Talk:Central Asia

Afghanistan is a part of Central Asia

Not sure why Afghanistan is not included on the list of countries in Central Asia. There are almost 40 references to Afghans/Afghanistan in the post for Central Asia. There is even a picture of "children in Afghanistan" under the demographics section.

From World Regional Geography: People, Places, and Globilization published by the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing

"Central Asia is a region in the Asian continent that extends from the mountains of western China to the shores of the Caspian Sea. Pakistan and Iran create the southern border of the region, and the vast expanse of Russia is to the north. Afghanistan is considered a part of the region even though it was never a formal part of the Soviet Union. Central Asia was located on what was known as the Silk Road between Europe and the Far East and has long been a crossroads for people, ideas, and trade."

"The five countries of Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan were part of the former Soviet Union until its breakup in 1991. Today, with Afghanistan, they are independent countries that make up the region called Central Asia."

I see that Xerxes1985 has tried to include Afghanistan as part of Central Asia in a previous edit that was undone. I'm not sure why it is being undone.It definitely should be added to the map. I am not familiar with how to edit the map myself however.

References

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Yes, not only Afghanistan, but Iran is also a part of Central Asia. Central Asia is not strictly Soviet Central Asia only, the people of Iran and Afghanistan have both self-identify their countries as part of Central Asia. In my opinion, self-identification is an important factor which we should not ignore. Culturally speaking, Central Asia also includes regions like Xinjiang, Qinghai, and Tibet. Some geography books even include Mongolia and Inner Mongolia as part of Central Asia.

This article should be more inclusive. The infobox should contain a range of countries and territories from the minimum extent (Soviet Central Asia) to the maximum extent (cultural Central Asia). Most Wikipedia geography articles have used this method in their infoboxes in order to eliminate unnecessary arguments about which country should or should not be included. Notable examples include Oceania, the Carribean, South America, and Africa etc., I see no reason why we should not do the same for this article (please note that there is no universally agreed definition for continents or continental subregions, except for a few ones such as Southeast Asia, there never was an "official" classification of the world's continental subregions).

I saw a similar discussion on Quora, there were some good responses, mainly from some Afghan people describing why they firmly believed that their country is a part of Central Asia. Anyone who is interested in having a read can click this link: https://www.quora.com/Is-Afghanistan-a-part-of-South-Asia-or-Central-Asia-Personally-I-consider-it-to-be-in-Central-Asia-due-to-its-culture-history-and-ethnic-groups 110.145.30.41 (talk) 07:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Denied Russia 100% CREATED central asia as we know it today, prior to that it was just Turkestan They created the borders, brought slavic culture there, taught them how to read and write, and built entire cities for them. If you use google you will find nearly all websites list the former soviet republic and rarely Afganistan. I just noticed the article even starts off at 1843, around the time it became colonized. Anything before that is irrelevant like the big bang before the big bang--Fruitloop11 (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry but this makes absolutely zero sense. Russia created Central Asia? So you are telling me that if the Soviets succeeded in conquering Afghanistan, only then would Afghanistan be considered as part of Central Asia? That is ludicrous. The region has a documented history that is THOUSANDS of years old. The history of the region does not start a mere 100 years ago with the history of the USSR or the history of Russia. That is absolutely ridiculous. I would begin editing the page myself but I do not even know where to start. I see that Xerxes1985, HistoryofIran, PashtoPromoter are frequent editors of all things Central Asia and Afghanistan. How can we work together to make this happen? Iran and Afghanistan are a part of Central Asia and we need to fix this page so that it reflects that fact. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 19:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

seriosly people. if you read through this whole page you can tell that a majority of people agree that the list is incomplete. I've been studying geography for 5 years now and this is the one of the only list that does not include Pakistan, Iran, Afganistan, and frankly it seems that peolpe just dont want hem there. Un edits or whatever you call them are basically just a long list of these 3. 23.153.209.134 (talk) 15:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Technically the land is billions of years old because our planet is billions of years old. The fact you are trying to get others to help you edit war for the sake of getting Afghanistan into central asia is further proof you know you are wrong. https://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/centrasia.pdf

https://www.csis.org/regions/russia-and-eurasia/central-asia https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_107957.htm And every other Geopolitical organization has it as being those five countries and never Afghanistan. We should stick to sources and not go by personal preference.

May I ask what makes those sources you shared more authoritative than the sources below? Is it merely your personal preference Fruitloop11? That's strange, because you just said we should stick to sources and not go by personal preference...

The UNESCO History of the Civilizations of Central Asia, published in 1992, defines the region as "Afghanistan, northeastern Iran, northern and central Pakistan, northern India, western China, Mongolia and the former Soviet Central Asian republics."

"Central Asia is a region in the Asian continent that extends from the mountains of western China to the shores of the Caspian Sea. Pakistan and Iran create the southern border of the region, and the vast expanse of Russia is to the north. Afghanistan is considered a part of the region even though it was never a formal part of the Soviet Union."

"Since antiquity, Afghanistan has been part of what is now referred to as Central Asia – politically, economically, and culturally." "Afghanistan as a Part of Central Asia? The Case for Reintegration". Caspian Policy Center. Retrieved 14 June 2021.

There are five Central Asian countries that used to part of the Soviet Union. Four of them are Turkic (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan), and one is Persian speaking (Tajikistan). On the eastern side of Central Asia is the autonomous region of Xinjiang. Some people will also include Afghanistan as part of Central Asia. "Central Asia: A Historical Overview". Asia Society. Retrieved 14 June 2021. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Please see wp:WEIGHT “Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects.”

Everyone agrees those five countries listed are part of central asia. The fact multiple users have reverted the addition of Afghanistan to the list should be proof it is not part of Central Asia. You are not gonna get your way on this, its best if you move on.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Wikipedia is not a platform for publishing POV stuff, original research, or personal opinions. You need to prove the majority of reliable sources support your claim. Also, it's not a big deal. Central Asia is just a name for a region in Asia. It is not more special than the other subregions of Asia. Yeah, this article mentions Afghanistan just like mentioning of Mongolia, China, Iran, etc. But Afghanistan is in South Asia, Mongolia and China are in East Asia, and Iran is in West Asia. If we accept your argument, then China, Iran, Mongolia, etc. should be added to Central Asia too. Wario-Man ^talk 12:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

  Reading this comment, just wow. More people should come over and read this comment, goes to show how bad the content of this site can get. Editors on this website have no moral challenges towards publishing a false encyclopedia for the world to see. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

@Fruitloop11: @Wario-Man: First of all, please stop trying to paint me as a person who is trying to publish and push for my own opinion/POV. I have not referenced any kind of "original research" or personal opinion. Everything I have shared is coming from reputable sources (such as UNESCO and the University of Minnesota). Second, this has nothing with me "trying to get my way on this". This is about being encyclopedic and accurate.

1. Let's address the issue of "giving due weight". If you have read the page for wp:WEIGHT you will see that the example it uses is that of round Earth vs flat Earth. Please do not compare our discussion on Afghanistan being a part of Central Asia to something like that. Afghanistan being a part of Central Asia is not some kind of fringe flat Earth type conspiracy theory and neither is it a fringe minority opinion as you have claimed. There are multiple reputable international organizations and scholars who have defined it as being a part of Central Asia. Additionally, the page says "keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." You (Fruitloop11) are clearly not understanding this critical point. Please see your comment below:

Fruitloop11: "The fact multiple users have reverted the addition of Afghanistan to the list should be proof it is not part of Central Asia."

In fact, users reverting the addition of Afghanistan means absolutely nothing, per the wp:WEIGHT page.

2. Let's do a deeper dive into Afghanistan and it's people/culture (maybe another user can do the deeper dive for Iran's inclusion as I do not have the time). It seems like the two of you do not have a proper understanding of the country and the region as a whole. The Afghanistan Statistics and Information Authority (NSIA) has estimated the country's population to be ~33 million in 2019-20. Of those 33 million, ~48% belong to the Tajik, Uzbek, Turkmen, Aimaq and Hazara ethnic groups. That 48% give us a grand total of ~16 million people who belong to those groups. 16 million people who share geography, ethnicity, history, language, culture, religion, food, dance, etc. with the groups you two have identified as Central Asian. Keep in mind, these are just the people living in Afghanistan. We are not even counting the 5 million+ members of the Afghan diaspora.

3. Let's focus on just one aspect mentioned above, language. Dari/Tajiki, Uzbek, Turkmen, etc. are native languages of Afghanistan. Dari is one of the official languages of the country and it serves as the lingua franca. It is spoken/understood by 77% of the ENTIRE population of Afghanistan. I'm not sure if either of can speak Dari or Tajiki (the official language of the Central Asian nation of Tajikistan), but let me be the first to tell you that Tajiki is closely related to Dari with which it forms a continuum of mutually intelligible varieties. To put it simply, if you can speak/understand Dari you can speak/understand Tajiki as they are in fact for all intents and purposes, dialects of the same language (you will run into some trouble when Tajiki speakers use Russian loan words, but other than that, you'll be fine). In addition to the shared language of Dari/Tajiki, there are millions of people in Afghanistan who natively speak Uzbek and Turkmen. In fact, Uzbek and Turkmen (along with a few others) are officially recognized by the state as regional languages. These shared languages alone are enough of a reason alone to include Afghanistan as part of Central Asia.

4. Another critical item I would like to point out that you all are clearly missing/forgetting is that by not including Afghanistan as one of the Central Asian countries, you are leaving Balkh/Bactra out of Central Asia... The capital of ancient Bactria, one of the greatest cities in the history of the world and a city that played a major role in the history of Central Asia, per the two of you and the current rendition of this page and map is not a part of Central Asia? Please go and read the Wiki page on Bactria, maybe it will refresh your memory.

• Bactria /ˈbæktriə/ (Bactrian: βαχλο, Bakhlo), or Bactriana, was an ancient region in Central Asia
• Geography: Bactria was located in Central Asia in an area that comprises most of modern day Afghanistan and parts of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.
• The Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC, also known as the "Oxus civilization") is the modern archaeological designation for a Bronze Age archaeological culture of Central Asia, dated to c. 2200–1700 BC, located in present-day eastern Turkmenistan, northern Afghanistan, southern Uzbekistan and western Tajikistan, centered on the upper Amu Darya (known to the ancient Greeks as the Oxus River), an area covering ancient Bactria.
• Later, it became the northern province of the Achaemenid Empire in Central Asia.

5. By not including Afghanistan in Central Asia you are leaving Herat out of Central Asia... I see how the Timurid Renaissance is highlighted in the lead section:

"The age of the Timurid Renaissance began from today's Uzbekistan."

Please go and read the Wiki page on the Timurid Renaissance, maybe it will refresh your memory on what Herat meant to that renaissance.

Bottom Line: In my humble opinion, it seems like the two of you are gatekeeping the definition of Central Asia and limiting its scope to something that was arbitrarily internally referenced to as "Middle Asia" by the Soviet Union. Just because countries and regions like Iran, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Western China, etc. did not fall under Soviet control, that means they cannot be considered part of Central Asia? I'm sorry, but that is absurd. You two are failing to recognize the shared geography, history, ethnicity, language, culture, religion, food, dance, etc. that the people and the land of Afghanistan (as well as Iran, western China, Mongolia, etc.) have shared with the people and the land Central Asia for millennia, long before the Soviets slapped their definition on the region.

I really cannot understand why are you two are insisting on applying the most limiting definition (the one used by the Soviet Union) as the definition of Central Asia. There is already a page for Soviet Central Asia in which the definition you two agree on is applied. On that page there is a map that you two would agree on as well. The definition/map only includes the former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

However, it is blatantly clear that the definition of Soviet Central Asia is not the same as the definition of Central Asia. The map for Soviet Central Asia is not the same as the map for Central Asia. If you disagree, then what is the purpose of having two separate pages? Let's just make it so that when someone searches "Central Asia" they will be re-routed to the page for Soviet Central Asia instead. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The term is vague and no defintion is correct. Specify arbitrary definition at the top of the article. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me and I would like to see what you have in mind in regards to how you would word it. I do think it needs to be taken one step further. It is absolutely imperative that the map in the infobox be replaced with a map that is more encompassing of what the region actually is. Additionally, the map that is currently in the infobox can be moved into the "definition" section. Updating the rest of the infobox is also essential (area, population, countries, languages, etc.)

Basically, switch the positions of the current map in the infobox and the current map in the "definition". Even better would be if we just get rid of the current map in the infobox. That map should appear only on the page for Soviet Central Asia. What do you all think (tagging other users who have opened up a similar section on the talk page)? Benjamin Trovato 110.145.30.41 Sirmortimer3 139.130.131.82 WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Afghanistan, but also parts of Iran, Mongolia or Russia are sometimes included in Central Asia, but this does not mean that the common view about Central Asia includes these regions. I think that the article is already well-balanced about that issue in accordance with WP:NPOV and WEIGHT, no need to go further.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:52, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: So that is exactly where I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I know there are plenty of sources that exclude Afghanistan from Central Asia. Some include it in the Middle East, others include it in South Asia. All I'm saying is that it not fair to say that the sources listing Afghanistan outside of Central Asia far outnumber or outweigh the sources that list Afghanistan in Central Asia. Take a look at some of the below. Keep in mind this is literally from just browsing online only for ~15 minutes and then spending 30 minutes creating the citations here :). If I had the time to go to the library and look at some more books and encyclopedias that are not available online, this list would be MUCH longer.

Additionally, I just don't understand the point/purpose of having Central Asia and Soviet Central Asia defined as the exact same thing? It makes far more sense to have the page of Central Asia encompass the wider definition and let the page of Soviet Central Asia be more narrow and specific.

From the United States Library of Congress Federal Research Division:

"Afghanistan is located in Central Asia, north and west of Pakistan, east of Iran, and south of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan."

From The Atlantic Council:

Ross Wilson (Director of DINU Patriciu Eurasia Center): "The second factor behind our approach to Afghanistan is that it’s an organic part of Central Asia. Ambassador Wilson already mentioned that, but I’d like just to remind you that in his classic definition of Central Asia, Alexander von Humboldt, 120 years ago, included Afghanistan as a part of Central Asia due to the river chains, mountain chains, ethnically, linguistically, et cetera, et cetera."

Ross Wilson (Director of DINU Patriciu Eurasia Center):"And today, we should start to look to the region still using the map made in the 20th century, when the Soviet Union existed? No, from geopolitical point of view, ethno-linguistically and geographically, Afghanistan is a part of Central Asia – and economically! It’s opened up a completely new situation. I’d like just to point out two important facts. "

Ross Wilson (Director of DINU Patriciu Eurasia Center):"Conclusion: We think that Afghanistan is part of Central Asia, and this illusion of the “Afghani problem,” or “Afghani crisis,” without direct involvement of all immediately neighboring countries is impossible. That’s why the regional approach and trying to find some new approaches and options for overcoming the Afghani problem is timely and important. That’s why we are here, delivering this message, and we would love, of course with our colleagues here, to hear your comments and suggestions. Thank you for your attention. (Applause.)"

From H.E. Mr. Sodyq Safaev (Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Republic of Uzbekistan) during the 59th session of the United Nations General Assembly:

"Many issues of regional development are directly linked to the processes taking place in Afghanistan. We believe that historically and geographically Afghanistan is a part of Central Asia. Uzbekistan has been rendering every possible assistance to the Afghan people in social and economic reconstruction of the country and its harmonious integration into the regional structures"

From The United States Department of the Interior: United States Geological Survey (USGS):

"Afghanistan is located in Central Asia in the tectonically active Alpine-Himalayan orogenic belt that developed in response to the collision between the Indian and Arabian plates and Eurasian plate in Late Paleogene to Recent (65 million years ago to the present) time."

From The United States Department of the Interior: United States Geological Survey (USGS):

"Afghanistan is in Central Asia. On the north, its neighbors are Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. On the east the largest part of the border is with Pakistan. China borders Afghanistan on the east end of the narrow arm (the Wakhan Corridor), extending to the east from the northern part of the country. Pakistan wraps around eastern and southern borders of Afghanistan. The country's western border is shared with Iran."

From UNESCO:

The UNESCO History of the Civilizations of Central Asia, published in 1992, defines the region as "Afghanistan, northeastern Iran, northern and central Pakistan, northern India, western China, Mongolia and the former Soviet Central Asian republics."

From the book World Regional Geography: People, Places, and Globilization:

"Central Asia is a region in the Asian continent that extends from the mountains of western China to the shores of the Caspian Sea. Pakistan and Iran create the southern border of the region, and the vast expanse of Russia is to the north. Afghanistan is considered a part of the region even though it was never a formal part of the Soviet Union. Central Asia was located on what was known as the Silk Road between Europe and the Far East and has long been a crossroads for people, ideas, and trade."

From National Geographic:

"Afghanistan is located in Central Asia with Iran to the west and Pakistan to the east."

From The CATO Institute:

"The analysis of any geopolitical issue should begin by looking at a map. Afghanistan is in Central Asia. Its neighbors include Iran, China, and Pakistan. Russia is nearby."

From the President of Afghanistan Ashraf Ghani:

"Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has noted, Afghanistan is itself a Central Asian country. Noting this, the logical next step is for the United States to fully include Afghanistan in its mechanism for consultations with Central Asian states."

From The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC): Islamic Chamber of Commerce, Industry & Agriculture: note: the OIC consists of 57 member states, with a collective population of over 1.8 billion as of 2015, and is self-described as the "collective voice of the Muslim world"

"Afghanistan is located in Central Asia. It has borders with Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan in the North, China in the North-east, Pakistan in the East and South, and Iran in the West."

From the Afghanistan Ministry of Industry and Commerce:

"Afghanistan is located in Central Asia, considered as a bridge connecting South and Central Asia leading to Europe"

From The Caspian Policy Center:

"Since antiquity, Afghanistan has been part of what is now referred to as Central Asia – politically, economically, and culturally."

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

Define Afghanistan: a country in Central Asia

From the book The South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation: An Emerging Collaboration Architechture:

"The German biogeographer Alexander von Humboldt is credited with conceiving a distinct geographic region, namely Central Asia, which bundled Afghanistan with other Turkic speaking nomadic peoples into one cohesive geographic unit."

"The cultural historian, Friedrich von Hellwald, later defined Central Asia on the basis of shared linguistic and cultural characteristics. In his view, there was a cultural coherence of the region comprising Altai region, the Kazakh plains, Zhetysu, Dzungaria, Tian Shan, including Afghanistan and regions of India."

"During the period of consolidation of British colonial rule in British India, particularly during the rule of Viceroy Sir John Lawrence, Afghanistan gradually began to be perceived as standing outside the parameters of South Asia, namely in Central Asia."

"Afghanistan's attainment of complete independence from Britain after the third Anglo-Afghan war (1919) – decades before India’s independence from Britain in 1947 – further isolates Afghanistan from the rest of South Asia."

"Afghanistan is considered to be part of Central Asia. It regards itself as the link between Central and South Asia."

From the book Countries in Crisis:

"Afghanistan is in Central Asia. It is about the size of New Mexico and Arizona combined. Almost 32 million people live in Afghanistan."

From the Asian Development Bank:

"Afghanistan is located in Central Asia, north and west of Pakistan and east of Iran. It is a land-locked and mountainous region with typically arid climate."

From The Asia Society:

"There are five Central Asian countries that used to part of the Soviet Union. Four of them are Turkic (Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Kazakhstan), and one is Persian speaking (Tajikistan). On the eastern side of Central Asia is the autonomous region of Xinjiang. Some people will also include Afghanistan as part of Central Asia."

From the research paper 10 Ways to Speak About Central Asia:

"Central Asia is where water flows not into the oceans but into lakes or vanishes in the deserts. The Aral sea may be the most prominent example, a lesser known is the lake Balkash (in Kasakhstan) or as an historical example the Lop Nor (in the Taklamakan desert). To describe a region through its geography has its pros and contras because there are as well important exceptions: Afghanistan is a part of Central Asia but the Kabul river flows into the Indus (which clearly shows the interconnectedness of Afghanista nwith South Asia, the Altaj gives its waters to the river Ob, Kazakhstan has the Irtysh that flows into the Northern Sea, and most Russian regions are through rivers (Wolga, Ural, Dnepr) connected to the Caspian Sea, which is by definition a lake inside the Eurasian landmass."

From the Global Regional Review Journal (GRR) paper Russification of Muslim Central Asia: An Overview of Language, Culture, and Society:

"Afghanistan is a part of Central Asia but this study excludes it because it has a non-existent ethnic Russian population."

From Nazari Pariani, editor in chief of leading Afghan Newspaper The Daily Mandegar:

"Since Afghanistan is located in Central Asia and a neighbor to China, it can enormously benefit from China's new Central Asia policy"

From PBS News Org:

"Also, he refers to fighting in the Middle East. Iraq is in the Middle East, but Afghanistan is in Central Asia."

From The Korea Times:

"Afghanistan is located in Central Asia, bordered by Pakistan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan."

WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 20:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Finding some sources supporting your POV does not mean that the majority of reliable sources support that view. Also, as i already said above, there is a part of the article that says that Afghanistan is sometimes listed as a Central Asian country, that's enough to fit with WP:NPOV.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Again, I think you are missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not claiming the majority of reliable sources support this view. But at the same time, the majority of reliable sources clearly don't support the view that Central Asia is limited to only those 5 countries either. The definition is clearly a gray area but you are insisting that it is clear cut, that it is black and white. What I am trying to demonstrate is that this is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is. Did you go over the list of sources I provided? Casually dismissing them as "some sources" is a colossal understatement. There are over 20 reputable sources provided that are coming from international agencies/organizations (UNESCO, OIC), government organizations/officials (including the current President of Afghanistan, a former Foreign Minister of Uzbekistan, the Ministry of Industry and Commerce of Afghanistan, and the USGS), multiple think tanks that specialize in international/regional affairs (including The Atlantic Council, The CATO Institute, and the Caspian Policy Center), multiple books/textbooks, multiple academic research papers, multiple reputable news organizations, and more. Keep in mind that these are just sources that were easily accessible online, sources that were found and referenced in a span of less than 30 minutes of doing basic searching online. Doing a true deep dive will no doubt result in even more reputable sources that have the same perspective and additional different ones.

This is the talk page. The way we as editors are supposed to proceed is through discussion and consensus building here. If discussions here fail then we have use dispute resolution. So let's not just brush off everything we may not agree with as fringe/minority opinions that have no weight. I am proposing that we differentiate between the geographical region known as Soviet Central Asia and the geographical region known as Central Asia. It makes sense to limit the definition of the former to only the section of Central Asia formerly controlled by the Soviet Union (as the name implies), while widening the definition/scope of the latter to include more areas that share the same history, geography, culture(s), language(s), religion(s), etc. If we cannot reach 100% WP:CON on this definition (which includes Afghanistan and parts of Iran/China/India/Pakistan/Mongolia, etc.), I can understand that. If what it takes to reach a consensus is to find some kind of middle ground, I am open and understanding of that. If we cannot agree on adding all countries/regions that are part of the wider definition of Central Asia, is not the least we can agree on just the addition of Afghanistan? Is that not a fair and reasonable edit that we can reach a consensus on? We now have plenty of reputable sources with significant weight that can back that edit up.

Let's meet in the middle. Well, I wouldn't even call that the middle but rather one step towards the middle :). Leave out Iran, parts of western China, parts of northern Pakistan, parts of northern India, Mongolia, etc. and just add Afghanistan. This edit is reasonable and has plenty of reliable sources with significant weight to back it up. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

You fail to get the point, the article is already mentioning several definitions of that region, you insisting for the systematic inclusion of Afghanistan is starting to be disruptive. We're done here.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Are you being serious? Disruptive? I have yet to make one single edit to this page. I am here at the talk page trying to have a discussion, trying to raise a valid concern, and trying to make a case for a reasonable edit. That is what we are supposed to do on the talk page. While I on one hand am making a case by engaging in dialogue and providing sources, you on the other hand are just brushing off everyone and anyone who doesn't agree with you. Just in the last few weeks alone, multiple new sections were made on this talk page about the very same topic we are discussing right now.

Yes the article does mention other definitions of the region, but the definition in the lead section is the one that needs to be edited. The map in the infobox needs to reflect that. Then in the following sections, the map of Soviet Central Asia and the definition of Central Asia as the 5 former Soviet territories can be included. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

The article already covers Afghanistan often being included. It is also often omitted. Maybe the infobox should display File:Central Asia definitions (orthographic).svg.png instead of File:Central Asia (orthographic projection).svg, what do you think Wikaviani? Squire Zo (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The infobox image ought to represent the common definition, per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV and WP:VER. The inclusion of Afghanistan in Central Asia is not the common definition. Adding maps that include Afghanistan (or any other country) in addition to the five former Soviet republics means kow-towing to minority views, which in turn constitutes a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. - LouisAragon (talk) 18:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose As per LouisAragon's rationale and my above remarks. The article seems well balanced enough as it is.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree @Squire Zo: @Benjamin Trovato: @Sirmortimer3: This is what I’ve been saying the whole time. Afghanistan being outside of Central Asia is not the common definition contrary to what some of these editors think. Like you said, it’s often included while also being often left out. It is for this exact reason that Afghanistan should be included in the map in the infobox. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we get an admin to block this guy? Its clear he is trying to recruit people into adding more support votes on his half like Xerxes1985, HistoryofIran, PashtoPromoter for him which is a violation of wikipedia policy as per wp:MEATPUPPET which is just as bad as sockpuppetry on wikipedia.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fruitloop11: The users I replied to in my previous message have commented on this talk page and they have commented specifically on this discussion about the map and definition of Central Asia... What is the problem with that? This clearly shows you didn’t read the entirety of the discussion on this topic. Instead of reading what I have shared and providing your own sources showing what the common definition actually is, so that we may have an actual discussion and possibly reach a consensus, you just jump straight into making comments and/or pushing your POV. Please read what I have shared and read all the replies before you make unnecessary comments and requests for admin blocks. Thanks! WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You are calling on Random IPs and users to join in to help you get your way. It would be like if I was to go to the chiropractic page and say Hey User:Roxy the dog guess what? I am gonna contact every user who has tried to remove pseudoscience from the page and we are gonna join together and steamroll your opinion on chiropractic being pseudoscience. I mean that wouldnt be right would it?--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

@Fruitloop11: As I'm sure you can see from my edit history, I am relatively new (a few months) to editing here on Wikipedia. I called on users who were not a part of this discussion ONE time. After I got called out on it and realized it was against best practices, you will notice that I have not done it again. Since then, I have only called on users/IPs who have been a part of the discussion here on the talk page.

Just look at how the discussion has changed since we started. I pose the question of using the wider definition and provide a couple of sources. The counter is that Russia created the region and it's history started in 1843 (absolutely ridiculous) so everything before that doesn't matter. After I showed the shared thousands of years of shared history, language, culture, geography between this defintion of Central Asia and Iran, Afghanistan, and others, then the discussion changed to well technically the land is billions of years old so history doesn't matter (absolutely ridiculous). Then it changed to well let's stick to the sources, as if I was pushing my personal POV. Then more sources were provided. Then the discussion changed to, oh well those sources don't have the proper weight. I then proceed to provide more sources with more weight. Then the discussion changes to, well that isn't the common view so anything you source that is contrary is meaningless.

This entire time I've just been trying to have a discussion. I brought the sources and tried to discuss on the talk page. However, the goal post continues to be moved. No one else has provided any sources or references that prove the current definition on the page is the actual common definition.

I have yet to make a single edit to the Central Asia page. Unfortunately, there isn't much of a discussion happening. It is just being blown off as not being the "common definition". That's exactly my point, it isn't the common definition. The definition currently in the lead section is not the common definition either. Everyone keeps saying it is the common definition because it is the current definition/map on this page. How can that be the reason? That doesn't make sense. I really don't understand why the users involved in the "discussion" on this page think this page is 100% perfect and above all editing and reconsidering of the definition/map. Look at the history of the page itself. It has changed over the years. The page mentions several definitions. Yet no one here has shown/proven that in fact the defintion in the lead is in fact the "common definition". I have brought sources from governments and government officials, international organizations, books and textbooks, think tanks, and scholars (including the scholar who was one of the first, if not the first to define it as a distinct region). And what is the response to the research and sources? That isn't the common definition, so go away...

It seems to me that the reason that users don’t want to change the definition/map is simply because it doesn’t “cleanly” fit into the modern crisp and clear borders that haven’t been around for even 100 years. If that is truly the case, then that is unfortunate. It is not encyclopedic and not academic. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Support I support the proposal to include both Afghanistan and Iran in a broader geographical/cultural Central Asia. Geographically, both countries are transregional countries which can be classified as parts of either Central Asia, Southern Asia, or Western Asia. The United Nations geoscheme includes both Afghanistan and Iran as parts of Southern Asia. However, some geography books include Afghanistan and/or Iran as parts of Western Asia instead. In those geography books, Western Asia generally includes 18/19 or 19/20 countries (it depends on whether they consider Palestine as an independent country or not), 12 of them (including Palestine) are Arab countries.

In my opinion though, both Afghanistan and Iran should be classified as parts of Central Asia. Based on the following facts:

1. Geologically, Western Asia covers the area of the Arabian Plate (with the Arabian Peninsula being the dominant geographical feature) and Southern Asia covers the area of the Indian Plate (with the Indian Subcontinent being the dominant geographical feature). Iran and Afghanistan are located on the Iranian Plate (with the Iranian Plateau being the dominant geographical feature). The Iranian Plate is a microplate associated with the Eurasian Plate, so geologically, Iran and Afghanistan are more closely related to Central Asia than Southern Asia or Western Asia (see the Reference below).

2. Culturally, both Iran and Afghanistan belong to the Persian cultural sphere, same as Tajikistan, a traditional Central Asian country.

3. Ethnically, all three countries consist of the Iranian peoples.

4. Language-wise, all three countries speak Persian or Persian dialects.

5. In the sporting world, both the Afghan NOC and the Iranian NOC had quit the South Asian Games and the West Asian Games respectively and joined the Central Asian Games instead, a strong indication that they have self-identified as Central Asian countries.

6. Geopolitically, both Iran and Afghanistan want to be parts of Central Asia instead of the Arab-dominated Western Asia or the Indian-dominated Southern Asia. Especially Iran, a Shia-majority country which is often considered an “odd kid” or a military threat by other Sunni-majority Arab countries.

7. Most importantly, the people of both Iran and Afghanistan consider their countries as parts of Central Asia. I live close to a Persian-dominated suburb, I have done a survey myself. My questions were simple, my first question was: “Which country are you from?” If the answer was Iran or Afghanistan, I would ask my second question: “Which part of Asia do you think your country belongs to?” and an optional question: “What makes you think that?” My survey result is as follows:

For people from Iran, approx. 70% replied Central Asia, 30% replied Western Asia, and 0% replied Southern Asia (I surveyed about 20 people from Iran, none of them replied Southern Asia, I don’t know why the United Nations geoscheme had completely ignored the opinions of the local people when they created their geographical region classifications).

For people from Afghanistan, approx. 80% replied Central Asia, 15% replied Southern Asia, and 5% replied Western Asia.

As for the reasons behind their answers, most of them said geography or culture, or both.

In conclusion, by geography, geology, history, culture, language, ethnicity, and self-identification of their local people, it's best to include both Afghanistan and Iran in Central Asia instead of Southern Asia or Western Asia. However, in order to avoid potential edit wars in the future, I suggest that we include both transregional countries in the articles of all three continental subregions with a note describing how likely this country would be included in a particular continental subregion (a standard practice used by other similar Wikipedia articles such as South America):

Afghanistan: Central Asia (often included), South Asia (sometimes included), Western Asia (occasionally included)

Iran: Central Asia (often included), Western Asia (sometimes included), South Asia (rarely included)

Reference: Tectonic plates world map James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Oppose per LouisAragon. --HistoryofIran (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Comment For people who opposed the proposal, it seems to me that the main reason behind their opposition is that Afghanistan and Iran are "generally not considered" to be parts of Central Asia. I just want to point out the fact that these statements are pretty subjective, there is simply no universally agreed definition for continental subregions. What your local geography book taught you might be very different than a geography book from another country. From my observation, Afghan people tend to feel very strongly that their country is a part of Central Asia. To me, this is a solid reason to include Afghanistan in Central Asia. For Iran, their people don't have this kind of strong feeling, but a lot of them also consider their country to be a part of Central Asia. They did, however, feel quite "insulted" when I mentioned the fact that the UN geoscheme includes Iran in Southern Asia (for them, Southern Asia = India).

My suggestion is that we should include Afghanistan and Iran in all three continental subregions (Central, South, and Western Asia) and create maps which reflect how likely these countries would be included in a particular continental subregion (a standard practice used by other similar Wikipedia articles such as East Africa):

Soviet Central Asia: Central Asia (always included, represented by dark green colour)

Afghanistan: Central Asia (often included, represented by green colour), South Asia (sometimes included, represented by lime green colour), Western Asia (occasionally included, represented by light green colour)

Iran: Central Asia (often included, represented by green colour), Western Asia (sometimes included, represented by lime green colour), South Asia (rarely included, represented by pale green colour)

Example (map of East Africa):

  Always included in East Africa

  Normally included in East Africa

  Sometimes included in East Africa

James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Ker-Lindsay, your proposal could work. But we need written sources on the topic, not informal polls. Argumentum ad populum has never been the way Wikipedia decides what content to include. Dimadick (talk) 19:42, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I have a source (curlie.org) which lists Mongolia and Tibet as part of Central Asia: https://curlie.org/en/Regional/Asia/Regions/Central_Asia/ 124.187.133.253 (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

• Two definitions: The problem is that the term has two definitions. The exact definition is the five stans or former Russian Turkestan. These are governments with boundaries, statistics and so on and are used when giving population, area, etc. The vague definition is the middle of Asia and can include whatever the writer wants. It can include parts or Persia or Tibet or Mongolia and might even exclude Kazakhstan as being more part of the Eurasian steppe. There is no 'Correct' definition and any definition we definition we make if no better than anyone elses. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: I have provided many sources in previous edits above. Please take a look at some of my previous comments on this issue and the sources that have been shared regarding this. WikiEditUsername7 (talk) 18:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Sources

I second the opinion to include Iran in Central Asia, labeled as “often included”, and Iran in Western Asia as “sometimes included”, and Iran in South Asia as “rarely included”. Or Iran in Western Asia as “often included” and Iran in Central Asia as “sometimes included”. Rarely does one include Iran in South Asia. However, this is not entirely incorrect either. The regions of Iran, known as Sistan and Baluchistan, share landmass with Afghanistan and Pakistan. Golestan, Khorasan, masshad regions of Iran are often included in Central Asia. Ricemaster12 (talk) 07:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Still waiting on this update by an administrator. Ricemaster12 (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Iran is mostly seen as a west asian country with many sources to back that up. However, SOME sources include Iran in South Asia, and some sources include parts of Iran in Central Asia. Some will even remove it from the "middle east" definition because Iran isn't an Arab country and the majority of the middle east is Arab. That's just one source. Some sources will include Afghanistan in west asia, some will say south asia, and others will say central asia. There's no clear consensus on where Afghanistan exactly lies. Culturally, Afghanistan is closer to Iran and Tajikistan, not Pakistan and India, but we're here to talk about the LANDMASS (not culture, language, ethnicities etc.), which like I mentioned, is heavily debated.

Like I had mentioned to another user, countries like Afghanistan and Iran will always have their landmasses placed in adjacent regions of Asia. Not sure why some users want these countries to strictly be in one specific region and not others. Hot topic, apparently. WikiAmerican1 (talk) 21:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Mann Mann is vandalizing my edits in regarding Botai Culture and Tiele in this page.

IN HIS OWN reference, the reference is from Ferdowsi and says Iranians were majority SOUTH OF AMU DARYA(Oxus) Definitely not in "Central Asia". The edit implies it is in Central Asia. It is debated that Amu Darya is even Central Asia but we could use the term South of Amu Darya.

In my studies we start studying Central Asia with Botai Culture. Botai Culture is already well referenced for anyone curious. This guy claims I am adding my original research when I am just adding Botai Culture and also adding things from Book of Sui, it is a historical document that we study. This guy's edits, and this page needs to be watched. I am editing again. Next time I am taking it to Dispute Resolution. TheLastUbykh (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You can't expect a talk page discussion about sources to get anywhere if you use, even in the section title, words like "vandalizing". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is ""The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. "

At least in regarding my Botai Culture and Tiele edits.

For the Ferdowsi edit, the version he is trying to revert back to is literally from Ferdowsi and only applies to south of Oxus as I said. TheLastUbykh (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I would ask that you removed your personal attack. Thanks.

Your addition of Canfield is not correct. Nothing on page 1 of "Turko-Persia in Historical Perspective" supports;

• "This is not supported by any earlier resources in Chinese or Turkic records before Shahnameh, and can be attributed to population change after the Battle of Talas in the 8th century and expansion of Turko-Persian tradition after the defeat of Tibetan Empire."

Please post a quote and the correct page number for this sentence.

Your overfixation on Ferdowsi is rather silly, since the second reference makes no mention of him at all. Also, why did you remove the second source from the Lead?

• "C.E. Bosworth, "The Appearance of the Arabs in Central Asia under the Umayyads and the establishment of Islam", in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Vol. IV: The Age of Achievement: AD 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, Part One: The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, edited by M. S. Asimov and C. E. Bosworth. Multiple History Series. Paris: Motilal Banarsidass Publ./UNESCO Publishing, 1999. excerpt from page 23: "Central Asia in the early seventh century, was ethnically, still largely an Iranian land whose people used various Middle Iranian languages.".."

This source should be restored and the mention of Ferdowsi should be removed, per BRD. Since clearly you do not have consensus for these edits.--Kansas Bear (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You can't use Wikipedia articles(regardless of language) as a reference/source for Wikipedia articles. Like this one.

Also, nothing should be in the Lead of an article that is not mentioned in the article itself. Your addition of Botai and Tiele to the Lead violates this, since Botai and Tiele are not mentioned in the article.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I would also ask you to reword the header of this section and remove your personal attack. Thank you.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Topic

@Mann Mann Afghanistan is already discussed in the body as a country which is often included in Central Asia, though not recognized. It is sourced to good sources and there should be no problem adding it to the infobox as "sometimes included" as per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY and WP:NPOV Axedd (talk) 14:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT and common definition matter. Mongolia is mentioned too. Should we add it to the lead section? No, because Mongolia is in East Asia. Afghanistan is a South Asian country. What makes Afghanistan special/exception? How your edits on this article and South Asia ([1][2][3]) pass as NPOV? You changed the definition of South Asia without any consensus or discussion. You need to get a consensus for your changes on both articles. But before that, read the talk page archives of both articles. This case has been discussed many times. --Mann Mann (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I didn't change the definition of South Asia, the Britannica source used on the page uses those exact words and it was already that way an year ago before someone changed it without discussion. Will read all archived discussions for this page and return to this discussion later. Axedd (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a footnote is sufficient, if there is no consensus to include a few words in the lead? I agree that most definitions do not include Afghanistan, and as such, I would not mention it in the list (including the infobox), although the definition section could be reflected in this way, as it seems it is more often included compared to other neighboring countries (such as Mongolia). Mellk (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

See also section revamp

I tried to add subsections to the Central Asia#See also section but they were removed. I also tried to add a link to Greater Central Asia in the section, which I figured would be noncontroversial. GreekApple123 (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

There's simply no reason to have such a structure; this is what outline articles are for, not the see also section. Moreover, it's "See also", not WP:SEEAGAIN. Remsense诉 00:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It's time to include Afghanistan as a part of Central Asia

After conducting a research about the subject, I can confidently say that Afghanistan should be included as a part of Central Asia. This is also what the Afghan people have told me, many many of them said the same. 58.152.51.109 (talk) 06:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Has the plain reason Wikipedia uses the definition it does, the reason that is attested up and down this page, the archives, and site policy, changed according to your research? Remsense ‥ 论 07:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, whoever created this article clearly didn't consult the Afghan people. Afghanistan is a part of Central Asia, period. 58.152.51.109 (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Bamyan and Balkh populations

@Factfinderrr: setting aside for a moment the question of whether to even list these cities, I'm also very confused about the populations you listed for these. For Bamyan, you seem to have put the population of Bamyan Province rather than the city. According to our article for Bamyan, the population is around 70,000 (though the figure seems to be a decade old). For Balkh, I have no idea where you got the number. The ref you put next to it says 114,883, but you wrote 523,300. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Fyrael, please revert my edit on the central asia page. The page mentions afghanistan throughout the article. For consistency and maintaining continuity, Afghanistan should therefore be included in the cities section. Further, THREE governments cite Afghanistan as central asian. Therefore, consensus has been established not only internall through the articles existing precedent but also by government sources, who are known classification authorities and therefore experts in their field. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/media/3216 https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/classifications/australian-standard-classification-cultural-and-ethnic-groups-ascceg/latest-release https://aria.stats.govt.nz/aria/#ClassificationView:uri=http://stats.govt.nz/cms/ClassificationVersion/ys69SsOCPi6Mc4jR Factfinderrr (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Afghanistan is not considered part of Central Asia for our purposes; it is mentioned as being included in some definitions, but we do not include it in ours. Remsense ‥ 论 10:57, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @RemsenseAnd what exactly is your purpose? Your statement is contradictory by the precedents already set by numerous Central asia wikipedia articles that reference Afghanistan. Governmental statistical authorities, who are equipped and dedicated to denoting and classifying states are a more credible and authoritative source than any you have supplied. It is contradictory and inconsistent to reference Afghanistan numerous times throughout this central asia article but then negate to list its cities as one of the cities of central asia. To maintain credibility and cohesiveness, Afghanistan should be listed. No governmental statistical authority lists Afghanistan as anything other than central asian or broadly asian. This talk page is filled with years worth of individuals arguing this and i am yet to see a valid counterargument supplied by nay sayers. Your statement "we do not include it in ours" is blatantly false and as mentioned contradicts the numerous precedents already established, throughout this article and many others-which if anything highlights that in fact you DO include Afghanistan as central asian. As a matter of consistency and continuity, I will be reverting the changes. Factfinderrr (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not how consensus works, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. It is extremely well established that we don't consider Afghanistan part of Central Asia—we can't perfectly regulate what other editors decide to write on every other page; we would try to bring it into line with the common definitions used here if anything. Feel free to peruse the archives via the search bar at the top of this talk page if you don't believe me: a search for "Afghanistan" will produce reams and reams of discussion where the reasons for our definition are stated and restated. In fact, there's a very long thread that hasn't even been archived that you can scroll up and read. The article is imperfect, but our definition is not unclear. In short, you can find a lot of sources that do include Afghanistan, but not a majority. We reflect this in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 11:15, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I suppose I should make explicit that you shouldn't edit war by reverting a third editor's attempt to get you to establish consensus here before you go ahead with your changes. Remsense ‥ 论 11:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Consensus has already been established as explained previously. Factfinderrr (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That is EXACTLY how consensus works. Afghanistan references itself as central asian as stated in its national anthem, and then this is reinforced through dedicated GOVERNMENTAL statistical authorities classing the country as central asian. Shall I provide citations yet again? This is how classification works. Now let's move on to wikipedia's consensus. You have NUMEROUS central asian articles mentioning, referencing and detailing in DEPTH Afghanistan. This very article mentions Afghanistan throughout it and not merely as an aside. In fact the vast majority of users on this Talk page have argued that Afghanistan is central asian but it is a minority continously attempting to shut them down. I have detailed you reliable, credible and authoritative sources and you have rebuffed with vague heresay. The statement provided statement is a false and inaccurate representation of the wikipedia landscape, that time and time again includes Afghanistan in its definition of Central Asia, whether directly or indirectly. The definition curated by authorities dedicated to statistical classification have precedence and priority. To recap, consenus has been reached because:

1. The number of users on this Talk page who agree that Afghanistan is central asian far outweigh the number that don't. This means the majority agrees that Afghanistan is central asian. This means a general consensus has been reached.

2. Wiki Articles show a history of Afghanistan being included in central asia.So by wikipedia's own inadvertant admission afghanistan is central asian. Consenus has been achieved by this platform itself, and consistency should be maintained.

3. Stats Canada, Statistics New Zealand and the Australian Bureau of Statistics are dedicated governmental authorities who undergo rigorous stakeholder consultation and research when classifying countries. Numerous stakeholders are consulted until a CONSENSUS is reached. These are the most reliable and authoritative of resources to classify countries. Especially, as statistical classifications are reviewed periodically to maintain accuracy.

4. Undoubtedly consensus has been reached. The opinion of a minority naysayers does not negate or surpass the facts relayed and cited YEARLY by a majority. Factfinderrr (talk) 11:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read the existing arguments made above, as well as WP:CONSENSUS. Each point you made about how consensus works is trivially wrong:

1. Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus is not a straw poll—per WP:CONSENSUS: In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. Those who support inclusion have generally made much poorer quality arguments in terms of site policy. Plus, there was pretty obviously a little bit of sockpuppeting going on—though obviously not by most participants—in an attempt to make the supporting view look more popular than it is.
2. As I said above, we don't determine consensus for one article based on what any other article says, per WP:OTHERCONTENT. Most articles have notable if not serious flaws that we can't make decisions based on, and aren't responsible for since we didn't put them there, so each article is judged on its own merits according to site policy, not according to other articles.
3. Those are reliable sources, but as we've established, they are not a majority of reliable sources; in any case, we've tried to weight what is a plurality but not majority definition per WP:BALANCE.

Remsense ‥ 论 11:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Please read the existing arguments and citations repeatedly made. You have provided none, but diverted to a generic see other source. You have failed to produce one valid or credible counter point.

1. In determining consensus the quality and history of the arguments have periodically shown to be in favour and support of Afghanistan being in Central Asia. Numerous quality arguments have been made, including mine throughout this thread. In fact the quality of my argument has precedence over all, based on the quality of my sources provided. My argument is further supported by the history of this page where time and time again users have argued Afghanistan is central asian. I don't know what this sockpuppeting nor do I have any affiliation with it. Its' baffling the lengths that are being gone to repeatedly quash and deny the opinion of a majority. The history of Afghanistan being central asian is yet again supported by the fact that wikipedia itself details afghanistan extensively in various central asia articles. Ironically, you are hindering quality by establishing and maintaining inconsistency in these pages, by including Afghanistan in some sections but refuting others.

2. If each article is judged by its own merit according to site policy then it would obviously demonstrate that by merit Afghanistan has been shown to be central asian and in line with site policy. Repeated articles of Afghanistan in Central asia demonstrates a history and wikipedia precedence and therefore consensus that Afghanistan is central asian. Cherry picking when an article align and doest align with agenda's is acting in bad faith.

3. The majority of reliable sources do in fact cite Afghanistan as central asian. Further, there is a priority scale that exists when referencing citations. The opinion of THREE WESTERN GOVERNMENTAL STATISTICAL AUTHORITIES THAT UNDERGO PERIODIC REVIEW TO MAINTAIN ACCURACY AND CURRENT INFORMATION in addition to the AFGHAN GOVERNMENT itself outweighs anything else. Factfinderrr (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The opinion of THREE WESTERN GOVERNMENTAL STATISTICAL AUTHORITIES THAT UNDERGO PERIODIC REVIEW TO MAINTAIN ACCURACY AND CURRENT INFORMATION in addition to the AFGHAN GOVERNMENT itself outweighs anything else.

They do not "outweigh anything else", and nothing about our policies would give you grounds to think that they do. Unfortunately, you've decided to violate WP:3RR, which does actually outweigh your arguments whether they are right or not—to be clear, they're still not. Remsense ‥ 论 12:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

They do when combined with the other justifications I have listed. Meanwhile you have provided none, failed to engage in discourse and have only acted in bad faith. After all, what "anything else" was listed by you to counteract the numerous citations and arguments I and other users have listed? Vague references deferring to other pages is not a credible citation, nor is it demonstrative of a willingness to engage in discourse. Factfinderrr (talk) 12:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The citations for the present majority definition of Central Asia are already cited in the article. Remsense ‥ 论 12:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

citations can be superseded on the discovery of more credible sources. cherrypicked sources are not accurate or representative of the current consensus. The purpose of my original edit was to maintain consistency- which it was. The article referenced afghanistan throughout so by default it should be mentioned in teh cities section too. Factfinderrr (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You've just stated that four sources are enough by themselves to outweigh all others, something totally unsubstantiated by our core WP:NPOV policy. Remsense ‥ 论 12:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Did you read what i said. I listed 4 justifications that supported eachother to establish that consensus has been reached. Don't misquote me. You have repeatedly failed to act in good faith. I shall paste yet again what I have said numerous times previously.

1. The number of users on this Talk page who agree that Afghanistan is central asian far outweigh the number that don't. This means the majority agrees that Afghanistan is central asian. This means a general consensus has been reached.

2. Wiki Articles show a history of Afghanistan being included in central asia.So by wikipedia's own inadvertant admission afghanistan is central asian. Consenus has been achieved by this platform itself, and consistency should be maintained.

3. Stats Canada, Statistics New Zealand and the Australian Bureau of Statistics are dedicated governmental authorities who undergo rigorous stakeholder consultation and research when classifying countries. Numerous stakeholders are consulted until a CONSENSUS is reached. These are the most reliable and authoritative of resources to classify countries. Especially, as statistical classifications are reviewed periodically to maintain accuracy.

4. Undoubtedly consensus has been reached. The opinion of a minority naysayers does not negate or surpass the facts relayed and cited YEARLY by a majority. Factfinderrr (talk) 12:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

1. That doesn't matter, per WP:NOTADEMOCRACY.
2. That doesn't matter, per WP:OTHERCONTENT.
3. That matters only proportionally, per WP:BALANCE.

You're not listening, so I'll stop replying now. Remsense ‥ 论 12:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You have failed to listen to me once, nor have you provided a valid counterargument to my edit. Vague references to external sources does not rebuff my point. I have already rebutted what you said but for the fifth time I shall paste what I have mentioned previously.

1. In determining consensus the quality and history of the arguments have periodically shown to be in favour and support of Afghanistan being in Central Asia. Numerous quality arguments have been made by others, including mine throughout this thread. In fact the quality of my argument has precedence and strengthens existing citations, based on the quality of my sources provided. My argument is further supported by the history of this page where time and time again users have argued and cited Afghanistan is central asian. I don't know what this sockpuppeting nor do I have any affiliation with it. Its' baffling the lengths that are being gone to repeatedly quash and deny the opinion of a majority. The history of Afghanistan being central asian is yet again supported by the fact that wikipedia itself details afghanistan extensively in various central asia articles. Ironically, you are hindering quality by establishing and maintaining inconsistency in these pages, by including Afghanistan in some sections but refuting others.

2. If each article is judged by its own merit according to site policy then it would obviously demonstrate that by merit Afghanistan has been shown to be central asian and in line with site policy. Repeated articles of Afghanistan in Central asia demonstrates a history and wikipedia precedence and therefore consensus that Afghanistan is central asian. Cherry picking when an article align and doest align with agenda's is acting in bad faith.

3. The majority of reliable sources do in fact cite Afghanistan as central asian. Further, there is a priority scale that exists when referencing citations. The opinion of THREE WESTERN GOVERNMENTAL STATISTICAL AUTHORITIES THAT UNDERGO PERIODIC REVIEW TO MAINTAIN ACCURACY AND CURRENT INFORMATION in addition to the AFGHAN GOVERNMENT itself outweighs and has precedence over other sources, given the fact that it would take a AGREED UPON GENERAL CONSENSUS for governmental authorities to classify a country. Factfinderrr (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The opinion of THREE WESTERN GOVERNMENTAL STATISTICAL AUTHORITIES THAT UNDERGO PERIODIC REVIEW TO MAINTAIN ACCURACY AND CURRENT INFORMATION in addition to the AFGHAN GOVERNMENT itself outweighs anything else.

They do not, and nobody gave you the idea that they did. This is the sole anchor for your argument, and it is baseless. Remsense ‥ 论 12:52, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

But they do and they did. What anchor do you have? You have provided a total of zero. Your credibility and validity as an editor is cause for concern, as you have continously demonstrated your failure to act in good faith. My sources of which there are 4 provided- and I can provide more, are to aid and support the existing history of arguments and citations already provided-of which one user lists 20 citations. There is obvious prejudice and bias in regards to the monitoring of this thread. If one user is rebuffed for providing 20 CREDIBLE CITATIONS then there is OBVIOUS malpractise and abuse of power when it comes to the editors monitoring this page. It is obvious you haven't paid heed to my claims so I will paste for the third time:

1. In determining consensus the quality and history of the arguments have periodically shown to be in favour and support of Afghanistan being in Central Asia. Numerous quality arguments have been made by others, including mine throughout this thread. In fact the quality of my argument has precedence and strengthens existing citations, based on the quality of my sources provided. My argument is further supported by the history of this page where time and time again users have argued and cited Afghanistan is central asian. I don't know what this sockpuppeting nor do I have any affiliation with it. Its' baffling the lengths that are being gone to repeatedly quash and deny the opinion of a majority. The history of Afghanistan being central asian is yet again supported by the fact that wikipedia itself details afghanistan extensively in various central asia articles. Ironically, you are hindering quality by establishing and maintaining inconsistency in these pages, by including Afghanistan in some sections but refuting others.

2. If each article is judged by its own merit according to site policy then it would obviously demonstrate that by merit Afghanistan has been shown to be central asian and in line with site policy. Repeated articles of Afghanistan in Central asia demonstrates a history and wikipedia precedence and therefore consensus that Afghanistan is central asian. Cherry picking when an article align and doest align with agenda's is acting in bad faith.

3. The majority of reliable sources do in fact cite Afghanistan as central asian. Further, there is a priority scale that exists when referencing citations. The opinion of THREE WESTERN GOVERNMENTAL STATISTICAL AUTHORITIES THAT UNDERGO PERIODIC REVIEW TO MAINTAIN ACCURACY AND CURRENT INFORMATION in addition to the AFGHAN GOVERNMENT itself outweighs and has precedence over other sources, given the fact that it would take a AGREED UPON GENERAL CONSENSUS for governmental authorities to classify a country Factfinderrr (talk) 13:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

hi @Mann Mann consensus has been reached as established in this thread, thanks. Factfinderrr (talk) 15:00, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No it has not, and stating that it has is being deliberately deceptive. — Czello ^(music) 15:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

its been established as no valid counterargument has been provided to refute my assertion. I have provided extensive arguments and sources as have other users historically over the years. WHAT exactly have been the counterarguments? If not, counter sources of which zero have been stated. How can consensus be agreed upon when the disputing parties refuse to engage in good faith based discourse? What is deceptive and sinister is preventing the correction of information by claiming passivity. Ergo wasting everybodys time. Factfinderrr (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

You don't get to claim consensus because you don't like another user's arguments. From what I can see, the conversation is still ongoing. Please do not continue to revert. — Czello ^(music) 15:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Are we both reading the same thread?The other user has provided a total of ZERO arguments to refute me- they have deflected and shafted random policies, refusing to engage with me at the core of the issue. Look at how long this thread has been going. Numerous individuals have cited sources and provided arguments, and yet time and time again these moderators have provided vague dismissive rejections. ZERO due consideration has been given to the merit of our arguments, despite credible sources provided time and time again. This has nothing to do with "liking" another user's argument and macrosopically to do with the abuse of power by the editors who refuse to engage in discourse. They have not provided any valid means of refusing my citations. I have even offered to provide MORE-can you imagine? The previous user provided 20 credible sources and was dismissed without a valid explanation. How many must I provide? Are these threads to go into decades long chains? All my reasoning is valid, and I am prepared to explain further if neccessary but not sure how much more essays I need to write for individuals who languish in bad faith. Factfinderrr (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

You've listed three points above several times now, and several times now I've pointed to specific explanations of site policy that clearly articulate why each point is plainly wrong.

There was a pre-existing consensus argument before you got here. the only point of any substance you've introduced in this round that wasn't explicitly addressed by said consensus regard the "official" or government sources that apparently outweigh all the others: I reiterate for likely the tenth time that they do not. There is no basis in WP:NPOV, WP:RS or any other policy for that, so stop arguing as if you've actually bothered to consider the meaning of site policy at all. Remsense ‥ 论 12:32, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I've listed several points which you haven't addressed at all, but lazily embedded a link to random policy. In fact there was ZERO pre-existing argument here, because by the articles own logic afghans are central asian. Afghans are cited in numerous sections throughout the article but inlcuding them in the capital cities section is where you draw the line? How does that work. The government sources hold SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT. Do you even know how classification authorities work? Regardless, I can provide plenty more. My only concern is at what point will ego be set aside when as mentioned time and time again numerous individuals have brought up that afghans are central asian, and one suer cited TWENTY sources for you to ignore. There is a history of acting in bad faith here. But like I said, I will continue to persist :) Factfinderrr (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The government sources hold SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT

Quote the specific part of site policy that justifies a collection of four such sources being weighed so strongly as to essentially nullify a much larger collection of reliable sources that say otherwise. Remsense ‥ 论 12:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Fyrael refer to original comment to discuss point 1. Point 2- Apologies, you are correct I had written the populations of the provinces themselves rather than their namesake cities. While balkh, kabul and bamyan are provinces each also has a respective city within with the exact same namesake. The population listed for balkh is the population of mazare-sharif- a city within the balkh province. However, I will note the caveat that population metrics for Afghanistan are difficult to source and sometimes sources are vague when referencing if they are referring to the province or city itself. I am happy to make the amendments listed, thank you for correcting me. Factfinderrr (talk) 11:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

• That's not what consensus means on Wikipedia. Read Remsense's points carefully. Click on those linked WP guidelines. This is the N-th time that someone opens a discussion about Afghanistan. Every time the very same arguments and nothing new. You can see them on this page and Talk:Central Asia/Archive 1. So I don't repeat myself.[4]. --Mann Mann (talk) 08:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Mann Mann, I have yet to see someone use the arguments I have brought up. Its even more pertinent that no valid rebuttal has been given to me other than links to random policies. How do any of your articles have consistency. This very article mentions afghanistan throughout it, but you draw the line at having afghanistan mentioned as a city? Perhaps when you have NUMEROUS individuals petitioning it, who are more knowledgeabke, experienced in this area you should look beyond your own bias's and prejudice to acknowledge you may have err'd. The evidence is already there with the numerous inconsistencies. I have provided valid sources, and I can provide all the more if need be. But not sure at what point sanity can be achieved when another user provided TWENTY and yet you still dismissed them. I won't leave this issue alone. You may have bullied other suers into silence but this behaviour is not going to continue. Factfinderrr (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2024 (UTC)