Talk:Demography of Afghanistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Demography of Afghanistan article.
Article policies
This article contains material from the CIA World Factbook (2006 edition) which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain.
WikiProject Central Asia Demography of Afghanistan is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang, Tibet and Central Asian portions of Iran and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Demography of Afghanistan is part of the WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Diversity of Afghanistan

It is tough further dividing the related languages because Afghans are (while geographically, and culturally similar) from diverse groups. The Pashtun are related to Indo-Iranian groups while the Uzbek are related Turkic groups. Falphin 20:06, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Symbols

I'm looking for symbols, and the identity sections left. Any help would be appreciated. Falphin 21:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Could someone add the image of Flag of Afghanistan by the symbol section. I have no idea how to do that. Thx. Falphin 13:56, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Done, in future find out the name of the picture (in this case Image:Afghanistan_flag_large.png) and type it like [[Image:Afghanistan_flag_large.png]]. Then if you wnt to make it a thumb nail or add text at the bottom do so like here:[[Image:Afghanistan_flag_large.png|thumb|250px|[[Image:FIAV_56.png]] Flag Ratio: 1:2]]. T.A Stevenson 16:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To note: don't remove

this statement "Often times the Pashtun are refered to as Afghans while other groups hold to their ethnic name." It was mentioned on the vfd and should be kept. Just a reminder for those that edit in the future. Falphin 01:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Also someone keeps putting bias in this article by stating that non-Pashtun Afghans "mistakenly" refer to themselves as Afghan. That is ignorant and biased. There is no room for such politcally motivated remarks on an encyclopedia article. - PullMyFinger409

[edit] Reworded

I reworded the annoyns contributions and intend to research his additions to the Afghan contribution section. But I have a headache for other reasons and so I'm sure some of my edits don't work. Falphin 00:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] from VfD

On 22 May 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Afghan people for a record of the discussion. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] article needs to be cleaned up

This article is flilled with wrong claims and wrong history. One has to distinguish between "Afghan citizens" and "ethnic Afghans". While people like Khoshal Khan Khattak and Ahmad Shah Abdali were "ethnic Afghans" (Pashtuns), they were not "Afghan citizens", because Afghanistan as a nation-state was created in the early 20th century. Besides that, other individuals, such as Avicenna, Rumi or Zoroaster have absolutely nothing to do with the word Afghan. They were no Afghans, and they never claimed to be Afghans. Zoroaster was probably Bactrian, an ancient Iranian people that does not exist anymore. Avicenna and Rumi were both ethnic Persians - one could claim them ethnic Tajiks (since Tajiks and Persians are almost the same people), but deffinitly not ethnic Afghan (Pashtun) or Afghan citizen (there was no Afghanistan during their lifetime)! -Tajik 11:05, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You made some good points and I tried to address them in a revision. I agree that the Persian/Tajik figures such as Rumi and Zoroaster are not 'Afghan people' in the modern sense as there was no Afghanistan during their time periods, but I would say that the AFghan nation-state begins in the 18th cent. and not the 20th with the rise of the Durrani empire. If you think there are any other changes worthy of discussion or revision, then by all means let me and others know. The article can be fixed up and better reflect the complexities of the Afghan citizenry without too much trouble I believe as anyone can read the various entries on the different groups and come to some conclusions of their own as well. Tombseye 00:00, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This artiucle should be moved to People of Afghanistan

... historically, the name Afghan was only given to the Pashtuns. These two names are synonyms. The name of the country was given to it by the British, because at the time of the British wars in Afghanistan, the kings of Afghanistan were ethnic Pashtuns. Today, many Non-Pashtuns in Afghanistan do not want to be called Afghans, because they associate the word with Pashtuns.

People of Afghanistan would be a more neutral name for the article.

-213.39.153.241 22:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Is there no neutral adjective for the nationality of someone from Afghanistan? What do authorities like the country's government, the UN, etc. use as the adjective? I'm not particularly attached to "Afghan" if it is indeed not neutral, but for consistency's sake, we'd prefer to use the form it's in now. Dmcdevit·t 22:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
"Afghan" is being considered "offensive" by many Non-Pashtuns. In the last Loya Jirga, one of the major topics was the name "Afghan". Prior to that, many students in Kabul and in the north had organized rallies against the name "Afghanistan". One of the leading politicians in Afghanistan, Dr. Latif Pedram [1], has suggested to change the name of Afghanistan to the more neutral name Khorasan. According to the consititution of 1964, every "citizen of Afghanistan is an Afghan". However, the fathers of the 1964-constitution, like King Zaher Shah, were known Pashtun nationalists. Uzbeks, Tajiks, and Hazaras - especially educated ones in the West - reject the name "Afghan" and usually prefer "Afghanistani" or "Khorasani": [2], [3], [4] I think that "people of Afghanistan" is a more neutral name and will also satisfy those who do not like to be called "Afghan". -213.39.200.218 00:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I totally agree with that!!! I am an Afghanistani Tajik myself, and I think that many people are not happy with the name 'Afghan'. Tajik 00:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no concrete evidence that avicenna is Tajik.No need to create historical inaccuracies.Most say he was of original Iranian stock.He lived in Bukhara.Check article on Avicenna.--Yahoo 02:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Why were terms like Afghani removed? Not all Afghans refer to themselves as such. Falphin 03:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Merger

It has been proposed that People of Afghanistan be merged into this article.


Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • oppose-see below Falphin 03:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Does anyone think that the People of Afghanistan article should be merged into this one? I mean, see the Demographics of Pakistan article as an example. --Khoikhoi 05:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well you have already requested a merger, so we have to vote on this. I think both articles (People of Afghanistan and Demographics of Afghanistan) look fine the way they stand. Demographics of Pakistan seems too messy, so it's not the best example. AucamanTalk 05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
English People, German people etc all exist because the intent of the article is different than that of demographics. This includes Afghan culture and people beyond the borders. Which, I do have to ask whh was the table removed on the other article? ThanksFalphin 03:11, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have put the table back via page history, and I agree entirely about it being inappropriate to treat these people differently (particularly considering the massive number of Afghan regugees in Pakistan, as well as various communities in the US, Canada, UK, etc). --Vedek Dukat Talk 19:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
It's factually inaccurate to use the ethnobox template. Afghan is not an ethnic group, but a nationality. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
That's true, although like "American" it's turning into an identity as time goes on. For now you're right I guess. --Vedek Dukat Talk 18:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
An article about afgan diaspora is a diferent issue. If People of Afghanistan supposed to be about an afgan diaspora, it should be titled accordingly. Afghan people redirects to People of Afghanistan, incosnistant with naming convention.
--Cat out 12:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I merged People of Afghanistan with this article (somebody had to do it). The way I set it up seems to work better. It's also arranged in a more organized way than the Pakistan article. -- Clevelander 00:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image stack

I think that the image stack keeps the format of the article more orderly than simply placing an image to the right of the screen. -- Clevelander 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Hazara in Afghanistan

If you want to prove that it's 29%, just cite your sources. It really isn't that hard. The current source is the CIA World Factbook, which says it's 9%. If there are sources that contradict that, provide them! —Khoikhoi 08:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Here is the link that provides some information about the demography in Afghanistan:http://www.hewad.com/ethnic.htm

[edit] Contributions to Humanity

Since we have changed this to Demographics of Afghanistan, I have deleted the Contributions to Humanity section because it has nothing to do with demographics. We could create another separate article for that section. We could call this new article something like Notable people from Afghanistan. I will cut and paste that section to below so that it is not lost. -- Parsiwan 02:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Contributions to Humanity

The different ethnic groups that today make up Afghanistan made significant contributions in poetry, architecture, art, music, and religion. Prominent individuals are:

[edit] Literature:

[edit] Theology And Philosophy:

[edit] Kings And Conquerors:

[edit] Modern prominent individuals include mucisians:

[edit] Poets:

[edit] Science

  • Abdul Ahad Mohmand, the first Afghan cosmonaut who spent nine days in space aboard the MIR space station in 1988.

[edit] Should "Afghanistani" redirect here?

I think this question should be discussed. I personally think it should. Let's discuss this. Parsiwan 06:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think now that the term Afghanistani has been introduced and is becoming used more often as time goes on, some people might do a search for Afghanistani. So we should redirect a search for Afghanistani to this article. I do not know how to do this myself, so if someone can help with that would be great. I think this is of high importance. Parsiwan 00:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I have noticed that this issue has been taken care of and now Afghanistani redirects to this article. That is a great improvement! Thanks to whoever made this improvement. Issue solved. Parsiwan 00:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, to the person who did this, can you also please redirect Afghanistanis (the plural form) too? That is also important I think. Thank you.Parsiwan 03:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the picture placed for Pashtuns was not a good one.

I dont think this was a good enough picture to be placed for the Pashtun section because the boy 2nd from the left has really bad teeth. But if you find a way to crop him out then I think this is a good picture. Or maybe you could just cut out the 3 boys on the right and leave the one on the left. If anything disagrees and thinks this is a good enough picture and should be put back, please let me know and we will put it back. Parsiwan 07:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I disagree. Bad teeth are a sorry fact of life for poor people all over the world. The picture is simply a picture of a group of Afghan children, Pashtuns, hamming it up for the camera, with other children in the background, and Afghan children and their fathers, and western soldiers, and maybe an ancient civilization mixed with modern in the background. I like everything about the picture, in particular its complexity, its immense depth of field, the Joie de vivre that it expresses, the clarity and intelligence and interest in the children's eyes in a time of war. I not only disagree with it being removed for a fact the child can do nothing to prevent, I think it has Featured Picture potential and artistic potential. Thank you for posting on the talk page and asking about this. Afghanistan is as it is, even American children have bad teeth. KP Botany 19:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote for which picture to display for Pashtuns section

I'm making this poll for people to vote for which picture to show. Sign underneath the picture with a number sign and four tildes. Here we go:


POLL CLOSED: your image and one of my images (the one with the classrom in Paghman) were both deleted because a really strict Admin says that we can't use FlickR images that have a restriction on Commercial Use, which in my opinion is silly. But I can't argue with him, so now that the images are gone I'll have to close this poll since there is nothing to vote on.

[edit] Why vote?

User:Beh-nam, this is not a place to get into ethnical battles. If you are not Pashtun, why would you bother putting up Pashtun pictures? Why not go find picture of Tajiks and place it in the article. I placed the image of Pashtuns first, none ever were placed before me so why are you so much into my work? Do you have a problem with me?--NisarKand 11:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, long before you came here I placed a picture for the Pashtun section of Sharbat Gula but it was removed later. So I don't know what you're trying to say. And yes I am partly Pashtun myself. What's your point? My ethnicity doesn't matter and neither does yours. And no I have no problem with you at all, I appreciate your contributions. But what is the problem with this poll? I didn't like that boy's teeth and the other two boys are making odd faces. So I found another picture, and you disapproved. So the only way to solve that is a vote. Behnam 11:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are Kizilbash a different group from Tajik/Farsiwan?

I thought that the Kizilbash was a group of people involved in a movement, not an actual ethnic group. Aren't the Kizilbash of Afghanistan actually Farsiwan/Tajik? I'm raising this question because we now have them listed separately in this article. --Behnam 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but in most encyclopaedias (as well as in the media and elsewhere), the Kizilbash are always mentioned appart from the Tajiks and Farsiwan. Besides that, I think that a direct link to the main article Qizilbash is OK. Tājik 22:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tajiks need picture

Image:Ethnic Tajiks of Afghanistan.jpg
Men in Afghanistan wearing their favorite Pakol hats.

There must be picture of every ethnic in this article so that people (outsiders) have a little idea of how each ethnic appear and dress. I believe this image of Tajiks is fine for now until a better image is loaded. We don't need to add modeling pictures but just normal ones (natural). Pakol hats are the trade marks of Tajiks and yes sometimes Pashtuns wear them too but it is mostly worn by Tajiks. I also have a nice image of Afghan Sikhs and little about them should be mentioned in here with an image so people are aware that we do have many kinds of people living in our country. The Sikhs have been living in the country for a long while.--NisarKand 01:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Pakol" is actually Nuristani and not really "Tajik" ... Tājik 16:46, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's [5]a picture of a man wearing a Pakol in Islamabad, is he a Tajik? No he is a Pakistani (of who knows what ethnicity, probably Pashtun from my guess). The point is Pakols are worn around the region, Pashtuns wear it too frequently, especially the Pakistani-Pashtuns. That picture has NOTHING to suggest what their ethnicity is or EVEN might be. We might as well place it in the Pashtun or Nuristani articel and CLAIM those are Pashtuns. This picture is dismissed. Behnam 12:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Here's another Pakistasni (probably Pashtun) man wearing a Pakol [6]
Both of those people in the pictures appear as Tajiks. There are Tajiks in Pakistan. Also, in the city of Islamabad. Pashtuns wear caps mostly. Ahmad Shah Massoud was Tajik...he always wore the Pakol hat. Mohammed Fahim is Tajik, he always wears Pakol. You go to Tajik areas in Afghanistan they all wear Pakol hats. Is this not true?--NisarKand 17:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you are having some serious problems understanding basic reasoning. Yes, Tajiks in Afghanistan often wear Pakols, BUT there is NOTHING to suggest that that picture of yours are Tajiks! They could very well be Pashtuns or Nurisistanis! In Wikipedia, the RULE is that if you don't know something and are simply guessing/making it up, it does NOT get in! Behnam 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] THE LANGUAGE OF PERSIAN PEOPLE

Dear friend, there is not a language which is known as Dari and you can speak. Many people belive Dari is the language you speak but this is faulse. Dari is the language of writing cannot be spoken by people. Parsi is the language of speech and the Afghanistani dialect of Parsi is Parsi e Khorassani, therefore Parsi e Darbari (Dari).

Plz change the information.

thanks

[edit] Afghanistani

The term Afghanistani is more correct for a non ethnic Afghan (Pashtun) citizen from Afghanistan. Pashtuns may be called Afghan since that is what they are. Now if you are familiar with Afghanistan and its history, it should be clear to you that Afghans were Pashtuns until recently when the world begun to use that misnomer for all people of Afghanistan. I am a Tajik myself and we are not Afghan. It is an injustice to impose your identity on us. Today the world is gradually correcting this misnomer and infact the term Afghanistani is being used. Dictionary.com is one source where it is used here. And here are a few other sources, the term is not made up. It is the correct term for any citizen from Afghanistan (just like Pakistani, Uzbekistani, etc):

BBC Radio

Dost-e aziz, those are not authoritative sources. You cannot suggest a word and then claim it is official. As I have repeatedly stated, the OFFICIAL denotation for all citizens of Afghanistan is "Afghan". The vast majority of Afghans identify them as such. As far as any educated person should be concerned, the country's Constitution is the final word on this. This constitution was drafted and ratified by ALL parties involved. Do not accuse me of vandalizing this article. It is clearly individuals such as yourself who insist on stubbornly clinging to unofficial terminology for political reasons. So tell me, who is really guilty of vandalizing this and other articles? -Khampalak

Furthermore, every single Tajik friend and RELATIVE of mine considers him/herself Afghan. Don't be so foolish as to project your own feelings of inadequacy and resentment onto other's who are not here to speak for themselves. -Khampalak

One more thing...simply providing links to pages that have the word "Afghanistani" on them does not constitute a proper citation. Baradar-e qand, you should probably sharpen your research skills before dismissing other peoples' contributions. Just a suggestion. - Khampalak

I have just read ALL of your sources. Many of them merely have the word "Afghanistani" in them while other's are nothing but opinion pieces written by foreigners. I have yet to find a single source that states Afghanistani as an official denotation for citizens of Afghanistan. Seriously, I want to believe that you are not this foolish. But you are making it very difficult for me to take any of this seriously. Please stop tainting the article with this "Afghanistani" nonsense. -Khampalak


http://president.gov.af/english/constitution.mspx#Preamble

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

"The present Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan was agreed upon by more than 500 delegates representing Afghan men and women from across the country at the Constitutional Loya Jirga (December 13, 2003 - January 4, 2004). The Constitution was formally ratified by President Hamid Karzai at a ceremony in Kabul on January 26, 2004."

"Chapter One, Article Four

National sovereignty in Afghanistan shall belong to the nation, manifested directly and through its elected representatives. The nation of Afghanistan is composed of all individuals who possess the citizenship of Afghanistan. The nation of Afghanistan shall be comprised of Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkman, Baluch, Pachaie, Nuristani, Aymaq, Arab, Qirghiz, Qizilbash, Gujur, Brahwui and other tribes. The word Afghan shall apply to every citizen of Afghanistan. No individual of the nation of Afghanistan shall be deprived of citizenship. The citizenship and asylum related matters shall be regulated by law."

[edit] The Meaning of Demography

From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: de·mog·ra·phy Pronunciation: di-'mä-gr&-fE Function: noun Etymology: French démographie, from Greek dEmos people + French -graphie -graphy

the statistical study of human populations especially with reference to size and density, distribution, and vital statistics.

So tell me how this "Afghanistani" material belongs in this article. It can even be argued that my paragraph stating the official denotation of Afghan citizenship doesn't belong here. However, in the "Nationality" section of the article, the only correct information is "Afghan". This is the official term for a citizen of Afghanistan. Therefore the "(also Afghanistani)" has no business being there. I have made my case repeatedly. I've laid it out like I would for a child. Yet you seem completely unable to grasp the concept. Leave the "Afghanistani" and other political/opinion material out.

[edit] Correction

"However, currently even the non-Pashtun groups usually mistakenly refer to their nationality as Afghan (or Afghanī) rather than Afghanistani."

This is false. There's no such thing as an Afghanistani, because all ethnic groups within Afghanistan are called AFGHAN, since the word officially means citizens of Afghanistan. Please correct this error. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.41.177 (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have started to make the appropriate edits. But it seems that the same users responsible for this content will persist in bringing it back, despite the objections of most editors. --ManOLantern (talk) 19:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnolinguistic map

On 20 December 2007 [User:Anoshirawan|Anoshirawan]] removed the Ethnolinguistic map of Afghanistan (Image:Ethnolinguistic Groups in Afghanistan.png) claiming that it was inaccurate. Unless [User:Anoshirawan|Anoshirawan]] can provided reliable published sources that indicate that the map is significantly inaccurate, it should be restored. The map came from the Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook which is normally considered a reliable source. --Bejnar (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The map is not directly made by the CIA. The information that they used to make the map was forwarded to them by the rulling Pashtun government of Zahir Shah, Daoud Khan, and later the ruling Pashtun communists such as Hafizullah Amin. CIA might be reliable, but the source of the map's information (the Afghan (Pashtun) governments) is not.
It should be obvious that the map is incorrect. For example, the map shows Kabul City as Pashtun, which it is well known is not a Pashtun city. It also shows the northern districts of Kabul Province as Pashtun which is common knowledge that they are Tajik districts. And AIMS and the Nebraska University support this. See Kabul_Province#Demographics. Padmanii (talk) 23:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I see no citations about the inaccuracy of the map. The map shows Kabul on the edge of Pashto/Tajik areas and specially mentions Qizilbash in the area. --Bejnar (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No citations? You have been aware of AIMS and the map with information from University of Nebraska and you pretend you're not aware of them? Just check the Kabul Province article. It does show Kabul on the edge, we are not blind. Stop trying to fool people with as you did with the denonym and stop promoting your Afghan (Pashtun) nationalism. That has no place on Wikipedia. BamyanMan (talk) 20:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes I am aware of AIMS, but I am not sure what "information from University of Nebraska" you are refrring to. The CIA Map is a large map of Afghanistan. It goes out of its way to show Qizilbash speakers, often classified with other Persian languages speakers as Tajik, in and around Kabul. Look at the CIA Map. The map is not a map of Kabul province, or Kabul city. So yes the lines are generalized, but it is a much better map than the "Languages of afghanistan-provinces.jpg" map which presents data province-by-province, and ignores patterns. --Bejnar (talk • contribs) 21:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnic Groups - Encyclopædia Iranica

The citation under the section "Ethnic Groups" to Encyclopædia Iranica is to a 1982 entry which provides the information listed below. This does not track the percentage currently (3 Jan 2008) listed for Pashtun. Total pop: 12,176,000, if several thousand is used to mean 3,000, gives the following percentage: Pastun = 39.4%. However Tajik+Fariwan+Qizilbash = 33.6% is correct and Hazara at 8% is correct. Please use correct data. --Bejnar (talk) 01:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Pashtun: 4,800,000
  • Tajik: 3,500,000
  • Fariwan: 600,000
  • Qizilbash: no figure
  • Hazara: 1,000,000
  • Aimaq: 500,000
  • Mongol: no figure
  • Uzbek: 1,000,000
  • Turkman: 400,000
  • Kirghiz: several thousand
  • Brahui: 10,000
  • Nurestani: 70,000
  • Galca: several thousand
  • Kohestani: 60,000
  • Baluc: 200,000
  • Gujur and Jat: no figure
  • Arab: no figure
  • Hindu: 20,000
  • Sikh: 10,000
  • Jew: no figure
How do you get 39.4? Explain.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.147.37 (talk • contribs) 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Percentages are calculated by dividing the individual values by the total. In this case, 4,800,000 divided by 12,176,000 equals 39.4%. The same way that for Tajik+Fariwan+Qizilbash 4,100,000 divided by 12,176,000 = 33.6%. --Bejnar (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Missing comment from 65.95.147.37.
Encyc. Iranica does not give the Qizilbash population, nor does it say that it is 3,000, at least at that 1982 reference that is cited. It does say several thousand for Kirghiz and Galca. It is very difficult to respond when you keep changing your comments. --Bejnar (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You assumed 3000 as "several". Several thousand means atleast 4000. There are more than just 3000 Qizilbash. The original calculation was something like 4000 or 5000 as several. You have now assumed 3000 (the minimum) to skew the number in favor of Pashtuns. Nice try, but several could mean between 3 and 7. We picked the number in between to be neutral, which is 5. Below is the definition of several according to Wiktionary.
The population of the Qizilbash is given in the article about them. The Encyclopaedia of Islam, in the same article (written by the same author), gives 60,000-200,000 for the Qizilbash (Roger M. Savory (ref. Abdülbaki Gölpinarli), Encyclopaedia of Islam, "Kizil-Bash", Online Edition 2005). Savory and the late Turkish professor Gölpinarli are the most authoritative scholars on Qizilbash, Safavid, and Alevit history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.82.130.117 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Determiner

several

  1. Consisting of a number more than two, but not very many, three to seven; a divers; sundry;
    Several people were present when the event took place.
three to seven... so we pick five to be neutral. 5000 for all groups mentioned as "several thousand". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.147.37 (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You cannot use an exterior value for Qizilbash that is not in the article. Using 5000 instead of 3000 for the Kirghiz and Galca does not significantly change the numbers, it is less than 1/3 of a percent. --Bejnar (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Don't try to skew the numbers in favor of your Pashtuns. Use at least 5000 as "several thousand". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.147.37 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Using 5000 for several thousand gives at total of 12,180,000 for a % for Pashtuns of 39.4% the same figure. Do the math. For Tajik+Tajik+Fariwan+Qizilbash the % becomes 33.66 rounds to 33.7%. --Bejnar (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bejnar is actually right about this one. However, Bejnar should stop removing sourced material and insisting on the incorrect and outdated map by the CIA. AIMS is much more reliable as it is based on real data. Ghurid (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghurid is a banned editor. The CIA map is accurate, the map based upon an all or nothing approach as is the map made from the AIMS data, can be affirmatively misleading. For example, speakers of the various Persian language are much more likely to be found in large towns and cities, while the countryside is often non-Persian language speaking. So a single large town can skew the data for a province, as is the case of Kabul. --Bejnar (talk) 04:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
No the map does not skew in favor of a few towns or cities. For example Ghazni is 50% Tajik, yet Hazaras are the most numerous group in Ghazni Province and that's what the map shows. The map is accurate at what it states that it shows (largest group in each province)... while the CIA map is inaccurate at what it's supposed to show (that is obvious by what it shows for Kabul Province).
There is a differece between the "largest group in the province" and the "largest group in the area" that is what cities skew. For example, Tajiks are more likely to be urban than rural. The rural areas in a province may be, for example, Turkmen speakers, while some form of Persian (Dari/Tajiki/etc.) is just a majority language in the large city. On the CIA map this is indicated by the countryside being Turjmen, and markers for the cities. Think about it. --Bejnar (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Encyc. Iranica on physical attributes

The Encyc. Iranica in the article cited for Tajik physical attributes says "In their ethnolinguistic and physical variety the people of Afghanistan are as diverse as their country is in topography. Basically, however, they may be described as of Muslim religion, speakers of Indo-European languages, and of the Mediterranean sub-stock of the great Caucasoid human stock (see bibliog. under physical anthropology)." It does not distinguish Tajik physically. To imply a difference from this citation is incorrect. Even though the Encyc. Iranica uses the term "Mediterranean sub-stock", such division is long out of date see the Wikipedia article on Mediterranean race. --Bejnar (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Farsiwan

On 19 January 2008, in deleting information about the Farsiwan, banned editor Beh-nam said through his sockpuppet BEIJINGBOY2: "Farsiwan and Tajik are used interchangebly, check Encyclopedia of Islam article on Tajiks". Unfortunately, The Encyc. Iranica makes clear in the article on Afghanistan - Ethnography that "The term Farsiwan also has the regional forms Parsiwan and Parsiban. In religion they are Imamite Shiite. In the literature they are often mistakenly referred to as Tajik." L. Dupree, "Afghanistan: (iv.) Ethnography", in Encyclopædia Iranica Online Edition 2006. --Bejnar (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I did not say Iranica. I said Encyclopedia of Islam. I am aware of the distinction Iranica makes and why, due to religion and possibly geography (separation by Hazarajat). But Encyclopedia of Islam which is even more respected and authoritative and more established than the newer Iranica does not make such a distinction and uses them interchangeably. BEIJINGBOY2 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Ask your local library or university for access to Encyclopedia of Islam. BEIJINGBOY2 (talk) 21:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] True current ethnic group numbers needed

The Encyclopedia Iranica does not show the numbers in percentages. Also the information in Iranica is very very old, we need current information. There is no point on showing numbers from the 1960s to the 1980s, we are in the year 2008. The banned editors User:Beh-nam and User:Tajik are removing the 2006 Encyclopedia Britannica information which clearly shows percentage of every ethnic group in Afghanistan and is the most current source. CIA is also good but that same information has been there for many years, since at least 2001 as I remembered. From 2002 to 2007, over 4.5 million registered Afghan refugees returned back to their country and that makes a big difference. So the CIA information is not updated, if it was then there would be the year written next to the figures. In fact the CIA does not even have Afghanistan included in SAARC membership yet, when it joined the group of nations one year ago. So Britannica is more reliable than CIA. But Iranica must go because it is not showing us any current information.--Inferior-Parsibaan (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The current numbers are wrong, and it is again a sockpuppet of User:NisarKand who is falsifying the article. The link to the CIA factbook is given in the article, so is the link to the Encyclopaedia Iranica. And this is what Britannica says:
  • "... No national census has been conducted in Afghanistan since a partial count in 1979, and years of war and population dislocation have made an accurate ethnic count impossible. Current population estimates are therefore rough approximations, which show that Pashtuns comprise somewhat less than two-fifths of the population. The two largest Pashtun tribal groups are the Durrani and Ghilzay. Tajiks are likely to account for some one-fourth of Afghans and Hazara nearly one-fifth. Uzbeks and Chahar Aimaks each account for slightly more than 5 percent of the population and Turkmen an even smaller portion. ..." [7]
Inferior-Parsibaan (which is a racist name and means "Inferior Farsiwan") is not only falsifying the numbers of the factbook and EIr, but he also lies about the numbers given in Britannica. This is the worst form of vandalism. It is quite surprising that active users, such as User:Bejnar are complaining about the edits of User:Beh-nam, but do not seem to be worried about the disruptive edits of this user who has vandalized Afghanistan-related articles with dozens of sockpuppets! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.148.249 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] discussion to end edit war

It's either we include all sources (2000 Britannica's estimate figures given in percentage numbers, CIA factbook given in percentage numbers and 1960s Iranica estimates) or we ONLY use CIA factbook figures, there is no other option left. Permanent banned editors User:Tajik and User:Beh-nam who both claim to be Shia Tajiks reject latest Britannica's figures and instead rely mostly on the oldest 1960s figures because it shows higher Tajik population. Before 1980, Afghanistan's total population was less than 15 million, today it is 31 million. It's not going to change the ground reality by placing wrong information. We need to add accurate latest statistics to make the article look good that's our job here. Over 4.5 million Afghan refugees (15% of total population) returned to the country and you don't think that impacts the previous figures? Majority of those were ethnic Pashtuns living in western Pakistan, and little over 2 million still remain there until December 2009. Also, the images of children of Tajikistan and the old Uzbek man from Uzbekistan do not belong in this article, they are not people of Afghanistan. That's like adding images of Canadian or Mexican citizens in USA demographic article.--203.175.65.183 (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, User:NisarKand, you are yourself a permanently banned user, and you have been criticized for extreme racist and insulting mails and sockpuppet nick-names! And just in case you know it: it is absolutely unimportant what religion or sect someone belongs to. Beh-nam or anyone else being a Shia has no importance in this discussion, so please stop with that. Everyone in here could use such arguments, NisarKand. You are a Sunni (which is also the religion of the Taliban and of Osama bin Laden) and you are known for your pro-Taliban statements. Don't you think that this is a good argument to permanently keep your edits out of Wikipedia?!
As for the sources: ALL sources should be mentioned as long as they are reliable. The CIA factbook is not a gospel, but it is widely accepted as a reference in most Wikipedia articles. The Encyclopaedia Iranica is a scholastic source and is being published by the Columbia University. As such, it has the highest reliability. Though the numbers are old, they are still based on real census results and not on guesses. I have no problems with Britannica, but it should be mentioned that Britannica contradicts itself. We have 2 different sheets from Britannica, which contradict each other. I suggest that we mention BOTH numbers of Britannica, but leave the numbers out of the graph. Having 2 different numbers from the same source in one graph would be confusing. The graph should only contain the CIA and EIr numbers. The Britannica numbers should be mentioned separately in the body of the text, in the "population" section. That would be a NPOV and fair solution.
As for the pictures: I do not mind. I do not think that pictures are important in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.154.49 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Banned editor Tajik, there is no such available proof why User:NisarKand was indef blocked. That user was not provided with a single opportunity to defend his unjust block (see his last edits for details). As for you, you had many and you blew them with everybody agreeing that your ban was justified (see your last edits and the Arb decision). You're a problem user to many editors. You're problem is that you want things your way in Wikipedia (no ifs whats or buts) as if you were a scholar or a professor. You have no respect for other editors, including your own country men. You are no way of a nuetral person, not even near it. You use Britannica as an official source in some arguments because it may show results same as yours, but on other occasions you take the same Britannica and say it is not a reliable source that it contradics. It's very clear that the reason you refuse to accept the latest Britannica's numbers on Afghan ethnics is simply because it shows 18% for Tajiks. If you were expert on Afghanistan, why would you not agree that this is correct. As far as I know you're a Qizilbash, and according to the national anthem of Afghanistan (Milli Tharana), Qizilbash is a separate ethnic group that is different from Tajik. Since you're ethnic group is not even 1% or even mentioned in most figrues, you decided to make yourself part of Tajik ethnic group and your user name User:Tajik is convincing evidence. My advise on that is "be proud of whatever you are" but don't pretend to be other when you're not. The CIA figures are from pre-2001 and pre-arrival of 5 million former Afghan refugees of which the overwelming are ethnic Pashtuns who crossed the Durand Line border once to the other side (Pakistan) and returned recently through UNHCR. As far as I know there will be a nation-wide census taken this year in Afghanistan by the United Nations Department, starting in or about August. New computerized ID cards are currently being issued in the country. We will eventually see the outcome of all this but for now we have to use the most recent, most logical or most realistic numbers here (Britannica and CIA or just CIA). I am not against Iranica but against the time period (1960s) when they gathered their information, the nation's population was half of what it is today. Most of the time it's useless to argue with you because you make excuses to everything and it doesn't lead us anywhere but back to square one.--203.175.65.191 (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
NisarKand, you were banned because of disruptive editing, and because of racist slanders. Your various sockpuppets prove your racist nature. You had previously vandalized Tajik's page, calling him a "rat", and you continued that with your various sockpuppets. You choose nick names like "Inferior Farsiwan" or "Tajirk" - there is no need for you to explain anything, because Wikipedia's rule do not allow such racism. Here is a list of confirmed sockpuppets! And everyone in here knows that Tajik was banned because of your sockpuppet User:Tajik-Professor. You cooperated with other "enemies" of Tajik, such as User:Atabek, in order to tric k Wikipedia and to get Tajik banned. And you still continue to cooperate with Atabek. But this is not the issue here.
Whether I am a Qizilbash or not is not of your business. "Qizilbash" is not an ethnic group but a religious designation used from Istanbul to Delhi. And someone like you who uses the nickname "User:Inferior-Kizilbash" for a sockpuupet is not the right person to judge!
As for Britannica: I just told you that I do not oppse Britannica. But since Britannica has TWO official versions which CONTRADICT each other, either BOTH of them should be used or NONE. What you are asking here is accepting the one sheet which you prefer while ignoring the OFFICIAL online version of it. That's POV and cannot be accepted. You tell me why we should ignore the official online version of Britannica (cuurently 2008)?!
As for the Factbook: the CIA's numbers were updated in 2006. Previously, the numbers were 38% for Pashtuns and 25% for Tajiks. In 2006, the CIA factbook changed the numbers to 42% and 27% respectively, while reducing the percentage of Hazaras from 19% to 9% and putting the rest on Uzbeks and "others".
Iranica's numbers are old, but they are representative. They are the ONLY numbers we have which are actually based on official census numbers. As such, Iranica should not be ignored. All other numbers - Factbook, Britannica, etc etc etc - are only guesses. We do not know the number of refugees, and we do not know their ethnic make-up. WP:OR should be kept out of the article.
Tajik, you are not understanding or pretending to not understand. Show proof that NisarKand was banned for disruptive editing or because of racist slanders. When he vandalized your talk page and called you a "rat" (a slang term which is widely used in the United States to describe someone who tells on others, an informant or a snitch), he has recieved punishment and served his time for that as well as for all other misbehaviour he has done. However, he was indef blocked for no reason at the end, maybe because some administrator didn't like him due to his ethnic background or nationality. You were constanly accusing NisarKand of being a Taliban or a supporter just because he was from Kandahar, and you still do today. That is not a smart thing to do and it gives rights for him to call you similar type of names. If someone wants to create a name for himself as "Inferior Parsiban" or "Tajirk", they are free to do so. Those names are used only to describe one individual, it does not go beyond that so it's not related to racism. User:Tajik-Professor is not my sock, my guess is that he is most likely sock of User:Anoshirawan. I don't have a slight idea about who User:Atabek is. The Afghan national anthem (Milli Tharana) places Qizilbash as an ethnic group or a group of people in the country that are not Tajiks.
Britannica does not have two official versions, that's just your normal excuse. The latest Brit Fact Sheet gives a list of each ethnic group with exact % numbers, and those numbers are not meant to be guesses. The CIA 42% for Pashtuns and 27% for Tajiks were the same since 2001 as far as I can remember because I've read Afghanistan and other articles many times since that time. In 2005 these same numbers were shown on Wikipedia's Afghanistan article[8]. However, you lied and said in 2005 it showed Pashtuns 38%, but that is incorrect. You think we are stupid and that you probably can some how trick us with your false claims. Iranica's information is very old plus written by a Persian, so ofcourse he will want to make his brother Tajiks higher. Iranica also does not give a list of each ethnic group and numbers in %. There is no way for anyone on earth to go by these old numbers today. In 2006 and 2007, Britannica's numbers were included in both Afghanistan and Demography of Afghanistan articles but your banned editor buddy (User:Beh-nam) removed them. Either we put the Britannica back in or we only use CIA until we can find more trusted source like Afghanistan's government or United Nations sites.--203.175.65.239 (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
NisarKand, you ban is not the issue here, neither is the ban of Tajik. The fact is that both are banned, and you - as a banned user - should not point finger at others.
Older versions of the CIA factbook are available in the internet. The older numbers were used in earlier versions of this article, see for example here. So your accusations are baseless. Your claim about User:Atabek is also wrong, because you were in fact asking for his help on his talk page: [9]. So it's better for you not to deny, because everything is being saved on Wikipedia's servers.
As for Iranica: the numbers are given by L. Dupree, and I hope that you are not serious by calling this person a "Persian". Maybe you should READ the sources before criticizing them! As for Britannica: the two versions have been shown on this page. One is the sheet you have presented (with numbers from 2000), and the other is the current online version (with numbers from 2003). They contradict each other, and there is no reason why your favorite version should be accepted while ignoring the current, official online version of Britannica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.154.49 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
The older 2002 version link of this article you provided is stupid because all the numbers add to only 88%, plus there is no indication that the numbers were from CIA factbook. The link I've provided from 2005 had mentioning of CIA factbook. Just because someone wrote to User:Atabek to do a checkuser on you doesn't mean they know each other. I think I'm aware of that fact that everything we write here is saved. Looking back at User:NisarKand's last edits, he was not provided with a chance to ask for unblock and that is what I'm strongly against. I believe that every editor (especially a fine dedicated one) be treated the same. The admin (User:Neil) failed to give him a chance to ask for unblock to the unjustify indef block. NisarKand was a great contributor, he helped Kabul and many other articles look as best as they can. As a reward for all his hard work, the admins decided to indef block him.
Anyway, back to the issue here, the Iranica numbers are not to be used as current ethnic make-up because the population of the nation is not 15 million today. If we are going to use Iranica's info, I suggest that we write a short paragraph and explain the ethnic numbers of Iranica in the same way it has written them as to explain that during those time the population of the country was approximately 15 million. I don't think Louis Dupree made-up the ethnic numbers in Iranica, if so then why is that Persian guy's name shown instead with the link at the references section? You keep saying that Briannica contradicts, explain what specific part of Brit is contradicted so that I can start from there.--203.175.65.60 (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
It is already explained in the text that the Iranica numbers are from pre-1980's. There is no need to explain that any further. And "that Persian guy" is Prof. Dr. Ehsan Yarshater! Ehsan Yarshater does not write articles, he is the chief editor of the Encyclopaedia Iranica, along with other notable scholars, such as Prof. Nicholas Sims-Williams! And the two versions of Britannica have been mentioned 3 times in this discussion. NisarKand, you really should READ the discussion before writing any more comments. Take your time, READ the entire discussion, and THEN write a comment. You automatically oppose everything without even READING the discussion. As for the CIA factbook, here is the official 2001 version of it. It gives 38% for Pashtuns, 25% for Tajiks, and 19% for Hazaras. I was wrong about the date. That means that the CIA had changed the numbers prior to 2005. But the fact remains that they DID change the numbers. So did Britannica: while the Britannica numbers from 2000 give 18% for Tajiks, the current online version says "1/4 of the population". The current version of Britannica (which is from 2008!) says that Pashtuns are "less that 2/5", that means less than 40%. That DOES contradict the numbers from 2000. So, why should we accept the Britannica numbers from 2000 and ignore the current updated version?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.154.49 (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I reviewd the argument from the begining where latest online version of Britannica is explaining that Pashtuns are about 38%, Tajiks about 25%, Hazaras about 20% and so on. Those numbers or that information is exactly the same as what was written in this article in 2002 (see here). It is very clear now that whoever typed in that information into this article in the early 2000s was using Britannica as their primary source at the time. My argument is that "The 2000 Fact Sheet Numbers" are updated information which is not yet added to Britannica's online version or CIA factbook. The reason why they are not updated is because of the large number of Afghan refugees being shifted. That's why I keep saying that we may ONLY use CIA for now or we use all sources. You cannot hide one source because it may show less Tajiks or use another because it shows more Tajiks. You have to be a neutral person and allow people to see all the sources that are available. If you disagree then it only means that you are a biased person who is on a mission or on a crusade to mislead the public and spread Persian superiority. This leads to edit-war everywhere you visit because majority editors will notice this in you and disagree with you all the time, even when you are correct at some points.--203.175.65.60 (talk) 18:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Your argumentation does not make sense. In 2000, Britannica published a sheet in which they proposed >45% for the Pashtuns and <20% for Tajiks. 8 years later (!), Britannica has different numbers: 25% for Tajiks and "less than 40%" for Pashtuns. The fact is: the PDF sheet and the current online version of Britannica obviously contradict each other although they are from the same source. It is not our business to judge why Britannica uses contradictory numbers. What matters for us, as observers and collectors of facts, is that Britannica does have contradictory numbers. Your reference to Afghan refugees may be relevant or not. We do not know the number or the ethnic make up of Afghanistan's refugees. Speculating on their return is WP:OR. As long as we do not have ANY specific sources, we should use the ones we have: CIA factbook, Britannica, and Iranica. Britannica and CIA have more recent numbers, but they are guesses and speculations. Iranica uses very old numbers, but these are based on actualy census numbers. I suggest to use ALL 3 sources
  • CIA factbook as a reference to informations collected by intelligence agencies
  • Britannica as a reference to another well-respected encyclopedia
  • Iranica as a reference to a highly respected scholastic source which uses actual census numbers
That way, we get a transparent and NPOV collection of numbers. The Pashtuns would be somewhere between 35-50% (which is very realistic), the Tajiks would be somewhere between 20-35% (which is also very realistic), and Hazaras somewhere between 10-20% (also very realistic). Giving ranges instead of exact numbers (which are merely guesses anyway) is the most neutral and the best solution. What do you think?
This is similar as to what I was wanting, but the history of the ethnic make-up should be explained that prior to the 1980s the total population was less than 15 million, and during the 1980s to late 2001 a huge number (probably about 25%) of the total population escaped and were living in neighboring countries as well as throughout the world, and from 2002 to 2007 4.5 million have returned. Another 3 million or so are currently living in Pakistan and Iran on a temporary bases, they are considered citizens of Afghanistan in both of those countries and are not counted in their census. The reason I preferred only CIA numbers as the main list is to prevent editors from constantly changing the numbers all the time. If they do with CIA the vandalism can easily be fixed because it's only one source to look for. Also, the CIA numbers are not very far from reality so there is no reason for any ethnic group to get upset over it, which again will reduce edit-wars or vandalism. We may explain the differences between Iranica, Britannica and CIA findings in the ethnic make-up history paragraph so everyone can understand why this country's true and updated ethnic data is not available. I also want to add that people inside or outside the country do not use ethnic names much, most people use provincial names only. People of Kabul province are called "Kabulis", Kandahar province ("Kandaharis"), Herat province ("Heratis"), and so on. They need to be aware of this.--203.175.65.253 (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I have restored the old numbers. Please feel free to add the 2 Britannica numbers to the population section. I hope that this will end the edit wars. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.148.69 (talk) 16:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Latif Pedram

Using this article to advocate for a failed politician with nearly zero support in Afghanistan is out of line. I think the information about "Afghanistani" and the political opposition to the word "Afghan" should be kept out as these are neither official nor widespread enough to mention in this article. --RomainSnd (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NisarKand's POV

I thought that we had discussed everything in the talk page. Encyclopaedia Britannica has two different numbers for Afghanistan, both contradicting each other. It's POV to mention a fact sheet from 2000 while ignoring the current (2008) and official online version of it. here is the current and official 2008 version of Britannica. NisarKand's IP sock has deleted this source from the article, yet he accuses others of POV pushing.

NisarKand is once again proving that he is unable to contribute in a contractive way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.175 (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Banned editor Tajik is not here to learn but here to for edit-war and vandalism. Please ignore him and revert all his edits because he will never accept the precise numbers from the special Fact Sheet, which is made-up by experts on other countries. There is no more argument needed for that. The ethnic map is also made by experts (CIA) and we have no other choice but to keep that instead of the bogus one made by the controversial banned editor Behnam. The images of citizens of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan do not belong in this Afghanistan article. We need to display only citizens from Afghanistan.--203.175.65.58 (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Job

Well, I was just roaming around on wikirage and I noticed that this was the page with the highest amount of vandalism in a while. Just here to say good job to whoever protected it. F*L*SUBS 23:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The person protected it in a factually wrong and POV version. The current version protects the POV of banned User:NisarKand who has some 30-50 sockpuppets, most of them being racist insults. Before the page was protected, NisarKand deleted a reference to the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Actually, the admin protected the vandalism, not the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.129.175 (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Careful how you through the word "racist" around. You are both of the same exact race. I think some sensitivity is in order here. --RomainSnd (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
The person who posted using annon IP 82.83.129.175 from Germany is the controversial banned editor Tajik, who is actually not an ethnic Tajik as he claims. He is from "other" group, a Qizilbash to be precise. Qizilbash is not even 1% or even .5% of the total population of Afghanistan. To make himself feel little better, he decided to call himself Tajik. This banned editor Tajik thinks the current version (displaying the correct or most reliable ethnic map that was made by CIA staff), is wrong. He thinks the bogus one, made by the other controversial banned editor Behnam, is reliable. Regarding the numbers of different ethnic groups, the Encyclopedia Britannica gives the same numbers as Iranica so that's that. The special World Data Fact Sheet made by experts on countries has a different list and that was added after everyone agreed previosly. Tajik is a controversial person, he added images of citizens of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan to this Afghanistan article, trying to show to us that citizens of Tajikistan and Uzbekistan are living inside Afghanistan. This is his mentality and we know this is not true. That is why he wants to revert to the controversial version but we must not allow it. Let this banned editor read the information in this article instead of him editing with his nonsense. Page needs to be protected for 5 years from these vandals so that they can go find another hobby. Some of us are here to learn and share our knowledge with others who are interested, we don't take sides but just report it to you. So how can we ignore the World Data Fact Sheet? Why should you say one of the world's most reliable source (Britannica) contradicted their numbers in Wikipedia? What if you are not understanding Britannica's reasons for showing their numbers?--203.175.65.58 (talk) 03:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Neither the fact sheet, nor the online version of Britannica are made by experts. If you claim so, so name them. What experts?! Name just one of them!
I do not care about the pictures, but your numbers are POV because you purposely ignore the official online version of Britannica. The reason for that is clear: the current 2008 version of Britannica does not claim that Pashtuns are 49% but that they are less than 40%, and because the number for Hazaras is placed at 20%. Your insults against Tajiks and Qizilbash in no way proves your point. It only proves your extremely racist attitude towards Tajiks and Hazaras. Your countless sockpuppets which have racist names ("Tajik-Rat", "Inferior-Persians", etc) prove this!
I have no idea how to answer your nonsense question, who do you think puts the information in Britannica? experts or people with no knowledge? If you do not care about the pictures then why you keep reverting it to the version with those pictures of nonAfghanistan people in it? You say lies after lies and you contradict yourself with what you say and what you actually do. There is a fact sheet by a reliable source that has numbers of each ethnic group in a list and that is what we want to display here. The Iranica does not have a list but just explaining how many million Pashtuns and how many million Tajiks and so on, no where does Iranica say Pashtuns are 39.4% or Tajiks being 33% and so on. Those ID names is not the issue here, besides there is nothing wrong with somebody creating a user name and calling himself a Tajik-rat or inferior-parsiaban. The names do not translate to Tajiks are rats or Parsibans are inferior. You seems to have guilty conscience only. The Special Fact Sheet made by Britannica says Pashtuns are 49% and Tajiks 18%, and that is sufficient for use here in this article. Do not say Britannica contradicts because you are not authorized to make such accusations in the article, you'r just an editor here who has no idea of the real numbers of ethnic groups in Afghanistan. I don't think we have time to know what you think about Britannica or other sources, we are here to use all reliable sources and learn to live with that.--Ghulam Farook (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The ID cases are not an issue here, but if someone uses racist names for the sole purpose to insult an ethnic group, then this says a lot about the person himself. If someone uses the nickname "Inferior Pashtun" or "Homosexual Pashtun", then this has the sole purpose to insult an ethnic group. And someone like you who uses racist nick-names for the sole purpose to insult certain ethnic groups, then it proves that the person is himself racist and has a racist agenda to propagate in Wikipedia.
The numbers of Iranica are correct and they were confirmed by User:Bejnar who corrected minor mistakes. One does not have to be a math-genius to calculate the percentages of the numbers given in the article!
As for Britannica: not all articles in Britannica are written by experts (Britannica has an editorial-staff of some 4000+ people!), and the chief editors themselves admit that Britannica is not error-free: "... we in no way mean to imply that Britannica is error-free; we have never made such a claim ..." [10]
And it is a FACT, as provided by the links, that Britannica DOES contradict itself. Who gave you the authority to judge that only the Factsheet should be used and not the current, official version of it?! The numbers you propose are from 2000 while the current and official numbers are from 2008. What you are doing is VANDALISM! You are pushing for POV by purposely ignoring the OFFICIAL online version. In fact, it is fully sufficiant for us to use the OFFICIAL ONLINE version of Britannica and the CURRENT 2008 numbers. Why should we ignore the OFFICIAL version and instead focus on old numbers from 8 years ago that were published ina factsheet fom 2006 which very obviously contradicts the online version of Britannica?! And, btw, it does not need any authority or intelligence to notice that "49 %" and "less than two-fifth" are not the same. If you fail to understand that, then you need to go back to elementary school.
As a side note: you have been caught absuing some 40-50 sockpuppets in order to evade your block. You created some of them as early as 6 months ago in order to trick the system and to edit semi-protected articles. That's the worst kind of sockpuppetry and vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.140.191 (talk) 11:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Banned User:Tajik, the sockpuppets you and banned User:Beh-nam are creating and using are racist names, which are used to insult ethnic Pashtuns and you're trying to lecture other people about racist names? I can show you many of your insults and usage of extreme faul language towards Pashtuns in Wikipedia talk pages. Talk:Khaled Hosseini is just one of them, where you stated: "...some Pashtun mf are always changing facts and turning them inti meaningless BS." "Mf" stands for "mother fu..ers", and "BS" stands for "Bull Sht". I've also tracked you down on several other websites where you are insulting ethnic Pashtuns, on Mohammad Fahim Khairy blog (the-rumi) and on Afghanistan Online forum. You used Parsistani or similar names to leave large number of anti-Pashtun messages there. Don't pretend that was not you evidence is left behind to be used against you. Let's not get into that I know you hate Pashtuns very much and there is no need for you to deny or act innocent now.
Ofcource Britannica can make errors just like any other encyclopedia, that's something we all acknowledge. You say the latest 2008 online version says 2 fifth of the population is Pashtun, which equals to 40%. As you fully agreed that Britannica may make errors, what if Britannica meant to write 2 fourth instead of 2 fifth? Regardless, doesn't Iranica say the same, 39.4%? So 39.4% is 2 fifth (same as 2008 Britannic's estimate) and both are already covered in the 39.4% to 49% approximation. What do you not understand with that simple understanding? The Britannica online version does not mean to say it wrote these numbers in 2008, it is old numbers carried until 2008, just a repeat of the same numbers that were shown since at least 1990s and possibly even prior. The 2000 Fact Sheet is a different source with different link, it is not Britannica encyclopedia online edition link. We need to display the numbers of that special source Fact Sheet (Truth Sheet). You have a problem with it because it shows Tajiks 18% and Pashtuns 49%. Knowing that 5 million Afghans came back to their country of which majority of them are ethnic Pashtuns who were living on the other side of the Durand Line in Pakistan, it is more likely that Pashtuns are 49% currently. But that does not mean we can remove the older estimates of Iranica or the online version of Britannica, to make things simple we just leave all numbers and sources. However, keep away from writing your controversial POVs inside the article like you do in every other article, you wrote in the article "Britannica contradicted". If you have problems with their numbers go contact them and make them correct their information. You are going against everyone and saying that the 2000 Fact Sheet should be removed because you find less Tajiks in it. The numbers in the article are fine as is and there is no need to exclude the Fact Sheet numbers.
Don't discuss or mention sockpuppets here, take it to the proper place for discussion. I was unlawfully indef-blocked and am brining this to the attention of administrators. You have been using this and similar IP numbers since May 2007 after you were indef-blocked by proper and appropiate decisions by several admins. You asked many many admins to review your ban and they did, they concluded that you were a trouble maker. Even if they some how allow you back, you will get banned immediatly again because you see all other editors as your enemies (something you wrote many times in other discussions). Me, on the other hand, was not provided with a single opportunity to find out why an admin (Neil) indef-blocked me. Therefore, don't put yourself in my shoes because your ban is perfectly valid while my ban is invalid until admins give me a proper hearing or they figure-out that I should not have been indef-block on February 2, 2007. Remember you got banned because you were involved in constant edit-wars with other editors, I was not there so don't try to blame me for that. Besides you and your close buddy Beh-nam, I didn't have any issues with any other editors so that means I am not a trouble maker for sure.--Ghulam Farook (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmen

According to The British Library, the Tajiks, Uzbeks and Turkmen living in Afghanistan today are people who migrated from former Russian Turkistan.

This is also backed by most Afghans. If you go and ask around among Afghans, they will all say that only Pashtuns are the true natives of Afghanistan. Never in history of Afghanistan did any Tajik, Uzbek, Turkmen or even Hazara leaders make claim to being natives of the land.--119.30.67.148 (talk) 13:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)