Talk:Afghanistan

Edit request from Vaidyanathanramani, 2 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under 'Geogrpahy' tab for the page on 'Afghanistan', the text "Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan border Afghanistan to the north, Iran to the west, Pakistan to the south and the People's Republic of China to the east." should be changed to read "Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan border Afghanistan to the north, Iran to the west, Pakistan to the south, India to the south east and the People's Republic of China to the east." This is because the disputed territory of Jammu & Kashmir, currently administered by Pakistan but claimed by India, borders Afghanistan. For political correctness, the edited text should be used. Vaidyanathanramani (talk) 07:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done, I have added some text to the article regarding the disputed territory of Gilgit-Baltistan, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to remove this new addition. The Durand Line problem has not been resolved yet between Afghanistan and Pakistan and the state Jammu and Kashmir is disputed between Pakistan and India. As long as these disputes are not resolved the acceptance of current boundaries as international boundaries, and all other countries accept the current boundaries between these countries, will be very reasonable. We don't want to have another senseless political debate here.(Domasch (talk) 21:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC))

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

Introduction is bias

• About 13 powerful and well known kingdoms were based inside (with their capitals, courts, seat of power or headquarters inside) Afghanistan, including the Greco-Bactrians, Kushans, Indo-Sassanids, Kabul Shahis, Saffarids, Samanids, Ghaznavids, Ghurids, Kartids, Timurids, Mughals, Hotakis, Durranis, and Barakzais.[1] My point is that if you look at a map of the country, every major city of Afghanistan was once the capital of a well known kingdom in Asia. This makes Afghanistan very unique because not many countries are like this. However, nothing at all about this is mentioned in the introduction.

• The intro again (first line in 3rd paragraph) has an obvious error, where it states by User:Tajik: The political history of Afghanistan begins south of the Hindu Kush with the rise of Pashtun tribes (known as Afghans in Persian) in the 18th century, when in 1709 the Hotaki dynasty established its rule in Kandahar and, more specifically, when Ahmad Shah Durrani established the Durrani Empire in 1747 - the first Afghan Empire and the forerunner of modern Afghanistan. How can the Durrani Empire be the first Afghan Empire when much prior to that there were a number of other Afghan empires such as Lodi dynasty (1451 - 1526), Suri dynasty (1540 - 1556), or even the Khilji dynasty (1290 - 1320) of Delhi Sultanate because rulers of that dynasty were treated as Afghans. The 3 sources cited by editor (User:Tajik) to satisfy his POV do not mention "the first Afghan Empire", they mention only "Afghanistan". [2], [3], [3rd source (Encyclopaedia of Islam) cannot be verified].

Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ancient kingdoms were much different from modern nation states that are based on the Napoleonic state-model. That means that they did not have fix capitals, at best certain headquarters and kingly courts. Even if we regard their royal courts as "capitals", then the Mughals (centered in Lahore and Agra), Samanids (centered in Samarqand) and Hotakis (who reigned from Isfahan) would not fit in your definition. Leaving that aside, the intro is supposed to give a very short summary of the entire article. There is no reason to mention these 13 kingdoms. They should be mention in the history only.

The second part you are criticizing is based on authoritative scholastic works. Your definition of "Afghan Empire" is totally irrelevant, because you are no scholar and - quite frankly - do not have much knowledge of the subject. The Durranis were the founders of Afghanistan and were the first to unite the Pashtun tribes and hence create a kind of Pashtun nationalism. Prior Pashtun dynasties never ruled as "Afghans", but only as a single tribe or family. The Lodis are a good example: they were Persianized and quite assimilated in the Indian civilization. There is not a single work in Pashto left from their time, there are no proofs that they had any kind of an "Afghan" national identity. The Khiljis were Turks and not Afghans, and claiming that they "were treated as Afghans" is your POV and not supported by the Encyclopaedia of Islam or Encyclopaedia Iranica. The Suri dynasty was only nominally Pashtun. Sher Shah Suri only claimed Pashtun descent, but you won't be able to provide proofs or sources that he or his descendants had an "Afghan/Pashtun identity". Sher Shah Suri was born in East India and is reported to have descended from an "Afghan adventurer of the Suri tribe". He did not speak Pashto (if you claim otherwise please provide sources and proofs), he never attempted to create a "Pashtun/Afghan empire", and he and his descendants are not known as "creators of an Afghan Empire". The first nationally Afghan/Pashtun movement was that of the Hotakis, but they did not have the support of other Pashtun tribes. Hence their dynasty collapsed after a short time. Ahmad Shah Durrani was the first who successfully united the Pashtun tribes and created an empire that was essentially "Afghan", meaning Pashtun. He attacked other regions (Herat, Balkh, Kabul, etc), conquered them, and placed Pashtun governors in those regions. Ahmad Shah Durrani was the first Afghan king whose reign was based on his ethnic identity. He favored Pashtuns and had a generally unfavorable policy regarding Non-Pashtuns. Read Encyclopaedia Iranica: "... But the unity of the empire was fragile. Chronic uprisings in the north and northwest clearly indicated that the submission of the non-Paṧtūn populations was more superficial than real, especially since they were burdened by a deliberately unfavorable fiscal policy. ..." [4] Tajik (talk) 16:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not requesting that we mention all 13 dynasties or kingdoms but I'd like to see something like this or similar written the land of Afghanistan has been the center of many powerful Asian kingdoms such as the Kushans, Samanids, Ghaznavids, Timurids, and many others.[5] I think this is a very neutral way to present the pre-creation of Afghanistan history.

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

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

As I have told you before: Wikipedia is not a place to promote ethnocentric (in your case Pashtun nationalistic) propaganda. The Afghans (which is just another word for Pashtuns) were not a united ethnic group until very recently. Even at the time of Ahmad Shah Durrani, they were opposed to each other, were fighting each other - to an extent that British scholars, such as Mountstuart Elphinstone, classified the Durranis and Ghilzay as two separate ethnic groups. The POLITICAL HISTORY of Afghanistan begins with the Hotaki and Durrani Pashtuns (Logworth Dames/Gibb/Morgenstierne/Dupree in Encyclopaedia of Islam: "... The country now known as Afghanistan has borne that name only since the middle of the 18th century, when the supremacy of the Afghan race became assured: previously various districts bore distinct appellations, but the country was not a definite political unit, and its component parts were not bound together by any identity of race or language. The earlier meaning of the word was simply “the land of the Afghans”, a limited territory which did not include many parts of the present state but did comprise large districts now either independent or within the boundary of Pakistan. ..."). Tajik (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Edit warring on this article

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

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

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

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

"Afghanpedia" is not a reliable source. The information that User:Ahmed shahi is stubbornly putting in the article is not supported by any other source. It does not appear in the most authoritative sources of oriental studies. Of course, Ahmed shahi does not understand that because he has absolutely no qualifications in this regard. He does not even have an access to to the Encyclopaedia of Islam. He has removed the phrase "The territories now comprising Afghanistan", which is a word-to-word quotation from the aforementioned encyclopedia. He has also many times removed quotes from scholarly sources, only because they do not support his POV views. That clearly proves that he is not here to write an accurate encyclopedic article, but promote nationalistic POV. The phrase "last Afghan empire" is his own WP:OR and does not appear in any reliable source. That's the reason why he uses unrealiable websites, such as Sabawoon. "Afghanpedia" is unscholarly, does not mention its scholars (obviously because they do not have any qualification), and promotes Pashtun-nationalist nonsense ("Pashtuns are 65% of Afghanistan"). Not to mention the fact that Ahmed shahi is insulting other users (for example by calling me a "racist", because I have removed his unrealiable sources [6]). Tajik (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been mentioned at the WikiProject Countries Talkpage -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been mentioned at the WikiProject Afghanistan Talkpage -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been mentioned at the WikiProject Central Asia Talkpage -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Afghanistan is only one territory, anyone who writes "The territories now comprising Afghanistan" doesn't know what he's talking about. The information I used as a reference for the "last Afghan Empire" from Afghanpedia is backed by 100s of other sources, including Encyclopædia Britannica. [7]

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

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

Edit request from 98.28.172.69, 2 May 2010

{{editprotected}}

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If the article mentions Alexander and other empire why exclude the Mauryans?? And one more thing its only one word that needs to be included and thats '''MAURYANS'''. I am not telling to give a history on it, if you are mentioning other empires why exclude the Mauryans??

I know about the Mauryans, they brought Buddhism into the land of Afghanistan. Only the name of the empire may be mentioned before the Muslim armies, but please don't write extra stuff about them in the intro. You may write more about their accomplishments in the history section. You're the first Afghan Buddhist I have ever met and I find that very strange.

Ahmed shahi (talk) 15:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

Buddhist kingdoms and empires in Afghanistan have been included in the introduction. Kushans are responsible for the much great development of Buddhism in Afghanistan; and the product of their civilization is the Buddha Statues of Bamyan. Unlike other heterogeneous buddhist dynasties such as Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians and Indo-Parthians, Kushans spread the Buddhism in Afghanistan. However, Mauryans ruled mostly the southern parts of Afghanistan, and they did not conquer beyond the Hindu Kush mountains. During the presence of Mauryans in southern Afghanistan, Seleucids and Greco-Bactrians were present in the major parts of Bactria and their civilization (religion and language) were dominant in the region. Mauryans may have or do have a large importance in Indian and Pakistani territories, but their influence in Afghanistan is not significant. There are many other empires and dynasties which deserve more than Mauryans to be mentioned in the Introduction. You added some information on the Mauryans in the History section, no one removed it (except for the very details which were irrelevent), but adding Mauryans in the Intro is irrelevent. Ariana (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In that Case why add Greeks and mentions Alexander since they were in Afghnistan for a very brief period and there are no Greeks to be found. You mean to say Mauryans did not have major influence in Afghnistan, I am sorry to say that your historic knowledge is based on Indophobia. For example, Kandahar derives the name of the city from Gandhara became part of the Indian Mauryan Empire under Chandragupta Maurya, after the departure of Alexander. The Mauryan emperor Ashoka erected a pillar there with a bilingual inscription in Greek and Aramaic. The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom occupied Kandahar after the Mauryans, but then lost the city to the Indo-Scythians.

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

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

No one is denying the deep impact of Buddhist civilization on the earlier inhabitants of Afghanistan. Buddhism and Zoroastrianism were practiced and developed in Afghanistan. Please do not deviate the discussion towards other issue.

You want to mention an iconic empire of Buddhist civilization in Afghanistan? then we have mentioned the Kushans. All the editors already agreed anonymously that the Intro should be short and we cannot mention all the empires. As to the Buddhist civilization, Kushans worth more than the Mauryans. For two reasons: (1) Kushans extensively and exclusively contributed in the development of Buddhism in Afghanistan, while Mauryans could only rule the southern regions; the other major parts of the country were still in the Greek culture; (2) Kushans reigned in Afghanistan longer than the Mauryans, and ruled over the entire territories of Afghanistan unlike the Mauryans.

Therefore, we have mentioned the Kushans in the Intro, that's all enough.

Why Alexander the Great has been mentioned? That's because his empire was the largest in the world at that time. The way the Alexander the Great influenced the cultures, civilizations and regions, the Mauryans (or more specifically Ashoka) didn't. Ashoka only reigned over the southern Indian-subcontenant, while Alexander ruled between Southern Europe to Central Asia. In addition, when Alexander left, the community of Greeks remained in Bactria who formed the Seleucids and Greco-Bactrian dynasties. Most of the today's Afghans living in the north have genetic heritage from the Macedonians, e.g. blue eyes, blond hair, etc. To the extent that Alexander the Great influenced the region, Ashoka couldn't (I am only speaking strictly about the Afghan territories - Of course Ashoka is THE most greatest influential king in the Indian Subcontinent.) Ariana (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Comparing the size of the Mauryan Empire with that of Alexander the Great, the Muslim conquests and the Mongol Conquests, it does not even make up half of their sizes. The three latter empires shocked the world with their "conquest". Here in Afghanistan's article, these three empires are worth mentioning because they all came from far regions of the world and conquered Afghanistan, while Mauryans were just in the neighborhood.

Once again, if you are reasoning in terms of cultural influence over Afghanistan, it was the Kushans and not the Mauryans, it was Kanishka and not Ashoka the Great. Mauryans only conquered half (or probably less than half) of Afghanistan's territories, and it could not impose the Buddhism on "all" the regions of Afghanistan. Greeks (Seleucids and Greco-Bactrians) were present in the northern part (Bactria) all along the 3rd and 2nd millennium. It was the Kushans who imposed the Budhhism in all over Afghanistan.

If you are still not convinced by the reasons I and User:Ahmed shahi presented, then you can ask for the view of other editors. If the majority agreed that Mauryans conquest of Afghanistan worth mentioning, then you can add it. Ariana (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Only adding the Greco-Bactrians made the list long? Hephthalites rose from this land, just as a local dynasty. If you are reasoning in terms of ethnicity, then Kushans came from Yuezhi tribes of Central Asia, Ghaznavids were Turks, and Timurids were also the descendants of Monguls, then you have to call them as invaders too then?!

"Muslim Abbasids" is inaccurate. Afghanistan (more precisely the western parts) were conquered even by the Rashidun Caliphate, and then by the Umayyads. Abbasids came later on.

I still do not agree with the importance of Mauryans being added beside Alexander the Great, Muslims and Mongols. Ariana (talk) 15:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Babur was NOT a Kabuli. He lived almost 20 years of his early life in Farghana and Samarkand. During the next 20 years (between 1504 and 1525), he did not live continuously in Kabul either. He was in move for capturing Herat, and re-conquering Samarkand and Bukhara. He might have stayed a couple of years, but not for a long time. We don't have any good reason to call him a Kabuli, or to call his empire a local empire. Ariana (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is a 1747 map of Afghanistan region during the Safavid dynasty and Mughal period

The Greco-Bactrian Kingdom came from the Seleucid Empire, they are all one group of people (Ancient Macedonians) who first arrived to Afghanistan with Alexander the Great in 330 BC. I prefer we only mention the most well recognized and undisputable kingdoms such as Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Timurids, and Mughals in the intro and add "and many others" following it.

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

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

“ If there is a paradise on earth, it is this, it is this, it is this! ”

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

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

Ahmed shahi (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

From the Pre-Islamic period, Greco-Bactrians and Kushans are the two most important dynasties which mark our history. In terms of culture and language, they both linked to other territories, but they were local dynasties.

If we come out of the context of wikipedia, you might find me more proud of my country Afghanistan, more patriotic and more loving my homeland, even more than yourself. But in wikipedia, the feelings don't have any weight, there should be scholarly reference and facts, without any bias or POV. Now other editors will ask for a reference from you, do you have any reference to support your argument that Moghuls can be considered a "local" dynasty from Afghanistan?

Let's finish this debate. I'm done. Ariana (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

It being important or not is irrelevant. There is zero proof that the Greco-Bactrians rose to power from within the borders of the modern state of Afghanistan. In the case of Babur, the Encyclopædia Britannica states:

“ "Bābur, a descendant of Genghis Khan and Timur, had made Kabul the capital of an independent principality in 1504. He captured Kandahār in 1522, and in 1526 he marched on Delhi. He defeated Ibrāhīm, the last of the Lodī Afghan kings of India, and established the Mughal Empire, which lasted until the middle of the 19th century and included all of eastern Afghanistan south of the Hindu Kush. The capital was at Agra. Nine years after his death in 1530, the body of Bābur was taken to Kabul for burial." (source: [8]) ”

“ "Kabul was the capital (1504–26) of the Mughal dynasty, under Bābur, and it remained under Mughal rule until 1738..." (source: [9]) ”

Babur a ruler and resident of Kabul (Afghanistan) marched with his army to conquer India and formed the powerful Mughal Empire. This qualifies Mughal Empire to be added in the list because it says Afghanistan has been a source from which rulers or kings rose to establish empires.

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

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

No mention of connection with Hinduism and / or Ancient India?

Before the arrival of Islam, Afghanistan was culturally and historically linked with Hinduism and ancient India. Even on wikipedia there is a page called Hinduism in Afghanistan and it mentinos this. Yet here there is little to no mention of Afghanistan being ilnked and apart of Ancient India and / or Hinduism then ? ? 71.105.87.54 (talk) 11:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Afghanistan

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

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

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

Vandalism

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

The Sikhs, under Ranjit Singh, rebelled in 1809 and eventually wrested a large part of the Kingdom of Kabul (present day Pakistan, but not including Sindh) from the Afghans. Hari Singh Nalwa, the Commander-in-Chief of the Sikh Empire along its Afghan frontier, invaded the Afghan territory as far as the city of Jalalabad. In 1837, the Afghan Army descended through the Khyber Pass on Sikh forces at Jamrud. Hari Singh Nalwa's forces held off the Afghan offensive for over a week – the time it took reinforcements to reach Jamrud from Lahore.

This book doesn't seem unknown to me... it's on google books for example[10]. The point is that the section is on the Durrani Empire and that country encompassed afghanistan as well as Pakistan. If you have verifiable contradictory evidence then we should insert both views.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now read these line that I had also removed,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islamic Republic

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

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

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

Government and politics including the police and military

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

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

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

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

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

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

inaccurate map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section title - War/NATO Mission/US Mission 2001-present

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

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

I didn't feel strongly enough about it to reject the subsequent change - perhaps a discussion would be profitable?

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

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

Foreign relations and military

Input from other editors requested: I've added an RFC tag to this section, because, although I have no view on the content issues here, it has come to my attention as an uninvolved party through a "spill-over" of discussion onto my talk page. I feel the dispute has become widespread enough, with threads at WP:ANI and WP:ANEW and potentially disruptive enough, for me to believe that seeking outside input is appropriate here. I encourage calm in this discussion, and hope that input from others will be helpful. I also encourage discussion to focus on content, in a productive fashion.  Begoon^talk 12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

---

In the foreign relations and military section I came across some problems while reading it. [11] It has a very strong anti-Pakistan, pro-Iranian and pro-Indian tone. I think we need to neutralize this a little. There was only one incident of border skirmishes in May 2007 but the way it is written tries to make us believe that many incidents occurred, and that didn't happen because Pakistan wanted to invade Afghanistan, and that's most likely as a result of the poorly-marked Durand Line border between the two. The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan is unrecognized by Afghanistan. Since people from both countries usually go back and forth everyday without any documents, and there are no visa fees, and I don't see why I can't explain this. In fact all Afghans who were leaving from their country to go else where over the last 20 years used Pakistan's airports. The Afghans living in the west all have been to Pakistan. Just as India and Iran is involved in Afghan reconstruction so is Pakistan, but why isn't anything about Pakistan's $250 million contribution mentioned?

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

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

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

Pakistan-Afghanistan-NATO military leaders in Kabul, Afghanistan.

It's not my personal views and why are you judging my knowledge by saying "I am afraid, you can't" when you're not really sure? Anyway, when did the several clashes occur other than the May 2007? The visa issue covers 1979 to present, for the last 30 years Afghans used Pakistan as an escape route to the west and they were never asked for visas. Only in recent years, after 2007, visas are required for those who want to visit the cities or outside the tribal areas but remember the visas are free. This is for security reasons after USA and Afghanistan pressured Pakistan to stop militants from crossing over the border. Before that Taliban, al-Qada and other militants were going back and forth very easily. Pakistan built the Jinnah Hospital in Kabul, built the road from Kandahar to Chaman, partially build the Jalalabad to Peshawar road, spent $10 million on the University of Balkh in the north and a number of other projects. The point is they pledged $250 million which is alot for poor nations like Pakistan and Afghanistan.[12]

Not all of Afghanistan was connected to Persia, most of it was part of the Indian Mughal Empire, especially the capital of Afghanistan, Kabul, and as I explained that "foreign relations" is mainly refering to the current diplomatic government relations between Kabul and foreign nations. If someone wants to add details about culture that should be done in the main articles or in the culture section. Afghanistan was created by Afghan Pakhtun tribes who defeated Persia (Iran) in the 18th century and since then Afghanistan has been ruled by these people so how do you figure these Sunni Afghan tribes and Shia Persian Iranians share the same language, the same culture and the same history? Have you read about how Afghans are treated in Iran? What you have to say about this and the forceful deportation of 100,000 Afghans[13]? On the other hand, the Pakhtun Afghan tribes of Afghanistan and Pakistan share the same language, the same culture and the same history and yet that is not mentioned. Additionally, when Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari was being sworn into office he invited Afghan President Hamid Karzai as the only outsider. The Awami National Party is one of the biggest political party in Pakistan and is heavily influenced by Afghanistan which is not a secret in Pakistan. Pakistan's and Afghanistans's military work very closely with one another and this is also part of foreign relations.

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

• • Iran is ruled under Shia Islam / Afghanistan is ruled under Sunni Islam.
  • Iranian history is mainly tied to Western or Northern section of Iran, where their capitals have been, however, Afghanistan's capital Kabul is no where near Iran but has belonged to Mughal India since the 1500s.
  • Iranian language is not the same as Afghanistan's Pashto or even the same as the Afghan Persian.
  • Iranians don't dress anything like Afghans, Iranian dress like Europeans while Afghans wear South Asian style clothing.
  • The history of Iran and Afghanistan is nothing but brutal wars with one another. Even until today Afghans are hanged in large numbers inside Iran without even bothering to notify the Afghan government. Just imagine if Canada was to hang Americans like this what will the reaction be in USA.
  • Afghan Ambassador Said Tayeb Jawad speaking to a roomful of government analysts, scholars and journalists in 2008 stated: "Iran has become a more and more hostile power" [14]
  • Ali Larijani, the chairman/speaker of the Iranian parliament, stated: "The Americans will have the same success in Afghanistan as in Vietnam. Years ago the Soviet Union made exactly the same mistake. Many many people were killed and it finally pulled out. History repeats itself. We know Afghanistan. We know that Afghanistan will never submit to foreign armies."[15]
  • A senior commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards warned that Afghanistan will be engulfed by "terror".[16]
  • U.S. senior military officials such as Robert Gates [17], Stanley McChrystal [18], David Petraeus [19] and others believe that Iran's Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution are involved in helping the enemies of Afghanistan, the Taliban.[20]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I couldn't really follow you but here is the source for the University of Balkh. Pakistan grants $10m for Balkh University Sources for Jinnah Hospital / Kabul University and other Pakistani help. [21], [22], [23], [24] You live in Kabul and not know all this? I already stated that since 1979 Afghans were not required visas when visiting Pakistan and that's a sign of good relations. The new visa rule came into effect in late 2006 after the Afghan refugees were registered in Pakistan. But that doesn't stop many who still continue to go back and forth without documents. What do you mean by "Afghanistan and Pakistan officially signed a document to lift the visa restriction"?

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

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

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

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

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

119.73.7.124's edits

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

My explanation for reverting your edits:

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

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

Resume:

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

The previous version which I support:

• "Relations between Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan often fluctuate". Source: Hasnat, Syed Farooq, "Pakistan & Afghanistan: Domestic Pressures and Regional Threats" in Journal of International Affairs, Vol. 63, Fall/Winter 2009, page 141-155, Columbia University link "Since 1947, serious differences and tensions have existed between the two respective governments at various phases of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations." More sources: Resolving the Pakistan-Afghanistan Stalemate, United States Institute of Peace (Afghanistan and Pakistan have had largely antagonistic relations under all governments); Pashtunistan Crisis 1960-1963.
• "Afghanistan has close historical, linguistic and cultural ties with neighboring Iran as both countries were part of Greater Persia before 1747." Source: Bruno, G., "Iran and the future of Afghanistan", Council on Foreign Relations, March 30, 2009 [25] "Iran has close linguistic and cultural ties to Afghanistan.". Ariana (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Not POV and it's all sourced. [26] It's refering to the Pakhtun rulers and Pakhtun people. They rule modern Afghanistan since 1747 and modern Pakistan was part of their Kingdom when both were one unit, that's what "the people of this region had co-existed for centuries, sharing many commonalities such as history, religion, ethnolinguistics, and cultural heritage" is refering to.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You just want to argue. Click on home and you'll learn that it is not Afghan embassy's website. [27] Just like all U.S. Embassies are under U.S. State Department, so is Afghanistan embassies, all under Afghan foreign affairs.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)