Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 August 2021 and 18 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AlejandroRp101.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hkhairzadah.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the true number of Afghan Americans?[edit]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference ReferenceA was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

300,000 claim must be removed

I'm removing the clearly erronous 300,000 claim because the Afghan embassy actually stated 60,000. See page 4, which states: "A general estimate of the Afghan population in the US is over 60,000. While 20,000+ Afghans reside in Northern Virginia, approximately 40,000 Afghans comprise the Diaspora community based in the San Francisco Bay Area. There are also sporadic communities totaling 10,000 Afghans throughout Southern California. Furthermore, smaller communities are also flourishing in New York, Georgia, Oregon, and Texas."--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear the WP:BRD process, and discussion, has inspired some further research and finding of a more credible figure. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Krzyhorse22: What they are listed there are some examples of the estimates. By no means are they stating that these figures account for the total number. You are also treating this as if this were are 'someone is lying' situation. Not so. The US Census stats are a WP:PRIMARY source that can only account for what has been gleaned from what people have been prepared to declare to the government. The Afghan embassy has closer ties to the actual diasporic community, and are more likely to be trusted by Afghans living in the US.
If you care to take a look at my user page properly, you will see that I actually have expertise in the area of multiculturalism and diasporic communities in Australia. On top of that, aside from behavioural psychology, I've also studied comparative American and Australian history. I was also a parliamentary researcher into the behavioural psychology of communities who hark from war torn countries, particularly those who have lived under horrendous regimes. You're failing to take into account well documented studies into the fear of governments (all governments) expressed in the behaviour of people in the aftermath of living through traumatic events as the result of conflicts. Such fears, and how they manifest, are well documented after WWII alone. Various ethnic groups from repressive regimes were afraid to even sign to open a bank account, much less release personal information as a by-product of having being lied to about what they were signing, and duped into signing things that lead to imprisonment, etc.
Now it is, of course, WP:OR on my behalf to suggest that this accounts for a large discrepancy between what has been reported by individuals filling in the census. By the same token, the Afghan Embassy estimates are not beyond credibility just because there could be a large number of Afghans who may have reasons not to want to disclose information about themselves to the US government. There is no reason why the embassy would bother to lie, nor any reason to dismiss it as an RS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think both Iryna and my potential examples have demonstrated a number of different reasons why figures could vary widely. I would kindly request you, User:Krzyhorse22, to avoid further edits to the infobox before this is thoroughly discussed on this talkpage. I would also kindly request you to remain WP:CIVIL. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Iryna Harpy: The "300,000" was obviously a typographical error on the Afghan embassy's part. Click here and read page 4. The U.S. government does not necessarily rely on census forms to determine the number of Afghans in the U.S. You cannot live in the U.S. without revealing your native country (or the country of which you are a citizen), and that information is stored with the USCIS permanently. About Australia, I have many relatives in every city there. I often talk with them, but one thing I notice about them is that they know very little about the U.S. or even care to learn. They often blame the U.S. for everything that goes wrong in the world. This in fact is the general view of all Australians. See Anti-American#Australia. No offense intended.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Buckshot06: I'm surprised that you still allowed the clearly erroneous 300,000 figure in the infobox. Are you saying that you and Iryna Harpy can edit the infobox but I cannot do it? Why are you keep reminding me to be CIVIL? I won this argument by being fair and square.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, you are about five seconds from a one-day block for even thinking that it is permissible on Wikipedia to repeat such insulting paft as "..wrong in the world. This in fact is the general view of all Australians." Do you realise you've just managed to slander the whole of Australia? How about after you've said something about Austria, that you denigrate Belgium as well? That is why I am trying to tell you to be civil. You may *think* such insulting things, and the internet gives you wide latitude to post them. All around the place. That's not the case here. Think about what you want to say, and avoid writing down the comments that may offend!!
On the point at issue, I have repeated that both I and Iryna have given good reasons why the USCIS, or other U.S. government agencies, may not have omnipotent access to information. We are having a debate here about the comparative validity of sources, which is among other things what talkpages are for. Continually repeating that you believe there is one infallible source is simply not going to fly. I can say for absolute certain that you have not yet 'won the argument.' Wikipedia is based upon WP:CONSENSUS, and there are reasonable grounds to believe, for several reasons, that we may be debating apples and oranges. I have requested, and again will request, that you debate this issue on the talkpage to a conclusion before making further edits. We're a long way from the Publishing Deadline, so there is time to talk the issue through and reach a consensus, which would ensure the article's stability. But KEEP YOUR BORDERLINE COMMENTS ABOUT OTHER NATIONALITIES TO YOURSELF. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:00, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to practice what you preach. You suggested that Afghans in the U.S. probably report themselves as Pakistanis in the census forms. [2] That's a very ridiculous suggestion. It's like saying Israelis could report themselves as Palestinians or Palestinians report as Israelis.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert in US demographic data, but the Census Bureau's American FactFinder states that there were 89,722 people of Afghan ancestry (+/-5,010 people) in the US as of 2014. I'd guess that the Census Bureau is the best source, but I don't know what the definitions and methodology they use are. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Iryna Harpy thinks there are 300,000, and she cites a source that actually says 60,000. See page 4 in the special report by Said Tayeb Jawad at the Afghan embassy site (official PDF version here).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you stop your ridiculous accusations, Krzyhorse22. I haven't written any of this article, so how could I have cited a source when I haven't been involved in the content? This is the first time you've even bothered bringing up this PDF, and I haven't had time to research it. Instead of persisting with your WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour and barraging my talk page with puerile attacks, you were invited to discuss the content and bring sources to the table for discussion. Instead, you chose to harass me. Nevertheless, I've persisted with WP:AGF and tried to work collaboratively with you (for example here... but not a peep out of you in return. Given your history of interaction with other editors, I find myself questioning whether you're actually WP:HERE to work collaboratively with others.
Incidentally, if you believe that the 300,000 estimate is a typo, contact the embassy and ask them. That's the logical thing to do, and precisely what I'd do if I were as involved with the content of this article as you are. I've only kept it on my watchlist in order to revert obvious vandalism. It's off my watchlist as of now. I seriously don't usually react to other editors in the way I'm reacting to you now (and certainly on an article talk page) but you've managed to work your way so far up my nose that I feel fairly confident that I've developed an incurable aversion to you, and that I'm going to post this despite my better judgement. I truly want no more communications with you. Please don't ping me again, nor leave any messages on my talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D FactFinder seems to yield different results dependent on how you access info. Per the Afghan (600) table, the estimate is 97,865 with a +/-11,954 margin of error for 2014. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Regarding the 300,000 figure, unless it can be sourced to some sort of expert source (official demographic data, academic analysis, etc), it doesn't seem worth including. It could be noted in the text as a claim made by the embassy, but I'm not sure what the value would be. The embassy is not a reliable source on the make-up of the US population. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Nick-D said is logical. For the record, Iryna Harpy pretty much admitted that she has been focusing on me instead of the content of dispute. The Afghan embassy has long-deleted the 300,000 typo, officially that info no longer exists in this world (it's like a repealed law). To say contact the embassy is making a mockery out this situation. What could the embassy do? I'm a serious editor here (that's how I see myself), I improve articles so that students around the world do not fail in their studies. Not for money, fame, or some kind of agenda, I do this simply for humanity.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 08:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krzyhorse22, for the record, do not shove your words into my mouth... and do stop congratulating yourself for being some kind of martyr to the great philanthropic cause.[peacock prose] The only consistent message you've sent about yourself is WP:BATTLEGROUND. I'm taking every Afghanistan-related article and template off my watchlist by WP:CHOICE lest I encounter you again. Note, however, that when someone eventually lodges an ANI against you, I'll be there with bells on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick-D: I'm fine with the removal of the 300,000 figure as the PDF contradicts the number. Cheers for stepping in and ameliorating this egregious situation. It's greatly appreciated. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and happy to have been of assistance. Krzyhorse22, I agree with the others that you conduct here wasn't at all helpful, and actually worked against you. Please assume good faith on behalf of other editors and drop the stick. Nick-D (talk) 09:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just want equal freedom like you. I'm not following anyone, I want others to stop following me. I may sound like a dumb ass sometimes (and I know I do) but that only shows that I'm a normal human.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to be 'normal', but you are not welcome to violate one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars in order to make your WP:POINT. If you continue being abusive towards other editors, you will end up at the ANI. Please learn appreciate what assuming good faith is and try to work collaboratively with other editors instead of rubbing them the wrong way. You might just be pleasantly surprised at how much better it is to try to improve content, and how much sooner other editors will help out if you adopt a different mentality towards editing. Happy editing, one way or the other. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to be more soft when approaching other editors, especially female editors.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Krzyhorse22: You what?!! I've only just caught up with this comment. You, sir, are a patronising arse. It's your bullying attitude towards everyone that is under scrutiny. Believe me when I say that, if it came down to a serious bullying session, I'd have you under the table crying for your mama in a matter of seconds because being an acerbic bitch happens to be an unfortunate forte of mine. The point is that harassing other editors is unacceptable behaviour, full stop. Wikipedia works on the premise of collaborative editing, even if you get hot under the collar. I get irate with other editors on a daily basis, as do they with me: but we're not privy to real life, face-to-face interaction in cyberspace. Do you understand the fundamental difference between a debate and a bar-room brawl? We're WP:HERE to build an encyclopaedic resource, not to try to make minced meat of anyone who gets in our way when we're certain we're right. If you are correct, present your evidence and arguments in a WP:CIVIL manner. Do you understand that the reason I did not thwack you back when you started thwacking me is that I do my utmost to adhere to the fundamental principle of civility as a pillar of Wikipedia's 5 fundamental principles? Do not assume that women are more delicate, or any other puerile preconception about biological differences. Every editor is an individual human being who deserves to be accorded the same respect you would like to be extended to you. I hope you start to 'get it' soon, because you seem to still be on the attack with other editors. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[EDIT] Striking my uncivil and inappropriate personal attack on Krzyhorse22 with my apologies for being both offensive and defensive. I should never have allowed my sense of ego to prevail over being a good Wikipedian and assumed bad faith on behalf of another editor. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No idea what you're up to this time but you don't impress me, and I'm sorry for that.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna, please avoid using swearwords while addressing other editors; Krzyhorse22, please avoid saying things that come across as patronising - women, or anyone else. Fundamentally you ought to seriously think about how to treat other editors with more respect. Also, I am not going to allow any controversial edits to this article while this debate is under way: sort out your wordings on the talkpage, please. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is cool with me, I've got no grudge.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correct introduction[edit]

The introduction was recently changed to "Afghan Americans are Americans whose are of Afghan descent, or Afghanistan-born people who emigrated to the United States." [3] There are several obvious errors in this. Americans as U.S. citizens have long lived in Afghanistan and some were actually born there but that does not make them Afghan Americans. Suppose a U.S. citizen were to give birth to a child in Afghanistan, does the child eventually becomes an Afghan American? The answer is no. Not only Americans but people from Asia (i.e., Afghan Arabs, Chechens, Pakistanis, Iranians, etc) or else where could give birth to children or live in Afghanistan for many years but that does not make them Afghan Americans after coming to the United States. There is also the question of Afghans (Pashtuns). Those who are Pakistani citizens are Pakistani Americans. I believe this or this is a correct introduction.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Krzyhorse22: Yes, I agree that it was clearer for the purposes of this article (although I do have problems with your example of someone from another nation-state - the progeny of a non-Afghani ethnic group/s - being defined as 'Afghan' unless they self-identified as such, considering that the definition proscribes itself as being self-identification by means of census and other stats). I've restored the previous version with a slight change to the wording in order to avoid awkward grammar, plus have used 'descent' in preference to ancestry or heritage. The choice of 'descent' is a matter of trying to keep a parity with multiple other articles on diasporic groups throughout the world. You're welcome to tweak the text if you think it needs further qualification. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Immigration laws in many of these Asian countries (probably all) are very strange. Even if you're born in these Asian countries, you're still a national or citizen of the country your parents are from. You have to do alot of thinking to make a perfect introduction. If you apply U.S. immigration law, Afghan Americans must be "natives" or "citizens" of Afghanistan.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it invaluable to have editors who know their way around a particular field, and to tailor each article to fit the facts. There are numerous countries with strange laws surrounding citizenship. For example, a male who was born in Greece can leave the country as a baby and become a citizen of another, but has to 'buy' his way out of 2 years of military duty (essentially 'the draft') or return to Greece and serve the time when he turns 18. Similarly, in the mid-70s, the Soviet Union introduced a law that anyone who was born in the USSR was still a Soviet citizen, despite living elsewhere and having become a citizen of another nation-state... and extended citizenship by proxy to include the progeny of two Soviet citizens, despite those children not having ever been anywhere near the Soviet Union. It's a weird world. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I forgot to mention that Afghans born in Pakistan and in Iran (there are millions of these) or in other Asian countries are natives or citizens of Afghanistan. They cannot legally obtain citizenship in these Asian countries. Many of these have settled in the US. They are Afghan Americans despite their U.S. passport or immigration documents indicating "place of birth" as Pakistan, Iran or any other Asian country.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. That puts a whole new complexion on what it is to be an 'Afghan' American. I presume this would be a political device as with the other instances I cited above whereby, even if you travel there on holiday to visit relatives, should you be caught up in any situation (not even of your own doing), you would subject to the laws just as a citizen. There are truly dire ramifications at the heart of the matter. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these are political issues that we can't change. Just imagine a person born inside Pakistan or Iran, who has lived there for over 35 years. The laws of these countries make it perfectly lawful to deport him to Afghanistan, and this is happening now. If that person eventually settle in America, he will be an Afghan American.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 12:31, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Categories