Jump to content

Talk:Uruzgan Province

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gizab District

[edit]

Daykundi or Uruzgan Province

[edit]

On 8 June 2006 the United Nations quoted Gizab District as still being in Daykundi Province http://193.194.138.190/huricane/huricane.nsf/view01/5D75CF314F0C8AA7C1257187002F10CD?opendocument Skinsmoke 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. In May 2006 President Karzai issued a presidential decree, annexing Gizab district to Oruzgan province. The UN doesn't get to decide provinical boundaries in Afghanistan, President Karzai does.

Regarding the little color map at the bottom of the page, unfortunately, this map is a poor representation of Oruzgan province. For example, Nesh district (the blue district at bottom) is not a part of Oruzgan, but rather is part of Kandahar province to the south. Similarly, this map does not include Gizab district to the north, which was added to Oruzgan in 2006.


NPOV changes

[edit]

Changed some decidedly non - NPOV bits, including mention of the supposed 'exaggeration' of the scale of the 'so called' Battle of Chola in the Dutch press. Instead, it appears to have been the largest 'skirmish' of the year in Afghanistan.ck (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

more non-NPOV changes

[edit]

Not sure why you're not accepting my comments on the inaccurate colored map at the bottom of the page, since you don't actually know what you're talking about and I do. The simple and unalterable fact is that Nesh (the blue-colored district on the map) is not now and NEVER HAS BEEN part of Oruzgan province. I keep trying to point this out to you, but you insist on keeping your inaccurate map. Unless you are an expert on Afghanistan, like I am, I ask you to explain your apparently relentless quest for inaccuracy. What is going on? Why do you insist on keeping inaccuracies? Please explain yourself, or get someone here with more authority. Are you too stubborn to admit when you're wrong, at the expense of readers seeking accurate data? thanks, R —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.252.4.21 (talk) 08:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered user from (Dutch) IP address 89.120.148.107 had changed my modifications back to his or her NPOV.

While having a point of view is fine, it isn't fine on Wikipedia, which is supposed to have a neutral point of view. User 89.120.148.107, if you have a problem with my changes please post them here so we can discuss them, rather than reverting to very much non neutral point of view, which has no place on Wikipedia. I have no desire to get into a revert war.

Also, please look up the dictionary definition of battle. You should find it most enlightening. ck (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the little color map at the bottom of the page, unfortunately, this map is a poor representation of Oruzgan province. For example, Nesh district (the blue district at bottom) is not a part of Oruzgan, but rather is part of Kandahar province to the south. Similarly, this map does not include Gizab district to the north, which was added to Oruzgan in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.45.146 (talk) 13:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


THE PREVIOUS POSTER IS CORRECT. THE COLORED MAP OF ORUZGAN ON THIS PAGE IS NOT ACCURATE AND NEVER WAS. IT IS LABELLED A "2005" MAP, BUT THE DISTRICT OF NESH (IN BLUE) WAS NEVER PART OF ORUZGAN, NEITHER IN 2005, BEFORE THAT, NOR CURRENTLY. SIMILARLY, THE DISTRICT OF GIZAB IS NOT REPRESENTED ON THE MAP, AND IT AND THE REST OF CURRENT DAIKUNDI WERE PART OF ORUZGAN UNTIL LATE 2004. I GUESS THE BROADER QUESTION IS WHY PUT AN INACCURATE MAP ON THE PAGE? WHY NOT JUST DO THE RESEARCH, GET A CURRENT AND ACCURATE MAP, AND POST IT? PRESTO, PROBLEM SOLVED. THE RIGHT ANSWER IS NOT TO STIFLE THE VOICES OF THOSE WHO POINT OUT INACCURACIES ON THE PAGE. BEST REGARDS, R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruffster22 (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change spelling to "Uruzgan"?

[edit]

I find it very puzzling that, despite the lede giving several alternate spellings, the current standard and most popular "Uruzgan" is not among them. Given that "Uruzgan" gets three times more hits on Google and GoogleBooks than "Orūzgān", I submit we move the page and any similarly-spelled categories/pages to the "Uruzgan" spelling. Objections? MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe

[edit]

Aflis, yes, please be up to date. This is Pakistan we are talking about. The term "tribal" is what is used by Pakistanis, so social sciences don't get to decide what the term is. Please read about Federal and Provincial tribal areas here and here. You can also consult the constitution of Pakistan here. Please don't revert what you don't know about. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't even try to convince you that your position is wrong. --Aflis (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aflis My position? It is not my position, it is the terminology that a sovereign state chooses to use. Apologies for my earlier error, in referring to Pakistan, it was part of a longer message about Afghanistan and Pakistan, then I deleted the one, but deleted the wrong one and also added the wrong name to the edit summary. But, the principle is the same for a number of countries in that region. Here you can read the official version of the Constitution of Afghanistan on the government website, refers to "tribes", as do countless articles in Wikipedia about countries in the region, as you can see here:

Yes, these are ethnic groups, but in the specific cultural-societal context, they are tribes, each with its own systems and structures. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia guideline on the use of the word "tribe"

[edit]

Please also consult this. You might also want to compare the article on Clans. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All this is roughly a generation behind the state of the art. It illustrates why so few people from the academic world collaborate with WP. --Aflis (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If all of them are as bad as you, working so utterly unprofessionally, then perhaps it is a good thing. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 19:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 June 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 21:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urozgan Province → Uruzgan Province – WP:COMMONNAME, including in news sources, where "Uruzgan" gets 16,400 results but "Urozgan" only 526 results. Also see the clear difference on Google Books Ngram Viewer. Khestwol (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uruzgan_Province&oldid=1195306400"