Jump to content

Talk:Durand Line

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2601:202:200:e82f:c052:4a83:9fbf:e00a (talk) at 06:04, 3 June 2021 (→‎Indocentrism?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

International border

Gotitbro how are any of these reference political? [[1]] [[2]] I request you to go through them once again.

Here is U.S. ambassador claim [[3]]:"The United States, as many other countries, have long recognized the Durand Line as the boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan"

On the contrast there is no source which suggest that Durand line is not an international border apart from objection from Afghanistan. So please do review your opinion and if you believe it is correct then do add them back. Romanov67 (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Romanov67: I am taking about removing the president's statement and then adding the statement of another politician. Also, there is no need to repeatedly mention that the Afghan leaders formerly accepted the line, of course they did that is why they signed the treaties which is mentioned. What you are adding is already there in the lead. I agree with the international part and have added it. Gotitbro (talk) 14:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro Thank you for adding it and I apologise for creating trouble for you. Romanov67 (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Durand Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Durand Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internationally recognised border

Adamgerber80 is there any reason why the durand should not be classified as international border. There is no credible source which suggest that durand line is not a international border. Please go through these sources [[4]] [[5]].

Similarly, this what U.S. ambassador said [[6]]:"The United States, as many other countries, have long recognized the Durand Line as the boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan"

Here is US Department of state Victoria Nuland stating the same statement [[7]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.36.98.177 (talk) 23:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

5.36.98.177 (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of those references rely on the US's recognition of it as an "international border". And the US does not make it "international". One of those references even calls it a "official border" which is how the US actually worded it not "international". Further more, Afghanistan continues to dispute it and there is no conclusion on the issue. If you like to read more then please have a look at this book which deals with this issue in some detail. [1]. I have some suggestions for you, first, please stop random searching words which suit your POV on google books and adding them here. This won't work. Also, I have been seen multiple questionable edits from this IP range. Please be careful. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamgerber80 But you also didn't provide any single credible enough source which could nullify the claim made by United States. If you read the above sources you can clearly see that U.S. kept on repeating this 'U.S. and many other countries recognise Durand line as international border'. Now there is no longer 'only united states'.

And how are you not pushing your POV? All you got was a single reference and you have been trying to make that reference like it was a word of god which everyone must follow. Shouldn't there be more references to support your claim. These are your own words. 5.36.98.177 (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reference I have provided is a book written by Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly who is considered an expert. I can provide you multiple sources here which also claim it's dispute. [2]. Though this does not matter even BBC refers it as a disputed border ([8]). Unless you have a reference which claims that is an international border, not one which states that US recognizes it as one, which are two separate issues from an expert of equal weight, please take your arguments elsewhere. Also, please have a look at how international law works and what goes into the recognition of an international boundary. The strongest form of recognition of an international boundary is a mutual agreement between 2 countries which share a border, in this case Afghanistan and Pakistan. But Afghanistan refuses to accept this. Second, is a resolution by the international community, aka some form of UN resolution which is absent. You can argue that this under point 3 where these is a colonial line and has international acceptance but again US and "some other countries" does not pass this bar either. ([9]). Please bring cognizant arguments not random google searches. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adamgerber80 so what about British recognition of the Durand line as international border? [[10]] from the source: "British ambassador to Afghanistan Sir Nicholas Kay said in an interview with BBC Persian that in the eyes of the international community, the Durand Line is the official border between Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Recently a parliamentarian (Abdul Latif Pedram) from Afghanistan recognised Durand line as international border. [[11]] 5.36.98.177 (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, just because a few countries recognize it, does not give it international validity. Plus, the British position is from self-serving as in they maintain that all treaties which were signed by the British Empire were valid and are applicable today but the counter claim is that either these treaties were unilateral or done under duress which is the crux of the whole argument here. This is the same issue with the McMahon Line between China and India and it is also NOT considered an international boundary since China refuses to accept it in certain areas and is disputed. Lastly, one Afghan parliamentarian does not echo the position of the Afghan government. As I have said earlier, please bring cognizant arguments here not random searches. I am not going to reply further here unless you have something of substance rather than blatantly pushing a POV. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indocentrism?

How is India’s claim on Pakistani Kashmir related to the Durand Line, an AfPak issue? Not everything about Pakistan involves India. The Indian Claim section doesn’t add anything of relevance and really just seems to exist to shoehorn India into a Pakistan-related article.

  1. ^ Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly (28 July 2015). Border Disputes: A Global Encyclopedia [3 volumes]: A Global Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. pp. 1–. ISBN 978-1-61069-024-9.
  2. ^ Bruce O. Riedel (2013). Avoiding Armageddon: America, India, and Pakistan to the Brink and Back. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-2408-X.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Durand_Line&oldid=1026598658"