothing.
It still reflects the history of Afghanistan, how women were forced to wear it during the Taliban regeme - I find it to be quite fascinating. How about if we change the caption to "During Taliban rule, women were forced to were buqas"? --Khoikhoi20:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The Burqa picture will NOT be under culture.
It should be under Taliban rule or Taliban oppression.
The excuse that it is part of the history does not make it a part of the culture.
Should we put pictures of of Iranian people holding Americans hostage and say that it is a part of the Iranian culture because it was an important part of Iranian history?
Come on!!
We're taking it off and it can be placed under a different category, NOT culture.
Sorry, but it is not culture, but oppression. You cannot take a couple of years of oppression and put a picture so horrible, to sum up Afghan culture which is thousands of years old.
Sorry.
I think you are suggesting the Burqa originated with the Taliban. I am not of course defending the Taliban, but look at any historical photograph of a Kabul street scene from the 1920s, 30s, 40s, 50s or 60s and you will see almost all women clad in Burqas. The only period in which Burqas began to disappear from the streets was during the 80s, under the DRA government, so I think there's a big difference between saying the Taliban brought the Burqa back and saying it originated with them. I'm not endorsing the practice, but denying it existed before the Taliban is historical revisionism.
No, it is not ok.
I checked other countries with periods of oppression and other countries that did not have less than a decade of oppression, but decades of it, and there are no pictures of such htings. We may speak of the oppression of the Taliban, but there is no reason to place a picture on the main page or on the history of Afghanistan page.
Like I said, 1,000's of years of history and culture and someone wants a picture from a period of less than 7 years?
I don't think so, and anyone that knows anything about Afghanistan will agree.
Removing the picture would be like removing this from the Holocaust page. Yes of course it's painful, but it's a part of Afghanistan's history and just like all the other events, cannot be erased. --Khoikhoi03:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Totally Agree
The Burqa picture does not belong on any page accept one specific to the Taliban.
In no way shape or form is that going to be on the Afghanistan page with millions of other things to exemplify Afghan culture and / or history with.
Once again, it's the same old groups trying to place words and pictures without really knowing what they are really doing.
Everyone, should read the discussion two or three above, where one says that it is a "fascinating" part of Afghan culture. It goes on to say the woman wearing a cultural burqa. Anyone who places that on the page should have the authority to place anything else on that page.
Come on and let's be equal selectivity on country pages.
If it's done for Afghanistan, than it has to be done for Iran and everyone else with many dodgy things in their recent past.
Thank you.
What we are trying to say is that it should be mentioned but it should not be the one of a few pictures that are placed on the page to exemplify a culture and history of a country with 1,000's of years of culture and history.
I hope you understand what I am trying to say.
Part of the history - yes. Should it be one of the few pictures to exemplify any category of Afghanistan - absolutely not.
The same goes for any other country.
Should we post a picture of the Iranians who took the Americans hostage on the main page of Iran?
Or should it be specific to Iran Hostage?
Picture & explanation
There is a large picture of the burqa on the Taliban page.
Why repeat yourself? It is under the treatment of women. Check it yourself unless someone takes it off. The picture depicts a man beating a woman on the street. Not enough huh? you need it on the Afghan page too?
I think the picture on the Taliban page is sufficient and the entire section on that page dedicated to treatment of women under them is good.
Thank you.
It is NOT part of their culture. They are scared to death from the taliban. Most of the Afghan women had seen their best friend shot for not wearing a burqa. All they want is to be on the safe side. In a couple of years the women will go back to wearing regular head scarfs. Wearing head scarfs is part of Afghan culture.LF219:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Please read the above discussion before changing items on the page wantonly.
If you read the above discussions, you would understand that their is already a picture of the oppression of women under the taliban on that page specifically.
It is not a picture that should be used to sum up the history and culture on the main page. When you only have limited space, it is necessary to place pictures that encompass the 1,000's of years of culture, not just a period of a little over 5 years.
Thank you.
The excuse that some still wear them does not suffice to have it as one of the main pictures on the front page.
Should I have a picture of men stoning women after she has been found to have been raped on the page for some Muslim countries because a few still do that? No, of course not. It may possibly be mentioned but not made a feature on the main page. One must place pictures that encompass the 1,000's of years of history when you have limited space.
Come on get real, read the above discussions before you change things you may not understand.
I'd like to think it's good faith, if perhaps misguided. The problem with removing the comment in this instance is that while the US may have invaded to help (which is debatable) even a "helpful" invasion is still an invasion. Ahwell. ~Kylu (u|t) 03:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Future of Afghanistan section
This section is just asking for POV claims (there are a few there), and seems to be, in my opinion, a violation of WP:NOT. Editing may help, but I really think the section should be removed. -- Scientizzle00:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
land mines
The article mentions in the last paragraph of History:
'possibly the largest concentration of land mines on earth and other unexploded ordinance'
Given the number killed each year I would expect an explanation: which country supplied the mines, who placed them, are they in well-defined areas, and how long will the mines remain dangerous.
- Jon McKenney, updated 12:36 07 June 2006
Official Name
Can we please come to a consensus on the country's name in the infobox and in the intro? The official name, as per the current Afghan constitution, current government, and CIA World Factbook, as well as pretty much every other official source, is the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. The Islamic State of Afghanistan was the government of mujahdeen that 'ruled' the country from 1992-1996 and then again for a month immediately after the fall of the Taliban. The Transitional Islamic State of Afghanistan, which someone keeps listing in the infobox, was the transitional government led by Hamid Karzai from 2002-2004, when the current constitution came into usage. Again, can we please get a consensus here? If something as basic as the official name is being reverted over and over, this article will never become featured. -Helmandsare08:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC).
The article discusses Afghanistan as having a high density of other unexploded "ordinance". I believe the author meant ORDNANCE. Could some with the necessary permissions please fix this?
Repository of images
Greetings,
I have made an Asian repository of images, similar to the one that exists for Europe. Please complete the part pertaining to this country as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:
the Burqa is a very painful memory to Afghans, just like the gas chambers are to Jews, we do not want to see it and it should be replaced with another image.
I just searched for Israel and Jews.
and NEITHER of those articles had images of the Holocaust or anything even slightly relating to that.
So we want the same. We do not want painful memories of our oppression.
I will delete that image, and get another image of Afghanistan's history.
But ofcoarse, the information will be there about our oppression and about the Burqa.
But images are VERY painful.
Please do not insult us or hurt our feelings again by putting this picture back up.
Aren't you over-reacting a bit comparing clothing with genocide? If you have picture of typical clothing then post it but according the media reports I read people still wear the burqa. You can't just delete stuff because it isn't the way you wish it was. Also, please put your username at the bottom of your statements. It helps with keeping track of who said what. --MarsRover09:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not comparing it with genocide. The clothing is a symbol of Afghan oppression and genocide. Over 2 million have died in these wars due to bulles and bombs. Many more have died due to starvation and disease. And even more are severly oppressed. And the Burqa is a symbol of all these things. It remind us of those things.
And yes, people still wear the Burqa. But in all parts of the country were there is now liberty and freedom, people have abandoned the burqa. Peoply ONLY wear it because they have to and are forced to by the remnants of Taliban ideology.
It is NOT a part of culture. Culture isnt something that is FORCED on people.
When women have a choice, they do not wear the Burqa. In the free parts of the country (such as Kabul) most women have chosen not to wear it. They still wear Hijabs, which is ok.
Can you post a picture of typical Afghans wearing a Hijab? and hopefully not just people in Kabul? Also, like a said previously, you should sign your comments. People generally don't trust anonymous comments. --MarsRover20:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
At our country, the Netherlands, there are pictures in our history books, also at the schoolbooks for children (13-18 years old) of the Holocaust, for example. This shows us how terrible this was. The question is, in my opinion, how relevant a picture is to tell us something about history, or culture, or traditions. (Rob)
Greeks and Macedonians
"An ancient land that has often been plundered, and also a focal point of trade, the region of present-day Afghanistan has seen several invading forces come and go, including Aryan nomads, the Mede and Persian Empires, Greeks and Macedonians, Arabs, Turks, and Mongols."
Firstly I would like to say tham I am Greek, and there is an ongoing dispute between the Greeks and people from F.Y.R.O.M. on the valid uses of the name Macedonia.
In the above context it seems like the original author suggests that "Greeks" and "Macedonians" are two different people.
The correct would be "Greek Macedonians", in comfortance with the F.Y.R.O.M. claims that they are eligible to the name (as "Slav Macedonias") as they (now and for maybe a couple of centuries) occupy a tiny fraction of the (then) historical Macedonia. (But this can only lead to a flame war - and it's stupid).
There is no dispute that the Macedonians who were lead by Alexander the Great to conquere the then known world were Hellenes.
But, the above passage is still wrong, as there weren't only Greek Macedonias in Alexander's army. Greeks from Athens, Peloponisos, Thrace, Asia Minor and the rest of the Greek world (except Spartans), followed Alexander's march, not long after he was crowned King of (all) Greeks. So we can safely ommit that "Macedonias" went to Afghanistan, as we need not write that Athenias or Thracians went to Afghanistan.
Bin Laden, The CIA and Pakistan:
Regarding the Bin Laden / CIA issue. What I think should be precised is the fact that the funding and training of Osama Bin Laden's group was done through Pakistani agencies that received US funding. The US probably didn't know where exactly the money was going, only were happy to fund anti-soviet resistance groups. But the actual selection of funding targets was done by the Pakistani agencies. Dr_Spielmann
Bin Laden's "nom de guerre"
Can a reference or citation be provided for the claim that Osama bin Laden was a Stinger missile expert and was known as "The Archer" during the war with the Soviets? I recall a character from a Tom Clancy novel who fit that description; this is the first place I've seen the claim that bin Laden was known as such.
The number of new victims of anti -personnel
mines recorded each year has dropped
dramatically in recent years.Data collected by the
ICRC through some 450 medical facilities in
Afghanistan has shown the number of deaths and
injuries caused by anti -personnel mines dropped
by some 50%,from 409 in 2002 to 205 in 2003.
This cannot be true, because the poorest country in the world is East Timor, which is in SE Asia, if one goes by per capita GDP. If one goes by the UN Human Development index, then this statement is also incorrect, because Afghanistan wasn't included in the rankings. I'm going to remove this unless the statement is clarified or cited. Cheers! --Chuchunezumi22:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I spent time citing the sources and you deleted them. It is very annoying. Please dont do this again or I'll report you. Thanks.
And the reports of Afghanistan's poverty were calcualted after the American invasion to get rid of terrosists from Afghanista. Please dont remove the citaions again, or I WILL report you. BBC is plenty reliable source. THANKS
Look at WP:DR instead of "reporting" people, please. Debate the information here, not air your grievances in nonexistent places. --physicq21001:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No worries, I was just really taken aback, since I've never reverted any of your edits and your message seemed pretty hostile. I appreciate your removing the comment, which read "". I promise I have no agenda, but the addition of that fact seemed questionable, given the reasons I stated. I apologize for the confusion. Cheers!--Chuchunezumi02:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm confused. That first citation article (VOANEWS) says that Afghanistan is "near the bottom of the 178 countries surveyed', and just ahead of some sub-saharan African countries. That's not the same things as being the poorest country outside of Africa - 'poorest country outside of Africa' means that the only poorer countries are inside Africa, and that article simply does not say that. And the first guy's link sez pretty clearly that East Timor is the poorest country in the world, which would make it the poorest country both inside and outside Africa. The BBC article says only that 'on some measures' Afghanistan is the poorest country in the world. The only measure it actually gives is that the infant mortality rate is even worse than the poorest countries inside Africa. Which may or may not be a good measure. I'd think there might be factors that go into infant mortality rates other than wealth. I.e. warfare, history, priorities, local illnesses etc. I mean I'm willing to belive Afghanistan is the poorest, I just don't see the evidence.
NAME
The 'official' name or 'long' name, according to all UN documents (and a committee meeting published paper located here] as of 2002), is "The Islamic State of Afghanistan". So I was incorrect with the older adaptation of "Transitional". The name "Republic" does not belong in the title. Thanks! Rarelibra21:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Mujahadeen Confusion
In Afghanistan, mujahadeen is a highly ambiguous term. The article is clear about what sort of mujahadeen were appointed to office, but the elected officials are left wide open. Could someone clarify?
WHY SO MUCH ON IRAN?
It is ok to mention Iran's ties to Afghanistan, but that does not mean that every single section has to have something linking everything to Iran or "what is now Afghanistan". Once again, the page has been used to push Iranian this and Iranian that.
Enough of this.
This areticle is mostly sourced, and so are the articles linked to this site. Modern Afghanistan (mainland Afghanistan) used to be part of Iran up to the 18th century, the Western parts of modern Afghanistan (Herat, Farrah, Ghor) were Iranian provinces up to the middle of the 19th century, and Iranian control and influence on these territories was eventually stoped in 1919 (less than 100 years ago), when Afghanistan was finally recognized by the international community as an independent nation.
The third King in Qajar dynasty was Fath Ali Shah's grandson Mohammad Shah, who fell under the influence of Russia and made two unsuccessful attempts to recapture Herat. When Iran's King "Mohammad Shah" died in 1848, the kingdom passed to his son Nasser-e-Din. In 1856 Britain prevented Iran from reasserting control over Herat, which had been part of Iran during the ages, but had been ruled by native Afghans since the mid-18th century. Britain supported the eastern part of Khorasan incorporation into Afghanistan; therefore the current borders of Afghanistan would not be determined until the coming of the British.
This text does not have any special importance to be mentioned in Afghanistan's main page. While, it can be a very significant and important point to be mentioned in Qajar dynasty's article. Or even more, it can be added in the sub-article of History of Afghanistan, because the main article is getting too long.
If one mentions the history of the Afghan-Iran border called "Fakhri" (the same border lying between Herat and Iran, and which the above text is talking about), so he must also mention the history of other borders i.e. Afghan-Iran border called "McMahan" (the border was created during the ruling of Abdur Rahman Khan by the interfence of British empire in the dispute between Afghanistan and Iran over the late regions of Hilmad River, in which Afghanistan lost its south-western regions for Iran), Afghan-Russian border (created during the ruling of Abdur Rahman because of a Russian attack over Panjdeh village, and Afghanistan lost its Northern territories) and then the Durand Line which does NOT have any importance either to be mentioned. Ariana31012:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, a brief section defining the modern day borders of Afghanistan and how they got there would be appropriate in this article. Although this one paragraph could be edited down to one sentence. There could be another article that goes into depth on Afghanistan's borders through history, and the borders should be defined from the Afghan perspective, while the other countries' perspectives should be the focus in their country articles. KP Botany15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
NisarKand's edits
...have been reverted for now. Here is an extensive changelog, we are currently awaiting rationale from NisarKand for such sweeping changes. and
The only possibly controversial edit I kept is the last paragraph in the leading section: someone check that and remove if necessary. The remander of NisarKand's edits were subtractive, nomenclature-related or copyedits, which need to be checked out more indepth. — Edward Z. Yang17:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't follow all of them, but there were quite a few necessary copyedits. I've been trying to stop by and make copyedits here and there. Quite a few of the articles about Afghanistan and Afghans need a lot of copyedit work. Please discuss which ones by NisarKand you felt were controversial. There were so many, major and minor, that it was hard to follow. This article, however, does need quite a bit of clean-up. KP Botany17:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
NisarKand's edits were mostly POV. Besides that, he deleted sourced info (for example the Encyclopaedia of Islam quote), deleted the Arabic transliteration, etc.
If you go thourgh the articles history, you will see all of his changes.
Well NisarKand made so many edits that it's hard to follow the history. Maybe if I had faster than DSL. Some of them were necessary copyedits, though, and a couple looked like he edited out POV, rather than adding it. The article still needs quite a bit of copyediting, and needs some stuff removed to other articles, and some other work, which I was hoping was what he was doing when he started. I wasn't checking the Arabic transliterations, though. And I have to say that source information is not one of the problems this article has--it's one of the few country articles that is well-sourced in general, so references and sources should not be removed, particularly a source so accessible for English-speaking non-Muslims. Oh, well, I'll continue with copyediting now and then.KP Botany18:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Most of these edits actually make the article more accessible for the average laymen who is just trying to learn generally about Afghanistan, not publish an entire history, and they remove a lot of POV from the article. The latter is what tends to make the article unwieldingly long and not particularly useful. Some of the Latin alphabet transliterations were changed also, but Afghans use diverse and often unusual transliterations so I tend to ignore those along with the Arabic script ones--I don't know what's official for transliterations from Pashto or Dari or whatever language. The Encyclopedia of Islam quote that was deleted is convoluted, too detailed, and redundant to other sections and this sections itself. I think this was probably a strong edit by someone trying to make the article more useful, more clear and less biased. I think that your reverting them wholesale was a mistake. KP Botany21:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If Tajik (the person who asked me to revert) doesn't respond soon, please revert my revert! Subtractive edits are very difficult to evaluate, especially if you're not knowledgeable about the subject. Quite honestly, I'm not really qualified: I just took a few looks, saw that a lot of material was deleted without explanation, and decided to revert. — Edward Z. Yang23:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are some topics up for discussion:
Transliterations and native transcriptions of the country name
Persian versus Persian (Dari)
Declaration of independence
Applicability of a modern analysis of the country's state
Appropriateness of a map picture in the Name section
Most of the copyedits were restored. The only unchanged things now are the quote and the text of the leading section, which should not be changed without discussion. — Edward Z. Yang23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
@ KP Botany: could you please explain which "POV" he deleted?! User:NisarKand:
changed Persian language to Dari, which is wrong. The proper name for that language in the English language is "Persian". This has been discussed many times in many different articles. See Dari (Afghanistan) and Persian language for more information.
deleted sourced information about the origin of the name "Afghanistan" and replaced it with POV.
claims that Ahmad Shah Durrani was the "founder of Afghanistan". In fact, this is believed by many people, but it is wrong. Ahmad Shah Abdali started the Durrani dynasty of Khorasan (the deignation of the Durrani Shahs was "Emperors of Khorasan"). "Afghanistan" as a nation-state was created more than a century later, and was recognized as such in 1919.
is inserting non-existing terms into the article, such as "Pashtun-Afghan". If you follow the link of Afghan, you will see that it is the same as Pashtun ("Pashtun" is the historical and only correct meaning of the word "Afghan").
Could you please elaborate on what exactly you consider "POV"?!
No, I can no longer follow who did what when to what, there were just too many changes. I will continue looking at the article and doing copyedits and encourage folks to continue to make the article more readable. When I find things that I currently consider POV I will post here first, or on your talk page, before making any changes. I would like to not chase away copyeditors, particularly in areas I consider important.
Plenty of people say "Dari" in English and mean the Persian spoken in Afghanistan by the Tajiks. This is simply a regionalism. And this horse has been flayed to death, so I'm not jumping on. (I'll admit plenty of English-speakers also call Afghans "afghanis" for some reason. So, just because speakers of English use a term, doesn't make it correct.) More important than us discussing this is someone cleaning up the Dari page so its readable.
Oh, I see, parenthetically calling the Ghilzai Pashtun-Afghans--a bit silly. However, the sentence could stand a parenthetic remark that Ghilzai are a Pashtun tribe. You argue, though, that Pashtuns are the only Afghans, yet English speakers use Afghan to mean all people whose homeland is Afghanistan, to include Tajiks and Hazara and etc. And you argue the reason for using Persian instead of Dari is the former is its proper name in English. Well, Afghan, in English, isn't limited to meaning Pashtun. So, if the term is used for both all the peoples of Afghans and the Pashtuns who originate there in the same article, as it is, some flexibility is needed. A parenthetical comment after Ghilzai would add clarity and make the article useful to non-Afghans, non-Tajiks, etc. But, yes, delete the Pashtun-Afghan--it doesn't mean anything.
Afghanistan existed long before any Western political concepts allowed it to be included in encyclopedias. Both the way you write it and the way NisarKahn writes it are POV. However, you argue both for inclusion of the quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam putting the political formation of united Afghans in the 18th century and here for the Western nation state Afghanistan of 1919. This is confusing to people who are reading the article to learn about Afghanistan--which one is it? Both should be under political hisotry of the nation-state.
I suggest the article be cleaned up, streamlined, copyedited, and divided into smaller articles on big subjecst like the history of Afghanistan. But a little at a time. And with some discussion beforehand. KP Botany00:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia (and by know the one that used most among all) and should keep encyclopaedic standards. If you look up "Afghanistan" in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (and I repeat it again: the EI is a collection of scholarly articles!), you will find the same thing I have written here. I am not trying to impose "my opinion" on the readers, but what the most authoritative sources say. Misplaced Pages is not a there to falsefy truth and facts, only to make it easier for readers to understand - if that were the case, then all articles dealing with physics, mathematics, or chemestry would be totally false! Misplaced Pages is there to give the best and best sourced information available - for free.
Afghanistan did not exist long before any Western political concepts allowed it (you can trust me: I am from Afghanistan and have done a lot of research about this), the same way Pakistan did not exist long before that concepts. In fact, both Afghanistan (created in the 19th century) and Pakistan (created 100 years later) are products of the Russian and Brittish politics of that era. In case of Pakistan, everyone understands that this nation was created in middle of the 20th century and once used top be part of what we call "India". So why shouldn't the reader understand that modern "Afghanistan" was also part of other larger territories of the past and emerged as a nation-state much later?! The name "Afghanistan" itself is a product of the British colonial power. These are pure facts, and it's not difficult to underline them with reliable sources.
I suggest you to look up the Encyclopaedia of Islam (or ask someone else who has access to it) and see what "Afghan" and "Afghanistan" mean.
Hi folks, Edward Z. Yang, KP Botany and Tajik...I like to begin by saying I appologize for making mass sudden changes too quickly. My editings are intended to make readers get a complete understanding of Afghanistan and its people. It's rather not important to focus too much on Iran or Persia when "AFGHANISTAN" is the main subject, although I am fully aware that both nations shared history in the past. In most of the editings, the attention of readers is too much directed to one specific tiny section of the country, which is the area close to Iran. I see too many words Persia, Iran, Persian, Iranian, Persian Empires, and ect. while nothing is mentioned about the eastern culture. More importantly, the much needed history of the main inhabitants of the country "the Pashtuns" that are the real owners of the land. As I read the report on Afghanistan, I got the notion that someone of an Iranian or Persian origin had written it. Why isn't anything mentioned about the Afghans? I was the one who placed the image of Ahmad Shah Durrani, the father of the nation. Afghanistan did not only share history with Iran or former Persia, in fact, the only area that was influenced by Iran or Persia was mainly the City of Herat, which is the only inhabitated area close to Iran's border. Both places speak entirely different dialogs of the Persian language, and, the dialog spoken in Kabul (DARI) is far different from both Herati Persian or the Iranian Persian. Therefore, the writings make Afghanistan appear to the readers as if Iran's people and Afghanistan's people are both the same. However, this is not because the Afghans are the Pashtuns, they are not Iranians or former Persians. Afghans have a seperate history of their own which can be traced 5,000 years back...and further back to 50,000 years. In the near future I do plan to share this information here.
Now over to other issues. First, I completely deleted the Islamic Encyclopaedia stuff because it's errelevent and a waste of space. I also partially deleted the second paragraph under "Name" because Afghanistan was NEVER a state of Iran or Persia before the 18th century. However, there was Iranian/Persian influence in some smaller section of the country but the remaining larger section was independent for ages. It is 100% false statement to say Afghanistan was state of Iran or Persia before the 18th century, and I'm sure every Afghan on earth would challenge this claim. Khorassan simply did not have possession of Afghanistan....now over to Islamic Encyclopaedia...If you read the statement it first says..."Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century"...then it states..."The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghans”...to the average reader this makes no sense because they already are aware that Afghanistan means land of the Afghans. If prior to middle of 18th century, the location was called land of the Afghans then it was Afghanistan...because Afghanistan means land of the Afghans. It's recorded that Alexander the Great had mention a word much similar to "Afghans" for the natives that lived in Afghanistan at the time of his arrival. In several of Hindu Books dating back to apprixmately 5,000 years, the name Afghan is also mentioned. So what's the big deal about someone using this name in the 18th century??? It is mentioned that the name Afghanistan derived from Persian language meaning "land of the Afghans". Are all the countries ending with "stan" Persian names? including Arabistan and Hindustan? Somewhere else I read that Afghanistan is Arabic name...for land of the Afghans...given during in or about the 7th century. So, if the name Afghanistan was given or made up by the Arabs that far in time...how can it be a Persian name? I feel that the words Persian language be deleted in the top first paragraph. Because the evidence is not convincing. It should just read "Afghanistan means land of the Afghans".
Next, Ahmad Shah's last name was "Abdali" when he was an army general, before becoming a king and before him choosing the new last name "Durrani". This makes his official name Ahmad Shah Durrani because it is what he wanted to be remembered by. That makes Ahmad Shah Abdali his A.K.A. alias name. Using the alias name is improper and an act to discredit someone. Besdies, his alias name is used in his detailed biography report (see Ahmad Shah Durrani). Also, please do not use the term "tribal chief" for someone already being described as an army or military general. That's like calling President Hamid Karzai a tribal chief instead of a President. About Persian (Dari), I believe the proper way to write is "Dari (Persian)" because people in Afghanistan speak Dari, which is a dialog from the Persian language. If you write it vice versa (Persian (Dari)...only very few would understand.
Finally, regrading Pashtun-Afghan......"Ghilzais" are Afghans from the Pashtun ethnics...same as saying "Cherokees" are Indian-Americans or Native-Americans. If someone reads "Cherokees are Natives" or "Cherokees are Americans", they would only half understand the full picture. Pashtun is the older name and Afghan is the modern name. Therefore, to make readers fully understand...at a certain given point...words may be made in ways to better benefit the readers, this is the main purpose here. In this part of the argument, I sense that Tajik is not understanding because he is obviously not Pashtun...he prefers to see "Pashtun" instead of Afghan or vice versa. A reminder again...the subject is "AFGHANISTAN" as a nation and its people. So the main focus must be on the Pashtuns (Afghans) rather than Iranians, Persians, or others. Readers who are interested about Iran, Iranians, Persia, Persians or Persian Empires can do specific search on those topics. Thanks
OK, I will wait for your reponse(s) and would be happy to discuss with you further on any topic. Sorry again for causing mass sudden changes and please understand that I only do edits to make people understand the facts about Afghanistan. I will be adding what's important for the country and deleting or changing the unimportant stuff. By the way I am very new here what is "POV"?.
Afghanistan is also the modern land, not just the people, and the people who live in the modern land are not just the Pashtuns, but also the Tajiks, Hazara, Balouch, etc. So remember to put your content in the correct place, Afghans under Afghan and Afghanistan under Afghanistan. Pashtun-Afghan is simply confusing not clarifying in the instance. Ghilzai (a Pashtun tribe) might be okay, but Pashtun-Afghan doesn't work. You're doing necessary work, although I don't agree with all of it, but still this article does overemphasize the history of Afghanistan from the Enclopedia of Islam ancient empires perspective, and needs to let modern people understand what Afghanistan is. More comments later. KP Botany18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Starting at the very top...I am not fully satisfied so I will cause some few minor changes or rearrangements...the first is the language. According to the latest Afghanistan's constitution, it states that Pashto and "Dari" are the official languages of the country. So...the proper way to write it should be "Dari (Persian)". For example, if you look at Pakistan's official language...you see "Urdu", which originates from Hindi or perhaps other languages. Yet there is no need to tag along those former languages with Urdu.
However, in this case we can tag Persian next to Dari but should be last...meaning it's a form of Persian language. Mostlly all Afghan government uses "Dari", which is the precise name given to the language by the Afghan government.
Next is to rearrange South Asia and Middle East...by placing South Asia first and adding the word "perhaps" in the sentence. Because in very rare cases it is mentioned or stated that Afghanistan is part of Middle East. However, the name "Middle East" may stay because it is in some minor ways tied together. Along with these minor changes...I will later go down to the year 1747 history and onwards...there is something very important missing that needs to be added and or fixed. NisarKand 3:335 AM. October 11, 2006 (UTC)
Yes it could be a bit confusing, the crossroads South Asia and Middle East, depending upon which Middle East you are talking about. I agree with putting South Asia first. There is a Latin phrase that means in its strictest sense that would be better than a perhaps. If you change this part I will edit it to include in its narrowest sense, or look at the Middle East article and see what they call the traditional-sense Middle East. KP Botany15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
NisarKand, you are inserting certain POV in the text which HAS to be reverted and deleted:
The quote of the Encyclopaedia of Islam cannot be deleted, because it is an authoritative scholarly work, written by leading experts. No other encyclopaedia - neither Britannica nor any other - has the same status as the EI.
You are correct that this article is about the nation "Afghanistan". But you forget that this nation did not exist before 1919. Not even pre-modern "Afghanistan", the Durrani kingdom of Khorasan, existed before 1748. So basically, if we were to minimize the history of Afghanistan to Afghanistan, we had to delete everything dealing with pre-1748 Durrani Afghanistan. Before 1748, Afghanistan was part of the larger cultural dominion known as Persia (which is NOT the same as modern Islamic Republic Iran).
Afghanistan as a name for this nation did not exist before the late 19th century. The word Afghanistan means Land of Afghans, and because historicallyAfghan is a synonym of Pashtun, the correct translation of the term is Land of Pashtuns (the same way Uzbekistan means Land of Uzbeks, although nowadays all citizens of Uzbekistan are popularly known as Uzbeks). It is a well researched and well-known fact that before the 19th century, the term Afgghanistan was only limited to the Pashtun-inhabited areas to the south of Kabul. This is even reported by the Mongol warlord Babur, founder of the Mughal Empire:
"... In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor* and Gebrek. To the south is Afghanistān. There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni. ..." (from Baburnama --> )
You are making a mistake by defining the Safavids and Ghilzais with modern nationalism. The Safavids were not "Iranians" or "Persians", but simply ONE FAMILY who were not interested in ethnicity. In fact, the Safavids were Turkish-speaking. The same goes to the Ghilzais: they were NOT "Afghan nationalists" fighting "foreign invaders" ... the Ghilzai never regarded the Safavids or their Persian army as "invaders" or "foreigners". The problem was not ethnicity or language, but religion: the Ghilzai Pashtuns were orthodox Sunnis, while the Safavids were a Shia Sufi dynasty - both clans were of diverse ethnic background, and both clans used Persian as a literary and administrative language. Your concept of "Afghans fighting Iranians" is totally wrong and POV. It was a fight between "Shia Safavids" and "Sunni Ghilzai".
When the Ghilzai attacked Persia, they did not have the support of the Abdalis. Later on, the Abdalis were allied to Nadir Shah against their own Pashtun kinsmen. When the Ghilzai reached Isfahan, their leader, Ashraf Hotaki, declared himself "Shah of Persia", and until today the Hotakis are regarded as a native Iranian dynasty - they were not foreigners to the thrown of Persia, but subjects of the same cultural domain.
You mention a "Ghaznavid Khan Nasher" ... this is pure POV. The Nasher family of Kunduz is of Pashtun origin, but the claim that they are Ghaznavids is nothing but a family myth. They are NOT Ghaznavids, and they are NOT "lords". They are simply a very poweful Pashtun family with a lot of family legends, most of them created in the late 19th century.
It's Persian language and not Dari. Dari is only a local name given to the dialects of Kabul and surrounding areas - the original Dari of classical poetry was a totally different language. Besides that, there is no such thing as Afghan Persian, because the Persian language has many different dialects in Afghanistan. The dialect of Herat (Afghanistan), for example, is identical to the diact of Nishapur (Iran), while it is much different from the dialect of Kabul (Afghanistan). The dialect of Kabul on the other hand is - despite the different pronounciations - much closer to the dialect of Tehran than to the dialect of Herat.
Is it not possible to make paragraphs in the chapter about history????? (Rob)
Nation began
I've just made recent edits and I will explain them in here, and give full details on why. Before I proceed...your latest responses to me are not related to my arguments...meaning you are arguing with own selves. Because I am here trying to explain exactly how AFGHANISTAN came to existence and when, while keeping in mind that Afghanistan's government records are the most trusted and official source than any other source. I am not into all those detailed ethnical disputes, and those long details on how many different tribes or short dynasties of unpopular people existed, prior to the existense of Afghanistan. However, we may mention those accordingly but not go too deep. It's Afghans who created Afghanistan in 1747, and that's the most important thing. What more source of information do you need to prove that Afghanistan existed as a nation or empire since 1747??? It's a clear contradiction to mention first that Afghanistan was founded in 1747, and then write that it began in early 1800s or 1919 because documents say so. For example...if a man gets born in 1747, but register's his birth certificate with the government in 1780...what would this persons proven birth date be? The answer would obviously be 1747 but if he can't remember then it's whatever year he claims. This is the case with Afghanistan. It was born in 1747 but the article is trying to ignore that fact.
After the death of Nader Shah (Iranian) in 1747...Ahmad Shah Durrani (Afghan) became the ruler over Khorassan (Iran), entire Afghanistan, including entire Pakistan and some smaller parts of India (Delhi). This occurred approximately 3 years after he took power (1750). Then, in late 1700s and onwards...Afghanistan slowly began shrinking until finally 1893, when the Durrand Line was created between Afghanistan and Pakistan, by the British. Prior to that in 1837-1838...the Border of Iran (Khorassan) and Afghanistan had been officially made and settled already, also by Britian. "Afghanistan" was written in English language and kept as records by the British ever since. This clearly means that Afghanistan existed prior to that but had lost some of its territories to its neighbors. The country did not ever change its name since 1747. If Britian intervened in 1747 between Iran and Afghanistan...obviously the name "AFGHANISTAN" would have been written and recorded by the British government. So therefore, we can't just rely on English records. We have to consider the actions that were taken in the country to determine when was the birthdate of Afghanistan.
About the ethnical stuff...I believe it is not a good idea to mention different tribes of Pashtuns, as this will confuse many and it is something people don't want to know. So I will only write....Afghans....Pashtuns....Tajiks....Uzbeks...Hazaras and others, no reason to define these groups of people in this article. Anyone interested may do it their self by mouse clicking.
Now I will explain about my recent edits at Afghanistan....."NAME"....I did not like the way it was prepared...unimportant plus not verifiable. Like I stated before...Alexander the great used the name "Afghan" way before Islam. "Afghanistan" means land of the Afghan in more than one language so no need to mention Persian. Last... Afghanistan was NOT part of Iran before 18th century...it was part of Moghul Empire...prior to that Timurid Empire prior to that Mongol Empire...prior to that Ghaznavid Empire prior to that Ghouri Empire and so on. It is 100% false to state that Afghanistan was always part of Iran before the mid 18th century. So I delete that and will not want to see it again. Most of those rulers I mentioned were Afghans themselves and they adopted their ethnicity to Afghans. Ghaznavid was from Ghazni...Oh one more thing....Safavids were Shias I am fully aware....in fact they started the Shiah sect of Islam....as the Afghans were all Sunnis. So the battle was strictly over religion I know that, Sunnis vs. Shiahs. At the end, Sunnis won and kicked the Shiahs back to Iran and then the Sunnis captured Khorassan (Iran) by killing all the Safavid Mullahs or whatever they were. That is the precise reason why Afghanistan and Iran have differences, because of religion sects. Iran is a nation of Shias while Afghanistan is a nation of Sunnis. ~Nisar NisarKand 11:56 October 11, 2006 (UTC)
I have (again) reverted most of your latest edits, because you do not provide ANY sources. Besides that, you use confusing wording (you diffenciate between "Pashtuns" and "Afghans" when it is not needed, and then you do not differenciate between these two words when it is needed).
Your claim that "Alexander used the term Afghan" is POV and totally baseless. Do you have ANY sources for that?!
You claim that "Afghanistan was part of the Mughal Empire" is onyl true when the term Afghanistan is limitted to its historical meaning: Pashtun-inhabited areas to the south of Kabul. The rest of Afghanistan (especially modern Western and Central Afghanistan) was mostly part of the Safavid Persia. Small portions of the north were part of the Uzbek Khanate.
The Timurid and Ghaznavid empires are regarded part of the History of Iran, and represent the same cultureal domain: Persian culture. In fact, it were these dynasties (Ghaznavids, Ghoris, Seljuqs, Il-Khans, Timurids, Safavids) that ensured the domincance of the Persian language and culture in the Eastern domains of the Islamic world (while Arabic became the major language of the Western lands). Until the creation of Afghanistan, even Kandahar was part of Safavid Persia. You very obviously confuse the terms Historical Iran and modern Islamic Republic Iran (click on the links).
Your claim that "Safavids started Shiism" is totally baseless and POV - it may even be regarded as very offensive! (see Safavids and Shiism for more info). The region of modern Afghanistan was always home to a large Shia community. Many famous scholars and scientists of that region, including Avicenna, Ferdousi, or Rumi, were Shia in faith. The war between the tribal Ghilzai chiefs and the Safavid central government was an extended fight between the Sunni Ottoman Khalifs and their long-time Shia rivals in Persia. Before Mir Wais Khan Khotak attacked the Safavids, he went to Mecca (back then an Ottoman colony) and asked the leading Mufti for a fatwa to "declare all Shias infidles" (in fact, this was the beginning of the Shia-Sunni confrontation in Afghanistan that is still going in the shape of Hezbi Wahdat fighting Sunni fundamentalists, such as the Taliban). Keeping in mind that the Grand Mufti of Mecca was a loyal servant of the Ottoman Khalif, Mir Wais' ask for a fatwa was the same as asking the Ottoman for direct support against the Safavids.
Your claim that "Sunni Afghans kicked Shias back to Iran" is pure offensive POV. You probably have forgotten that still 20% of Afghanistan (or maybe more) is of Shia faith, most of them being Hazaras. You also forget that cities in the west, such as Herat, have a Shia population of up to 40%! You also did not mention that the very first kings of Afghanistan, like Ahmad Shah Abdali, were extremly Shia friendly and appointed Shia Kizilbash to high governmental positions. 2 of Afghanistan's kings were born to Shia Kizilbash mothers. Before the reign of Amir Abdur Rahman Khan and the systematic massacre of Shias and Nuristanis, the Shia population of Afghanistan was much larger. The percentage of Shias in Afghanistan was much more than the present 20%.
And PLEASE discuss your edits FIRST, BEFORE changing the articles. Otherwise your changes will be reverted.
I WILL PROVIDE ALL THE SOURCES...before reverting, why don't you ask me to provide to you the sources? Anyway...I am gonna have to slow down a little because I don't think you are as fast learner as me, and I will also go few steps at a time with you...so that we can both understand and come to one happy conclusion.
About Alexander the great using the term "Afghan"...that is something I read in the past and I'm gonna have to search again and find it. It's not important at the moment because my argument is somewhere else. Now why would you say it's baseless when you're not even sure if he used this term or not???
Next, most of the time when I mention "Afghanistan" I am refering to the present map of Afghanistan and it's headquarter, which is Kabul the capital. You claimed...The rest of Afghanistan (especially modern Western and Central Afghanistan) was mostly part of the Safavid Persia. Small portions of the north were part of the Uzbek Khanate.....This is false because look at these 2 maps showing the Safavid Empire...
Later, the Safavids of Iranian descendants challenged Mughal rule with the Iranians reacquiring the area by the mid-17th century.
This must be deleted and that's that....it is false...the map and history both can prove this to be false. Moughul Empire ruled most of present-day Afghanistan until mid 17th century. Up until 1738 Mougul Empire ruled present-day Afghanistan then until 1747 Nader Shah ruled...from 1747 onwards Afghans (Pashtuns) took it until 2006.
Then you argue and say that The Timurid and Ghaznavid empires are regarded part of the History of Iran,...are they not part of the History of Afghanistan, History of Pakistan and History of India??? I am not here to fight or argue with you deep ethnical or religious beliefs. I was pointing out that the rulers of those empires were residents or nationals of Afghanistan, which they were and that was my point. To me you are an Afghan national...regardless who your ancestors where...that's only for you to keep.
Next...this is what it says under Safavid - were a native Iranian dynasty from Iranian Azarbaijan that ruled from 1501 to 1736, and which established Shi'a Islam as Iran's official religion and united its provinces under a single Iranian sovereignty, thereby reigniting the Persian identity and acting as a bridge to modern Iran.
Next...if you look at the map of Safavid's Empire...you see it did not reach Kandahar, Ghazni, Mazar-e-Sharif, Kabul and other locations to the south and east. And did you know that Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul Jalalabad were always the most populated areas...because that was the Silk Road. Even until today all the Afghans in Afghanistan live within 15 miles from the former Silk Road Kabul-Kandahar Highway.
Therefore, the Safavid Empire did not take control of the Moughul Empire, which was in total control of the capital city Kabul, Ghazni, and Kandahar. The Safavid Empire ruled Iran and about 15% section of Afghanistan in the west.
I am aware there are Shia Muslims in Afghanistan...some statistics show 15% while others show little up or down. The reason why People from Kandahar decided to fight and push back the Safavids to Iran was a religious cause. It is stated the Sufis were forcefully converting people to Shiism. So the people decided to revolt against them. Ok I guess I am done on this argument...
It should be concluded that from Moughul Empire came Nader Shah's short lived Empire (from 1738 to 1747) and right after that in 1751 the entire present-day Afghanistan was held by Pashtuns (Afghans) until today with Hamid Karzai.
I want to know why would you get angry at Mir Wais Khan Hotak? Maybe I did not use appropriate words when I mentioned that "they were kicked back to Iran"....I saw similar thing written about the Afghans that were forced or expelled from Iran in 1738, by Nader Shah. I will put it in better words this time, but we can't conceal history...because it was something that already happened. So I suggest the paragraph mentioning "Mir Wais Khan Hotak" be left alone....it is the missing piese of the puzzle. And I will remove the last sentence stating that Safavid regained Afghanistan from the Moughal Empire by mid 17th century. I already proved, with clear and convincing evidence, that this was totally false....Safavids DID NOT take control of Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul from the Moughal Empire.
~Nisar NisarKand
6:11 AM, October 12, 2006 (UCT)
Corrections
During Taliban rule the population faced massive restrictions of freedom and human rights violarions. Women were fired from jobs, girls forbidden to attend their universities. Those who resisted were killed. Communists were systematically eradicated and Islamic Sharia imposed.
This needed corrections and should be like this...
During Taliban rule the population faced massive restrictions of freedom and human rights violations. Women were fired from jobs, girls forbidden to attend schools or universities. Those who resisted were punished. Communists were systematically eradicated and Islamic Sharia imposed. Taliban did not kill girls or women for attending schools or colleges....they were simply punished by other means. Unless, you show me reports to back up your claim. ~Nisar NisarKand 10:16 PM, October 11, 2006 (UTC)
The Safavid Empire was - like all empires of that time - a dynamic kingdom that changed its borders many times ... due to conquest and losses. See this map for more information.
Of course the Timurids, Ghaznavids, and Mughals were part of the "history of India" or "history of Pakistan". But - at the same time - they represent a certain cultural domain which was neither Indian not Pakistani or Afghanistani. Afghanistan as a nation-state did not exist before 1748. All history before that time is part of the "Persian history", which you - wrongly - confuse with the "history of the Islamic Republic Iran".
Of course Kandahar was part of the Safavid Empire. Why, do you think, did all the revolts break out?! Pashtuns who lived within Mughal borders always faught their Mughal masters (for example Khushal Khan Khattak), while Pashtuns in the Safavid Empire fought for independence from Isfahan.
Neither Kandahar nor Kabul were part of the Silk Road, as you claim. See this map for more detail.
Nadir Shah's mission against India was ment to punish the Mughals. When Babur's son Humayun needed the help of the Safavids, he was welcomed in Persia and was a personal guest of the Shah for more than 10 years. But when the Safavids were attacked by the Pashtuns and by the Ottomans, the Mughals did not send any help. That's why Nadir Shah, who considered himself the rightful successor of the Safavids (in fact, he used to be called Qoli Beg, meaning "slave of the king"), he attacked India and plundered Delhi because of the coward behaviour of the Mughals.
I am not angry at Mir Wais. I see him as a historical figure, neither good nor bad. He had his political and religious views, and he fought for his views. I do not consider him any different from the Shahs of Persia, from the Mughals, from the Ottomans, from the Timurids, or from the Mongols under Genghis Khan. It just happens that some were more powerful than the others.
You're showing me the same map I displayed in my previous post, and the map showes that only 10% to 15% present-day Afghanistan was controlled by the Safavids. Besides, the map was made by someone last month using computer art.
Why are you keep repeating to me that Afghanistan as a nation-state did not exist before 1748? I already know all that. I am Afghan and I am an expert in history of my country. I told you that the kings of Timurids, Ghaznavids, Ghouri, Mughals and ect., were people who were living in present-day Afghanistan (they were on the soil or earth of a place which is now called Afghanistan). So...they were Afghans because "AFGHANISTAN IS LAND OF THE AFGHANS". It does not matter what their language or backrounds were. Just like when someone from Asia goes to America, lives there and establish citizenship....they are then called Americans, regardless which ethnic, race, color or language they speak. You make people confuse by putting Persian everywhere. "Persian" has more than one meaning...a persian who was from former Persia or someone who speaks the Persian language. Anyone on earth can be Persian, as long as they can speak Persian language.
Kandahar in early 1700s was not the size it is today. Remember there is Kandahar the city and Kandahar the Province. The city was ruled by Safavid for a very short period, while the Kandahar region was not. At that time Kandahar included present day Quetta, Pakistan. Most of Southern Afghanistan which is in the boundry of the Safavid Empire is empty desert, where nobody can live....it's all sand. The only important place the Safavids held was Herat, the remaining larger and important cities were held by Moghuls or were self ruled. About Khushal Khan....that's NWFP area which is part of Pakistan now. It is not anywhere near Kandahar, which was the border between Safavif Empire and Moghul Empire. Knowing all this, you cannot and you must not claim that Safavid ruled Afghanistan. It only ruled a smaller portion for a short period until they were defeated and crushed by the Afghans in or about 1722. Afghans ruled Isfahan (Iran) from 1722 until 1736.
Are you saying Nader Shah was ruler of the Safavid? and was he Shia Muslim? Anyway...AFGHANISTAN, which is land of the Afghans. The first person that began the creation of Afghanistan was Mir Wais Khan Khottak. President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, who is Pashtun, in 2002 made Tajik Ahmad Shah Massoud "National Hero", why can't Mir Wais Khan Khottak be mentioned and called a national hero?....Pashtuns are known to be non-racists...that's why God gave them power to rule, and they get along with everyone else fine. By the way...you know Pashtun from Afghanistan went to space before United Kingdom, Japan, China, Israel, and many more countries. ~Nisar NisarKand 9:43 PM, October 12, 2006
No, I was NOT showing you the same map again. And that map clearly shows that MOST of present-day Afghanistan was part of the Safavid Empire (the entire west, the entire south, including Kandahar, and large parts of modern Hazarajat).
Please do not misunderstand me, but I do not think that you are an expert. Your argumentation actually shows that you are a beginner. Especially your claim that Timurids, Ghorids, Ghaznavids etc "were Afghans because they lived in the land of Afghans". This sentense is totally illogical and false - in every point. None of these dynasties actually resided in the "Land of Afghans" (which is the limitted territory inhabited by Pashtuns), some did not even reside within the modern political borders of Afghanistan (the Timurids, for example, were Mongols residing in Samarqand and Ferghana). And since "Afghanistan" as a nation did not exist 500 or 1000 years ago, NO ONE living in that area - except ethnic Pashtuns - was "Afghan". Your claim is like saying that Genghis Khan was a "Russian" only because he was born in a region that is now part of Russia, or that Mahmud Kashgari "was a Chinese", because nowadays Kashgar is part of China. That's pure nonsense! What if Afghanistan were part of China today?! Would that make Ahmad Shah Abdali a "Chinese warlord"?!
Mir Wais Hottaki was not from "Afghanistan", because THERE WAS NO AFGHANISTAN AT THAT TIME. Ahmad Shah Massoud was a CITIZEN of the modern nation Afghanistan. He was born and he died as an Afghanistani citizen. Mir Wais, on the other hand, did not know "Afghanistan", he did not act as an "Afghanistani citizen", and he was probably not even interested in his "Afghan heritage" (keeping in mind that HE and HIS family were the one who imprisoned the later founder of Afghanistan, Ahmad Shah Abdali). Neither Mir Wais nor Khushal Khan Khattak are "Afghan heroes" in the sence of the modern nation "Afghanistan". They are "Afghan heroes" in the sence of "hero for ethnic Pashtuns". Usually, Tajiks and Hazaras are not interested in Pashtun heroes ... I am an ethnic Tajik, and I do not consider Mir Wais as "my hero" ... in fact, I have to admit that I consider him "foreign". This is certainly not true for "Tajik heroes", such as Avicenna or al-Biruni whom I consider part of my heritage.
The Pashtuns was sent to space by the Soviet Union. It was not an achievement of the Pashtuns as a people, but a present from the Soviet Union to their allies in Afghanistan. I still remember the day when that astronaut was shot to space ... entire Kabul ... all of Afghanistan was watching. But that was not an achievement of the Pashtuns ... it was political propaganda of the Soviets to distract the people from the bloody war they were fighting in Afghanistan. It might also interest you that the Pashtun-dominated Khalq-Party of Afghanistan prevented Ghulam Masum Daouran to go to space. He was the original candidate for the project. But the preoblem was that Ghulam Masum Daouran was a Persian-speaker. Instead, they decided to send Abdul Ahad Mohmand - a Pashto-speaker from Sardah.
As of 2002..over 4.5 million Afghan refugees were repatriated to Afghanistan...most of them from Pakistan and others from Iran...and....the majority of those were Pashtuns. Therefore, the 4.5 million (mostly Pashtuns) returning back to Afghanistan makes a huge impact on the % ratio of the Pashtuns, which means the number of Pashtuns would rise dramatically in Afghanistan in the near future. Another fact...many Dari speakers in Kabul, Herat and other cities are Pashtuns by ethnic but simply speak Dari language. The real and official figure of ethnic Pashtuns is in the 70% area. This will be researched and will be shown in the near future. The same goes in Pakistan...many Pashtuns are used to speaking Urdu language there but are Pashtuns by ethnic. One example out of many is Imran Khan, who speaks Urdu only but is Pashtun by ethnic. There are large number of Pashtuns who speak different languages but are ethnically Pashtuns. It is errelevent to use language as someone's ethnic. According to the CIA world factbook...Pashtuns are 42% while Tajiks are 27%....this is acceptable for the time being until a more clear census is made in the country in the near future. But the real figure is that ethnic Pashtuns are in the 70% area. ~Nisar NisarKand 12:AM October 14, 2006 (UCT)
The national census would not be in a near future. It would be in 2015, acccording to the Central Statistics Office of Afghanistan. And things will do change, especially the concept of "majority". Ariana31011:29, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Afghanistan (Pashtunistan)
Afghanistan means nothing but Pashtunistan. It is land of the Pashtuns, while others may also live there. Tajiks have a country and it's called Tajikistan...Uzbeks have a country of their own and it's called Uzbekistan...Hazaras are Shia Muslims and they have a country of their own that is Iran. Punjabis, Urdu speakers, Sindhis, Baloch people, on the other hand have their own country and it's called Pakistan. Since Afghanistan means land of the Afghans....it actually means "land of the Pashtuns", so it's Pashtunistan. Since the land is Pashtunistan (modern name Afghanistan) or land of the Pashtuns...then the history of Pashtuns must be clearly and fully explained so that people of the world learn exactly how Pashtuns came to power, and started their own country and own rule. The only way to explain is by reading history of the first Pashtun Mir Wais Khan Khotak or (Hotaki) Dynasty that initiated the creation of Pashtun kingdom, which started in 1708 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The non-Pashtun Afghans call themselves...Tajik-Afghan...Uzbek-Afghan...Hazara-Afghan....yet these same people claim there is no such thing as Pashtun-Afghan. Wonder why is that???
Another thing is the languages of Afghanistan...according to Afghanistan's constitution, CIA world factbook and 1,000s of other sources along with about 30 million people of Afghanistan...Pashto and "Dari" are the official languages of the contry. A reminder that "Dari" and Persian language are totally different, and that's why both have different names. It's exactly like English and Spanish. Why is here only 1 or 2 people claiming that Dari is not the language of Afghanistan and that it is Persian???
Many people think that USA is against Pashtuns and are supporters of Tajiks because Taliban were mostly Pashtuns. This is not the case at all...America as a whole loves President Hamid Karzai and Zalmai Khalilzad, who is US ambassador to Iraq. There are many Pashtuns that work inside the Pentagon in Washinton, DC. Pashtuns in America are well recognized by the Americans as the best of the Afghans. Pashtuns in America are well established and have hands in politics there as well as owners of a huge business industry that helps America's economy. The United States turned against Taliban because of not surrendering Osama when requested to do so...other than that...Taliban were doing a great job on erradicating drugs and crimes in their country. The very proof to this is that in sping of 2001...the United States rewarded Taliban with $43 million dollars. The Taliban were not going around killing people for no reasons. They faced the same insurgency that is faced by US and Nato troops. However, the insurgents fighting the Taliban were opposition groups mainly the Shia Hazaras followed by the Tajiks and Uzbeks. That's why people were being killed on both sides at that time. When the United States first came to Afghanistan, they had little information on the exact cause of the fighting between Taliban and opposition groups....after years passed and everything was observed in the country....they learned that Taliban were not as bad as what everyone thought. It is clear fact that opposition groups to Taliban would say everything possible to make the image of Taliban look as nasty and as evil.
If you look at the situation now, Taliban is impossible to defeat because like President of Pakistan Musharraf said...every Pashtun is Taliban supporter, and there are approximately 50 million of them in the region, also backed up by another 150 million or so Pakistanis and Arabs. These people are determined to fight and never to give up.
As an American...I am now clearly convinced that we are on the wrong path both in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are sacraficing our own men to strengthen Iran (Shia), who is spreading its influence in both of these conflict zones. Even our top military commanders are saying that a new strategy must be implimented in order to stop the insurgents from attacking or using suicides. If America was invaded by Taliban and the white Americans were removed from power, replaced by the Afro-Americans or Hispanic Americans, I'm 100% sure the white Americans would've sarificed themselves by launching suicides attacks...the same way Taliban are doing it in Afghanistan. While US forces are killing Taliban in Afghanistan...the over all situation is becoming worst by the days. I believe the only way to solve this huge problem would be to allow back the Taliban, make them sign a deal that they stop fighting and follow the new constitution of the country instead of the Sharia law which they used in the past. Pashtuns are known to stick to their words. However, this does not mean US and Nato troops would withdrawl from the country, they must stay and continue to provide security for the country and help with reconstruction. It is very risky and uncomfortable to be doing construction work while watching your back every minute to make sure somebody don't attack and shoot you. So...this kind of strategy is being spoken around by all the Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it must be considered as an option. I just hope that some sort of deal is made soon so that things get back to normal and both sides come out happy. Hey, we may be laughed at for few days for signing a deal with Taliban but it's much better then being laughed at for decades. If not then we will be like the biggest fools on earth...working for Iran (Shia) by defeating their enemies (Sunnis). We must not allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon, as this would lead to major war in the region. So the bottom line is that we must stop defeating Taliban instead bring them to the table and make them agree that they stop attacks. At the same time we must help them with what they want and that is law and order in Afghanistan. I know all this sounds very disturbing for many but it's the only way to help bring stabality to a country. ~Nisar NisarKand 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UCT)
Islamic Encylopedia clearly states that "Afghanistan" was born as a nation in the mid 18th century (refering to 1747)...and that before this time the nation did not exist as a one piece. Records of history also backs this claim because in 1747, Ahmad Shah Durrani, who was an Afghan (Pashtun) that created a nation (Afghanistan) for his own people.
Even before 1747...the Afghans (Pashtuns) attempted to create their own nation in 1708, by rising against the Safavids, an empire which they defeated by 1722 and held control of Isfahan (present-day Iran) until 1729. However, the Afghans were removed from power and forced back to their land (present-day Afghanistan)...meaning the first attempt failed. Nader Shah from Persia (Iran) invaded present-day Afghanistan and took control for 10 years until he died in 1747. After his death, Ahmad Shah Durrani rose to power as the new king in the area...he captured entire present-day Afghanistan...entire present-day Pakistan along with Kashmir...Delhi in India....and northeast Iran, which was then called Khorassan.
In the year 1838, after a war between Persia (Iran) and Afghanistan...the present-day Afghanistan-Iran border was marked by the government of Persia, Afghanistan and Britian. Then in 1893, the present-day Afghanistan-Pakistan border (Durand Line) was marked by the government of Afghanistan and British India.
So the bottom line is this...Afghanistan was created as a nation in 1747, regardless if other nations recognized it or not. A land existed on earth, in which people called it "Afghanistan" (English: Afghanland). It is a pure myth for people to believe that British gave it this name in 1838, by calling it Afghanland, and then Afghans adopted that name to Afghanistan. If such thing had happened it would've been recorded by the British, unless you believe the British don't keep their records of events, or perhaps you believe they kept this a top secret. ~Nisar NisarKand 05:44, 17 October 2006
I think this is worth reading
This article put the multi-billion dollar opium-herion industry into scope in regards to Afghanistan. If you want to learn more about this aspect of Afghansitan and how it ties in witht he rest of the world and the world economy read this article.
I have put the totally disputed tag on the page, because of the recent POV edits by User:NisarKand. Almost all of his edits are ethno-centric POV edits, totally unsourced. He himselfs believes that other Misplaced Pages articles and certain maps and pictures are reliable sources.
He has messed up the history part, he was trying to mess up the "name" part, and he is trying to push for a POV version in the culture part (including his rediculous claim that "Dari" and "Persian" are "different languages, like English and Spanish").
No one else feels responsible for this site, and even User:KP Botany who was actually supporting NisarKand's POV edits has no disappeared from the discussion.
Although I couldn't follow up all the discussion between Tājik and User:NisarKand, I think there are two disputable points among you two:
1. Persian is used for both Farsi and Dari. Persian is an English word used by European and Western scholars for both the languages. Despite the fact that Persian is derived from Persia meaning language of Persians and goes exactly similar to Farsi, today it is used for both Farsi and Dari. Both "Farsi" and "Dari" are unfamiliar and foreign words for Europeans and Westerners. In order to avoid any misconception, the word Persian must be used in wikipedia. My suggestion for Nisarkand is to avoid pushing his Pashtun nationalistic views, while he can't give solid historical reasons based on linguistic researches.
I assume both you and Tajik do not speak American English, but rather British or Canadian or Australian or some other English. "Dari" is used by many Americans meaning Afghan Persian, although many Californians say "Afghan Farsi" and "Farsi" rather than "Afghan Persian" and "Persian." Neither "'Farsi' 'Dari' are unfamiliar and foreign words for ... Westerners" in America. If you believe (POV) that "Farsi" and "Dari" are unfamiliar to Europeans, that is merely your POV, and apparently Tajik's. However, I can google "Dari" AND "Afghan" for UK sites and get almost 20,000 hits--not the final say on the matter, but it certainly seems the word is at least familiar enough in part of the English-speaking, non-American Western world, that your POV is incorrect. I don't think that "Dari" is as unfamiliar to Westerners as your POV asserts it is.
However, you are inserting your Persian-biased and non-American English biased POV about Dari.
I agree that Nasar is inserting a Pashtun-biased POV. However, he is also removing a lot of Persian-biased POV from the Afghanistan article, which, before he came, should have been retitled, "Iran East." As Tajik won't compromise on the article being about Greater-Iran, and NasarKand won't compromise on it being about Pashtunistan, what should be done? The article is important, but adding more supporters of either bias, the Tajik all-Iranian-Afghanistan or the NasarKhan all-Pashtun-Afghanistan will neither make the article better reflect the reality of the modern political entity nor resolve the issues between them.
The expression "Afghan Persian" is not accurate. It doesn't exist any Iranian Persian or Afghan Persian. Moreover, Persian is generally used by western scholars for both Dari and Farsi. I am not totally agree with Tājik, especially his own position for Iran whether because of ethnic or shiism issues. And furthermore as you said, he does not even allow editing Iran to Greater Iran, although historically and basically it should be mentioned Greater Iran. Ariana31019:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Nice side-stepping completey of the point that Dari is used by Wester scholars, as you yourself now admit. Possibly I did not follow your English meaning in your original post. Are you arguing that "Dari" is not used by Westerners or that it is used by Westerners? Possibly you did not follow what I said. The issue is about the use of Dari, not about Afghan Farsi or Afghan Persian. Please clarify what you mean about Dari in your earliest comment. It is good that you see some problems with Tajik's POV, though.KP Botany20:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, from a more historical point of view, Dari and Farsi are two distinct languages. Farsi developed from SassanidPahlavi while Dari developed from Parti (AshkanianPahlavi),Soghdi and Takhari languages. Farsi was the language of Zoroastrian religous leaders in Persia, while Dari was then the official language of Sassanid Court. Dari was the language of eastern regions of Persia, Greater Khorasan. For more details, sources and linguistic researches please refer to Dari (Afghanistan) article. I have recently edited the article. The old article contained lots of incorrect, false and Iranian-oreiented theories. Although I did not modified completely the article, but I kept both theories about Dari language: the one that I just mentioned in this paragraphe, and the other one which Dari and Farsi are the same language developing from Pahlavi. So the main article of Dari in wikipedia contains both theories with sources. But the western and european scholars consider Dari and Farsi the same unique language with the difference of dialects. You can refer to Encyclopedia Britannica, Iranica and other western sources. They all have used the word "Persian" in their scholaric research articles for both the languages. In the old litereture books "Farsi-e Dari" has been used, which refers to both language (although this is one of the main disputable points between Iranian and Afghan scholars), so "Persian" has been constated as an equal term for "Farsi-Dari". The new term "Afghan Persian", created in USA according to you, is completely incorrect from linguistic researches point of view. First, "Afghan" is the name of an ethnic group who do NOT speak Persian. If we consider Afghan as a nationality, then "Dari" existed before the 18th century (formation of new Afghan state: Afghanistan). Dari is a 2000-year old language. So the expression "Afghan Persian" is totally incorrect. Secondly, "Persian" (as a language) was used by all the territories of Persia. Again we come up to two contradictory opinions: Afghanistan was called as part of Persia - and - Afghanistan was not part of Persia, but as an independent state called Khorasan, but had been conquered by Persian several times in a long period. I AM NOT TAKING ANY POSITION BETWEEN THESE TWO OPINIONS. Thus, saying "Afghan Persian" is again inappropriate, one has to say "Eastern Persian" (considering Dari and Farsi as the same language, Faris the western dialect of Farsi-Dari (Persian) and Dari the eastern dialect). These were the reasons for avoiding using Afghan Persian, instead whether it should be used "Dari" or "Eastern Persian". Ariana31020:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
2. "Afghanistan" is a new word used in 18th century. It does show that Afghanistan was formed as a state in 18th century, but it does not mean that the people living in this territory were all part of other countries e.g. Pakistan, whose most people were part of India and the rest part of the old Afghanistan. The current Afghan territories were always known as "Khorasan". I am not going on the issue whether Khorasan was an independent state or part of Persia. Even during the government of Ahmad Shah Baba, it was called Khorasan. The name "Afghanistan" was first used in a treaty between Shah Shuja, British empire and Ranjeet Singh in 1838 in Lahore (source The reality of Political situation of Afghanistan, by Mohammad Akbar Shormach (an Afghan national)). Here are some other clues:
Abdullah Khan Popalzayee uses the word Khorasan when Ahmad Shah Abdali created the new city of Kandahar (of that time):
دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد، جمال ملک خراسان شد این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد
Abdul Rahi Hotak, a Pashtun poet also uses the word Khorasan:
بیا یی به موند هیح راحت له خواشینه
چه داخوار رحیم راووت له خراسانه
دخراسان دسحر باده په جانان وایه په پردیسو سلامونه
پر هندوستان می گل کرلی پر خراسان ولاره یم بوی یی راخینه
Gul Mohammad uses the same word for Abdul-Rahman Khan:
په زمین دخراسان کشی پیدا کری رب سلطان دی
دده نوم په تمام جهان کشی خپورته هر چاته عیان دی
In 1284, the same word used in one of the poems: دوفوج مشرق ومغرب زهم مفصل شد امیر ملک خراسان محمد افضل شد
Other Persian-speaking or Dari-speaking poets who lived in India always used the word Khorasan for this territory. For example Zeb-un-Nissa Makhfi (1638-1702), a famous poet and daughter of Awrangzeb Moghul, has used several times this word:
باز دلم سوی خراسان رفته است رشته کفر بریدست به ایمان رفته است
ز روی لطف به تقصیر من قلم درکش که باتو هست مرا نسبت خراسانی
تواز ملک خراسانی به اصطبل وطن سازی به خواب شد اگر رنج و غم هندوستان بینی
دل آشفته مخفی به فن خود ارسطویی است به هند افتاده است اما خراسان است یونانش
بوعلی روزگارم از خراسان آمده از پی اعزاز بردرگاه سلطان آمده
And several other examples, especially in the old books such as Tarikh-e Baihaqee, Hudoodul Alame menal Mashreq menal Maghreb, Tarikh-e mallahand, etc. But I only gave examples of 17th century onwards.
So the claim of User:NisarKand who says the current Afghan territory was known as Afghanistan or should be called Afghanistan, is obviously ridiculous. Although the word "afghan" or awghan or apagan, according to some sources, is a very old term, but it cannot be a reason to call the current Afghan territories as Afghanistan before the 18th century, because before the 18th century "afghan" or "afghanistan" was never used for a territory or for other people other than Pashtuns. Calling Ghaznavids, Timurids, Ghorids and others as Afghans, is totally a false and stupid claim. (And of course, we cannot call them Iranians either. They were Aryans by race or civilisation but not by nationality referring them to the contemporary Iran. We can only say that they ruled on Khorasan, on the current Afghan territories) Before the 19th or 18th century, the word "Afghan" was never used for any Nationality, only the name of an ethnic group who lived ONLY in the north of Sindh river in the south-eastern Afghanistan. While only after the 19th century, "afghan" was referred as a Nationality. But of course, today Tajik, Hazaras, Uzbeks and others are called Afghan nationals. So some claims like: Afghanistan same as Pashtunistan, or the land of Pashtuns, is completely baseless. May I ask User:NisarKand who were really ruling on these territories (current Afghan terriotry) before the 18th century? Were they Pashtuns/Afghans? It is really strange, the people who ruled on these territories for about 2000 years are now called as "foreigners" and are referred to other countries such as Tajikistan and Iran. Ahmad Shah Baba was crowned by a Kabuli citizen, Saber Shah. The word Afghanistan is a pure Dari word. The suffix "istan" is a pure Dari or Persian word. I already presented the arguements that even during the ruling of Ahmad Shah Baba, Afghanistan was not called as Afghanistan, but as Khorasan. Ariana31018:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
User:NisarKand who calls himself a historian of Afghanistan MUST AT LEAST know that 18th century begins from 1700 and finishes up to 1799. So modifying 18th century to 1747 and writing in comments 17th century is obiously ridiculous. I just re-edited the Name section. I would like to ask him to first write his reasons in discussion page with trustable sources, then edit the article. Ariana31019:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
In addition I would like to ask Tājik please not to try to impose his POVs for Iran. By considering both Afghanistan and Iran, as contemporary countries, Afghanistan was NOT part of Iran. However, it was part of the Greater Iran or Ariana or Eran-shahr but not part of the current Iran country which is not but a small part of the Greater Iran. I am also agree that being the major regions of Khorasan, it had been conquered by Persian Empires, sometimes it was part of Persia as a state i.e. Khorasan, and sometimes it had its own independent dynasties i.e. Kushans, Ghaznavids, Timurids, Ghorids, Samanids, etc. Ariana31020:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
DO NOT GET ANGRY!...but after reading all this, I am left very confused to knowing what is being argued here? I am doing everything possible to make people understand the region (Afghanistan), with less confusion. Let me start again...who are Pashtuns??? Where they come from??? Do you believe Pashtuns were dropped down from the sky or they walked out of the ocean to the land??? What makes you think Pashtuns are not the real Aryans (people that lived in present-day Afghanistan approximately 50,000 years ago). Aryans were very light skinned...I mostly see light skinned people among Pashtuns, while the Persians are mostly dark. We Pashtuns are well known to the entire world that throughout the entire recorded history, we always fought invaders and defeated them. This is perhaps the biggest reason to believe that Pashtuns remained pure for a very long time. Again...these are simply considerations to consider when focusing on the history of the region (Afghanistan). According to Afghanistan's earliest history (at least 50,000 years ago), the "Aryans" lived in present-day Afghanistan...these Aryans slowly migrated to different parts....some went south towards present-day India and some went west towards present-day Iran. The area was occupied and controlled by the Aryans for a very long time...under different dynasties or ethnic groups that were formed among the Aryans. The last people to control present-day Afghanistan are obviously "Pashtuns". During the long history that Afghanistan has, invaders came from other faraway places and spread their influences in the region...from Greece, India, Arabia, Turkey, China, Britian, Russia and America. ]
It now appears to me that Persian speakers think or assume they are the original Aryans, and the rest of the people that are non-Persian speakers living in the region are left overs of those who came to invade the region in the past. There are not many options left to believe....it's either believe that Pashtuns are Aryans or believe that Pashtuns are left over from invaders. Just these 2 options on the table to choose from. Pashtuns obviously did not come down from the sky or walked out of the ocean. The most logical belief is that Pashtuns are clearly Aryans that lived in the region for at least 50,000 years.
We know very well that as time passes every once and then...people naturally divide...introduce new culture, new language, new religion, new governance, new way of living, new way of thinking, and etc. That's just the way GOD created everything. At one time there was no such thing as English language...however...it is now a world wide language. We are all communicating through this English language...I guess because it is unique or perhaps easy to understand. I fully understand that there Persian language, and that it has a history in Afghanistan. I am also aware there are many many dialects of Persian language. Pashto is another great language and there is no idea when Persian or Pashto really began, and I don't think it is that important to know. Perhaps they both started slowly...from other languages. Since 1940s...Afghanistan's official language was ONLY Pashto. However, in 2004 the Afghan government decided to make "Pashto" and "Dari" both the official languages of their country. If Dari is a language that comes from Persian language...then it is no longer Persian language. The same way Persian language at one point came from some other one. Tajik wants to preserve Persian language because I guess he is against the people of Afghanistan for giving their language a different name to it...that is his own POV. It does not make Afghanistan's Dari language a Persian language because Afghan government says so. The argument must first be with Afghan government before changes take effect.
About me getting confused with 18th century....not the case. When you talk about modern era....you can't place centuries any longer...you must be more specific. You must at least indicate early century, mid century or in the end of the century. A century is 100 years, which is very long time. If you state that the name "Afghanistan" was pronounced by its name since 18th century...it leaves most people to believe as of 1700s...some would think maybe in the 1750s...while only few would assume since the late 1700s. According to the Pashtuns...they all claim that present-day Afghanistan was called "land of the Afghans" for ages. However, since they don't speak English or Persian language...they had different names for it, which basically means the same as Afghanistan, Afghanland or land of the Afghans. In other words...it was no man's land. The same way like NWFP (North West Frontier Province and FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area) of present-day Pakistan. The Pashtun areas of present-day Afghanistan and Pakistan were not part of Khorassan. This includes Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul, Jalalabad, NWFP and FATA. Khorassan was the place where ONLY those that spoke Persian language.
I my self do not follow poetry, and I don't believe in poetry. I only believe history from historians, those who are historians by profession. Poetry is poetry...while history is history. My message to the Afghan editors (Ariana and Tajik)...do not try putting your own feelings, beliefs or views in Afghanistan's article because eventually you will lose credibility. We must only put actuall facts only. This is what I'm trying to do. Ariana stated that a man from Kabul crowned Ahmad Shah Baba in Kandahar. I want to say to Ariana that if you think you know so much...please explain who that man was and how did he end up living in Kandahar if he was from Kabul. By the way, Ahmad Shah did not even capture Kabul at that time when he was becoming crowned in 1747. According to what everyone in Kandahar believe is that the man was a local "Sayed" (decendent of prophet Mohammad)...he was well known by everyone in Kandahar. Also like to mention that Kandahar is very a small place where almost everyone know one another. It always has been this way. NisarKand 12:58, 19 October 2006
You seem to be reflecting your own feelings without any scientific or historic reasons. I am sorry, I did not have enough time to read completely what you wrote so long without any solid arguement. But by paying a glance on it, here I am only pointing VERY BRIEFLY out your incorrect claims:
1. Pashtuns are from the Aryan race. Let me correct you that Aryan tribes came from the north of Amy Darya after 3,000 BC and according to other sources between 2000 BC and 1800 BC; AND NOT 50000 ago. 50,000 years ago, only the human tribes used to live in Mountain caves in today's Afghan regions, but they were not Aryans. So Pashtuns are also the descendents of Aryan Race. But this tribe of Aryans (Pashtuns) were only limited to the Northern areas of Sindh river and around the Sulaiman Koh mountains. They were called "awghan" by Persians (refer to Shahnama). Awghans used to live on mountains, but were known for their bravery and strictness. Pashtuns/ Awghans converted to Islam by Subuktageen, father of Shah Mahmood Ghaznavi, when he conquered the Khorasani regions. You can refer to "Tareekh-e Baihaqee", Abul Fazl Baihaqee has clearly written it. So the people who ruled on the Khorasani regions until the 17th century were Dari-speaking Persians (Tajiks or Persians) and Turkish. I am not trying to show any hatred against any ethnic, nor I am trying to insert my own point of views, but I am only writing the truth.
Since 1940s...Afghanistan's official language was ONLY Pashto.This is a false and ridiculous claim. Can you provide me any source for it? You can however show me any Afghan consitution..... Pashto became the official language of Afghanistan in 1929. Before the 1929, the only official language was Dari. Ahmad Shah Baba, Timur Shah and other Durranis and Sadwazayees have a complete poetry Diwan in Dari language. The official language since Ahmad Shah Baba's government was Dari. And Pashto became the second official language in 1929, a short while late the Pakhto Tolena was created.
I do not have any prejudice against our Pashtoon brothers. Today we are all called as Afghan Nationals. And I never intend to write incorrectly the factual and historical facts about Afghanistan, I only write what was and what is the truth. I never insert my own feelings and POVs. I do not consider myself a Tajik while writing in Misplaced Pages, but an independant user. And don't think that I am agree with Tajik and that I am in favour of his Persian/Iranian POVs. I hope you will also stop pushing your pro-Pashtoon POVs, calling Afghanistan as Pashtunistan, a stupid claim. Manena! Ariana31011:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: Ariana310 If you haven't read what I wrote in my previous post then that's your first mistake. First of all...I was trying to shorten the 50,000 years old history...I did not say I 100% claim that those people living in Afghan region 50,000 years ago were called Aryans...that's something we don't have any information on. I am telling you there are signs that at least 50,000 years ago people in Afghanistan lived....it's not important if they lived in the north, south, east or west...as long as they lived in Afghanistan. There is little information on those folks. However, an excavation was performed in 1960s or 70s, finding objects and clues indicating that there were people living in the region at least 50,000 years ago. Perhaps they were cavemen or they were the forefathers of the people that are living in present-day Afghanistan...as we don't know much about them for now. By the way...it's "Indus River" you're refering to and not Sindh River. Then you claim that Persians gave Pashtuns the name "Awghan"...before saying that...you must have clear and convincing evidence. You should not consider Pashtuns as mountain people....because they don't live on mountains. If you look at all the Pashtun areas....it's open plains, flat land and very little mountains. It is the Tajiks that live on mountains. Therefore, Pashtuns cannot be considered as those that live on mountains because they don't. Neither is Kandahar, Ghazni, Kabul, Jalabad or the Pashtuns areas in Pakistan mountains. I've been to those places many times by road.
Why did you brought Islam into this debate...I did not mention anything about Islam in my previous post. By the way my great great grandfathers introduced Islam to the Persians and converted the Persians from their religion to Islam. So I am Arab decendent from my father's side...just so you know. According to history...Islam made its way into Afghanistan mainly by Arabs that sailed in ships crossing the Persian Gulf...landing in present-day Karachi City, Balochistan, Pakistan, and some landing in present-day southern Iran. While another front was crossing from present-day Iraq to Iran and then into Afghanistan. Islam was first rejected by the Pashtuns and the Arabs were defeated. After holding loya jirgas (peaceful meetings) many years later, between Arabs and Pashtuns, Islam was finally accepted by the Pashtuns as their official religion. However, the Persians and Hindus were forcefully converted by the Arabs. Another point I'd like to add is that Tajik and Persian is modern names...made up recently. In the past there were no such people as "Persians"...especially "Tajik". Persian is a western given name. I'm not sure but I think Persians were called "Parsibans" (Parsi speakers). To make me understand...what did Persians in the past call one another...according their to pronounciation?
About Pashto being the ONLY official language since 1940s....notice I did not mention that it started in 1940s. I said since 1940s...which means at least since 1940s. Or I can say that before 2004...Pashto was the official language of Afghanistan, while Dari was the second language. However, as of 2004 until now...both are official languages of the country. So I was not wrong and I did not make a false or ridiculous claim. Read the following....
"In 1936, as part of Zahir Shah's family the Musahiban's attempt to strengthen the national ideology, Pashto was recognized as the official language. During King Amanullah's reign (1919-1929) both Pashto and Dari (Afghan Persian) were considered official languages" (Zulfacar, Page 14).
The government decided to replace the language of instructions, Dari, with only Pashtu in an attempt to bolster the state's claim on Pashtunistan, currently Pakistan's Northwestern Frontier Province.
Therefore, I am correct when I said that since 1940s Pashto was the ONLY official language. By the way...you may do your own search and find out all this. I am also not prejudice against anyone. Everyone born in Afghanistan is considered an Afghan national or Afghan native. However, I only see non-Pashtuns from Afghanistan using Tajik, Uzbek, Hazara and other names before Afghan. The only reason I decided to edit Afghanistan's article was because there was no Pashtun mentioned or very little mentioned. So I decided to explain a little about Pashtun history. According to Pashtuns....Pashto language existed at least 2,500 years ago. So don't mind me share information about Pashtuns and their history...as you may explain about your people's history...but I only like to see everything from well known sources and not from people who write poetry. NisarKand 03:11, 20 October 2006
... what's wrong with you? You are flooding the article with wrong information and POV. It is very obviousl that you are pushing for an extreme anti-Persian and anti-Tajik POV.
Most of your claims, like saying that "Dari and Persian are different languages" or labeling Farhad Darya as a Pashtun or Pashtun nationalists are totally hillarious.
You are also falsefying the history part. Your edits totally contradict the Indo-Iranians article, or ANY other sourced article about this region. Your claim that "there have never been Persians in Afghanistan" is totally stupid! Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word Tajik, the meaning of Kizilbash, or the meaning of Farsiwan. Maybe you should look up the article Ghurids or Samanids.
Please stop destrying this article with your stupid POV.
There is nothing wrong with me...I am putting 100% facts in Afghanistan's article. I am not racist in any sense, Persians are simply people that speak the Persian language. Tajiks are people that you don't know, while I know more about them. You are confusing everyone that read Afghanistan's article by inserting Persian this Persian that. The fact is that Aryans first settled in Afghanistan and then moved to Iran's and India's regions. Afghanistan was called "Aryana" (Land of the Aryans). Dari and Persian are 2 different languages in the eyes of the world...especially in the eyes of Afghans. I don't need to look up...I am already know. Only Iranians assume or think they are the true Aryans...this is 1000% false. Afghanistan was always the center of Aryans....while Iran was part of it...the same way India was part of it. Remember the name "Iran" was made up Persians very recently....before that...there was NO IRAN. Again..."Persian" simply means anyone that speaks any branch of the Persian language. You assume Persian only means Aryan....this is totally false. Aryans were those that lived in Afghanistan 1,000s of years ago...eventually they broke down to many different tribes or people. Tajik is someone that has Turkish father and Persian mother...or sometimes vice versa. I am making it clear so English people can clearly understand all this...I am not destroying Afghan article...it is you who are doing it, and I suggest you stop. Pashtuns...also known as Afghans...are Aryans...they've been living in Afghanistan for ages and they ruled Afghanistan since 1747 and are still ruling it. Learn to live with it...if not...then take a hike to Tajikistan or Iran.
OMG, NisarKand ... That's racist BS! Sorry, but I am out of this discussion. You are certainly not the right Person to talk to ... you are obsessed with this "Aryan this, Aryan that" BS ... That's not the way to write a good encyclopaedic article. I am going to revert everyone of your POV edits. Case closed! Tājik21:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
@ User:NisarKand: Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, your claims are baseless, ludicrous, and unfounded. Not to mentoin your obvious bias and POV. You also dont seem to know as much as your proclaim, becuase a lot of what you say contradicts scholarly information.Khosrow II22:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I was neutral with the NisarKand and Tajik edit war, but having read the last few edit summaries, NisarKand needs to review Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. When multiple knowledgable people disagree with you then you should examine your position not dismissed them with rude remarks. The only two options are having (a) multiple points of view or (b) coming to a consensus. And with your comments you are not accomplishing either. MarsRover23:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately the article has read for a long time like it is the history of eastern Persia, rather than the history of Afghanistan. Part of the problem is that there is a lot of Persian literature about the history of the western part of Afghanistan written by Persians and translated into English and then put into the basic derivative sources that most English-speaking peoples use for the history of Afghanistan. There are also Arab histories of the area, although fewer, that also tend to reflect Afghanistan as eastern Persia. Histories translated from the Hindi, from Urdu, and from Pashtu (very few of the latter) can read quite a bit differently, although they tend to have large agreements with each other. But only the Pashtu sources, of these, are strictly about Afghanistan, rather than about the source of various invading empires.
However, Afghanistan the political entity that exists today is not simply greater Persia. It is a country in its own right, and this is what the article is about: the modern political entity known as Afghanistan.
In spite of their differences, they two, Tajik and NasarKhan, have actually made a few improvements in the article and come to agreement about a number of things, although one party has given up more ground than the other. The article requires a drastic copyedit, and is now being changed so often that there is no point in doing that. I don't know what should be done, but both parties seem to be guilty of Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles issues, and the continual changing is not of benefit to the article or Misplaced Pages.
Nonetheless, the article is about Afghanistan, not about eastern Persia, and many of NasarKhan's changes are attempting to reflect that, and many of his changes and comments are correct, although his manner of defending his changes is not selling his points.
KP Botany, what you miss is that before 1747 (or the 1850s), AfghanistanWAS Eastern Persia. What NisarKand is trying to do is to claim "Afghanistan" as an "always-existing nation", which is totally wrong. Just take a look at the history of the article and his recent edits. He is even claiming that "there have never been any Persians in Afghanistan" and that they were "foreign invaders who were defeated every time" ... this is pure nonsense, and even you should know that. Honestly, I have no idea why you are supporting him. Just take a look at the article Afghanistan in the Encyclopaedia Iranica or Encyclopaedia of Islam (I am talking about the 2006 Online Version!) - it'S always the same: Afghanistan's history starts in in the 19th century, strongly linked to the Pashtun independence-movements of the late 17th and early 18th century. Everything that comes BEFORE that is NOT the history of the modern nation "Afghanistan" (= "Land of Pashtuns", STRONGLY tied to the national history of the Pashtuns) but the overall history of Eastern Persia and southern Central Asia.
This is what I want to put into the article: telling the readers that Afghanistan as a nation does NOT have "5,000 years of history" as Hamid Karzai claimed many times in TV, but - as a modern nation - roughly 250 years.
Just compare this to Pakistan - of course, the history of the region nowadayws known as "Pakistan" is continuation of thousends of years of human history, staring in the Indus Valley Civilization - but that history is shared with modern India. In fact, Pakistan's history is THE SAME as India's history, up to 1947 - HERE begins the independent history of MODERN Pakistan. Everything BEFORE 1947 is known as History of India.
That's exactly the same with Afghanistan! What User:NisarKand is trying to propagate as "unique Pashtun history" is actualy the shared history of Greater Iran (<--- this is the scholarly term, used by leading experts such as Richard Nelson Frye!), and since modern Iran - as a nation - is the direct continuation of the ancient Persian Empire, the history of the Hindu Kush BEFORE 1919 (1850s, 1748) is (technically) the History of Persia and NOT the history of Afghanistan.
I am being accused of POVs...why aren't you able to point out the exact specific POV?...is this this hard for you to do? Everything I added is 100% verifiable through the most trusted sources. Again, accusation is the most simple thing to do...while proving it is the hardest. I see under "NAME" it states that before the 18th century, Afghanistan was always a province of Iran....let me first laugh out loud...hahahahahahahahaha....can anyone show any evidence or proof to this??? It is these types of POVs that are present in many places in the article on Afghanistan, which all must be deleted. As I said earlier, the Aryans landed in Afghanistan first...then moved west towards Iran and south towards India. Don't say there was no Afghanistan, Iran or India....I am clearly refering to the geographic locations on earth, in which we identify the areas with these modern names. Type this on your search engine...Excavation of prehistoric sites suggests that early humans lived in Afghanistan at least 50,000 years ago.....and see how many hits you get.
From my end...I am not pushing for racism in this debate. Notice I purposly removed "Pashtun" from many names, as this is optional and creates further confusion. EXAMPLE: Farhad Darya's father is Pashtun...and in order for someone to be considered a Pashtun...their dad must be Pashtun....according to the rules of Pashtuns. Yet, Tajik clearly stated that Farhad Darya is not Pashtun and said this is POV. The best way to solve the problem between me and Tajik is to use the United States as an example. We all know that British were the first people that settled in USA...are these British people, who first settled in USA in 1600s, still considered or called British people? or are they now characterized specifically as the "Americans" or the American people? Why are they now called Americans instead of British? NisarKand05:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Tajik is now trying say that US State Department on Afghanistan is wrong....."Afghanistan". The World Factbook (2024 ed.). Central Intelligence Agency. is wrong....and all other western sources who keeps records on Afghanistan (see also ) is wrong....and that Iranica (Iranian book) and Islamic sources are correct....hahahahahahahahahaha....may I remind you that USA has one of the best schools in the world. And that Iran or other Islamic nations do not have the best schools in the world...this is a fact. To Tajik, this is also a POV. NOTICE: he also accused President of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, being incorrect and wrong. This Tajik fellow is something else...don't know what to make of her or him. NisarKand05:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
"Most trusted sources"?! What are you talking about?! You have not provided ANY reliable sources! Let's take a look at the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
"... The modern boundaries of Afghanistan were established in the late 19th century in the context of a rivalry between imperial Britain and tsarist Russia that Rudyard Kipling termed the “Great Game.” ..."
A quote from the Encyclopaedia of Islam (which is an authoritative scholarly source) is given in the article.
You are IGNORING major sources and try to disprove them with unimportant thrid-class sources from google.
This is not the way to write an encyclopedic article.
Let's assume that in 200 years from now, Afghanistan has become a province of China ... would that make Farhad Darya a "Chinese"?!" Would that make Hamid Karzai a "Chinese"?! Of course not! The same goes to Afghanistan and Afghans (=Pashtuns). Before 1748, Pashtuns had no importance in that region. They did have some small kingdoms in India (see Lodhi or Sher Shah Suri), but they did not rule region. Even the Mughal Emperor Babur wrote in his memoires:
"... In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor and Gebrek. To the south is Afghanistān. There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni. ..."
500 years ago, Kabul was not regarded part of Afghanistan (="Land of Pashtuns"), because "Afghanistan" was the name of the Pashtun tribal homelands. That'S why modern Afghanistan is strongly linked with Pashtun history, but NOT with the history of the region BEFORE 1748.
Why can't you just underatnd that?! You do not have ANY sources! Besides that, you have just broken the 3RR!
PS: only the fact that you call the famous Encyclopaedia Iranica an "Iranian book" (contradicting notable scholars around the world: ; in fact, only a tiny minority of the 400+ authors of the EI are Iranian nationals), totally disqualifies you from being taken serious (and everyone else who supports you). This clearly proves that you are an amateur whose only object is to push for a nationalist and wrong POV.
User:NisarKand please stop vandalising the article. You cannot avoid mentioning an important historical aspect about Afghanistan: "Khorasan was the old name for the current Afghan territories". I had already written in response to one of your baseless and ridiculous claims, a brief statement about this issue. And you could NOT reject my statements . Here I re-post it:
The current Afghan territories were always known as "Khorasan". Even during the government of Ahmad Shah Baba, it was called Khorasan. The name "Afghanistan" was first used in a treaty between Shah Shuja, British empire and Ranjeet Singh in 1838 in Lahore (source The reality of Political situation of Afghanistan, by Mohammad Akbar Shormach (an Afghan national)). Here are some other clues:
* Abdullah Khan Popalzayee uses the word Khorasan when Ahmad Shah Abdali created the new city of Kandahar (of that time):
دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد، جمال ملک خراسان شد این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد
* Abdul Rahi Hotak, a Pashtun poet also uses the word Khorasan:
بیا یی به موند هیح راحت له خواشینه
چه داخوار رحیم راووت له خراسانه
دخراسان دسحر باده په جانان وایه په پردیسو سلامونه
پر هندوستان می گل کرلی پر خراسان ولاره یم بوی یی راخینه
* Gul Mohammad uses the same word for Abdul-Rahman Khan:
په زمین دخراسان کشی پیدا کری رب سلطان دی
دده نوم په تمام جهان کشی خپورته هر چاته عیان دی
* In 1284, the same word used in one of the poems: دوفوج مشرق ومغرب زهم مفصل شد امیر ملک خراسان محمد افضل شد
* Other Persian-speaking or Dari-speaking poets who lived in India always used the word Khorasan for this territory. For example Zeb-un-Nissa Makhfi (1638-1702), a famous poet and daughter of Awrangzeb Moghul, has used several times this word:
باز دلم سوی خراسان رفته است رشته کفر بریدست به ایمان رفته است
ز روی لطف به تقصیر من قلم درکش که باتو هست مرا نسبت خراسانی
تواز ملک خراسانی به اصطبل وطن سازی به خواب شد اگر رنج و غم هندوستان بینی
دل آشفته مخفی به فن خود ارسطویی است به هند افتاده است اما خراسان است یونانش
بوعلی روزگارم از خراسان آمده از پی اعزاز بردرگاه سلطان آمده
And several other examples, especially in the old books such as Tarikh-e Baihaqee, Hudoodul Alame menal Mashreq menal Maghreb, Tarikh-e mallahand, etc. But I only gave examples of 17th century onwards. So the claim of User:NisarKand who says the current Afghan territory was known as Afghanistan or should be called Afghanistan, is obviously ridiculous. Although the word "afghan" or awghan or apagan, according to some sources, is a very old term, but it cannot be a reason to call the current Afghan territories as Afghanistan before the 18th century, because before the 18th century "afghan" or "afghanistan" was never used for a territory or for other people other than Pashtuns. Calling Ghaznavids, Timurids, Ghorids and others as Afghans, is totally a false and stupid claim. (And of course, we cannot call them Iranians either. They were Aryans by race or civilisation but not by nationality referring them to the contemporary Iran. We can only say that they ruled on Khorasan, on the current Afghan territories) Before the 19th or 18th century, the word "Afghan" was never used for any Nationality, only the name of an ethnic group who lived ONLY in the north of Sindh river in the south-eastern Afghanistan. While only after the 19th century, "afghan" was referred as a Nationality.
So please do not delete that point in the Name section. You are obliged to respect the regulations of wikipedia. Thank you Ariana31020:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
User:NisarKand vs. User:Tajik
Let's all relax and settle this issue with manners...no name calling please. As I never called anyone names, also I thank those that support me. So let's begin by concentrating on the "NAME", which comes after the introduction.
Name -
The name Afghānistān literally translates to Land of the Afghans. Its modern usage derives from the word Afghan. The Pashtuns began using the term Afghan as a name for themselves from the Islamic period onwards. According to W.K. Frazier Tyler, M.C. Gillet and several other scholars, "The word Afghan first appears in history in the Hudud-al-Alam in 982 AD." The last part of the name Afghānistān (-istān) originates from the Persian word stān (country or land). The English word Afghanland that appeared in various treaties between Qajar Dynasty and the United Kingdom dealing with the lands between Iran and British Raj inhabited by Pashtun tribes (modern Southeastern Afghanistan) was adopted by Afghan officials and became Afghanistan.
However, Afghanistan was pronounced by its current name in 18th century when Ahmad Shah Durrani formed the new government based on Pashtun rule, and was officially named as Afghanistan during the ruling of Abdur Rahman Khan. Before the 18th century, the region of present-day Afghanistan was known as a province of Greater Iran called Khorasan.
The Encyclopaedia of Islam states:
Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured: previously various districts bore distinct apellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghans”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan.
Everything darkened, except the word "NAME", is disputed by me (NisarKand)...
First...The last part of the name Afghānistān (-istān) originates from the Persian word stān (country or land). Who says this??? and where is the evidence to back this claim???
Next...The English word Afghanland that appeared in various treaties between Qajar Dynasty and the United Kingdom (in 1800's) dealing with the lands between Iran and British Raj inhabited by Pashtun tribes (modern Southeastern Afghanistan) was adopted by Afghan officials and became Afghanistan. <-----refering to 19th century
This is totally false...because the word or name "Afghanistan" (English: Afghanland) appeared in the memoirs of Emperor Babur, Dated: 1525 A.D. *"...In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor and Gebrek. To the south is Afghanistān. There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni. ..."
Next...Before the 18th century, the region of present-day Afghanistan was known as a province of Greater Iran called Khorasan.
Where is proof to this??? I asked for proof to this claim many times but never was provided with any. If there was Afghanistan (Pashtun areas) in the year 1525...how was it possible to be called Khorassan at the same time? I've done extensive research and read all historical reports on Afghanistan but did not came across any statement indicating that before 18th century, the region of present-day Afghanistan was known as a province of Greater Iran called Khorasan. I believe from 16th century to 18th century....Afghanistan was divided into many parts. It's certain that Pashtun lands to the south was called Afghanistan...Kandahar province was independent and not part of Khorassan...Kabul was independent and not called Khorassan....Balkh was independent and not part of Khorassan. Therefore, under no circumstance should someone claim that all these areas were a province of Greater Iran called Khorasan...because such claim is false.
Finally, the last argument involves "Encyclopaedia of Islam", which states: Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured:...
Historical record shows that Pashtuns called themselves "Afghans" and their land "Afghanistan" from at least 1525 and onwards (see Hudud-al-Alam and Memoirs of Babur). Now, why on earth would the Encylopaedia of Islam state that "Afghanistan" borne the name since the middle of the 18th century??? I strongly believe that the Encyclodedia of Islam being incorrect, it erred by stating the 18th century, which should be any date on or before 1525.
I made my argument clear, and I request for everything that I darkened obove be removed, deleted or rewritten with the truth.
NisarKand09:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
One last thing to mention...I've checked on Greater Khorasan's article and noticed that it initially was written in 2005: Greater Khorasan included parts which are today in Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Some of the main historical cities of Persia are located in the older Khorasan: Nishapur (now in Iran), Merv and Sanjan (now in Turkmenistan), Samarqand and Bukhara (both now in Uzbekistan, Herat and Balkh (both now in Afghanistan).
This was subsequently altered over the year and now reads like this: Greater Khorasan is a modern term for eastern territories of ancient Persia. The very term khorasan means east in Middle Persian, or more exactly where sun comes from or land of sunrise. Greater Khorasan included territories that presently are part of Iran, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan Greater Khorasan contained mostly Herat, Balkh, Kabul and Ghazni (now in Afghanistan), Nishapur, Tus and Sistan (now in Iran), Merv and Sanjan (now in Turkmenistan), Samarqand and Bukhara (both now in Uzbekistan) as well as the Bactrian regions (now in Afghanistan and Tajikistan).
It means someone decided to add more provinces of Afghanistan...to make it appear as Khorasan was much more bigger than originally imagined. I find all this very strange NisarKand17:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
You are disputing the Encyclopaedia of Islam, one of the most powerful and most reliable sources in the field of oriental stuies. Let me tell you just one thing: YOU are in NO POSITION to dispute the authrty or reliability of te Encyclopaedia of Islam. CASE CLOSED!
The meaning of "-stan" is well known. Your dispute only proves your POV-motivations.
What you simply do not understand is that the modern nation "Afghanistan" is NOT THE SAME as the "historical homelands of the Pashtuns". Only the southern and eastern parts of modern Afghanistan - especially the rural areas - are the historical homelands of the Pashtuns, and thus the "historical Afghanistan". When Babur said "Afghanistan", he was NOT talking about the modern nation Afghanistan. He did not even consider Kabul (historically a Tajik-dominated city) part of what he called "Afghanistan" (meaning "land of Pashtuns"). All the rest of modern Afghanistan that was NOT part of the historical "Afghanistan" was considered "Khorasan". This is FACT and can be supported by MAJOR sources. There is not a single source or reference that uses the term "Afghanistan" for a wider region beyond the historical Pashtun areas. Neither Herat, nor Kabul, Balkh, Ghor, not even Gardez or Ghazni were part of "Afghanistan", because these cities and regions are NOT historical homelands of Pashtuns.
Once again, you are being caught using wrong sources and falsefying facts. You talk about the Hudud-al-Alam while you provide a link to the Baburnama - two absolutely different works, written in different languages, by different people, in different centuries. But while we are at it: can you show me the exact sentence where the Hudud-al-Alam (written in 982) where it says that "Afghans called their nation Afghanistan"?!
I notice that you have "ZERO" ansewers or evidence to show that before 18th century Afghanistan was a province of Greater Iran called Khorasan...I caught you in a Great Lie that you intented to spread to the world. Now you are writing silly junk...just to show that you are still there. First...go check map of Pashtun land...and see that Kabul, Ghazni, Kandahar, Jalalabad are all part of Pashtuns. It does not matter if Kabul or other cities were part of Pashtuns homeland or not...that has nothing to do with my dispute. Your claim is that Afghanistan as a whole was part of Iran....this is 100% false and you know it. I read the entire Babur memoirs...and by reading it....I clearly have a picture of what Afghanistan was in 1525. Each area (present day provinces) were seperate countries. Khorasan was one of them, a place in the North-West of Afghanistan. Only Herat city of Afghanistan was part of Khorasan at that time and before the 18th century...NOT AFGHANISTAN as you claim. That is a total lie from your side. I never said in Hudud-al-alam there was written "Afghanistan"....only the word "Afghan" is SUPPOSE to be written in Hudud-al-alam, and that has nothing to do with my dispute. I now made my case clear for everyone...so now I will start deleting the PROVEN FALSE LIES ABOUT AFGHANISTAN. I should have no more complaints from anyone. NisarKand 03:35, 26 October 2006
What the hell are you talking about, NisarKand?! YOU are the one who has not presented a SINGLE source. You always claim that your claims are "100% facts" ... WHERE are your sources?!
"... Among the languages of the people of Khorasan, the language of the people of Balkh is predominant ..." (Ibn al-Muqaffa in "Ebn al-Nadim, ed. Tajaddod, p. 15; Khwarazm, Mafatih al-olum, pp. 116-17; Hamza Esfahani, pp. 67-68; Yaqut, Boldan IV, p. 846)
This is one of the oldest Islamic references to Khorasan, and ibn al-Muqaffa makes clear that Balkh was part of Khorasan. That means that the borders of Khorasan went as far as Balkh. And since medieval Balkh was much larger than the present province in Afghanistan (it included large areas in Transoxandia), all of the region was Khorasan.
Now, let's take a look at the time of Abbasid rule in Iran:
Do you see the map?! MOST of Afghanistan was part of Khorasan! Only small regions in the south, for example Kandahar, have never been part of Khorasan. Even Ma Wara'un-Nahr was considered a part of Khorasan!
Before I begin...this map clearly supports me and my argument, and also remember that the argument is over administration of land. Not language, culture or influences of people.
First...this map is dated from the year 786 A.D. to 809 A.D. (8th and 9th century), which is apporixmately 1,000 years before 18th century. Secondly, the map clearly showes that Kandahar province, Ghazani province, Kabul province, Nangahar province and other areas inhabited by Pashtuns WERE NOT part of Khorasan. All these provinces I mentioned are the major areas that make up today's Afghanistan. I'm sure you can locate exactly where Ghazni province and Nangarhar province are by looking at this map? Ghazni is between Kandahar and Kabul, while Nangarhar is more to the east of Kabul. It doesn't take a scientist to figure that out.
On the other hand, ONLY Herat province and Balkh province were part of Khorasan as shown in this map dated 786-809 A.D. This means that somewhere between the year 809 A.D. and 1525 A.D., Balkh became independent and ruled by Uzbeks or others, ending the Persian rule from Khorasan. It is pure nonsense to believe that Afghanistan was part of Khorasan or a province of Khorasan before 18th century, because it wasn't.
You make Balkh and Herat appear as if they are more important than Kabul, Ghazni, Kandahar, Nangarhar and all other areas of the Pashtuns. This is your problem, and you need to realize that Herat and Balkh are not much important cities as compare to Kabul, Kandahar, Jalalabad, Ghazni and other Pashtun areas. Majority of the population in Afghanistan are in these Pashtun areas. Like I said before, Kabul sits inside the land of the Pashtuns...go check this on map of ethnics in Afghanistan. You need to accept certain things in life, without getting angry over it, and that is Afghanistan WAS NOT province of Khorasan. However, I agree that Herat was part of Khorasan for a very long until 1747 when Afghanistan was formed as a new empire in the region. These are facts and that's exactly what happend. I am sure that perhaps the Persians or Iranians never wanted to recognize Afghanistan...the same way Iran does not recognize Israel. This does not mean Afghanistan did not get created in 1747 or Israel never got created in 1948....because majority of the nations on earth agree that they both did. NisarKand07:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Once again, you are talking pure nonsense, NisarKand. As always, you are pushing for an extreme Pashtun-nationalist POV, and as always you have no proofs for your rediculous claims.
You minimize modern Afghanistan only to eastern provinces (=Pashtun provinces), which - compared to other provinces - are the most unimportant.
You claim that "Kabul was part of Pashtun lands", although even Babur wrote in his memoires that Kabul was NOT part of the Pashtun lands. Until today, Kabul is a city dominated by Persian-speakers. The Pashto centers are only Kandahar and Peshawar.
Here is a map of Persia in 1592: As you can see, the entire region today known as "Afghanistan" was part of Persia. And even short time before the creation of Afghanistan, the entire region - including Kandahar and other Pashtuns areas, were parts of Persia.
What you fail to understand is that modern nation-states did not exist before the 18th century. While terms like "Persia" and "Khorasan" are rather geographical and/or cultural expressions, the term "Afghanistan" is purely political. It has NO historical or geographical base, and it is NOT the name given to a "geographical area", as you claim. It is the name given to a POLITICAL area with fix borders.
Pashto is still - after 250 years of domination, massacres ainst Non-Pashtuns, and forceful resettlement of Non-Pashto-speakers - still a language limitted to he south and east.
Kabul has NEVER been part of "Pashtun lands", as you claim ... in fat, like always, you have no proof for that. And Gardez and Ghazni are STILL Persian-speaking cities, and have always been Persian-speaking cites. In fact, Ghazni used to be the campital of Khorasan during Ghaznawid rule.
It'S clear that Pashto and Pashtuns a apeople are not native to Gardez or Gaznai, and that thy moved from the south (=Kandhar and/or Peshawar) to the north All of your claims are totally baseess and you have o reliable sourcesfor your claims.
Afghanistan is not the homeland of Pashtuns! It's called Afghanistan, not Pashtunistan! Afghanistan means land of the Afghans (Tâjiks, Hazara, etc.). Please see Pashtunistan --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ09:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The historical meaning of the name "Afghan" is "Pashtun", and thus, in historical documents (such as the Baburnama) it is a reference to the Pashtuns and "Afghanistan" a reference to Pashtun homelands (mostly what is now the NWFP in Pakistan). The meaning of the word has changed in the past century, especially after the constitution of 1964 which declared all citizens of Afghanistan "Afghans".
One could compare it to the word "Deutsch" in the German language. Originally (and still popularly), the term "Deutsch" means "ethnic German". The German government, however, recongnizes all citizens of Germany as "deutsch", meaning "German". Many non-ethnic German citizens today are officially recognized as "Germans". Historical documents, however, speak of ethnic Germans when refering to "Germans" and not to naturalized Turks or Italians.
That's why the term "Afghan" in historial documents should be understood as "Pashtun". And when the term "Afghanistan" was chosen as name for that country by the British ("Afghanistan" as a modern political term emerged during the so-called Great Game), they mistakenly believed that the entire kingdom ruled by the Barakzai Dynasty was a "Pashtun land". That's why British documents of the 18th century constantly used the terms "Afghan land" or "Afghanistan" for the whole region. It was not the official name of the kingdom. It became the official name of the country during the reign of Amir Abdul Rahman Khan.
Up to the 20th century (and in some cases up to present-day), the normal people called the region by its historical name "Khorasan" Afghanistan's most famous contemporary poet, Khalilollah Khalili, used "Khorasan" instead of "Afghanistan" in many of his poems. The most famous being "Hero of Khorasan", dedicated to Amir Habibullah Kalakani.
You say that the Encyclopaedia of Islam contradicts Babur ... This clearly proves once again that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you lack the ability to understand complex writings.
Just take a look at the underlined text:
Babur says: "... In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). To the south is Afghanistān ..."
Encyclopaedia of Islam says: "... Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured: previously various districts bore distinct apellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghans”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan. ..."
WHERE does the Encyclopaedia of Islam contradict Babur?!
You simply fail to understand that with "Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century" the EI is refering to the MODERN NATION Afghanistan (created in 1748) while Babur is talking about the original Pashtun homelands.
Please stop flooding the article with nonsense.
Besides that, saying that a major and authoritative source X contradics source Y is POV. It's not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to judge other encyclopaedias!
User:NisarKand please stop vandalising the article. You cannot avoid mentioning an important historical aspect about Afghanistan: "Khorasan was the old name for the current Afghan territories". I had already written in response to one of your baseless and ridiculous claims, a brief statement about this issue. And you could NOT reject my statements . Here I re-post it:
The current Afghan territories were always known as "Khorasan". Even during the government of Ahmad Shah Baba, it was called Khorasan. The name "Afghanistan" was first used in a treaty between Shah Shuja, British empire and Ranjeet Singh in 1838 in Lahore (source The reality of Political situation of Afghanistan, by Mohammad Akbar Shormach (an Afghan national)). Here are some other clues:
* Abdullah Khan Popalzayee uses the word Khorasan when Ahmad Shah Abdali created the new city of Kandahar (of that time):
دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد، جمال ملک خراسان شد این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد
* Abdul Rahi Hotak, a Pashtun poet also uses the word Khorasan:
بیا یی به موند هیح راحت له خواشینه
چه داخوار رحیم راووت له خراسانه
دخراسان دسحر باده په جانان وایه په پردیسو سلامونه
پر هندوستان می گل کرلی پر خراسان ولاره یم بوی یی راخینه
* Gul Mohammad uses the same word for Abdul-Rahman Khan:
په زمین دخراسان کشی پیدا کری رب سلطان دی
دده نوم په تمام جهان کشی خپورته هر چاته عیان دی
* In 1284, the same word used in one of the poems:
دوفوج مشرق ومغرب زهم مفصل شد امیر ملک خراسان محمد افضل شد
* Other Persian-speaking or Dari-speaking poets who lived in India always used the word Khorasan for this territory. For example Zeb-un-Nissa Makhfi (1638-1702), a famous poet and daughter of Awrangzeb Moghul, has used several times this word:
باز دلم سوی خراسان رفته است رشته کفر بریدست به ایمان رفته است
ز روی لطف به تقصیر من قلم درکش که باتو هست مرا نسبت خراسانی
تواز ملک خراسانی به اصطبل وطن سازی به خواب شد اگر رنج و غم هندوستان بینی
دل آشفته مخفی به فن خود ارسطویی است به هند افتاده است اما خراسان است یونانش
بوعلی روزگارم از خراسان آمده از پی اعزاز بردرگاه سلطان آمده
And several other examples, especially in the old books such as Tarikh-e Baihaqee, Hudoodul Alame menal Mashreq menal Maghreb, Tarikh-e mallahand, etc. But I only gave examples of 17th century onwards. So the claim of User:NisarKand who says the current Afghan territory was known as Afghanistan or should be called Afghanistan, is obviously ridiculous. Although the word "afghan" or awghan or apagan, according to some sources, is a very old term, but it cannot be a reason to call the current Afghan territories as Afghanistan before the 18th century, because before the 18th century "afghan" or "afghanistan" was never used for a territory or for other people other than Pashtuns. Calling Ghaznavids, Timurids, Ghorids and others as Afghans, is totally a false and stupid claim. (And of course, we cannot call them Iranians either. They were Aryans by race or civilisation but not by nationality referring them to the contemporary Iran. We can only say that they ruled on Khorasan, on the current Afghan territories) Before the 19th or 18th century, the word "Afghan" was never used for any Nationality, only the name of an ethnic group who lived ONLY in the north of Sindh river in the south-eastern Afghanistan. While only after the 19th century, "afghan" was referred as a Nationality.
In plus, Kandahar and Jalalabad were also part of Khorasan. About Kandahar, I already posted the text of Abdullah Khan Popalzayee about the city of Kandahar. As to Jalalabad, it was a city built by Mohammad Akbar Jalaluddin, one of the Kings of Moghul Empire. Please refer to: Mafateh-ul Tawareekh and Mar'aatul Aaalam. Both books were written during the Moghul's Empire.
So please do not delete that point in the Name section. You are obliged to respect the regulations of wikipedia. Thank you Ariana31020:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
RESPONDING TO USER:TAJIK BY "WRITING IN BOLD BLACK WORDS"
The following is what he wrote: You say that the Encyclopaedia of Islam contradicts Babur ... This clearly proves once again that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you lack the ability to understand complex writings. THAT'S JUST YOUR BASELESS ACCUSATIONS TOWARDS ME...NOTHING MORE
Just take a look at the underlined text:
Babur says: "... In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). To the south is Afghanistān ..." <---- NOTICE HE DOES NOT MENTION ABOUT "AFGHANISTAN" BEING INHABITED BY PASHTUNS OR ANY MOUNTAIN AREASNOW WHY DO YOU ADD THE WORDS "INHABITED BY PASHTUNS" OR "MOUNTAIN AREAS"?
Encyclopaedia of Islam says: "... Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured: previously various districts bore distinct apellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghans”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan. ..."
LETS FOCUS NOW....ENCYCLOPAEDIA OF ISLAM SAYS:"... Afghānistān has borne that name "only" since the middle of the 18th century (1750), when the supremacy of the Afghan race (Pashtuns) became assured
Babur IN THE YEAR 1525 A.D. says: "......In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs......TO THE SOUTH IS AFGHANISTAN......"
WHERE does the Encyclopaedia of Islam contradict Babur?!
LOOK ABOVE AND SEE THE CONTRADICTION
You simply fail to understand that with "Afghānistān has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century" the EI is refering to the MODERN NATION Afghanistan (created in 1748) while Babur is talking about the original Pashtun homelands. = AFGHANISTAN IS AFGHANISTAN....WE ALL KNOW AFGHANISTAN MEANS LAND OF THE AFGHANS(PASHTUNS)....THE SAME MEANING GIVEN TO THE 1525 REFERENCE AND THE SAME IN THE MIDDLE OF 18TH CENTURY REFERENCE....THEREFORE, IT IS YOU THAT FAIL TO UNDERSTAND
Please stop flooding the article with nonsense. = IT IS YOU WHO IS FLOODING THE ARTICLE AND TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO MINIMISE PASHTUN'S HISTORY BY SOMEHOW TRYING TO MENTION MORE ABOUT PERSIAN HISTORY INTO AFGHANISTAN'S ARTICLE....AND I'M QUITE SURE BY NOW THAT EVERYONE WHO READS ALL THESE THINGS WE TYPE....THEY LAUGH AT YOU
Besides that, saying that a major and authoritative source X contradics source Y is POV. It's not the purpose of Misplaced Pages to judge other encyclopaedias! = I AM SIMPLY POINTING OUT A HUGE ERROR, WHICH MUST BE SOMEHOW FIXED OR DELETED FROM AFGHANISTAN'S ARTICLE....BECAUSE THIS IS AFFECTING ME THAT I AM AFGHAN
By the way...I was challenging you earlier in a debate...why you decided to quit on that debate and go back to altering Afgha article? It proves that you have no evidence or proof showing that Afghanistan was province of Khorasan...other than showing me maps that not a person on earth can read. NisarKand03:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
NisarKand, you deffinitly have some big problems understanding what you read. You did read the extract from the Baburnama, but you have not understood a WORD. Let's take a look at Babur's text ONCE AGAIN (since you seem to have problems to understand):
"... In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by Tūrks, Aimāks, and Arabs. In the city and the greater part of the villages, the population consists of Tājiks (Sarts). Many other of the villages and districts are occupied by Pashāis, Parāchis, Tājiks, Berekis, and Afghans. In the hill-country to the west, reside the Hazāras and Nukderis. Among the Hazāra and Nukderi tribes, there are some who speak the Moghul language. In the hill-country to the north-east lies Kaferistān, such as Kattor and Gebrek. To the south is Afghanistān. There are eleven or twelve different languages spoken in Kābul: Arabic, Persian, Tūrki, Moghuli, Hindi, Afghani, Pashāi, Parāchi, Geberi, Bereki, and Lamghāni. ..."
It is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR for every intelligent and educated mind that in here Babur is CLEARLY referring to the Pashtuns when he says "Afghans". He clearly differenciates the "Afghans" from Tajiks (whom he calls Sart), Hazara, Aimak, Hindi, Arab, and Turk.
And he CLEARLY differenciates the "Afghan language" (=Pashto language) from Persian, Arabic, Chaghatay Turkic, Mongolian, Pashai, Parachi, and Gebri.
In fact, Babur's memoires are the best proof that the ORIGINAL meaning of the word "Afghan" is "Pashtun". And when Babur says "Afghanistan" and places it south of Kabul, it is CLEAR that he is talking about the AFGHAN-speaking (=Pashto-speaking) mountainious region today known as NWFP. Peshawar and the NWFP are the REAL, the ORIGINAL "Afghanistan" - the "Land of Pashtuns". This is the "Afghanistan" of Babur.
The term "Afghanistan" was expanded by the later kings of Afghanistan to their entire region, and the term "Afghan" was forced on the population of that kingdom which was Non-Pashtun (=Non-Afghan) in majority.
Why can't you understand that simple fact?
And the Encyclopaedia of Islam does not make ANY mistakes by saying that the POLITICAL meaning of "Afghanistan" emerged only in the 18th century. Before that, the Afghans (=Pashtuns) as a nation did not have ANY political or historical meaning, except for a few very short-lived kingdoms in India.
The EI explains that BEFORE the 18th century the meaning of "Afghanistan" was simply "Land of Afghans" (="Land of Pashtuns") and was limitted to a territory south of Kabul which today belongs to Pakistan!
STOP vandalizing the page and deleting AUTHORITATIVE sources!
PS: here is a map of Khorasan during Samanid rule:
Since you refuse to read what I write....I will now start refusing to read your junk also...cause what you're repeating is the same I already know...I am Pashtun and we Pashtuns have our own history that we see it our way. We don't need Tajiks to explain Pashtun history, when they don't even know their own. By the way...South of Kabul is not NWFP...if you think that...then you are making stupid statements. The entire Pashtun areas of presend time are considered South of Kabul. NWFP is "EAST" of Kabul for your information...go check map. And you still can't prove to anyone that Afghanistan was province of Khorasan before the 18th century...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHANisarKand04:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
NisarKand, you are just an extremely annoying and an extremely uneducated person. Your hillarious claims and your hillarious edits prove this. You are not only vandalising this page, but also many other articles. Your hillarious edits in the article Iran () are the best prrof that you are not here to contribute to Misplaced Pages, but to vandalise articles and push for an extreme and false POV. You are a totally hopeless case.
As for Pashtuns and their homelands "south of Kabul", just take a look at the map.
It's you who is uneducated.
And, btw: history is not a matter of "interpretation", but a matter of science. Pashtuns "interpret" their history, and base it on their own emotions.
Misplaced Pages should base its information on non-biased scientific works, such as the Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica, both being authoritative sources written by more than 400 experts world-wide, most of them being leading professors at Western and East Asian universities!
What does this map suppose to prove??? Anyway...I will now make it clear for you to see everything from a 3rd party. Consider the fact that it is not from me but a 3rd source, and see what they know about Afghanistan's history. First look again at the Map of the Abbasid's Empire (786-809) above, by scrolling up...the same Map you showed me before. Next....click here and see Map of Ghaznavid Empire (962-1027). Then check Map of Mongol Empire, Safavid Empire, Moghul Empire (1200-1700) if you want. Next, click here and see Map of Afghan Empire (1762). You will not find anywhere that present-shape Afghanistan ever being province of Khorasan before the 18th century. But you see that Khorasan was province of Afghanistan in 1762. And finally, click here and read the brief events of history from 652 A.D. to 1747, notice nowhere is anything mentioned about Khorasan. It will only take couple of minutes to understand that Khorasan played no role in Afghanistan's history, except for a very short period (10 years rule) when Nader Shah established rule in Afghanistan. And you perfectly know that Nader Shah's army were mostly Afghans...like Ahmad Shah Abdali, who was Afghan and his top military general.
Khorasan is not Iran's capital...Tehran is...and before that it was Isfahan. By the way, take some time before you start resplying to me...this way you will be more prepared on what to type. All the information I provided here is from Afghanistan Online and the link to this site is added to Afghanistan's articl NisarKand 06:13, 27 October 2006
This is not going anywhere, and is quickly degenerating into a flame war. Can the two of you please calm down? NisarKand, since you are accusing Tajik of not reading your responses, what I'd like you to do is summarize Tajik's argument in your own words. Once Tajik is satisfied with your summary, I'd like Tajik to summarize your argument until you are satisfied. Also, agreement on what precisely you are arguing about would be helpful. Thanks. — Edward Z. Yang01:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah ... great source, NisarKand. A private website about Afghanistan - www.afghan-web.com. It's not a reliable or scientific source, in fact, it is even wrong. I know Abdullah Ghazi, the owner of Afghanistan Online, personally. The numbers in his website are not scientific numbers, but just a general overview for the normal reader who just wants to know a liuttle bit about Afghanistan.
Misplaced Pages, on the other hand, is - by now - the leading encyclopaedia world wide. It has become the main source for many students who seek information for their works at school or college.
What you are doing is falsefying facts and pushing for an unsourced and unscholarly POV.
Why were the Farhad Darya, Ahmadsah Massoud, and Herati dance pictures removed?
Im not sure what the reason was for removing these pictures. Farhad Darya's picture and the Herati dance picture are relevent to the culture section, yet they were deleted while the picture of Abdul Ahad Mohmand doesnt really have anything to do with the culture section. And why is Ahmadshah's Massouds picture replaced with Maylala Joya's? How is she more important to the history than him? These changes dont make any sense. Parsiwan00:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Afghanistan was not province of Iran
This is the map clearly showing that Afghanistan was not province of iran called khorasan. khorasan is north-east section of iran. Only a small portion of Afghanistan was part of iran before the 18th century. Please try to understand that and do not add the false statement in the Name section of Afghanistan's article. Besides, the Name section is only about "AFGHANISTAN's" name...no other names...just Afghanistan.
NisarKand 07:47, October 29 2006 (UTC)
Ethnolinguistic Groups
Hi,
I have added another source (Britannica Afghanistan)
for the ethnolinguistic groups, which gives a slightly higher percentage for Pashtuns, and lower for Tajiks.
Also Sunni/Shiite breakdown has been modified according to Britannica (89.2% Sunni, 8.9% Shiite).
I hope this helps in improving the quality of the present article.Heja Helweda01:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Under the "NAME" section in Afghanistan's article...I notice these false statements made by User:Tajik
Later, the English word "Afghanland" that appeared in various treaties in the 19th century, dealing with the Pashtun territories of Kandahar as well as south of Kabul, were translated as "Afghanistan" by Afghan authorities and was extended to the entire kingdom during the reign of Abdur Rahman Khan. It became the official name of the country in 1919, after Afghanistan gained its full independence from the British, and was confirmed as such in 1964 by Afghanistan's first national constitution.
I see errors here...if not...I want to know where is this English word "Afghanland" written so I can read the treaties of the 19th century. I also would like to know about how the Afghan athourities translated the name "Afghanland" as Afghanistan...unless this is someone's point of view and that it did not happend this way but rather British translated "Afghanistan" into "Afghanland".
Next...How did Afghanistan get extended to entire kingdom during Abdur Rahman Khan? I am very confused and there is no sources to show all this. If Afghanistan became the official name in 1919....what was the name of that country before 1919? I have a copy of the "1893 Durand Line" agreement, which was written by Afghanistan's king in 1893 with British India and the name "Afghanistan" is clearly written on it. Does this mean Afghanistan as a nation did not exist in 1893 or it did?
And the last part..."it was confirmed as such in 1964 by Afghanistan's "FIRST" national constitution...that has to be false because here is Afghanistan's 1923 constitution ------> LINK
Finally...I also want to know who says that the last part in "Afghanistan's" name (-istan) comes from the Persian language...is this a wild guess or there is information on this? If so....then what's so hard about sharing it with readers? I believe this is what they call POV. "istan" may have originated from India...because India was formerly known as "Hindustan"....and the name Hindustan existed before any other country that ends with "istan". I'm amazed at how some people (example:User:Tajik) love spreading false information to people around the world. NisarKand15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Malalai Joya picture needs better description
It should be something like, "Malalai Joya, an MP in Afghanistan's parliament who has strong positions on women rights and bringing former war criminals to justice." Parsiwan21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
MP stands for Military Police
Protected
I've protected this article to interupt the current edit war. Please use the talk page to discuss changes to the article, and once you have all reached consensus and believe protection to no longer be necessary, I will unprotect. Note that my protecting the current version is not an edorsement of that version--I just protected what was up when I got here. Khoikhoi23:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
where is the Paris treaty??
in the period of Nasser al-Din Shah He tried to recover the part of eastern Persia (especially Herat) that had come into the British sphere of control but after the British attack on Bushehr, he had to retreat. Herat is today a part of Afghanistan. Nasser-al-Din Shah was forced to sign the Declaration of Paris granting Afghanistan supremacy over the former Persian territories."
Part of the Afghanistan was territory of Iran; if it was not How could some one interpret Paris treaty? when Birtish Empire forced Iran out of it?
in farsi from here
"معاهده پاریس :
در چنین روزی در سال 1235هجری شمسی ، معاهده پاریس میان دو دولت ایران و انگلستان امضا شد . پس از عزل امیر کبیر و در دوران آقا محمد خان نوری که صد راعظمی خیانت پیشه بود ، اوضاع سیاسی ، اجتماعی و فرهنگی ایران به سوی قهقرا گرایید . در این زمان دوست محمد خان حاکم کابل سپاهی را تدارک دید و قصد تصرف هرات را کرد . در این میان حاکم هرات از حسام السلطنه والی خراسان کمک خواست اما پس از ورود سپاهیان ایران به این منطقه نسبت به آنان خیانت ورزید و به آنان حمله کرد . حسام السلطنه هرات را محاصره نمود و نهایتا آن را تصرف کرد . انگلیسی ها با در یافت اوضاع و وضعیت منطقه و اینکه افغانستان را یکی از اهداف استراتژیک خود می دانستند ، منافع خود را در ضرر و زیان دیدند . بر این اساس نیروهای نظامی بریتانیا به سرعت عازم جنوب ایران شدند و جزایر خارک ، خرمشهر و بوشهر را به اشغال خویش در آوردند . میرزا آقا خان پس از وقوع چنین اتفاقی تصمیم به شناسایی دولت افغانستان گرفت و آن را در عهدنامه ای به نام عهد نامه پاریس معین ساخت . بنابر این معاهده ایران تعهد کرد هرات را تخلیه کند و ایضا تمامیت ارضی کشور افغانستان را به رسمینت بشناسد و همچنین تمامی دعاوی مرزی خود را با این کشور از طریق میانجی گری به انجام بر ساند .
"
"معاهده پاریس از طرف ناصرالدین شاه و میرزا آقاخان نوری صدراعظم و ویکتوریا ملکه انگلستان امضا شد و ملکه ویکتوریا به خط خود در زیر آن نوشت: تا میتوانیم مانع میشویم که اصول این پیمان به هم بریزد و با تمام قوا در حفظ آن خواهیم کشید."
another interesting point is that it is not mentioned in this article at all????
If a third party reads the above discussions, he will conclude that user:NisarKand is disrupting the article. Regardless to the sources that was presented, he does what he think is correct.--Pejman4723:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Who the Hello is Nasser al-Din Shah??? and why write farsi in here when not many people understands it??? Even I can't understand it because I grew up in America since being a minor (less than 10). You Iranians need to FIRST indicate the dates when refering to past history...without dates shown....nobody will understand what you're talking about.
Herat was never part of Iran...Herat was always independent, had it's own kingdoms. You Iranians must wake up to the real world...Persia died in 1935...there is no more Persia...there are no more Persians. It's only Iranian people now speaking many dialects of Old Persian language. I don't know why you Iranians are claiming to be Persians when there is no such thing as Persia anymore. You also cannot claim to be Persians in term of speakers of the Persian language because Persian is not one language....it's more like 100s of different dialects now...so you can only state the exact specific language that you speak. You Iranians need to stop calling names...and behave like normal people of the world...talk in manners and do not get angry so quick. I know why you hate us Pashtuns...because we are very popular and Iranians are not. Here are some examples: since 1990s, all the top most popular movie stars in India are Pashtun related (i.e. Sharukh Khan, Amir Khan, Fardeen Khan, and etc.), by the way India's movie industry "Bollywood" is much bigger than "Hollywood". Pashtun invented nuclear bomb (Pakistan's nuclear scientist, Qadir Khan, is Pashtun), Pashtun went to space in 1988, a Pashtun (Ashraf Ghani) just almost made it to become head of the United Nations, replacing Kofi Annan, but dropped out of the race. US Ambassador to Iraq is Pashtun through his father, Pakistan's top cricket player of all time was Pashtun, Pashtuns were the first people to go to Australia in 1800s and start trade business there (check www.AfghanExpress.com), UAE's top Afghan business men are Pashtuns, most of the top business men in Pakistan are Pashtuns, the Interior minister of Pakistan is Pashtun...I can go on for hours and name show how productive Pashtuns are in the world. But on the other hand, look at Iranians....Iran's leader calls on whiping out Israel, making blank threats because he doesn't even have the weapons, giving to the world a very bad image of Iran and its people. However, it's natural for people to experiance jealousy some times but people must not take that serious. I always notice Iranians look very down upon Pashtuns...I am Pashtun and I don't mind this, doesn't in anyway affect me. I simply laugh like this...hahahahahahahaha. One thing I like to say important...don't under estimate Pashtuns...as they are not who you think they are. Pashtuns are naturally gifted with knowledge and wizdoms from Allah (GOD). At the same time, Pashtuns believe that all people of the world are equal, regardless of their religion, color, race, or ethnic backgrounds...that includes Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Athiests and etc. GOD created all these different people for a special reason that only he alone understands. This is just my lecture for Iranians and those that think like Iranians. Anyway....
About past history...if you really want to know about any event in the past....you have to do many searches and find out what really happened...don't try to make your own conclusions by applying your own philosophy, ideas or imaginations. There is an extremely long history written about each war fought in Afghanistan. And finally, anything that you people add or edit in Afghanistan's article should and must be by thinking of yourself as a 3rd party...not Pashtun or Tajik or Iranian. That's exactly what I do...I pretend I am not even Afghan when I edit Afghanistan's article...this is the best way to clearly explain Afghanistan's history. Most people think I am Pashtun nationlistic, which I'm not....if I was a nationalistic of any kind it would be American because that's where I grew up and that's all I know about. So lets all cut the *rap and just write the truth about Afghanistan and keep your personal grudges against one another to your self. There are already 1,000s of websites that explains all there is to know about Afghanistan...this Misplaced Pages is just another place. No need try to tamper with history...if you do such thing...Misplaced Pages will lose creditiblity. Afghanistan was created, pronounced, incorporated and founded in 1747 according to 1,000s of sources...including CIA world factbook...and lets keep it that way. NisarKand 03:57, 1 November 2006
No comments ... This last reply by NisarKand should even convince his last supporters that he is only here to falsefy history and promote extreme Pashtun nationalism, which should have no place in Misplaced Pages. In fact, NisarKand and his Pashtun-nationalistic views as well as his anti-Iranian opinion in a special way reflect the attitude we know from the Taliban (who are a Pashtun nationalistic movement).
Nisakhand, this is not a respectable thing to be doing on Misplaced Pages. This is not a forum for fun or anything, this is an encyclopaedia. If you want to express your point of view (which isnt based on any facts at all), please do so on a blog or a forum, not here. Thanks.Khosrow II21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
that 's it :"Who the Hello is Nasser al-Din Shah???" you don't know anything from history, please don't comment on what you have no information on it.
Let's see...wasn't it Mirwais Khan Hotak's son Mahmud (Afghan) that rose from Kandahar to capture Herat in 1722 along with Isfahan (city that was capital of Persia at the time and is located in western Iran). Didn't Mahmud rule Persia for 10 years? didn't later, in or about 1750, Ahmad Shah Durrani (Afghan) capture Herat along with Kohorasan? From 1750 to 2006....did Persians or Iranians ever possess Herat? I believe not. Only one time Persians or Iranians invaded Herat in 1837 or 1838...but were defeated and expelled from the city in less than a year, with the help of British. Britian sent 500 or so Troops to Herat to help the Afghans defeat the Persians and they did. This clearly means that Herat was territory of Afghanistan since 1750. That's more than 250 years now and you coming up with claims that Herat being territory of Iran. You need help...I suggest you all go see therapists to help you. It is the wrong time for Iranians to make such weak claims now, especially that the United States signed a 99-year agreement with Afghanistan...which is to remain in Afghanistan for 99 years and establish mulitiple military bases in the country. So for the next 99 years or so, USA will be in charge of the region and if Iran has disputes with Afghanistan...they must first face USA. It's pretty funny...as soon as I came to edit Afghanistan's article...all these Iranians began coming. I wonder why? and the first people I hate in the world are ignorant ones. User:NisarKand November 5, 2006
These are really minor points of argument here. No need to bring in nationalist perspectives as we need to write encyclopedic entries. And before I get accused of anything, I'm the guy who turned Pashtuns into a featured article and with help from Khoikhoi and others did likewise with the Iranian peoples so I have tried to be as neutral as possible. As for Herat, well it was also part of Khorasan and the Arabs made the region a base of operations (mainly in nearby Merv to the north which was a mixed city at the time of Iranians, Turks, and others). Herat similarly has been a mixed city with Persians, Pashtuns, Turks, etc. all living and arriving at various points in time. Most likely before the Persians and Pashtuns we may have had speakers of Avestan and possibly some Bactrian influence, but the reality is that historians can't pinpoint exactly the histories of some of these regions as the information is scant and can only lead to conjecture and speculation. Also, it's important to note that these groups all mingle quite often so that speaking of strictly distinct groups can be misleading in the historical sense. Kabul being a good example of the mixed nature of Afghanistan. We should all assume good faith and try to work together on compromise edits and definitely if something is not cited then that is something to consider as well. If there are 2 sides to an argument I think we can all work together and point to references and use academic views as the barometer and arrive at some better conclusions as well. Cheers. Tombseye15:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The section of Name is getting a bit long. I am removing for instance the piece of text of Encyclopedia Iranica, the points stated in that paragraph are already mentioned in the previous and following paragraphs.
That's fine, but the Name section ONLY deals with the name AFGHANISTAN. Since it is clearly mentioned that AFGHAN and AFGHANISTAN both existed before, in and after the 18th century, why mention history about the country being called Khorasan before the 18th century or part of it? Since you wrote that statement, I assume you read it somewhere and why not share that information, by applying the link of the source next to your statement? Unless you can't find it. If that's the case, then why write this unecessary statement? According to Afghanistan's history, the territory of modern Afghanistan was many parts, belonging to different ruling parties. North to the Uzbeks, West to the Safavids, and the remaining larger (South and East) belonged to Moghuls or self ruled by the Pashtuns, who called their territory Afghanistan. The South and East section of modern Afghanistan was perhaps called Afghanistan from at least the Islamic period and onwards. It was then expanded and made a big Empire in 1747, which included modern Afghanistan, Pakistan, northeast Iran and western India.
Either the last paragraph (IN THE NAME SECTION) be removed or a references be added next to it. Pashtun Nov. 24, 2006
If we go into your logic, then you have to remove most part of the History section, because most of
it deals with the periods before the 19th century and in that ages Afghanistan was not called by its current name, but was known as Khorasan. So the 5000 year old history of Afghanistan will decrease into 150 years.
Afghanistan was popularly known as Khorasan, there's no doubt and that's not a new thing. I have presented the arguments several times in this discussion. Please read them in the sections: @ Nisarkand and POV issues, and in @ Nisarkand. Even during the ruling of Ahmad Shah Baba, Afghanistan was called Khorasan. I have presented all the points in those two sections.
If you avoid mentioning Khorasan, then how will you define the situation of Afghanistan before the 18th century? Was it a colony of Persia or Iran? Because it was not Pashtuns who ruled over this territory from 3000 BC up to 1500 AC. So Afghanistan or old Khorasan had its own kingdoms and empires such as Ghaznavids, Seljukids, Timurids, Ghorids and others, who created independent states in Khorasan, although it was conquered in some periods by Persians. When I mentioned in the text a state of Greater Iran, it was NOT because to put Khorasan as ruling part of Persian Kingdoms, but it was to express Greater Iran as a Geographical Territory referring to Ariana. One has to distinguish between Iran as a contemporary Political government and Iran (Iran-shahr or Ariana) as a Grand Civilization. You can remove the phrase 'a state of Greater Iran', if you want.
Moreover, you can refer to Talk:Greater_Khorasan where I had a discussion with some Iranians. As to providing a source, I will soon provide a link.
User:Ariana310, you're totally confused by the NAME section and HISTORY section. The NAME section ONLY deals with the name "AFGHANISTAN" and no other name. While the HISTORY section deals with the entire history of Afghanistan, its people and its geographic location. The NAME section first states that a place called Afghanistan existed in at least 1525 AD south of Kabul and inhabitated by Pashtun people, which is with no doubt a big area of land that includes in modern Afghanistan. In the next paragraph in the NAME section, the Encyclopeadia of Islam states that Afghanistan borne it's name (as a nation) in the middle of the 18th century (1750). User:Ariana310, you added, that before the 18th century Afghanistan was called Khorassan. Therefore, your statement clearly contradicts the prior statements made in the NAME section. Because there, it showes that a big part of modern Afghanistan was called or named Afghanistan from at least 1525 and onwards (area inhabitated by Pashtuns). And you're saying that modern Afghanistan was Khorassan. So which is true, Afghanistan was Khorassan? or Afghanistan was Afghanistan before the 18th century? By the way, Khorassan did not include Pashtun areas, just so you know this. Pashtun Nov. 26, 2006
Here's the online edition of the book Khorasan, written by Mir Ghulam Mohammad Ghubar, the renown Afghan historian and the writer of the book 'Afghanistan in the Course of History (Afghanistan dar maseer-e taareekh). It was published in 1937 by Kabul Printing House.CLICK HEREAriana31016:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Your source (CLICK HERE) is written in NON-English language, which does not help here because this is English Misplaced Pages. Meaning your sources also MUST be written in English. You can search everywhere and you will not find any true history record that will explain that Afghanistan was Khorassan before the 18th century. Pashtun Nov. 26, 2006
What's all this about? You're including these additional notes about the name for Herat and Kabul and etc., in the article about the name "Afghanistan" for what reason? Please explain, in the text so people can follow why it requires alternate spellings of the name of Herat for an explanation of the origins of the name of Afghanistan. Also, why is 'Kābolistān' in the discussion of the name of Afghanistan when it isn't even in the discussion of the name of Kabul? Is Harī explained in Herat? It doesn't seem to be? What about Ghazna and Balkh? Are they explained or even used in their respective articles? What's the purpose of these added unexplained anywhere on Misplaced Pages spellings and their relationship to the name of the country Afghanistan?
Or just include the article titles, and links to the articles, and this information in the articles themselves.
As to the edit comment, 'Herí Rúd' is an old English language spelling for this river used by scientists and explorers in the 19th and early 20th century at least. See Forbes F. and Rawlinson, W., Route from Turbat Haideri, in Khorasan, to the River Heri Rud, on the borders of Sistan in Journal of the Royal Geographical Society of London 14, 1844 pp. 145-192 doi:10.2307/1798056, as a single example from an on-line search engine.
The point whether Afghanistan was known as Khorasan before the 18th century, I will explain it in a short while in response to User:Pashtun.
Regarding your series of questions, I added the alternative names for Herat, Balkh, Ghazni and Kabul because those were mostly used in early ages when the region of modern day Afghanistan was called Khorasan. You said I must have also explained to readers those alternative names: The definition for those old names (Hari, Ghazna and Kabulistan) should be used in their own articles and not in Afghanistan's article. I just added the definition of Kabulistan in Kabul's article today, please check it. And I was to add the definitions for others as well. A little bit patience !!
Please don't add this information to the discussion of the origins of the name 'Afghanistan'. Etymology of the names of all of the areas of Afghanistan that once were part of other areas would consume well over 32 KB alone, leaving no room for anything about Afghanistan. Within-Misplaced Pages linking is not the place for additional outside information about other subjects. KP Botany02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the spelling of "Hari", it is pronounced as Hari in Persian (Farsi-Dari) language. Sources: Farhang-e Dehkhuda (Dictionary of DehKhuda in 10 volumes, by Ali Akbar Dehkhuda, an Iranian scholar) and Farhang-e 'Amid (Dictionary of Amid, an Iranian scholar). Since you only cited me a single English source where it has been written as Héri, I would suggest you to once check in online search engine the number of results you find from Scholarly works published by Western scholars: the number of western works in which Hari has been written and the number of works in which Heri has been written. I leave the conclusion to yourself. As an example here are few scholarly published sources:
...and several others. Since you get convinced by online search results rather than the Phonology of the word in original language. Ariana31001:09, 26 November 2006 (UTC) \
We're not speaking or writing in Farsi here, although it is possible you were discussing that in your comment to Tombseye, I see now--however, if you two are discussing this, your notes about your personal discussion simply confuse the edit history and do not belong with the article. I am commenting upon how it is spelled in English, as I made clear in my post, and in English, it has been spelled 'Herí Rúd', among various other spellings.
I said, "As to the edit comment, 'Herí Rúd' is an old English language spelling for this river used by scientists and explorers in the 19th and early 20th century at least."
And your comment about my " convinced by online search results rather than the Phonology of the word in original language" is also not related to what I said, but appears to be related to me personally--it's not related to what is being discussed, how I am convinced that is. So, please, discuss the topic at hand, not your speculations about me.
However, this is the Internet, it is perfectly appropriate to offer someone an on-line source. As I followed exactly the example you provided above by providing you with a single on-line source as you did to someone else, although not in Farsi, I will admit, your assumption that this is how I am "getting convinced" might lead me to believe that this is, indeed, how you are "getting convinced." It does not, however, do so.
Why I posted an Internet source, a single example for you, is that I was following your example as a courtesy to you, not because I am "getting convinced" or not by on-line sources, but because it was the method you used above, I assumed it was a method you would like someone to do for you. Still, this is the Internet, and quoting on-line sources, a single on-line source, with the assumption that you are quite capable of doing your own web searches, is reasonable. And, ultimately, it is Misplaced Pages's goal to be a useful, accurate and well-quoted source of information on the Internet, so I'm not going to insult Internet resources in general. Resources on-line and elsewhere can be weighed on their own merits. Including Misplaced Pages, for that matter.
So, please remove your phonetics from the sentence, as you have offered no reason, explanation, or insight into why they are there in the Afghanistan article in a section about the origins of the name Afghanistan. By this, I mean, they must be explained in the article itself, with their usage, so that readers of the article can understand why they are there and what they are, not to me on this talk page. Add the explanations to the other articles where those interestest in the etymologies and history of the names may go to find them. A link to another article is not the place for it. Thank you. And let's keep personal comments to a finite limit, say none, and work on making this an excellent and useful Misplaced Pages article on Afghanistan. KP Botany02:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me about mentioning the explanations for those terms. I said that the explanations for those old words should be used in the articles related to the same city and not in the article of Afghanistan, since you asked me for the explanations. Anyhow, I will remove those old words, since you said it was confusing.
The reason that I mentioned the cities of Balkh, Herat and Ghazna, is that they were the famous cities of Khorasan. They had been always called as cities of Khorasan. As Herat was known as the pearl of Khorasan.
Moreover, let me remind you that the source that I provided in the main article's page, was a published scholarly work by an Afghan historian. His works are mostly proved by the Afghan Research Units such as University of Kabul and Academy of Knowledge of Kabul. Giving a link to the online edition of that book, was not my principle intention. Thank you.
I don't see the relationship between what you are saying and anything I said as I didn't challenge the source or discuss its veracity. Oh, wait, are you speaking to me or to User Pashtun now?
Oh, I see, you gave a link to an online edition of a book that you did not intend to give? You can remove it if you did not intend to give it, or you can cross it out, then I would have realized it was a mistake on your part to quote from this book you're now defending as scholarly. Very difficult to follow this, but maybe you're intending to address someone else on this matter also, or discussing something else.
Your reason for including the cities is evident from the article's text, as it should be--when the article is more polished will be time enough to decide if it is appropriate and well placed in this particular section. All the additional information you now include in this talk page is superfluous to the content of this section of the article, what's important is you removed what was not needed from the section, thereby making it more accessible to the casual reader--one piece at a time. Thank you.
By the way, though, regarding another one of your edit summaries, the Middle East is part of Asia and Africa, not Asia alone. Egypt, for example is a major African nation.
These Maps show that only a section of modern Afghanistan was part of Khorassan. The rest of Afghanistan was not part of Khorassan. So it is false to say that Afghanistan was called Khorassan before the 18th century because it was not. Pashtun Nov. 26, 2006
Although I suggested you to read the points that I elaborated in response to User:Nisarkand and he was not able to answer me or to defend his point views by presenting authentic sources, it seems that I should re-write those points for you and to make a translation of the book Khorasan for you, written in in Dari language (one of the two official languages of your country and that an Afghan National is supposed to understand) and written by the greatest Afghan Historian Mir Ghulam Mohammad Ghubar. Since the discussion was between me and you, presenting an authentic work in Dari as source is never useless. And presenting an authentic source, written by a renowned scholar and proved by a research unit, no matter of the language, is a logical step.
Here are my arguments, I hope while responding to me, you will provide me proves with authentic sources:
1. When you say that the word Afghanistan was used before the 18th century for the same modern day territories of Afghanistan, you have to first make it clear whether you are considering the word "afghan" as an old word, whether you are considering "afghanistan" as an old or you are considering "afghanistan" as a word used for a Nation and a Political region.
The word afghan is itself a very old word, probably about 1500 year old. Most sources state that it refers to apagan or abagan which was the title of the second Sassanid King, found in the inscriptions of Behistun. It meant Lion and Brave. But this was only the title of Shahpur, and never attributed to a region.
The word afghanistan was first used in Baburnama in early 16th century. It was only used for the southern regions of Kabul and regions situated between Kabul and Kandahar inhabited by Pashtuns. It never attributed to all the current Afghanistan territories, or it never attributed to a Nation or it never attributed to a Political State.
The first appearance of the word 'Afghanistan' referring to a Political state, thus current Afghan territories, was in early 19th century (1800s onwards). It was mentioned in the treaties between Shah Shuja and British Commanders, as well as in the treaties between Abdul Rahman Khan and British Empire. Please show me a single official document before the 18th century, in which the current Afghan territories were called as Afghanistan.
2. There are many proofs that Khorasan was attributed to the modern day Afghan region up to the 18th century, even during the ruling of Ahmad Shah Baba. Here I briefly mention those points which are mentioned in the scholarly published work, Khorasan, written by Ghulam Moh. Ghubar:
About the area of Khorasan: a region in its east it is Hindustan, in its north it is Rode Jaihoon (Amu Darya), in its West it is Gurgan and Ghor. And about the area of Hindustan, he believes it was up to the deserts of Sindh.
Ibn Battuta, the famous Arab traveler, writes in his book about his trip to Mawarul Nahr and Khroasan. And he mentions the following cities as part of Khorasan: Balkh, Herat, Jaam, Tus, Mashhad, Nishapur, Bostam, Kunduz, Baghlan, Andarab, Hindukush, Charkh (Logar), Kandahar, Kabul, Ghazni and Mountains of Sulaiman. And when he reaches to Multan, he starts a new Chapter in his book and calls it part of Hindustan.
Nasir Khusraw famous Poet, who was born in Yamagan of Badakhshan, says about his native homeland by using the word Khorasan:
سلام کن ز من ای باد مر خراسان را
به چند گونه بدیدید مر خراسان را
کنون که دیو خراسان به جمله ویران کرد
مرا به دل ز خراسان زمین یمگان است
نبینی کز خراسان من نشسته پست در یمگان
همی آید سوی من یک به یک هرچه ایم همی یابد
حکیم آن است کو از شاه نندیشد، نه آن نادان
که شه را شعر گوید تا مگر چیزش فرماید
مانده به یمگان به میان جبال
نیستم از عجز و نه نیز از کلال
یکسره عشاق مقال منند
درگه و بیگه به خراسان رجال
During the Ghaznavids, the empire was divided into 2 parts: Khorasan' and Iraq. This point can be clearly seen in Tarikh-e Baihaqee. Khorasan was the Eastern part of his empire and Iraq was the western part. Manachehri Damaghani says about Shah Mahmood Ghaznawi as:
ای خداوند خراسان و شهنشاه عراق
ای به مردی و شاهی برده از شاهان سباق
ای سپاهت را سپاهان رایتت را ری مکان
ای ز ایران تا به توران بندگان را وثاق
از همه شاهان چنین لشکر که آورد و که برد
از عراق اندر خراسان وز خراسان در عراق
همچنان باز از خراسان آمدی بر پشت پیل
کاحمد مرسل به سوی جنت آمد بر براق
Ansuri, the Malekul Shu'ara of Ghaznavids, calls Peshawar as part of Khorasan:
خـدايگان خـراسان به دشت پيشاور
به حمـله ای بـپـراکـند جمـع آن لـشکر
و ايا شنيده هنرهای خسروان به خبر بيا
بيا زخسرو ومشرق عيان ببين تو هن
Zeb-un-Nissa Makhfi, one of the poets of the Moghul's period and daughter of Aurangzeb, calls the regions other than Hindustan as Khorasan. During the ruling of his father, Aurangzeb, the last area of the Moghul empire was up to Kabul and Kandahar. She calls Kabul, Badakhshan and Balkh as Khorasan, and uses the word Khorasan for these regions and not Hindustan or Persia:
دل آشفته مخفی به فن خود ارسطویی است-
به هند افتاده است اما خراسان است یونانش
بود اندیشه دل را اگر در آستین دستی
برون آرم من از کان سخن لعل بدخشانش
ز روی لطف به تقصیر من قلم-
درکش که باتو هست مرا نسبت خراسانی
وانشد چون غنچه دل در بهارستان هند
رفت مرغ روح مخفی گوشه کابل گرف
These were the points before and during the Moghul period. Now let me show you some sources in which during the ruling of Ahmed Shah Abdali until the ruling of Abdul Rahman Khan, Afghanistan was called as Khorasan.
Abdullah Khan Popalzayee, a Pashtoon poet, uses the word Khorasan when he writes about Ahmad Shah Baba when he made the new city of Kandahar:
دمی که شاه شهامت مداراحمدشاه به استواری همت بنای شهر نهاد
جمال ملک خراسان شد این تازه بنا زحادثات زمانش خدا نگهدارد
Abdul Rahi Hotak, a Pashtoon poet also uses the word Khorasan:
بیا یی به موند هیح راحت له خواشینه
چه داخوار رحیم راووت له خراسانه
دخراسان دسحر باده په جانان وایه په پردیسو سلامونه
پر هندوستان می گل کرلی پر خراسان ولاره یم بوی یی راخینه
Gul Mohammad Khan says about Abdul Rahman Khan:
په زمین دخراسان کشی پیدا کری رب سلطان دی
دده نوم په تمام جهان کشی خپورته هر چاته عیان دی
In the book Gulshan Emaarat, written by Noor Mohammad Qandahari about 1879, writes about Amir Dost Mohammad Khan:
در آن زمان که خاقان مغفرت نشان امیر بی نظیر علیین مکان امیر دوست محمد خان در ولایات خراسان در دارالسلطنه کابل ارم تقابل بر اورنگ امارت وجهانبانی نشسته بود
Saber Shah Kabuli, who crowned Ahmad Shah Baba, used the word Khorasan while talking to the Governor of Lahore:
احمد شاه پاد شاه ولایات خراسان است وتو صوبه دار پادشاه هندوستان
On the coin made during the ruling of father of Abdur Rahman Khan, this verse was written:
سپاه مشرق ومغرب زهم مفصل شد
امیر ملک خراسان محمد افضل شد
Saayel, a poet during the ruling of Abdul Rahmand Khan, used the word Khorasan, when he went to Peshawar:
والی ملک خــــــراسان به پشاور آمد
گويا مهـر جهــــــان تاب ز خاور آمـــــد
Now, you can clearly see that in all sources, the word "Khorasan" was used until the 18th and even 19th century. Before the 18th century, the word Afghanistan was only used for limited regions between Kabul and Kandahar inhabitant by Pashtoons, and that was only after the 16th century.
By refusing this fact, you whether claim that part of "Afghanistan" was called as Hindustan and another part as Persia. Which is obviously not correct. The current Afghan territories were conquered by some Persian Empires, but it does not mean that it was the land of Persia, of course generally it was known as part of Ariana (or Greater Iran, NOT the contemporary Iran).
The maps which you showed, they were completely irrelevant. Those were the maps of Empires, each empire had its own different areas. You cannot fix the area of the region by its empire, but by the name it is called. Secondly, Khorasan was more a Geographical term, such as Ghazna. When the Empire of Shah Mahmood Ghaznawi expanded, they didn't call all the conquered territories as Khorasan. The first map shows the Khorasan regions within the Safavid Empire, and the regions of Khorasan which were not conquered by Safavids, are not showed up. The second map, is the map of Umayyad Caliphate. Again, it shows the area of Khorasan Provincewithin the Umayyad empire. The regions of Khorasan which were not conquered by the Umayyads are left out.
File:Muslim Expansions in 13th century and Khorasan's region.jpgLet me show you the map of Khorasan. . This map is not limited to any specific empire, and shows the regions as they are. You can clearly see that all the current Afghan territory is under the name of Khorasan, in 13th century. Peshawar, Kabul and Kandahar are included in Khorasan. While the northern areas of Amu Darya are marqued as Transoxiana and Khwarizm.
Now, if you have any good reasons with authentic sources, I will be pleased to read them. Unless, your claims will be empty and cannot defend your point of views.
Ariana31003:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Everything User:Ariana310 posted are opinions and not facts. You cannot use NON-English sources in here because this is English Misplaced Pages. This English Misplaced Pages is not made for people from Afghanistan but for everyone in the world. This means you have to convince the English speakers and not the Farsi or Pashto speakers. Your Maps do not indicate that immediatly preceeding the 18th century, Afghanistan was called Khorasan or being part of Khorasan. I showed you the Map of the Abassids in 809 AD, proving that only a section of Afghanistan was part of Khorasan. Then came the Ghaznavid Empire, which was clearly not based in Khorasan but in Ghazni (which is in modern Afghanistan and was not territory of Khorasan at the time of Ghaznavid Empire). In fact, Mahmud of Ghazni went from Ghazni to capture Khorasan at that time and brought Khorasana region under his control. Then came the Ghourids, the same thing, Mohammad of Ghor was not born in Khorasan and also he did not rule from Khorasan but from a place called Ghazni (which is the heart of Afghanistan now). And again, Ghazni at that time also was not territory of Khorasan. Then came Ghengis Khan (Mongols) and then came Timurids, who were based in Herat (which is in modern Afghanistan). Then came Babur, who established his capital in 1504 at Kabul (which is in modern Afghanistan), this is well known by many sources. Babur clearly mentioned that somewhere to the north-west of Kandahar is Khorasan, and that Kandahar was an independent territory, clearly meaning it did not belong to Khorasan. He also mentioned that south of Kabul was called Afghanistan, which was a seperate independent area. By the way, he called Kabul also a different country (stated as country of Kabul). meaning it was an independent territory that did not belong to Khorsan. So, with all the things you wrote above and the false statement in the NAME section in Afghanistan's article, you're stating that Babur is wrong. Because you stated that immediatly preceeding the 18th century, Afghanistan was called Khorasan and included: Kabul, Ghazni, Balkh, Herat and etc. In fact, before the 18th century, Afghanistan was broken down to many countries, provinces, districts, regions, lands, areas, or whatever, and was not one country or one nation and or part of one country or nation. That's exactly what the encylopedia of Islam states. But you are also going against the encylopedia of Islam by stating that modern-day Afghanistan was not pieces but rather part of Khorasan before the 18th century. If everything you say were true, this would've been acknowledged by every Afghan in the world. It would've been mentioned in Afghanistan's history everywhere, especially, by the government of Afghanistan. As you know that Afghanistan's government does not recognize Afghanistan being called Khorasan before the 18th century and that's the main point. So it's you against the government of Afghanistan, the universities of the world, and the majority of people from Afghanistan along with the majority educated people of the world. Pashtun Nov. 26, 2006
Is that what you call a fair debate or discussion in a scholarly manner? Your claims are all empty, since you did not provide any single source to justify your statements.
You are not in a position to refuse the works which were already approved by Afghan Research units. Whatever I stated, were all based on authentic sources.
Moreover, do not keep pretending the language of English since you cannot respond based on authentic sources. Did I wrote any Dari expression in the main article? No. And in this discussion, despite that you're an Afghan, I translated the majority of points into English. The sources were all old historical books such as Hudud ul-'alam min al-mashriq ila al-maghrib or the works of Ibn Batuta. How can you refuse them? I translated the points in English for you.
When you cannot respond by presenting good proofs, so please do not pretending the language or writing me repeatedly the history of different empires. Those two maps, published by the an educational unit are valid and authentic. And they clearly show the territories of Afghanistan as Khorasan.
I presented more than 10 points and you could not respond to any single point.
I would like to remind you that you could not respond to my points, and obviously you cannot refuse them, because they were all authentic works. So please do not edit the article until you present solid reasons and not empty words reflecting your opinion and views. Thank you.
User:Ariana310, you need to relax a bit because I'm still here and not leaving anywhere. What in particular do you want me to provide or show you? You're jumping to conlusions already, thinking you proved something. Your sources are worthless because they are in NON-English text. Nobody on earth would trust something they can't read. What if that farsi writings are saying that Afghanistan was not part of Khorasan but you are mistranslating it? We will never be able to know that. Also, I have no idea who those historians are, never heard of them. If your mom and dad told you fairy tales when you were a child, about Afghanistan once being called Khorasan, then I can understand that. And you are trying to share that information with people on Misplaced Pages in the NAME section of Afghanistan article. However, out of many encyclopedias and official records of Afghanistan, there are NO mentioning of Afghanistan being called Khorasan before the 18th century? User:Ariana310, IT IS ONLY YOU that is making this false claim, I suggest you stop before you make a fool out of yourself and everyone starts laughing. You said I came out empty? here is one source Encyclopaedia Britannica - Khorasan]. By the way, it is not me that suppose to come up with sources here, I am not the one claiming Afghanistan was called Khorasan. It is you who made the claim so it is you that need to come up with the proper sources. Pashtun Nov. 26, 2006
I can see that you don't have any capacity to hold a rational debate. Since you cannot refuse those source, you keep pretending the language, although you're an Afghan. That's okay.
You helped me further more by providing me the link to Encyclopaedia Britannica. It is clearly stated: Arab geographers even spoke of its extending to the boundaries of India. There's no need to go further. It explicitly says that the boundries of Khorasan extended to India, according to Arabs. As Tombseye said, for Arabs, Khorasan was used for anti-arab nationalists in the territories enlarging up to Peshawar. Next time, please read carefully the article when you present it as a source to me.
Check this article. Published in The Indian Express. It says: Khorasan of the Middle Ages and Aryana’ in the antiquity’, Afghanistan has seen them all pass by.
Check this Research article of Tajikistan Development Gateway. It says: Khorasan consisted of two provinces - Khorasan proper that comprised the territory of modern Afghanistan, including Iranian Khorasan, and Maveronahr, the territory located between the two biggest rivers This is a formal website based in Washington DC USA, which holds several research projects.
...and the Afghâns became sovereigns of the territory as far as the confines of Khorâsân. HERE
Khorâsân at that time was divided into three portions. Candahâr and its dependencies were in possession of the Kilizehi Afghâns; and the rest of Khorâsân was subject to Melik Mahmôd Khân, governor of Nîmrôz, or Sistân,HERE You can clearly see that Kandahar was also known as part of Khorasan.
On the road between Hindustān and Khorasān, there are two great marts: the one Kābul, the other Kandahār.The memoirs of Babur Kabul and Kandahar were not known as Hindustan but as Khorasan. And in old Dehli, called Shahjahanabad, is a gate called Kabuli Darwana also known as Khooni Darwaza. At that time, all the goods went from Khorasan to Hindustan whether by Kabul or by Kandahar.
Here's the exact sentence that I just explained: Indeed, Bābur himself informs us, that Kandahār was formerly regarded as the boundary between Hindustān and Khorasān.CLICK HERE
They strongly urged me also to winter in the territory of Khorasān. But as Kābul and Ghazni were places much exposed to external violence .... meaning Kabul and Ghazni were part of Khorasan. The memoirs of Babur
Very often he visited the court of the king of Khurásán or Kábul as an envoy on behalf of... Here the author uses the word "or", and means Kabul was in Khorasan. HERE
Since you were pretending the language, here I cited you the sources in English. You can clearly see that Kandahar was also known as part of Khorasan, and not part of Hindustan. Years before the word of "afghanistan" attributed to that region. In addition, let me ask you two questions:
Can you please show me in the two following maps IF Kabul and Kandahar are outside the region of Khorasan and belong to Hindustan? These maps are approved by an educational unit (university). (click on the maps, so that they enlarge)
Please tell me by what name were the current territories of Afghanistan were known before the 18th century since you refuse the term of Khorasan? What were they called during the Ghaznavids, Samanids, Saffarids, Seljukids, Ghurids, Khwarezmids and Timurids? Persia, Hindustan, or Afghanistan? You have to answer me by providing a source. And before presenting them, read them carefully, so that they shouldn't express the opposite of your claim as your link to Britannica's article. And I am wondering that what will you start pretending on this time...Ariana31014:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Encyclopedia Britannica: Khorasan - also spelled Khurasan historical region and realm comprising a vast territory now lying in northeastern Iran, southern Turkmenistan, and northern Afghanistan. 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.
Is the last sentence talking about 18th century? Do you have any idea where the boundaries of India were during the time of the Arabs (7th to 9th century)? The are not talking about modern India's boundaries. The last sentence is not evidence, meaning it's nothing. Also, you don't write dates in your argument, so we don't know in what period of time you're talking about. User:Ariana310 is having hard time understanding the English text. That's probably why User:Ariana310 keeps showing us NON-ENGLISH sources here instead of English. User:Ariana310 purposly hides the dates so that we are left more confused. I dismiss the rest of the argument due to nonsense, except about Babur's diary, which mentions the different places in much details. Babur never says that Kabul, Kandahar, Ghazni, Balkh were part of Khorasan. He explains that each of those places were independent smaller countries, with own personal names, not belonging to any one race of people. That in each of those small countries, people from all ethnics and cultures lived, many different languages were spoken. The Encyclopedia of Islam backs that claim. There is no official record of modern Afghanistan being called Khorasan or being part of the Iranian Khorasan before the 18th century. Khorasan was not an empire but simply a name given to a specific area of land, which still exists in North-East Iran. If some people believe that Afghanistan was called Khorasan in the past, that's fine and they may think that. It's the same as someone believing in imaginary friends. But in order to write this in Misplaced Pages, there should be solid evidence to back this false claim. Besides, why bring this argument to the NAME section of Afghanistan, when it's just about Afghanistan's name? Why not explain this in the Khorasan article? Pashtun Nov. 28, 2006
Very brief comments regarding your response:
Yes, we know the boundaries of India or Hindustan between 7th to 9th century. Here's the piece of text of Hudud ul-'alam min al-mashriq ila al-maghrib, written in 982, the most authentic geography book in Arab language: (title)About the boundaries of Hindustan and its cities: in its east it is China and Tibet, in its south it is the great river (referring to the Indian Ocean), in its north-west it is Rod-e Mehdan (Jehlam - located in Pakistan today).
Since you asked me sources in English, I presented 8 authentic sources in English, with an approved English Translation. Whatever you say, you cannot deny those sources by any mean.
You still did not answer my last two questions.
Since Afghanistan was known as part of Khorasan, it is important to be mentioned in Afghanistan's article. This point has already been mentioned in the article of Greater Khorasan in more detailed manner.
Hudud ul-'alam min al-mashriq ila al-maghrib does not explain anything other than saying that it is a book written by an unknown writer. Earlier you asked "Please tell me by what name were the current territories of Afghanistan were known before the 18th century since you refuse the term of Khorasan? What were they called during the Ghaznavids, Samanids, Saffarids, Seljukids, Ghurids, Khwarezmids and Timurids? Persia, Hindustan, or Afghanistan?. by what name is Afghanistan's territories known today? Why do you assume modern Afghan territories had to be part of Khorasan, Hindustan or others? Could it be that Afghanistan was not part of Khorasan nor of Hindustan. Well, Afghanistan (Land of the Afghans), was self ruled for ages and was not part of Khorasan or Hindustan. I'm clearly refering to all the territories where the Afghans (Pashtuns) lived, Because that's where the modern name "Afghanistan" originates from. Ghaznavid Empire was made up of Afghans, Ghurid Empire was made up of Afghans, Hotaki Empire was made up of Afghans and Durrani Empire was made up of Afghans. These Empires crushed Persia, Khorasan and Hindustan over and over in the past, for over 1,000 years. Meaning the Afghans ruled over entire Pakistan, India and entire Persia (Iran and Iraq). Also meaning Pakistan, India and Khorasan were once part of Afghanistan. But not the other way around, that is an insult to Afghans. That's like saying that the Hindus in India ruled over the British, or that British was once part of India. Afghanistan was never part of Hindustan (India) or Pakistan or Khorasan.Pashtun Nov. 29, 2006
Please provide me an authentic and scholarly source in which it says that Ghaznavids, Samanids, Saffarids, Seljukids, Ghurids, Khwarezmids and Timurids were Afghans or Pashtuns, and as well as for "Afghanistan had its own independent government and was also called Afghanistan for 5000 years" as you said: Well, Afghanistan (Land of the Afghans), was self ruled for ages and was not part of Khorasan or Hindustan.
You answered my second question and it was your own point of view and without any authentic source. You still did not answer my first question about the maps.
I agree with Pashtun that not all of modern Afghanistan was part of Khorasan. However, he is wrong when he says that only the northwestern parts were part of that region. In fact, MOST of modern Afghansitan was part of Khorasan, the only exception being the modern southern provinces around Kandahar. Cities such as Kabul, Balkh, or Ghazni were deffinitly major cities of Khorasan.
Babur says in his 1525 AD memoires: "....In the country of Kābul there are many and various tribes. Its valleys and plains are inhabited by.....In the city and the greater part of the villages.......To the south is Afghanistān..."
How is is possible for Kabul to have been a major city of Khorasan? In the 1525 AD memoires, Babur explains that Khorasan is somewhere to the north-west of Kandahar. Babur stated, on one of his missions, that he travelled from Khorasan to Kandahar, then to Ghazni and finally to the country of Kabul.
Pashtun Nov. 27, 2006
Babur further states in 1525 AD: "...There is also the country of Ghazni,* which is often denominated a Tumān. Ghazni was the capital of Sabuktegīn, of Sultan Mahmūd, and of the dynasty sprung from them. Many call it Ghaznīn. This was also the capital of Shāhāb-ed-dīn Ghūri,* who, in the Tabakāt-e-Nāsiri, and many of the histories of Hind, is called Muizzeddīn. It is situated in the third climate..." Pashtun Nov. 27, 2006
Babur further states in 1525 AD: "...Kābul is not fertile in grain; a return of four or five to one is reckoned favourable. The melons too are not good, but those raised from seed brought from Khorasān are tolerable." Pashtun Nov. 27, 2006
Babur further states in 1525 AD: "The country of Kābul is very strong, and of difficult access, whether to foreigners or enemies. Between Balkh, Kunduz, and Badakhshān on the one side, and Kābul on the other, is interposed the mountain of Hindū-kūsh, the passes over which are seven in number. Three of these are by Penjhīr;*........The road from Khorasān leads by way of Kandahār. It is a straight level road, and does not go through any hill-passes...." LINK HERE!Pashtun Nov. 27, 2006
"Khorasan" was not a country with definite political boundary. It was a loosely defined region, dominated by a very similar culture, language, and way of life.
Kabul, Ghazni, and Balkh were CERTAINLY part of that "Khorasan".
Besides that, Babur is only one source. al-Biruni and Ferdousi, for example, include both Ghazni and Kabul into the large body of "Khorasan". The word itself is strictly linked to the Persian culture and language - it is simply the most eastern border of the Persian cultural sphere. And since Kabul and Ghazni are still dominated by that Persian culture and language, these two cities form the most eastern parts of "Khorasan" - the "Eastern (Persian) land".
That makes no sense, what you stated. That's the same as saying that the entire world is part of America now because America's English language and culture or way of life is being used world-wide. Besides that nonsense, why you all refuse to write exact dates? Kabul, Ghazni, and Balkh were CERTAINLY part of that "Khorasan". in what exact time period was this? Pashtun Nov. 29, 2006
I would like to remind you that al-Biruni has stated in his book "Tahqeeq-e Mallahand" that the Afghan tribes were living in the southern areas of Khorasan (don't mix it with in the south of khorasan). So it clearly indicates that Khorasan did comprise the territories where there were Pashtuns i.e. Kandahar region. Ariana31014:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This issue seems somewhat pointless. Khorasan has had various 'borders' once stretching into northern Iran (Tabaristan) to Peshawar. I've been recently reading Al-Tabari as well as Patricia Crone's book "God's Rule" which has a lot on the Umayyads and Hugh Kennedy's book on the Baghdad court of the Abbasids and Khorasan is defined as having an Inner Khorasan that was heavily influenced by the Arabs and Umayyads (Nishapur and Gorgan in particular) and Outer Khorasan which was dominated by 'Eastern Persians' (what we would today call Tajiks) reverting to a more anti-Arab nationalist view during the early Caliphates, Turks, Pashtuns etc. This is the place from whence Abu Muslim comes as well and the army that puts the Abbasids into power. One has to keep in mind that although some people may have referred to it as Khorasan it may not have been the case with all of the inhabitants of Afghanistan as the country is very much geographically factional. Thus, Arabs and Persians could be referring to the region as Khorasan, while its subsections could be other entities (Kabulistan for example). Its Persianness even varies as Turkic tribes had been moving into Merv, while Perso-Arab and Arab elites dominated the upper echelons of society (Ahl Khurasani) and the Pashtuns dominated its southeastern fringes. In short, it can be and was both a vague 'region' and also composed of subsections that, at various times, would be known by local names. Its central character being 'Persian', but also composed of Arab, Turkic, and Pashtuns elements. Tombseye06:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly ! I totally agree. Mir Ghulam Moh. Ghubar, an Afghan historians, says that Khorasan has been used in two different terms: as a word with its specific meaning and as a word in a general signification. Khorasan in its strict sense, it was a word used by Sassanids for the regions around Herat, which were made by the Greeks (Alexandar the great). As Herat was called as Pearl of Khorasan. But as a general use, Khorasan was used for all territories lying between Transoxiana (included) and India, and between the Caspian Sea and Kashmir (Kabulistan included). For example, the north of Amu Darya have been also called as Khorasan, although they had their specific names such as Mawarul Nahr (or Faraa Rud) and Khwarazm (Chorasmia). Or for example, Kharaqan has always been reported as a village of Khorasan, while today it is in the Semnan province of Iran. As a whole, both Kabulistan and the regions of Kandahar were known as Khorasan. In many historical books, we read that Khorasan contained a group of Afghans or Pashtuns. Ariana31014:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Why is Khorasan discussed in a section on the origins of the name "Afghanistan?" Please tie in to specific section.
This section begins, "The name Afghānisthān literally translates to Afghaniland or simply Land of the Afghans. Its modern usage derives from the word Afghan or Afghani."
This, along with the name, leads one to believe that this is the topic of the section.
But it concludes with this:
"In the Middle Ages, up to the 18th century, the region was known as Khorāsān. Several important centers of Khorāsān are thus located in modern Afghanistan, such as Balkh, Herat, Ghazni and Kabul 1"
""The name Afghānisthān literally translates to Afghaniland or simply Land of the Afghans.... In the Middle Ages, up to the 18th century, the region was known as Khorāsān." Huh?
Please tie this in directly to the discussion in this section or move or remove it. Someone else brought this upearlier, but it was lost in the mess.
How is an old name for some of the region related to how it came to be known as Afghanistan? When was it known as Khorāsān, then changed to Afghanistan? Or why was the name changed from Khorāsān to Afghanistan, as this seems to be what the article is implying or saying without saying, it was Khorāsān, then its named was changed to Afghanistan? Please clarify and tie-directly into the section. KP Botany23:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear KP Botany I think you're bringing the discussion again and again, or probably you did not follow the discussion properly. The fact that Afghanistan was part of Khorasan, and before the 18th century it was known as Khorasan, I provided enough sources both in English and Dari.
As for your question, why a name change in Afghanistan: It was all the political issues in 19th century based on ethnicity. In 18th century, Pashtuns came over power in the country. Ahmad Shah Baba was the first to create a grand empire, although before him Mirwais Khan Hotak and Khoshal Khan Khatak had already involved in political activities for independence. However, during the ruling of Ahmad Shah Baba, there was no reliance on ethnicity. He was a person respected for all ethnics i.e. Tajik. As Saber Shah Kabul (a Tajik from Kabul) was the first to vote for him and then also crowned him.
But in 19th century, prejudice for ethnicities spread. Those who were in power, the descendants of Ahmad Shah Baba, thought to rename the country as Afghanistan trying to make the country more depending for Pashtuns or Afghans.
Personally, I do not take any position against the current name of Afghanistan. Whatever happened in the past, today it is a name used for all the nation. The reason for mentioning the case of Khorasan, is that it is an obvious fact, an evident history for Afghanistan. The civilization, the cultural achievements and other developments in Khorasan region (that Afghanistan was part of it) is a honor for Afghanistan. Why should we try to avoid mentioning this important historical fact? Why should we leave it as it will be forgotten?
So now what do you propose? I thought since that Name section deals with the naming of Afghanistan, it is not irrelevant to mention the old name of the region. And by the way, does this single sentence mess up the whole article??!!!
Briefly, what do you propose? You want me to create another section for that? I think that would be completely inappropriate for just two lines. Or you want me to put this discussion in a new article/page and to give a link to it. But I think creating such a page will not be acceptable for the wikipedia administrators.
Ariana, the section is about the name "Afghanistan." Please stop saying things to people like you "probably you did not follow the discussion properly," when you yourself are not addressing the topic at all--the topic is the etymology of the country's name, not its history, and Khorasan has to do with its history, not its current name, as you yourself repeatedly say.
Do you understand that Khorasan and Afghanistan are not the same word? Or do you believe that in English they are the same word? If this is a language barrier we need to work through it in English, one more reason for you to not continue with quoting Persian texts. If this is not the case, and if Afghanistan does not derive directly from the word "Khorastan" then don't put Khorasan in a section on the etymology of the word "Afghanistan."
The question is "What is the relationship between the word 'Khorasan' and the word 'Afghanistan.'"
This does not say a single word about the relationship between the etymology of 'Afghanistan' and the word 'Khorasan.' You are discussing the history of Khorasan, but the section is about the etymology of 'Afghanistan.'
I suggest you either remove the sentence about Khorasan or add sentences about every other region that ever had anything historically to do with Afghanistan. Your choice, but if you do the latter, justify it fully, and don't omit a single region, and include all the tribal kingdoms. Heck, you can even justify it in the paragraph, why you included the mention of Khorasan in a section on the etymology of its name. If you think you can reach consensus on this.
This is a valid section on how the country got its name. It is not the history of the country, including the history of Khorasan.
Also, highlighting is a way of linking Wiki readers to another article with the first occurence of a word, not with every. Pashtun has asked you repeatedly not to to do this, it's a Wiki style matter.
And there already is another section for that, Section 3, title "History."
Your and my personal opinions on the name do not matter. It's about the modern name for the country, the roots of the name, not the history of Afghanistan, that's part of history section, not the name section. Here are links to dictionary definitions of etymology and history and name. "What somebody is called" is not their biography, it's just their name, and that is what the section is about the name of the country, not its history..
This article is excessively linked, even ridiculously so, it's like a huge purple and black splotch. You only need to link to another Misplaced Pages article the first time you mention a topic, not every time.
"Main articles: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (links) and Misplaced Pages:Only make links that are relevant to the context
Make only links relevant to the context. It is not useful and can be very distracting to mark all possible words as hyperlinks. Links should add to the user’s experience; they should not detract from it by making the article harder to read. A high density of links can draw attention away from the high-value links that you would like your readers to follow up. Redundant links clutter up the page and make future maintenance harder. A link is the equivalent of a footnote in a print medium. Imagine if every second word in an encyclopedia article were followed by “(see:)”. Hence, the links should not be so numerous as to make the article harder to read."
.svg){kind=small}
RSS 
Y Sweden, formally the Kingdom of Sweden, is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
N Sweden,(Swedish: Sverige ) formally the Kingdom of Sweden,(Swedish: Konungariket Sverige ) is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8,152 words) "readable prose size"
WikiProject Council
WikiProject guides
Culture and the arts
Geographical
History and society
Science, technology
Misplaced Pages assistance.svg){kind=small}
NisarKand 11:56 October 11, 2006 (UTC)
NisarKand 9:43 PM, October 12, 2006
