User talk:Atari400: Difference between revisions

• Please see the discussion page. Afghanistan is very often considered a South Asian state Thegreyanomaly 22:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan may be considered geographically "South Asia" by many sources, which is perfectly acceptable. What does not make sense, is to double list the capital of Afghanistan, being Kabul, twice within a single template. It is either/or, and should only include a notation of sorts acknowledging the difference of common opinion. Atari400 23:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not go against academic views on the subject. I have cited many sources claiming that Afghanistan is South Asia. People have attempted to refute me and have given me a few sources claiming it as Central Asia and a few sources claiming it as the Middle East. Many scholars do say that Afghanistan is South Asian. Claims that it is disputed are true, but claims that it is an unacademic view point are entirely false[1][2][3][4][5] Thegreyanomaly 02:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are 10 sources that reference Afghanistan as being in either Central Asia, the Near East or the Middle East:

1 - [6]

2 - [7]

3 - [8]

4 - [9]

5 - [10]

6 - [11]

7 - [12]

8 - [13]

9 - [14]

10 - [15]

Serious scholarly works tend to view Afghanistan in the cultural and social arena of the Near East and Central Asia, and very rarely in the context of South Asia. To do so generally lands in the realm of political political irredentism. Atari400 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I noticed that you have been requesting input on the subject. You apparently have focused on the people who are reverting my edits and have been unable to make definitive claims that Afghanistan is Central Asian. I hope you come to realize that there is a strong scholarly view that Afghanistan is South Asian and that it is not just "sometimes referred to as geographically South Asian in passing by various English language news services" Thegreyanomaly 02:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally as a Wikipedia editor, I am seeking a consensus in the matter. As such, it appears that both facts and consensus numbers are leaning towards my side of the arguement. As someone with a connection to the region, I think I have a idea of what I am, and what we are. Tolerating viewpoints that may detour from reality is not in the interest of the Wikipedia project. Tolerating viewpoints that may reflect extremist nationalist ideals as the normal definition of reality are certainly not in the interest of myself or the project, either. Atari400 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is just to show you that many academic sources do not consider Afghanistan to be part of Central Asian

[16] Oklahoma State, only claims Afghanistan has links to Central Asia

[17] does not claim Afghanistan to be Central Asian

[18] only covers adjacent parts of Afghanistan

Thegreyanomaly 02:33, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of these references define Afghanistan as South Asian, either. Atari400 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my commentary on your sites. 3 & 4 are the same source. You've got 10 sources, most of them either claims Afghanistan to be Middle Eastern, and the rest of them do not distinguish between ME or CA. You're claims that Afghanistan is Central Asian are not supported by your sources, at most you could use your sources and Beh-nam's sources to put Afghanistan down as Middle Eastern, but by no means Central Asian. I've got more sources for South Asia than you have for Central Asia. All you have done is proven the obvious, that Afghanistan is commonly viewed to be Middle Eastern Thegreyanomaly 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I did see that you merged my page with the KAPAP page, I do understand what you are saying but It is a direct conflict of interest with my business I do understand that I have a conflict of interest as well with writing the Lotar page but the page kept getting redirected to KAPAP and it makes it seem as though the KAPAP training center is the LOTAR center and that hurts my business I am sure that you would understand this. I have asked for help many times in tiring to figure out how to solve the problem, I do not have an issue with being linked to Krav Maga but I can be linked up to KAPAP due to COPYWRITE issues between us..Once again I have put up the info on LOTAR to be reviewed with an article for source reference. Please review it and let me know if it works to help my issue... Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronin6969

what you are doing is taking the copywritten name of my company and attaching it to a competetor how is that right...i have asked for help on this as well as including an artical written about lotar from a third party website and this was you response....why..how is this ok... --Ronin6969 20:19, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying, and I will begin the process of merging Lotar into Krav Maga, shortly. Atari400 21:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do appriciate the assistance and I can and would be happy to give you any futher info to add to the artical which will be merged with krav maga--Ronin6969 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is done. Please view the article on Krav_Maga and Kapap to see the results of the change. Atari400 06:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ref artical on LOTAR http://www.usadojo.com/styles/about-lotar.htm --Ronin6969 04:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and used your article link as a reference. Atari400 20:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You reverted my changed with the explanation ” RV - See discussion”, I most ask which discussion? There isn’t one really one on the Algerian War talkpage. Carl Logan 18:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just to give you a heads up, I am going to add a section on genocide allegations later today, citing about a half-dozen scholarly sources. Any thoughts on the matter? Atari400 18:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My initially response would be that the Algerian War wasn't a genocide, but I most admit that I am a bit hazy on what exactly is a genocide and what isn't. Another thing, do you have Ethnic cleansing and French colonial empire bit from the result in the infobox, I think any result except the Algeria became a independent state is highly questionably. Carl Logan 18:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my reason for the addition of the tag is not to say if it was or was not a genocide, but rather it addresses the fact that certain groups and individuals have claimed it as such[19]. It is a touchy subject, and one that tends to garnish an emotional reaction for either side of the debate. Atari400 18:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What reason do you have to add Armenians to that template? There are Armenians who live in Iran because of deportaions of Shah Abbas and Armenians who live in the Middle East because of the Armenian Genocide but that in no way makes Armenians middle eastern. Armenians arw classified as European Americans by virtually all states including California and the Federal government so your addition is borderline disruption if it's not a matter of simple ignorance. Please explain asap.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]