This is an informal place to resolve content disputes as part of dispute resolution. It may also be used as a tool to direct certain discussions to more appropriate forums, such as requests for comment, or other noticeboards. You can ask a question on the talk page. This is an early stop for most disputes on Wikipedia. You are not required to participate, however, the case filer must participate in all aspects of the dispute or the matter will be considered failed. Any editor may volunteer! Click this button to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
Noticeboards should not be a substitute for talk pages. Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN.
If we can't help you, a volunteer will point you in the right direction. Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible.
This noticeboard is for content disputes only. Comment on the contributions, not the contributors. Off-topic or uncivil behavior may garner a warning, improper material may be struck-out, collapsed, or deleted, and a participant could be asked to step back from the discussion.
The dispute must have beenrecently discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to be eligible for help at DRN. The discussion should have been on the article talk page. Discussion on a user talk page is useful but not sufficient, because the article talk page may be watched by other editors who may be able to comment. Discussion normally should have taken at least two days, with more than one post by each editor.
Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. DRN has a notice template you can post to their user talk page by using the code shown here: {{subst:drn-notice}}. Be sure to sign and date each notice with four tildes (~~~~). Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice.
Do not add your own formatting in the conversation. Let the moderators (DRN Volunteers) handle the formatting of the discussion as they may not be ready for the next session.
Follow moderator instructions There will be times when the moderator may issue an instruction. It is expected of you to follow their instruction and you can always ask the volunteer on their talk page for clarification, if not already provided. Examples are about civility, don't bite the newcomers, etc.
If you need help:
If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you.
This is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy.
For general questions relating to the dispute resolution process, please see our FAQ page.
We are always looking for new volunteers and everyone is welcome. Click the volunteer button above to join us, and read over the volunteer guide to learn how to get started. Being a volunteer on this page is not formal in any respect, and it is not necessary to have any previous dispute resolution experience. However, having a calm and patient demeanor and a good knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is very important. It's not mandatory to list yourself as a volunteer to help here, anyone is welcome to provide input.
Volunteers should remember:
Volunteers should gently and politely help the participant fix problems. Suggest alternative venues if needed. Try to be nice and engage the participants.
Volunteers do not have any special powers, privileges, or authority in DRN or in Wikipedia, except as noted here. Volunteers who have had past dealings with the article, subject matter, or with the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute. If any editor objects to a volunteer's participation in a dispute, the volunteer must either withdraw or take the objection to the DRN talk page to let the community comment upon whether or not the volunteer should continue in that dispute.
Listed volunteers open a case by signing a comment in the new filing. When closing a dispute, please mark it as "closed" in the status template (see the volunteer guide for more information), remove the entire line about 'donotarchive' so that the bot will archive it after 48 hours with no other edits.
Open/close quick reference
To open, replace {{DR case status}} with {{DR case status|open}}
To close, replace the "open" with "resolved", "failed", or "closed". Add {{DRN archive top|reason=(reason here) ~~~~}} beneath the case status template, and add {{DRN archive bottom}} at the bottom of the case. Remember to remove the DoNotArchive bit line (the entire line).
If you would like a regularly-updated copy of this status box on your user page or talk page, put {{DRN case status}} on your page. Click on that link for more options.
There is a dispute on 2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season on whether to use a wikitable to display match results ( like here) or using {{Football box collapsible}} to do this (like here). For reference most other football season articles use the template; it is only Manchester United seasons which uses the wikitable (as far as I know). After the creation of that article there was a silent consensus to use the template, which was implemented a few months later. However, this was back-and-forth reverted by multiple users (no violation of 3RR, nor any action that I would consider edit warring). After that we were unable to reach a policy-based consensus on the talk page, which has at least a few "I just don't like it" arguments. I believe that the template should be used because we should provide a summary of the matches from an NPOV (as opposed to the wikitable, which does not include the opposition scorers) and that it includes some useful supplementary information, such as the venue and kick-off time.
Note: I have not included KyleRGiggs and Steveo1980 as an involved users as they did not participate beyond the initial silent consensus in June. This is also my first time using DRN, so sorry if I didn't use it correctly.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I am willing to try to act as a mediator. Please read DRN Rule A. If I understand correctly, the issue is whether to use a wikitable to display the results or a template. Are there any other issues? I am asking each editor to state whether they would prefer the wikitable or the template.
Personally, I prefer the table format, but I am the editor responsible for having created most of the Manchester United season articles using that format, which might mean I'm a little biased. Nevertheless, I still think the table format is better than the template format. Happy to elaborate if you need. – PeeJay13:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is correct; this is the only issue. I prefer the {{footballbox collapsible}} template, as it is easier to use for newcomers and gives more information (in addition to opposition scorers). Also I don't think many of the concerns of the template applies, and I'm willing to give more deatils if required. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the only question is whether to use the football box template or a wikitable to display the season results. Either method is permitted. Consistency with related articles is a consideration, although not the only consideration. It appears that in 2024-25 and 2023-24, a table was used. Is that correct? Is it correct that the box template provides more information than the table? Providing more information is a consideration, although not the only consideration. I would like each editor to state, in one paragraph, which format they prefer and why. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that most Manchester United season articles are written with the table format, while most' other season articles of other clubs (e.g. 2024–25 seasons of Liverpool, Fulham or Barcelona) are using the box template. I still agree with the box template format, because of consistency with other clubs and I consider the template box to provide more than the table (This is technically part of the dispute, since other editors disagree what is "necessary", but I consider the venue/location of the match to be important.). Another reason is that by not including oppositon scorers (which the table format does not, and space is a limiting factor to include that in the table), we would have a fan point of view rather than a neutral one. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, only the filing editor has stated their view. User:PeeJay requested to be pinged, so I am pinging them. Do the editors who are participating agree on which format to use? Are both editors willing to agree to the table format? Are both editors willing to agree to the template box format?
At this point, the filing editor wants to use the collapsible template box format. User:PeeJay wants to use the wikitable format, and wants to be pinged, but has not responded in this discussion for about seven days. At this point the table format is in use. I will say that PeeJay has given silent assent to the use of the collapsible template box format, and that the filing editor may change to that format. I would prefer to have discussion, but the absence of discussion is the absence of objection. If the change to the template is then objected to or reverted, we can resume discussion.
I have given no such assent. My opinions on this are well documented and I have nothing to add to this discussion beyond them. I asked to be pinged if you wanted to hear them again, but you gave no indication that you actually wanted to hear them again. First, there is no valid reason to change to a new format when the current format is well established in this series of articles. Second, the collapsible template uses space far less efficiently and includes information that is not necessary in these articles, such as the specific identities of opposition goalscorers. I tried to compromise by adding the identity of the referee, but my changes were reverted by User:Elegant vodka. – PeeJay23:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that we have disagreement that is not being resolved by discussion. We will need to obtain the rough consensus of the community with a Request for Comments. I will prepare the draft RFC within 24 hours, and will ask for comments by the participating editors, and will then activate the RFC. Are there any questions before I work on the draft RFC?
It appears that we have disagreement that is not being resolved by discussion. We will need to obtain the rough consensus of the community with a Request for Comments. I will prepare the draft RFC within 24 hours, and will ask for comments by the participating editors, and will then activate the RFC. Are there any questions before I work on the draft RFC?
It continues to appear that we have disagreement that is not being resolved by discussion.
User:PeeJay writes: Why can't we just leave the article as it is? There is a clear standard set by all other articles in , and no strong argument to make a change. On the other hand, User:AlphaBetaDeltaLambda writes: For reference most other football season articles use the template; Is either editor willing to agree with the other editor on the format? If not, we will resolve the issue by a Request for Comments.
I have prepared a draft RFC for review and comments at Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season/RFC on Format. Please review it and comment on it. Put your comments here, in DRN. Do not vote in the RFC, and do not comment in the RFC at this time. I will move the RFC to the article talk page and activate it when we are ready.
A – Every article in Category:Manchester United F.C. seasons uses a wikitable. There's clearly no barrier to entry in terms of skill as many editors have managed to keep these articles up to date in their current format over the years. Furthermore, the wikitable is far more efficient in terms of its use of space, and it includes all the information necessary for an article like this, and it does so without needing to hide any information in violation of MOS:COLLAPSE. Some editors have argued that it fails to include the identities of opposition goalscorers, but I would respond that it doesn't need to, since these tables are meant to be a summary of Manchester United's season in each competition. No one is denying that the other teams have scored and will continue to score goals, and the specific goalscorers can be named in the article prose. I have tried to compromise by at least adding the names of the referees, but this has been reverted by User:Elegant vodka, who claims that most readers wouldn't actually care about this information, and I find it hard to disagree with them. Furthermore, I would argue that use of the collapsible template is detrimental to the creation of an encyclopaedia. Having looked through all 92 professional English teams' articles for this season, all but three use the collapsible box and they're just sprawling lists of statistics with little to no prose. This is not what Wikipedia is meant to be. No one seems to care about actually writing about what happened, just recording the raw data and moving on. This data can be found anywhere, in any number of formats. Let's actually make an encyclopaedia here, chaps! – PeeJay09:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
B, as the vast majority of the teams (including 89 of the 92 in the Premier League and the English Football League) use the template format to display the match results. There are arguments that we don't need to include the referee of the match of the names of the opposition scorers, because this is an article about Manchester United, but I would tell them that it needs to be included, as the section in question are titled 'matches', and should include a neutral summary of the match. I don't think there is a way to include this in the table without constricting the space. Also, the template is collapsed and it wouldn't bother anyone or waste article space (and digital space is infinite for editors' purposes). This is also purely supplementary information that should be accompanied by prose. If not, Wikipedia is a work in progress. Accordingly, this template does not violate MOS:COLLAPSE. Finally, I apperciate that most people can write wikitables, but I still think that the template is a bit more approchable and easier to use for users, as they don't need to remember which column goes where, or which colours to apply to the results. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument about referees is moot. I've offered that as a compromise and no one in this discussion is arguing against identifying referees in the table. I don't think it's 100% necessary, but I'm not opposed to it. Second, excluding opposition goalscorers from the table doesn't make it non-neutral. As you and I have both noted, people should be writing prose to accompany these tables; that is where the identities of the opposition goalscorers is most important. The fact that a certain opponent scored in a game is statistically irrelevant to an article about club X. Thirdly, even when collapsed, the template is ridiculously inefficient with its use of space; the amount of whitespace in and around it is totally unnecessary. Finally, if you look at the vast majority of the 92 teams in the sample, they don't have any prose whatsoever; if nothing else, this is evidence that the templates seem to discourage people from contributing prose - they seem to think that the job is done as soon as the template is filled in - and that in turn means that the templates do, in fact, violate MOS:COLLAPSE, since the information cannot be found anywhere else other than in a collapsed template. – PeeJay22:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said not to vote in the draft RFC. I didn't say to vote here in the DRN, because I meant to vote in the RFC after it becomes live. However, the votes here can be copied into the DRN when the DRN becomes live. The rule that I specified does say not to engage in back-and-forth discussion.
Unless there is a plausible objection, I will launch the RFC within 24 hours.
Closed without prejudice as apparently opened unnecessarily. After this question has been open for almost a month, there has been no need for a moderator, because discussion has been proceeding between the editors. It has never been clear to the would-be moderator what the would-be moderator was supposed to do, since discussion was proceeding. Continue discussion on the article talk page. If discussion becomes unproductive, a new case can be opened here, but only if one or more content issues have been identified on which progress is not being made. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:22, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Closed discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
This is primarily a disagreement over what data sources are reliable for a table containing past and present percentages of ethnic groups in Afghanistan. There are also differences over article prose. I am submitting this request on behalf of Badakhshan ziba, and am a party in the dispute.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
Helping to structure and mediate the debate. Clarifying policies related to source reliability. Advising how to handle competing/contradicting sources and giving proper weight to opposing opinions in same.
The dispute over the article revolves around the basic question of how reliable and representable the ethnic composition of Afghanistan really is and which sources are suitable to describe it.
My intention from the beginning has been to shape the article in a way that reflects what is widely acknowledged in academic research that ethnicity in Afghanistan is politicized, contested and much more fluid than simplistic "ethnic groups" suggest. Instead of presenting demographic percentages as if they were objective facts, my aim was to highlight that all such numbers are based on estimates, that no census on ethnicity exists and that ethnic affiliation is often overshadowed by regional, religious, linguistic and other identities. With my edits I tried to bring the article in line with this consensus.
The editor Badakhshan ziba has repeatedly opposed this approach by misinterpreting policy and undermining reliable sourcing. Their arguments follow a pattern of misusing policies such as WP:RS, WP:V or WP:RECENTISM, treating them as prohibitions when they are not, and applying them inconsistently depending on whether the outcome fits their position. At the same time they attempt to promote material that is methodologically unsound, such as election data, while dismissing established academic references. What's more is that much of the discussion is consumed by repetitively restating these claims even after they have been addressed, which obstructs progress and prevents consensus.
This editing style and all of the big reverts without consensus has made collaboration extremely difficult and was rather WP:DISRUPTIVE, something both the users Xan747 (who started as a 3O volunteer in the discussion but got much more engaged in the content of the article later) and asilvering have noticed. Rather than working toward balance, the effect at the end is to diminish nuanced scholarship in favor of a simplified, politicized narrative. My point is that sources need to be judged consistently, that unreliable or politicized material shouldn't be treated as demographic evidence and that the article represent the complexity of Afghan identity as described by credible experts (as I have tried in my draft in which Xan747 and I found consensus pretty fase).
The original dispute is between Badakhshan ziba and SdHb. My involvement began as a 3O volunteer in this thread, where I adopted a mediator approach rather than giving opinions on sources or content. The process I suggested was for each editor to arrive at a mutually acceptable list of sources, and to draft their own version of the article in user space using only sources from that list. Badakhshan ziba did not participate in that process for about five days, saying they had taken ill.
In the meantime, SdHb did draft their own candidate version, with input from me that I felt were responsive to Badakhshan's concerns, as well as many of my own opinions as I became more familiar with the topic. By the time Badakhshan was able to engage, their main input was to list their preferred sources, and then argue why SdHb's sources should not be used. I felt that Badakhshan's arguments misinterpreted the sourcing policies they cited, and finding no obvious problems with SdHb's sourcing or content based on them, told Badakhshan that SdHb and I had formed a consensus to use SdHb's preferred content, which SdHb then implemented.
Badakhshan reverted the article to their preferred state soon after, where it remained until asilvering restored SdHb's preferred version a few days after that, and made numerous edits with which both SdHb and myself feel have improved the article. Badakhshan has not edited the article since then.
Although I have become more familiar with this topic, both Badakhshan and SdHb exhibit knowledge of far greater depth, and I will leave them to argue those points. My opinions are more based on Badakhshan's interpretations of policy, which I find lacking, and so any further comments I make in this dispute most likely have that focus. Xan747 (talk) 22:36, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
I initially came to this administratively, via an edit-warring report, and was really pleased by how well Xan747's moderation of the discussion went after that. I was then disappointed to see Badakhshan's wholesale revert at the end of that process. Hoping to avoid having to set any blocks, I tried to restart the talk page conversation again, but, as you can see, that was unsuccessful. I haven't gotten very far into the merits of the dispute yet; my first step was to restore the more recent, expanded version, and do a sweep for obviously unreliable sources. My suspicion is that Badakhshan is at least partly correct on the merits, despite the fact that their behaviour has been sub-optimal and much of their reasoning does not accurately follow various policies and guidelines. I am perplexed by the most recent revert, but, again, I have not yet gotten very far into the meat of the dispute. -- asilvering (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Extended discussion
@Xan747 I am still not familiar with some of the Wikipedia rules. I did not delete any content. just moved it to another location on the article.I am not sure if I am not allowed by Wikipedia rules to move content to another location on the article?
@Asilvering I apologize. I am still not familiar with some of the Wikipedia rules. I mistakenly assumed that after I had proven with many reasons that this article had numerous structural errors and after the talk page was closed, [35]
@Badakhshan ziba, I have moved your above two comments down here from each editor's dispute summaries. Per instructions above, we should also limit conversation here and continue discussion on the article talk page. Xan747 (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Badakhshan ziba, when your changes are objected to by other editors, you're expected to discuss them. A long discussion was had, and it resulted in the expanded version that you then unilaterally reverted. What we're all trying to tell you is that you shouldn't be making reverts like that against consensus, and that we should try to build a version of the article that everyone agrees on, or at least agrees to live with. Right now, the other two editors in the discussion like the longer version, so that is the version that should stay while we continue to work on it. -- asilvering (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Badakhshan ziba. Yes, editors are allowed to make changes, including moving content around in an article. What is frowned upon is unilaterally making edits against the consensus of other editors. The proper process is to gain consensus on the talk page for disputed edits. Xan747 (talk) 18:28, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Ethnic groups in Afghanistan)
I am ready to act as a mediator in this dispute if a new mediator is being requested. It appears that two editors have tried to mediate. If either of them wants to resume mediation, I am willing to let them handle the dispute. I have no special familiarity with or knowledge about the subject matter, and no previous involvement with this dispute. Editors who are requesting that I conduct moderated discussion (mediation) should read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. If you take part in discussion, you are agreeing that you are aware that Afghanistan is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. You have already been reminded about those rules, but it is probably a good idea to remind you again.
Are the issues about the reliability of sources, about article content, or both? If there are issues about the reliability of sources, please identify the sources and where they are used, and we will ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of the sources. If there are issues about article content, other than reflecting issues about reliability of sources, please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, or what changes another editor wants to make that you disagree with. Be Specific at DRN in identifying the content issues. If there are any issues that are not about sources or about article content, please state what they are.
Thanks for being willing to volunteer. I'm still doing mediating-type stuff, but I am far from neutral now, and am more aligned with @SdHb's vision for the article, which is pretty clearly (and understandably) an issue for @Badakhshan ziba, hence why I opened this ticket on their behalf. This is a sourcing and content dispute. Even where mutually agreeable sources have been found, there are disputes over presentation. I'll read up on DRN Rule D and the relevant ArbCom rulings. Xan747 (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon hello. I request that more people come and participate in the article's discussion page and comment. The discussions are being followed by a small number of people and no matter how much I give reasons and arguments, I feel that I am not being judged fairly and am being ignored. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't see answers to my questions in the next two to four days, I will infer that progress is being made on the article talk page, and will wait. If I don't see any answers in three to four days, I will ask whether there is a resolution, continuing discussion, or a need for another mediator. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statements by editors (Ethnic groups in Afghanistan)
I will restate my previous comments, and will try to act as a moderator.
Editors who are requesting that I conduct moderated discussion (mediation) should read DRN Rule D and the ArbCom ruling on India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. If you take part in discussion, you are agreeing that you are aware that Afghanistan is a contentious topic. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. You have already been reminded about those rules, but it is probably a good idea to remind you again. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. Address your comments to the moderator, who acts for the community, and to the community. If you have questions, ask them here, so that a lurker can see them.
Are the issues about the reliability of sources, about article content, or both? If there are issues about the reliability of sources, please identify the sources and where they are used, and we will ask the Reliable Source Noticeboard about the reliability of the sources. If there are issues about article content, other than reflecting issues about reliability of sources, please state what changes you want to make to the article that another editor disagrees with, or what changes another editor wants to make that you disagree with. Be Specific at DRN in identifying the content issues. If there are any issues that are not about sources or about article content, please state what they are.
Thank you for your time and effort in mediating this discussion. Due to unexpected personal matters that I need to attend to, I regret that I will not be able to actively participate in the discussion for approximately the next 1 or 1.5 days.
It is not my intention to delay the discussion process and I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. I would like to reaffirm my full commitment to resolving this dispute constructively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies. I will respond promptly to any questions or concerns that arise as soon as I am able .
Finally, I should say with great regret that this is the first time I have entered into such a long and extensive discussion on Wikipedia and I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's rules on these matters, so I apologize in advance if I have made any unintentional mistakes. Thank you very much, with respect.
It is a combined reliability/content dispute and I don't think it would be a good idea to split out to RSN. Bringing this forward from the talk page: We can't determine whether these are good sources to use for this article simply by saying that they "are WP:RS". The idea of "a reliable source" is a general shorthand we use to make these kinds of determinations easier in general across all of Wikipedia, but when we're dealing with an editorial conflict like this one, we're trying to identify the best possible sources. Accordingly, it's not necessarily helpful to say things like "this is from a reputable journal" or "this is from an expert's blog" or whatever - just because they are a reputable journal doesn't mean they're the best possible source for the information we're trying to add, for example. So while we should definitely remove sources that don't fit WP:RS at all, like the one from the sketchy journal, the others are probably better to look at in specific context. The article did have quite a few unreliable sources (I removed several) and probably still does, but the issue is more "are these RS reliable for this particular information", alongside "how should we format the table, and what ought to go in it?" -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second statement by possible moderator (Ethnic groups in Afghanistan)
If an editor needs a 48-hour pause before they are ready for moderated discussion, we will wait for 48 (or 72) hours.
If you have posted something to this noticeboard and are not sure whether it was in the right place, do not remove it. Do not remove anything here. If you posted anything that was seriously out of place, such as a personal attack, I will collapse it. Do not remove anything here. If something is so inappropriate that it will burn holes in a screen, I will ask an administrator to redact it as RD3, but I have never had to do that and I don't expect that I will have to do that.
The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am now asking each editor to state concisely what they want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change, or what they want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. It is not necessary to explain why you do or do not want a change made. We can get to that later. Please summarize the content issue, in terms of what you want to change or leave the same.
The main dispute is over the sources for and content of a table of statistics giving percentage ethic makeup of the population over time, which I removed yesterday. (Thus the current state of the article should hopefully be in a state of containing no disputed content.) I have created a candidate version which differs in layout and content, removes some minor sources, adds back estimates from Asia Foundation that had been removed earlier. Consider this a suggestion for a slightly different approach than what was there previously. -- Xan747 (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My own present worry is that combining multiple sources into "pre-x estimates" and reporting the range may be bringing us into WP:SYNTH territory, laundering some less-reliable sources, or making the problems in the data - which are presently explained at length in the article itself - less visible. To be clear, I do not believe any editors have done this deliberately. It's a complicated question without a good answer. I have already fixed a more minor example of this problem in this edit and the following edit; data that was collected by different means should not be reported together. It may be best to have no table at all, and instead report the data as prose. I don't have a firm position on this yet because of the unfocused nature of the debate thus far. -- asilvering (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement 2.1 by moderator (ethnic groups in Afghanistan)
Spending 48 hours or 72 hours developing a long statement as to what you want to keep or to change in the article is not likely to be useful. If an editor has a long list of issues, which amounts to a request to rewrite the article, we will focus on no more than three of the issues at a time. Be civil and concise does not mean to make a very long statement.
After reviewing the discussions, I noticed some errors in these two versions.
@Xan747 made an important point.Both versions contain numerous violations of Wikipedia policy in this regard. Wikipedia:SYNTH
We cannot Doing the Math:When we take separate facts (A, B, and C) from different sources and combine them to create a new conclusion (D), for example by calculating (A+B+C)/3 = D. have A plus B plus C, divided by three, equals D. A+B+C / 3= D
Hello @Robert McClenon it‘s not that I‘m preparing a long statement for 2-3 days it‘s just that I simply won‘t have the time to get into the discussion because of my private life. I meant that in 48-72 hours I will have the time to propose a solution. SdHb (talk) 21:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In response to synth concerns, see this updated candidate version of the table. It replaces the group averages with ranges as any central estimate will be biased toward the source with the most entries in that group. I understand that the groupings themselves may be controversial, as they may give too much implied credence to arguments that various political regimes have somehow biased or fabricated ethnicity statistics to their own political ends. I lean toward keeping the groupings, which for reference correspond to:
Some of the curiosities are already addressed in the article, for example concerns raised when the CIA dropped the percentage of Pashtuns from 50% to 38% in one year at the establishment of the Islamic State of Afghanistan and beginning of the Afghan Civil War (1992–1996). Even though it might seem like overkill to have such a granular table, I think this is an overall better presentation which makes the sources of the estimates more transparent and lets the reader better see directly long-term trends and abrupt jumps better than we can describe in article text.
I fully agree that we should not be mixing estimation methods. For example, one proposed source giving the distribution of "mother tongues" as a proxy. Similarly, another proposed source using the ethnicities of Afghan MPs in 2010 should not be used. If either are to be included at all, they should be added as prose without implication that either represent an estimated ethnicity distribution. -- Xan747 (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am only passively following the dispute resplution here right now (I hope I find the time tomorrow or the day after tomorrow at the latest) but in general I like the solution that @Xan747 presents. The table based on numbers is what I actually also was trying to do (see the latest version of my draft). 2 suggestions: 1. why not inverting the table so the ethnic category is on the left hand side and the years in the top line? and coming with that 2. is it possible to collaps certain cells in a table on Wikipedia via a button? A little bit like described here but not for the whole table but only for certain cells (or rows/columns)? If so, we could show only the averages for the year ranges that are shown (1981-1991, 1992-2003 etc.) in the first place and the details are collapsed by default to avoid information flooding, and if wanted, one can de-collapse the cells to show more detail. SdHb (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have modified my draft table to combine rows from multiple years from the same publication into a single row to address information overload concerns, and sorted it so that most recent estimates come first, giving them more prominence since the older estimates with inflated Pashtun figures are controversial. Xan747 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
why we should prioritize newer, international sources for the ethnic demographic data in this article and be careful with older statistics?
Historical reasons for dis trusting old statistics :
A- Previous governments (before 2001) were largely based on ethnic and undemocratic structures
B- Long history of systematic exclusion of some ethnic groups from political processes
C- Lack of independent institutions ( like UN. EU. Independent non-ethnic institutions ) to collect impartial data.
D- Serious methodological problems:Lack of scientific and comprehensive census before 2001
Political misuse of statistics:
E- Use of statistics as a political tool to consolidate power.
For most of Afghanistan's recent history, governments were not democratic and were mainley dominated by a single ethnic group. These governments had a strong political motive to manipulate population numbers to maintain their power. They often downsized the numbers of other ethnic groups in official reports. Therefore, data from these sources is not neutral and cannot be trusted.
F- Today, we have access to much better sources that are:
Neutral: From international bodies without a political agenda (like the CIA World Factbook, Library of Congress, and UN-supported election data and ...). Verifiable: Their methodology is public and transparent.
Scientific: They use modern statistical methods.
G- My Request: according to Wikipedia's policies, not all sources have equal weight. I am not asking to completely ignore history.A middle ground can be reached.But please check the old statistical sources one by one for accuracy and validity and for violations of Wikipedia rules.
Could the community please provide guidance on this matter? Specifically, should the more authoritative sources be prioritized in the article's demographic table?. it is about following Wikipedia's rules to use the best possible information. Using biased or unverifiable old data violates the Reliable sources . WP:PRIMARY and Non-partisan viewpoint.
With all these explanations It is suggested that experienced Wikipedia administrators and editors take a look at this updated link
To help with keeping track of all acceptable sources (since it became increasingly hard to follow everbody in these talk pages) I created this table so that every involved user can write whether they find a source acceptable or not. I will iteratively update the list further with more sources that were named here in all discussion rounds. @Xan747 if you know if it's possible to collapse single cells (or texts within a cell) I would appreciate it if you show me how to do it so then everybody can add an explanation why they find a source acceptable or not without flooding the table with too much information on first sight. Thank you.SdHb (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering @Badakhshan ziba @Xan747 Update: I think I have added most, if not all sources that have been mentioned as a reliable source at one time. If I have missed one, feel free to add it into the content of the table. Also please add whether the source is acceptable for you in a table called "ethnic categories" or not. @Xan747 @Asilvering if you know if it's possible to collapse single cells (or texts within a cell) I would appreciate it if you show me how to do it so then everybody can add an explanation why they find a source acceptable or not without flooding the table with too much information on first sight. Tank you. SdHb (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've searched through all discussions in all talk pages. I think now every source ever mentioned in the discussions is represented in this table. I would like to ask all participants to add their approval or denial of every source in to the table. Based on that, I would create a new draft version. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source
Acceptable source in a table called "ethnic categories"?
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1978". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1977. p. 31. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: über 60% Paschtu sprechende Afghanen (bes. Gilsai u. Durrani), die das eigentl. Staatsvolk sind. 25–30% Tadschiken, 5% Usbeken, gegen 3% mongolische Hesoren; Nuristanis (»Kafiren«), Bäludschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen und Kasachen sowie Perser im engeren Sinne. 8–10% Afghanen sind Nomaden (»Koochis«) oder Halbnomaden.
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1979". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1978. p. 31. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: über 60% Paschtu sprechende Afghanen (bes. Gilsai u. Durrani), die das eigentl. Staatsvolk sind. 25–30% Tadschiken, 5% Usbeken, gegen 3% mongolische Hesoren; Nuristanis (»Kafiren«), Bäludschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen und Kasachen sowie Perser im engeren Sinne. 8–12% Afghanen sind Nomaden (»Koochis«) oder Halbnomaden.
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1981". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1980. p. 170. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: über 60% Paschtu sprechende Afghanen (bes. Gilsai u. Durrani), die das eigentl. Staatsvolk sind. 25–30% Tadschiken, 5% Usbeken, gegen 3% mongolische Hesoren; Nuristanis (»Kafiren«), Bäludschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen und Kasachen sowie Perser im engeren Sinne. 8–12% Afghanen sind Nomaden (»Koochis«) oder Halbnomaden.
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1982". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1981. p. 210. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: über 60% Paschtu sprechende Afghanen (bes. Gilsai u. Durrani), die das eigentl. Staatsvolk sind. 25–30% Tadschiken, 5% Usbeken, gegen 3% mongolische Hesoren; Nuristanis (»Kafiren«), Bäludschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen und Kasachen sowie Perser im engeren Sinne. 8–12% Afghanen sind Nomaden (»Koochis«) oder Halbnomaden – Ende Mai 1981 waren 2 083 688 afgh. Flüchtlinge in Pakistan registr..
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1984". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1983. p. 225. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: über 50% Paschtu sprechende Afghanen (bes. Gilsai u. Durrani), die das eigentl. Staatsvolk sind. 25–30% Tadschiken, 5% Usbeken, gegen 3% mongolische Hesoreh (Hazarah); Nuristanis (»Kafiren«), Balutschen (Belutschen), Turkmenen, Kirgisen und Kasachen sowie Perser i. e. S. 8–12% Afghanen sind Nomaden (»Koochis«) oder Halbnomaden.
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1985". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1984. p. 225. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: über 50% Paschtu sprechende Afghanen (bes. Gilsai u. Durrani), die das eigentl. Staatsvolk sind. 25–30% Tadschiken, 5% Usbeken, gegen 3% mongolische Hesoreh (Hazarah); Nuristanis (»Kafiren«), Balutschen (Belutschen), Turkmenen, Kirgisen und Kasachen sowie Perser i. e. S. 8–12% Afghanen sind Nomaden (»Koochis«) oder Halbnomaden.
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1986". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1985. p. 229. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: über 50% Paschtu sprechende Afghanen (Paschtunen, das eigentl. Staatsvolk; bes. Gilsai u. Durrani), 25–30% Tadschiken, 5% Usbeken, gegen 3% mongolische Hesoren (Hazarah); Nuristanis (»Kafiren«), Balutschen [Belutschen], Turkmenen, Kirgisen, Kasachen; Perser i. e. S. 8–12% Afghanen sind Nomaden (»Koochis«) oder Halbnomaden.
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1988". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1987. p. 52. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: über 50% Paschtu sprech. Afghanen (Paschtunen, das eigentl. Staatsvolk; bes. Gilsai u. Durrani), 25–30% Tadschiken, 5% Usbeken, ca. 3% mongolische Hesoren [Hazarah]; Nuristanis (»Kafiren«), Balutschen [Belutschen], Turkmenen, Kirgisen, Kasachen; Perser i. e. S. 8–12% Afghanen sind Nomaden (»Koochis«) oder Halbnomaden.
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1991". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1990. pp. 51–52. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: über 50% Paschtu sprech. Afghanen (Paschtunen, das eigentl. Staatsvolk; bes. Gilsai u. Durrani), 20% Tadschiken, 9% Usbeken, 9% mongolischstämm. Hesoren [Hazarah]; Nuristanis (»Kafiren«), Balutschen [Belutschen], Turkmenen, Kirgisen, Kasachen; Perser i. e. S. 8–12% Afghanen sind Nomaden (»Koochis«) oder Halbnomaden.
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1993". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1992. p. 187. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: rd. 43% Paschtu sprech. Afghanen (Paschtunen, das eigentl. Staatsvolk; bes. Gilsai u. Durrani), 28% Tadschiken, 9% Usbeken, 8% mongolischstämm. Hesoren [Hazaren]; Nuristani (»Kafire«), Balutschen, Turkmenen, Aimak, Kirgisen, Kasachen; Perser i. e. S. – 8–12% Afghanen sind Nomaden (»Koochis«) od. Halbnomaden; insg. rd. 32 ethnische Gruppen – ca. 3,2 Mio. Flüchtl. in Pakistan, 2,8 Mio. in Iran u. 0,1 Mio. in Indien, rd. 2,5 Mio. innerhalb d. Landes; Rückführung d. Flüchtlinge s. Anf. 1992 (bis Juli 1992: rd. 1 Mio. Rückkehrer v. a. aus Pakistan).
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1995". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1994. p. 43. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: 43% Paschtunen, 28% Tadschiken, 9% Usbeken, 8% mongolischstämm. Hesoren, 3% Aimak; ferner Nuristani, Kasachen, Balutschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen u. a. – etwa 12% Afghanen sind Nomaden (Koochis) od. Halbnomaden; insg. 32 ethnische Gruppen – 1994 (UNHCR) ca. 1,85 Mio. Flüchtlinge im Iran, 1,48 Mio. in Pakistan.
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1996". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1995. p. 43. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: 40% Paschtunen, 25% Tadschiken, 15% mongolischstämm. Hesoren, 5% Usbeken; außerd. Aimak, Nuristanis, Balutschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen u. a..
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1998". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1997. p. 51. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: 40% Paschtunen, 25% Tadschiken, 15% mongolischstämmige Hesoren, 5% Usbeken; außerdem Aimak, Nuristani, Balutschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen u. a..
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2000". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 1999. p. 51. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: 40% Paschtunen, 25% Tadschiken, 15% mongolstämmige Hesoren, 5% Usbeken; außerdem Aimak, Nuristani, Balutschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen u. a..
^"Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2003". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 2002. p. 51. Retrieved 2 September 2025. AFGHANISTAN – Bevölkerung: 40% Paschtunen, 25% Tadschiken, 15% mongolstämmige Hesoren (Hazara), 5% Usbeken; außerdem Aimak, Nuristani, Balutschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen u. a..
^"The World Factbook 1981". Central Intelligence Agency. University of Missouri. April 1981. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – Ethnic divisions: 50% Pashtun, 25% Tajik, 9% Uzbek, 9% Hazara; minor ethnic groups include Chahar Aimaks, Turkmen, Baluchi and others […] Language: 50% Pashtu, 35% Afghan Persian (Dari), 11% Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen), 4% thirty minor languages (primarily Balochi and Pashai)[,] much bilingualism.
^"The World Factbook 1991". Central Intelligence Agency. University of Missouri. 15 October 1991. Archived from the original on 27 April 2011. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Ethnic divisions: 50% Pashtun, 25% Tajik, 9% Uzbek, 12-15% Hazara[,] minor ethnic groups include Chahar Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others […] Language: 50% Pashtu, 35% Afghan Persian (Dari), 11% Turkic languages (primarily Uzbek and Turkmen), 4% thirty minor languages (primarily Baluchi and Pashai); much bilingualism.
^"Ethnic Groups". Library of Congress Country Studies. 1997. Archived from the original on 10 January 2009. Retrieved 8 October 2010. In 1996, approximately 40 percent of Afghans were Pashtun, 11.4 of whom are of the Durrani tribal group and 13.8 percent of the Ghilzai group. Tajiks make up the second largest ethnic group with 25.3 percent of the population, followed by Hazaras, 18 percent; Uzbeks, 6.3 percent; Turkmen, 2.5 percent; Qizilbash, 1.0; 6.9 percent other. The usual caveat regarding statistics is particularly appropriate here.
^"Afghanistan in 2004 – A survey of the Afghan people"(PDF). Kabul, Afghanistan: The Asia Foundation. 2004. Archived(PDF) from the original on 6 September 2012. Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? Pashtun 46%, Tajik 39%, Uzbek 6%, Hazara 6%, Turkomen 1%, Noristani 1%, Arab 1%, Baluchi 0%, Pashaee 0%, Safi 0%, Other 1%, Don't know/refused 0%.
^"Afghanistan in 2006 – A survey of the Afghan people"(PDF). Kabul, Afghanistan: The Asia Foundation. pp. 83–88. Archived from the original(PDF) on 13 April 2012. Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? SINGLE RESPONSE ONLY. Pashtun 41%, Tajik 37%, Uzbek 9%, Hazara 9%, Turkmen 2%, Baloch 1%, Nuristani 0%, Aimak 0%, Arab 1%, Pashaye 0%, Other 0%
^"Afghanistan in 2007 – A survey of the Afghan people"(PDF). Kabul, Afghanistan: The Asia Foundation. 2010. pp. 225–226. Archived(PDF) from the original on 13 August 2011. Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? SINGLE RESPONSE ONLY. Pashtun 40%, Tajik 35%, Uzbek 8%, Hazara 10%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 1%, Kirghiz 0%, Nuristani 1%, Aimak 1%, Arab 1%, Other 0%, Refused 0%, Don't know 0%
^"Afghanistan in 2010 – A survey of the Afghan people"(PDF). Kabul, Afghanistan: The Asia Foundation. 2010. pp. 225–226. Archived(PDF) from the original on 19 July 2011. Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? SINGLE RESPONSE ONLY. Pashtun 42%, Tajik 31%, Uzbek 9%, Hazara 10%, Turkmen 2%, Baloch 1%, Kirghiz *, Nuristani 1%, Aimak 2%, Arab 2%, Pashaye *
^"Afghanistan in 2011: A Survey of the Afghan People"(PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? SINGLE RESPONSE ONLY. Pashtun 41%, Tajik 32%, Uzbek 9%, Hazara 11%, Turkmen 2%, Baloch 1%, Kirghiz *, Nuristani 1%, Aimak 1%, Arab 1%, Pashaye *, Sadat 1%, Qazelbash *
^"Afghanistan in 2013: A Survey of the Afghan People"(PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? (SINGLE RESPONSE ONLY). Pashtun 43%, Tajik 32%, Hazara 10%, Uzbek 7%, Turkmeni 2%, Arab 2%, Baloch 1%, Nooristani 1%, Aimak 1%, Sadat 1%
^"Afghanistan in 2014: A Survey of the Afghan People"(PDF). Retrieved September 17, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? Base: All Respondents 8706. Pashtun 40%, Tajik 36%, Uzbek 8%, Hazara 10%, Turkmeni 2%, Baloch 1%, Nuristani 1%, Aimak 1%, Arab 1%, Pashaye 1%, Sadat 1%, Qezelbash <0.5%, Safi <0.5%
^"Afghanistan in 2015: A Survey of the Afghan People"(PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? Base: All respondents 8,912. Pashtun 40%, Tajik 34%, Hazara 11%, Uzbek 8%, Turkmen 2%, Arab 1%, Baloch 1%, Aimak 1%, Sadat 1%, Nuristani 1%, Pashayee < 0.5%, Qezelbash < 0.5%, Bayat < 0.5%, Safi < 0.5%, Sahak < 0.5%, Sayed < 0.5%, Alokozay < 0.5%, Popalzay < 0.5%, Kharoti < 0.5%, Gujar < 0.5%, Don't know (vol.) < 0.5%
^"Afghanistan in 2017: A Survey of the Afghan People"(PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? Base: all respondents 9,086. Pashtun 37%, Tajik 37%, Uzbek 9%, Hazara 11%, Turkmeni 2%, Nuristani 1%, Aimak 1%, Arab 1%, Sadat 1%, Baloch <0.5%, Pashaye <0.5%, Qezelbash <0.5%, Gujar <0.5%, Temori <0.5%, Afghan <0.5%, Bayat <0.5%, Khwaja <0.5%, Barahawe <0.5%
^"Afghanistan in 2018: A Survey of the Afghan People"(PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? Base: all respondents 13,943. Pashtun 37%, Tajik 37%, Hazara 10%, Uzbek 9%, Turkmeni 2%, Sadat 1%, Aimak 1%, Arab 1%, Don't know 1%, Baloch 1%, Nuristani 1%, Pashaye <0.5%, Qezelbash <0.5%, Afghan <0.5%, Refused <0.5%, Nothing <0.5%, Gujar <0.5%, Wakhi <0.5%
^"Afghanistan in 2019: A Survey of the Afghan People"(PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? Base: all respondents 15,930. Pashtun 39%, Tajik 37%, Hazara 11%, Uzbek 8%, Turkmeni 1%, Sadat 1%, Arab 1%, Pashaye 1%, Nuristani 1%, Baloch <0.5%, Kirghiz <0.5%, Aimak <0.5%, Qezelbash <0.5%, Gujar <0.5%, Temori <0.5%, Jamshidi <0.5
^"Afghanistan in 2021: A Survey of the Afghan People"(PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. Which ethnic group do you belong to? Base: all respondents 18,362. Pashtun 40%, Tajik 39%, Hazara 11%, Uzbek 5%, Sadat 1%, Aimak 1%, Turkmen 1%, Nuristani 1%, Arab <0.5%, Baloch <0.5%, Pashaye <0.5%, Qezelbash <0.5%, Bayat <0.5%, Temori <0.5%, Stanikzai <0.5%, Jamshidi <0.5%, Alokozay <0.5%, Kirghiz <0.5%, Wakhi <0.5%, Noorziaye <0.5%, Khaja <0.5%, Gujar <0.5%, Afghan <0.5%, Tatar <0.5%
^Conrad Schetter (February 1998). "Afghanistan zwischen Chaos und Machtpolitik"(PDF) (in German). Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft Online). p. 174. Retrieved 25 August 2025. Tabelle 1. Übersicht über die größten ethnischen Gruppen in Afghanistan, ihre vorherrschende Sprache und Religion sowie ihre geschätzte Anzahl (Stand: 1978).
^ abcMobasher, Mohammad Bashir. Political Laws and Ethnic Accommodation: Why Cross-Ethnic Coalitions Have Failed to Institutionalize in Afghanistan. Diss. 2017, p. 42. Link: [1]
^"Tajik". Encyclopædia Britannica. Archived from the original on 25 November 2011. Retrieved 6 November 2011. There were about 5,000,000 in Afghanistan, where they constituted about one-fifth of the population.
^"2 Afghan Factions Sign Pact to Fight New Kabul Rulers". The New York Times. October 11, 1996. The three leaders who met here represent three of the largest ethnic minorities in Afghanistan, the Hazara, Tajik and Uzbek groups, which together account for about 5 million of the country's 16 million people.
^Brown, Keith; Sarah Ogilvie (2009). Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world. Elsevie. p. 845. ISBN978-0-08-087774-7. Retrieved 7 April 2012. Pashto, which is mainly spoken south of the mountain range of the Hindu Kush, is reportedly the mother tongue of 60% of the Afghan population.
^"Afghanistan (01/04)". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2025-09-13. Afghanistan's ethnically and linguistically mixed population reflects its location astride historic trade and invasion routes leading from Central Asia into South and Southwest Asia. Pashtuns are the dominant ethnic group, accounting for about 38% of the population. Tajik (25%), Hazara (19%), Uzbek (6%), Aimaq, Turkmen, Baluch, and other small groups also are represented. Dari (Afghan Persian) and Pashto are official languages. Dari is spoken by more than one-third of the population as a first language and serves as a lingua franca for most Afghans, though the Taliban use Pashto. Tajik, Uzbek, and Turkmen are spoken widely in the north. Smaller groups throughout the country also speak more than 70 other languages and numerous dialects.
^"Afghanistan (12/05)". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2025-09-13. Afghanistan's ethnically and linguistically mixed population reflects its location astride historic trade and invasion routes leading from Central Asia into South and Southwest Asia. Pashtuns are the dominant ethnic group, accounting for about 38-44% of the population. Tajik (25%), Hazara (10-19%), Uzbek (6-8%), Aimaq, Turkmen, Baluch, and other small groups also are represented. Dari (Afghan Persian) and Pashto are official languages. Dari is spoken by more than one-third of the population as a first language and serves as a lingua franca for most Afghans, though Pashto is spoken throughout the Pashtun areas of eastern and southern Afghanistan. Tajik and Turkic languages are spoken widely in the north. Smaller groups throughout the country also speak more than 70 other languages and numerous dialects.
^"Afghanistan (12/06)". U.S. Department of State. Retrieved 2025-09-13. Afghanistan's ethnically and linguistically mixed population reflects its location astride historic trade and invasion routes leading from Central Asia into South and Southwest Asia. While population data is somewhat unreliable for Afghanistan, Pashtuns make up the largest ethnic group at 38-44% of the population, followed by Tajiks (25%), Hazaras (10%), Uzbek (6-8%), Aimaq, Turkmen, Baluch, and other small groups. Dari (Afghan Farsi) and Pashto are official languages. Dari is spoken by more than one-third of the population as a first language and serves as a lingua franca for most Afghans, though Pashto is spoken throughout the Pashtun areas of eastern and southern Afghanistan. Tajik and Turkic languages are spoken widely in the north. Smaller groups throughout the country also speak more than 70 other languages and numerous dialects.
^Dupree, Nancy Hatch; Dupree, Louis (September 16, 2025). "Afghanistan". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the original on September 3, 2025. Retrieved September 16, 2025.
^The Fischer Weltalmanach is a reliable source because it is a long-standing, peer-edited reference work with professional editorial oversight. Excluding some of the estimations merely because it predates 2001 is not justified, as WP:RS evaluates sources based on credibility, not publication date. Doing so would also violate WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, creating a skewed and non-historical perspective by ignoring well-documented demographic data from earlier decades (which would be detrimental in such a controversial case like Afghanistan). Furthermore, it would constitute WP:RECENTISM because it would privilege post-2001 sources over reliable historical information. Differences between sources should be presented side by side, not suppressed.
^SEMI acceptable. in my opinion.maybe, Only sources and percentages after 2001 and the presence of neutral international forces Like USA. UN . EU AND ... are acceptable. Data and information from the Taliban era and the civil wars are not acceptable.
^The 2004 data for the entire country of Afghanistan is incomplete and unacceptable.
just The 2004 survey which was not conducted in the three provinces of Nimroz, Uruzgan, and Ghor is not acceptable
^This is a reliable source because it is a scholarly monograph based on extensive field research and historical analysis, published by a reputable academic press. It is not a mere personal claim or news report, but a well-documented study by a recognized expert. Excluding it solely due to its age or format would misinterpret WP:RS and risk WP:RECENTISM, as older, high-quality sources are essential for providing historical context and avoiding an undue focus on more recent perspectives.
^No, it is not acceptable.POOR Sources such as news reports or personal published books, personal claims, or personal theses are not accepted.
^This is a reliable source because it is a peer-reviewed academic article published in a recognized journal, providing scholarly analysis of Afghanistan's political and ethnic landscape. Contrary to the claim by Badakhshan ziba, the article does discuss major ethnic groups (although in total population numbers instead of percentages, see p. 174), and does not rely on personal calculations. Using this source does not constitute original research because it reports the findings of the author and analysis based on primary and secondary materials. Excluding it would unnecessarily disregard a high-quality source and diminish the article's historical and scholarly depth. However, if we agree to not include total population numbers, I am ready to use it in prose only.
^No, it is not acceptable. It is not a first-hand source and is not as reliable as other sources. Also, the ethnic percentage of all major ethnic groups is not mentioned in it, including Hazaras, Uzbeks, etc.
Wikipedia rules should also be considered.Wikipedia:SYNTH Percentages and personal calculations in this regard are against Wikipedia rules. No Original Research (NOR):we are not allowed to do our own percentage calculations
^This is a reliable source because it is a scholarly, peer-reviewed article published in the Encyclopædia Iranica, a highly respected academic reference work. While it doesn't provide percentage figures, it presents total population numbers by ethnic group, which are equally credible for understanding demographic composition. Using these numbers doesn't constitute original research as long as they are represented correctly, because then they are directly reported from the source. Excluding it simply because it lacks percentages would ignore a foundational and authoritative source on Afghan ethnography, reducing the historical accuracy and comprehensiveness of the article. However, if we agree to not include total population numbers, I am ready to use it in prose only.
^No, it is not acceptable. poor Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims or personal theses or personal published articles are not accepted.
This source does not say anything about ethnic percentages. Why is it included as a source at all?
Wikipedia rules should also be considered.Wikipedia:SYNTH Percentages and personal calculations in this regard are against Wikipedia rules. No Original Research (NOR):we are not allowed to do our own percentage calculations.This is a form of new data generation.
The reader should be able to find any percentages they see in the table directly in the source.
^ abSince the ethnic and by derivation the language composition of Afghanistan is based on the parliamentary election of 2010 as a proxy, these sources are too flawed to be reliable for the ethnic table. However, they do a good job in summarizing the problems of grouping ethnicity and language in Afghanistan, so using them in prose is fine.
^The entry on the Tajik people in the Encyclopædia Britannica is a reliable source because it is a professionally edited reference work with strong editorial oversight. Just because it focuses on one ethnic category, using it to provide factual information about that group doesn't imply unsourced conclusions about others. WP:RS allows citing specialized sources for specific information, as long as the article doesn't infer percentages for other groups without sources. Dismissing it for the reason that it doesn't cover every ethnic group misunderstands the difference between using a source for what it explicitly says vs. making unsupported generalizations.
^No, it is not acceptable. It also only talks about one ethnic group and does not talk comprehensively about all ethnic groups.According to Wikipedia rules,We cannot use a source that is only about Tajiks to infer information about other ethnic groups.
^The article on the New York Times is a reliable source because it comes from a major, professionally edited newspaper with high journalistic standards and fact-checking procedures. Even though it reports an event rather than giving exact statistics, it provides a trustworthy account of what happened at the time, such as the alliances and political situation in northern Afghanistan. Excluding it just because it's a news report or because original sources aren't shown would ignore an important record of historical events (after all, this is the singehandedly most-trustworthy newspaper in the world). Using it to describe events doesn't break WP:NOR or WP:RS. For historical context, especially when official data is missing, news reports like this are important and reliable.
^No, it is not acceptable.
Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims or personal theses or personal published articles, or very old information without verification are not accepted.
Violation of the Reliable Sources Policy (WP:RS) Sources must have a rigorous editorial process and transparency in methodology. Problem:The journalist did not disclose the original source.A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that readers should be able to verify any claim with a reliable source.→ When a journalist cites a statistic in an article whose original source is unknown. The reader cannot directly verify its accuracy.
Violation of the Neutrality Policy (WP:NEUTRALPOINTofVIEW) Promoting a point of view rather than a consensus. Using a personal opinion to present a statistic effectively turns a person's point of view into "fact" in the article. This is highly biased and goes against Wikipedia's spirit of neutrality.
^No, it is not acceptable.
Wikipedia rules should also be considered.Wikipedia:SYNTH Percentages and personal calculations in this regard are against Wikipedia rules. No Original Research (NOR):we are not allowed to do our own percentage calculations.This is a form of new data generation.
^This is a reliable source because it comes from a respected think tank with professional research standards and editorial oversight. While it focuses on Tajiks, it provides verifiable information about the political and military role of the group in a specific historical context. Using it to describe the ethnic information about Tajiks doesn't mean it infers with statistics or percentages for other groups. As long as the content is limited to what the source actually reports, it violates neither WP:NOR nor WP:SYNTH.
^No, it is not acceptable.
poor Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims.not acceptable.
It also only talks about one ethnic group and does not talk comprehensively about all ethnic groups.According to Wikipedia rules,We cannot use a source that is only about Tajiks to infer information about other ethnic groups.
Wikipedia rules should also be considered.Wikipedia:SYNTH Percentages and personal calculations in this regard are against Wikipedia rules.
^The 2004 data for the entire country of Afghanistan is incomplete and unacceptable.
just The 2004 survey which was not conducted in Daikundi and Panjshir provinces. not acceptable
^No, it is not acceptable.
' Based on numerous evidence, it was decided to remove the World Data site due to its poor content and lack of sufficient credibility.
https://www.worlddata.info/asia/afghanistan/index.php This source strangely claims that English and Urdu are the mother tongues of some people in Afghanistan from birth!! While there is no evidence in this regard. Which ethnic group with a population of 4% in Afghanistan speaks English as its mother tongue?
The strange and uncertain information on this site should be investigated. Although this site is not a primary source or an academic site.
^This is a reliable source because it's a scholarly book published by C. Hurst & Co., a reputable academic publisher, and edited by William Maley, a recognized expert on Afghan politics. Unlike personal claims or theses, like Badakhshan ziba wants to present it, this publication is based on research, documented sources and analysis of historical events in the country. Even though it was published in 1998, it provides valuable contemporary insight into Afghanistan during the rise of the Taliban, which is important for understanding the historical and political context. Excluding it solely because of its publication date being before 2001 or its format would dismiss a credible, peer-reviewed source that adheres to academic standards.
^No, it is not acceptable.
poor Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims or personal theses or personal published articles, or very old information without verification are not accepted. not acceptable.
^The 2005 and 2010 parliamentary elections in Afghanistan are sometimes used as a proxy to estimate the country's ethnic composition, but they are not a reliable source for such conclusions. Several factors make it clear that the distribution of parliamentary seats does not reflect actual population shares. First, Afghanistan has never conducted a nationwide census that records ethnicity, and the election authorities did not register voters by ethnic group, neither the ethnicity of the candidates ([2]). Any assignment of representatives to a particular group is therefore based on assumptions such as language, place of origin or family name, which are often ambiguous. For example, some Ismaili, Qizilbash or Shia Pashtuns are counted as Hazara in some sources, but as part of other groups or even as separate groups in others. That is also why the sources differ on the exact number and/or percentage of MPs by ethnicity, sometimes even within the same source. Some sources talk about 24.5% of the members of the WJ 2010 being Hazara ([3]), some say 23.3% ([4], p. 87), some only talk about 50 out 249 (i. e. 20%; [5]), and in the WJ 2005 the same source says 12% and 16.4% Hazara ([6], p. 86–87). The same goes for Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks and so on. So there is no consistency because there really can't be. Also, the electoral system itself is highly distortive. Afghanistan used the highly disputed Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV) in both 2005 and 2010, which often favors smaller, coordinated groups over larger but fragmented ones ([7]). Furthermore, security and participation varied dramatically. In 2010, many Pashtun-majority regions in the south and east were affected by insurgency, Taliban threats and general insecurity, discouraging voters from participating. In ethnically mixed provinces, Pashtun votes were spread among many candidates ([8], p. 95) and "marginalised with regard to the voting process", while Hazara or Tajik votes were often more concentrated ([9]). These conditions caused underrepresentation of Pashtuns, while Hazara and Tajik regions in the north and center were safer and had higher turnout, boosting their parliamentary share. In Ghazni, for instance, Pashtuns are estimated to make up roughly half the population, but all eleven seats went to Hazara candidates due to violence, boycotts and electoral pressure ([10],[11], [12], [13]). The same goes for Kabul, Herat, Badghis etc. ([14], p. 96). At the same time, due to Taliban pressure, in some provinces like Faryab, the Pashtuns were overrepresented ([15], p. 97), making the share of MPs even more unreliable as a proxy for ethnicity in Afghanistan. And I haven't even mentioned the large-scale manipulation and irregularities affecting both election, especially the 2010 election. Reports documented ballot stuffing, intimidation of candidates and voters and exclusion of entire communities from the process, leading i. a. to millions of falsified votes ([16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21]).
^acceptable .In the research of the Gulf 2000 Project of Columbia University in the United States, it is explicitly written that the most reliable and impartial statistics related to the history of Afghanistan were these parliamentary elections because they were held under the supervision of the international community,USA. the United Nations, and the European Union.
^This is a reliable source because it's produced by the Austrian Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum (BFA), a government agency that adheres to strict research and documentation standards. While it may not provide explicit percentages for all ethnic groups, it offers detailed, well-researched information on tribal and clan structures, which is essential for understanding Afghanistan's social and ethnic landscape. Using this source doesn't make it ignore WP:NOR or WP:SYNTH (why is this even brought up?). Instead, it provides verified, factual background that can contextualize other data and inform discussions about Afghan demographics. Excluding it because it lacks numeric percentages on every group would ignore a highly credible, government-verified source.
^No, it is not acceptable. It is not a first-hand source and is not as reliable as other sources. Also, the ethnic percentage of all major ethnic groups is not mentioned in it, including Hazaras, Uzbeks, etc.
Wikipedia rules should also be considered.Wikipedia:SYNTH Percentages and personal calculations in this regard are against Wikipedia rules. No Original Research (NOR):we are not allowed to do our own percentage calculations
^The composition of the National Unity Government cannot be used as a proxy for the ethnic makeup of Afghanistan. The allocation of cabinet and provincial posts reflected political bargaining between then-President Ashraf Ghani and then-CEO Abdullah Abdullah rather than demographic proportions ([22], [23]). Appointments of the cabinet were influenced by patronage networks, elite bargaining, external pressure from international actors like the US and so on ([24]), often leading to the overrepresentation of smaller but politically mobilised groups and the underrepresentation of larger, rural populations (for more details see the explanation for why I declined the Parliamentary elections in Afghanistan for the ethnic table). Ethnic identity itself is frequently ambiguous, as many Afghan politicians come from mixed backgrounds and may be classified differently depending on political context (Abdullah himself claims to be of Pashtun origin through his, so where should he be placed?). Moreover, the government was characterised by very high volatility since its creation ([25], [26]). Many ministers and officials were frequently replaced due to allegations of corruption ([27], [28]), nepotism ([29], [30]) and inefficiency ([31]), meaning that the composition of the cabinet changed frequently and offered no stable basis for demographic inference. As such, the NUG represented a political power-sharing arrangement rather than a reflection of Afghanistan's ethnic composition.
^ abcdefgNeeds to be verified as the numbers cited are only indirectly quoted by Mobasher, 2017, and I haven't found a link to the text itself to verify it directly.
^ abIf we agree to not include total population numbers, I am ready to use it in prose only.
^Needs to be verified as the numbers cited are only indirectly quoted by The Gulf/2000 Project, and I haven't found a link to the text itself to verify it directly.
Some sources, such as the CIA Factbook, have changing data and statistics.
There is disagreement about which figures to prioritize in the main table.
But Wikipedia has clear policies on this.
Reliable source (WP:RS)**: While both figures are from a reliable source, the most recent publication of a source carries the most weight. Citing an older version when a newer version exists is misrepresentation of the source.
How to deal with older data based on research I've done on Wikipedia's policies:
More recent data takes priority.
But older data after 2001 is added in a short note or footnote.
A column for data before 2001 and a column for data before 1973 have been added so that the reader can look at those statistics if necessary.
This is intended as a middle ground to use the maximum resources in one table.
The survey data have also been added in two separate tables. In some years, there was no information for the percentage of ethnic groups, for example in 2008 and 2009.
'''This source strangely claims that English and Urdu are the mother tongues of some people in Afghanistan from birth!! While there is no evidence in this regard.'''
'''Which ethnic group with a population of 4% in Afghanistan speaks English as its mother tongue?'''
'''The strange and uncertain information on this site should be investigated and I hope that Wikipedia administrators will comment on this matter. Although this site is not a primary source or an academic site. '''
'''This is the latest update of the suggested table, which has tried to use only the best and most reliable sources.'''
'''An attempt has been made to make this table in accordance with Wikipedia rules.'''
'''I still hope that Wikipedia administrators and readers will let me know if they have any comments or advice in this regard. Thank you.''
Hello @Badakhshan ziba, I invite you to put a Yes/No to the table of sources that I added and will add in the Fifth statements of editors so we can have an overview. Of sources that we are content with putting into the live article. SdHb (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SdHb Hello. I only accept the most credible sources, including those backed by academic research, as well as internationally impartially monitored elections or internationally accredited impartial expert institutions.
Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims or personal theses or personal published articles, or very old information without verification are not accepted. not acceptable.
1- Fischer Weltalmanach Ethnische Gruppen/Bevölkerung (German).SEMI acceptable. in my opinion.maybe, Only sources and percentages after 2001 and the presence of neutral international forces Like USA. UN . EU AND ... are acceptable. Data and information from the Taliban era and the civil wars are not acceptable.
4-Asia Foundation poll Ethnic groups =acceptable The Asia foundation survey is loaded into a separate table, not the main table
5-.Donald Newton Wilber Afghanistan =No, it is not acceptable. Sources such as news reports or personal published books, personal claims, or personal theses are not accepted.
6- Mohammad Bashir Mobasher Political Laws and Ethnic Accommodation:=No, it is not acceptable. Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims or personal theses or personal published articles are not accepted.
The golden rule of Wikipedia is that readers must be able to check that the information in an article comes from a reliable source.
On the first page of this PDF it says = A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
According to Wikipedia rules, can all the claims and statistics in this PDF be trusted as a first-class source?
How do we know that the statistics and figures presented in this PDF have been correctly entered and that no changes have been made to the real and factual numbers and information?
controversial statistics are presented that do not refer to any reference website so that we can see the statistics and make sure that if the numbers and figures in this PDF are correct or no.
7- Louis Dupree AFGHANISTAN iv. Ethnography =No, it is not acceptable. Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims or personal theses or personal published articles are not accepted.
This source does not say anything about ethnic percentages. Why is it included as a source at all?
Wikipedia rules should also be considered.Wikipedia:SYNTH Percentages and personal calculations in this regard are against Wikipedia rules. No Original Research (NOR):we are not allowed to do our own percentage calculations.This is a form of new data generation.
The reader should be able to find any percentages they see in the table directly in the source.
This is one of the most reputable academic research sources that has been conducting specialized research in other Middle Eastern countries in addition to Afghanistan since 2000 until now.
9- Encyclopædia BritannicaTajik =No, it is not acceptable. It also only talks about one ethnic group and does not talk comprehensively about all ethnic groups.According to Wikipedia rules,We cannot use a source that is only about Tajiks to infer information about other ethnic groups.
10 - new york times news = Afghan Factions Sign Pact to Fight New Kabul Rulers = No, it is not acceptable.
Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims or personal theses or personal published articles, or very old information without verification are not accepted.
Violation of the Reliable Sources Policy (WP:RS) Sources must have a rigorous editorial process and transparency in methodology. Problem:The journalist did not disclose the original source.A fundamental principle of Wikipedia is that readers should be able to verify any claim with a reliable source.→ When a journalist cites a statistic in an article whose original source is unknown. The reader cannot directly verify its accuracy. for example = https://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/11/world/2-afghan-factions-sign-pact-to-fight-new-kabul-rulers.html
11- Keith Brown, Sarah Ogilvie . Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world= No, it is not acceptable.
Wikipedia rules should also be considered.Wikipedia:SYNTH Percentages and personal calculations in this regard are against Wikipedia rules. No Original Research (NOR):we are not allowed to do our own percentage calculations.This is a form of new data generation.
12- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace . Why Tajikistan Is Taking a Stand Against the Taliban =No, it is not acceptable.
Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims.not acceptable.
It also only talks about one ethnic group and does not talk comprehensively about all ethnic groups.According to Wikipedia rules,We cannot use a source that is only about Tajiks to infer information about other ethnic groups.
Wikipedia rules should also be considered.Wikipedia:SYNTH Percentages and personal calculations in this regard are against Wikipedia rules.
13- ABC News, BBC, ARDEthnicity= acceptable This poll survey is loaded into a separate table, not the main table
14- WorldData. Mother tongue= No, it is not acceptable.
' Based on numerous evidence, it was decided to remove the World Data site due to its poor content and lack of sufficient credibility.
https://www.worlddata.info/asia/afghanistan/index.php This source strangely claims that English and Urdu are the mother tongues of some people in Afghanistan from birth!! While there is no evidence in this regard. Which ethnic group with a population of 4% in Afghanistan speaks English as its mother tongue?
The strange and uncertain information on this site should be investigated. Although this site is not a primary source or an academic site.
15- William Maley Fundamentalism reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban = No, it is not acceptable.
Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims or personal theses or personal published articles, or very old information without verification are not accepted. not acceptable.
In the research of the Gulf 2000 Project of Columbia University in the United States, it is explicitly written that the most reliable and impartial statistics related to the history of Afghanistan were these parliamentary elections because they were held under the supervision of the international community,USA. the United Nations, and the European Union.
This is one of the most reputable academic research sources that has been conducting specialized research in other Middle Eastern countries in addition to Afghanistan since 2000 until now.
23- Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl. Dossier der Staatendokumentation: AfPak. Grundlagen der Stammes- & Clanstruktur =
No, it is not acceptable. It is not a first-hand source and is not as reliable as other sources. Also, the ethnic percentage of all major ethnic groups is not mentioned in it, including Hazaras, Uzbeks, etc.
I filled in the table above with your responses. If any are incorrectly represented, let me know and I will change them for you. Also I didn't see an answer for Schetter or Yawar. Xan747 (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xan747 24- Historical Study and Analysis of the Role of Ethnic Politics in the Political Structure of Afghanistan = Conditionally acceptable.Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims or personal theses or personal published articles generally are not accepted BUT The information in the table on page 73https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/4533727regarding to the overall ethnic composition of the last legitimate and democratic government of Afghanistan is acceptable.
Since our main discussion is about ethnicity in Afghanistan, we intend to look only at the ethnic composition of the last democratic government of Afghanistan in 2021.
This article was published in a nationally reputable journal in Turkey and probably can be cited. However, if there is more reliable information about the ethnic composition of the last government of Afghanistan in another source that is more reliable than this article, please provide it.
.
25- Conrad Schetter.Afghanistan zwischen Chaos und Machtpolitik=
No, it is not acceptable.
Sources such as news reports or personal published books and personal claims or personal theses or personal published articles generally are not accepted. Besides the fact that the information in this book is very old, please show me where in this book or article does it talk about the ethnic percentages of Afghanistan? I couldn't find anything.
@Xan747 Having thought about it for a while, I have decided to update my column in the table like so that all sources pointing to language should not be included at all in the article. Instead, they should be included in the already separate article Languages of Afghanistan. When I first started adding sources that were based on languages I was aware that first language ≠ ethnic group as it was generally known that Dari as the lingua franca was not spoken by one single group but many different. What I wasn't aware of (and only found out when I read about the whole topic more and more) is that how much language doesn't correlate with ethnicity, not just with Dari but also Pashto and other small languages.[1][2][3] So I suggest that all sources, regardless if they point to mother tongue only (like I initially wanted to be included) or L1+L2 languages, should not be mentioned here. --SdHb (talk) 07:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What also seems plausible would be another entry in the section "Identification by other social affiliations" called "Linguistic identification" starting with the line Further information: Languages of Afghanistan so that it's reflected in the article that language can be another tool for identification but ultimately can't be considered interchangeable with ethnicity. SdHb (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the table to match your "not this article" !votes for the language sources, except it seems now you're using some of those sources for the new prose section you added? Which is fine with me, especially since it puts a finger on what I had already noticed in the data: using language as a proxy for ethnicity seems to underestimate Pashtuns since Dari is so commonly spoken (in the vicinity of 70% of Afghans) that it is often the first language for same, especially in the capital and other urban areas.
There are now six sources the three of us unanimously agree are suitable for use in the ethnicities table. The next hurdle is to agree on formatting. As it seems we're on our own for the time being, I'll go ahead and open a new section and put my thoughts there. Xan747 (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Xan747, exactly, the title of the table I used here is "Acceptable source in a table called "ethnic categories"?". That's why I said it should not be used in the table "ethnic categories" (but a separate table called "languages" in the article Languages of Afghanistan). For me that doesn't mean that the source isn't suitable for prose, so that's why I have included it there.
You've been right with your observation that language data is easily misleading since the category "Tajik/Farsiwan/Dari speaker" doesn't automatically equal ethnic belonging (actually far from it since its status as lingua franca), but actually so doesn't Pashtun/Pashto speaker, Baloch/Balochi speaker etc. So that is why I decided to join you in having the column "mother tongue" completely left out in this article. Rather, the section "linguistic identity" reflects this form of social belonging far better, with the link for a further read. SdHb (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those six sources for sure have to be included in the table. However, just because one party disagrees with including another source, doesn't mean it's justified, and one has to look into the reasoning behind their rejection, no? For me, almost none of the reasoning Badakhshan ziba is giving for not including certain sources is persuasive. So for that, I think it would be better if we wait until @Asilvering is also filling the table, and after that, we can agree or disagree to any disputed source. SdHb (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. While we are waiting: Do you know if it's possible to collapse single cells (or texts within a cell)? I would appreciate it if you show me how to do it so then everybody can add an explanation why they find a source acceptable or not without flooding the table with too much information on first sight. SdHb (talk) 15:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been reading Help:Collapsing tables and more and it is not immediately obvious if that can be done. The examples given collapse the whole table, including the headers, except the second example in this one. I'll fiddle with it some more and see if I can come up with some sort of clever hack. Xan747 (talk) 15:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this is a very ugly and not at all clever hack. Each collapsible section is really its own table, but that means whitespace is inserted at the end of each table. Oh how I loathe web programming. Xan747 (talk) 17:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect, looks great! I hope the same is possible for columns? I would love to keep the ethnic categories in the rows and the year ranges in the columns. As you can see, because of the sheer amount of categories it doesn‘t fit neatly into the article whereas if we work with them in the table rows it fits much better. SdHb (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The table-collapsing features seem to not support columns. My version of the table is fitting on the screen just fine up to the point that I make the browser 50% the width of my screen (which makes sense since I set the table width to a fixed 50%). But then I am using proper tech for rendering webpages, e.g. not a phone or tablet, so all bets are off for those cursed devices. In any case, if you think the table will be too wide with ethnicities as columns, imagine how wide the table would be expanding all the columns in a date range category to see the individual sources by year. An example column header would be 2013 CIA[15], which takes up far more room horizontally than it does vertically. Xan747 (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll only add that it was my intention all along that once any sources were unanimously agreed on, that we could then publish the table using only those. Then sort out the contested ones. (Find common ground first, then address differences.) Xan747 (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was the right intention of you. I think this table is actually what will bring us closest to finding consensus because the long and sometimes very hardly readable texts of certain users were an obstacle without that table. So thumbs up for finding a solution 👍🏽. SdHb (talk) 15:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. I'll see if I can get to this in the next couple of days. In the meantime I think it might be kind to our poor DRN volunteer if much of this conversation were collapsed. Please can all three of you have another read of WP:RULED, particularly #7? -- asilvering (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
References
^just to give but two example sources: 1. (translated into English): "The Pashto language is an important but ultimately not a sufficient criterion for being considered a Pashtun. In some areas of Afghanistan, Pashtuns have long abandoned Pashto and speak Dari as their first language. In the city of Herat, there are no Pashto-speaking Pashtuns at all anymore. There, all Pashtuns use the local dialect of Dari as their first language. Dari-speaking Pashtuns can also be found in rural parts of Herat Province, in Nimroz Province, in parts of Uruzgan Province, in Balkh Province, in the western part of Nangarhar Province, as well as in the city of Kabul. Neither their neighbors nor other Pashtuns have any doubts that these groups are Pashtuns. They may be considered by some as “bad Pashtuns” because they have given up the language of their ancestors, but they are still regarded as Pashtuns. Tribal structure and behavior according to the code of honor are more important for classification than the sole criterion of language. In southwestern Afghanistan, there are Pashtun groups who speak Balochi as their first language, and Baloch groups who speak Pashto as their first language. Despite the linguistic differences, they feel they belong to the same tribes, which are considered either Pashtun or Baloch tribes, depending on the case. Such mixed groups are referred to as aughān-balōch (“Pashtun-Baloch”)." ([32]).
^2.: "The main reason behind the marked variation between ethnic identity (many) and language (few) lies in the fact that language and ethnicity are not correlated in Afghanistan [...] Many groups share their language but not their ethnic identity, and vice versa [...] Persian is a language that any group can acquire withour losing their ethnic identity [...] Approximately one-fifth of the Pashtuns in the west and northern parts of Afghanistan speak Persian dialects as their first language [...] Closer to the capital of Kabul, the Safi Pashtuns of Kapisa are almost totally Persian speaking as well. Despite this these all strongly maintain their Pashtun identity. But the same is true of many other ethnic groups in Afghanistan. An estimated one-third of the Uzbeks also speak Persian as their primary language, but maintain Uzbek ethnic identity. The Pasha'is are not any different. The Arabs and Mongols (Moghols) have completely and totally switched to Persian as their "mother tongue" without losing their ethnic identity. Likewise, the Gujars of Afghanistan (in Kunar) although Pashto speaking--as are many of the Pasha'is, they maintain their distinct ethnicity from the Pashtuns." ([33])
^Combine that with: "Today, the term tājik (“Tajik”) is used as a category under which almost all Dari/Persian speakers of Afghanistan are grouped. Before the civil war, this name was used as a self-designation almost exclusively by Dari speakers in some mountainous areas of northeastern Afghanistan. […] The Dari-speaking inhabitants of Herat still seem to have some difficulty seeing themselves as Tajiks; but when it comes to stating their ethnic affiliation in official documents, such as when applying for an ID card, they agree to be classified as Tajiks. After all, the constitutionally recognized list of ethnic groups does not include an entry for herāti. Similarly, other Dari-speaking groups such as the Aymaq, Arabs, or Dari-speaking Baloch in northern Afghanistan — even the speakers of Pamiri languages in Badakhshan Province — are nowadays often officially registered as Tajiks. In the ethnically dominated political conflicts of the present, a group seems to be politically more influential the more members it can claim. Therefore, the ethnic designation “Tajik” currently enjoys political favor. Because of the politically motivated inclusion of many other groups, the Tajiks can be regarded as an ethnic group in statu nascendi (in the process of emerging). It appears that the Shiite Hazara are the only Dari-speaking group to whom the name “Tajik” does not apply." ([34]).
Eighth statement by moderator (Afghan ethnic groups)
Slow down. Read DRN Rule D again. I didn’t summarize it because I expected you to read it and comply with it. You obviously have missed some of the points.
Be civil and concise. This discussion has been civil, but it has not been concise.
Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion. The moderator will ask the questions. You will address your comments to the moderator, and to the community, because the moderator represents the community.
We will start over. I see that the article previously had a table listing ethnic categories and percentages for five times, but that the table was removed because of disputes about the table. So my first question for each editor is whether their dispute is about the table, the text of the article, or both. My second question is, if you have an issue about the text of the article, please state concisely what the issue is. I think that I know the answer to the third question, but I will ask it anyway. Do each of you think that the result of this dispute resolution should include restoring a table? After I see the answers to the first three questions, we will either work on the text, or work on a methodology for the table, or both.
@Robert McClenon, yes, but first my apologies for breaking DRN D7. I have read the entire document again and not found a clear answer to my specific question: Is it allowable for editors to continue constructive conversations in article talk for the purpose of formulating specific concrete proposals to bring back to this forum? For example, the content discussion above about how to present ethnic tabular data is an inherently detailed conversation that should be far less contentious than what sources to use for its content, and thus better suited for article talk. Xan747 (talk) 16:20, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon hello. yes . The main disagreement is about the content of the table and which numbers should be used in it. My suggestion is that only the most valid, best, and newest statistics should be used in the table.
Unfortunately, one or two people insist that marginal, less reliable, or old data should be given the same weight as the new and reliable data and be included in the table.
So, we should to choose: should we use the newest and best sources about Afghanistan's population, or should we also use very old data (for example, from the time of the Taliban) and low-quality, marginal, or even unreliable data (such as dissertations) for this matter?
Right now, there is a disagreement about which of these two tables should be use. table 1 or 2 ?
Yes, there is also a problem with the text, but first we should discuss the table first, and then we can move to the text. We can't discuss both at the same time. I think if the problem with the table's content is solved, the other problems will also be easy to fix.
for example , The interesting point is that the data from Afghanistan's most valid 2010 parliamentary election—which was held under the supervision of the UN, the European Union, the US, and other international institutions—is constantly being ignored. I don't understand how this is possible.
I wish more people could come and give their opinion on these two tables.
As far as I know, the only dispute right now is over what sources to use for a statistical table of ethnicities like the one I removed from the article here. The result of all the talk above is that we three main disputants have unanimously agreed on six sources to use in that table. As I see it, the next step is to discuss presentation of those data. My candidate format may be viewed here. Xan747 (talk) 04:14, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. The main dispute is about the content of the table called "ethnic categories". Which sources should be considered reliable to be used in the table, and how these sources should be presented in the table (percentage ranges, time ranges, single rows/columns for each source etc.). Until now, we have agreed on 6 sources but I would like to wait until all users have made a statement to each source that is and was in question. When that is done, the reasoning behind each rejected or disputed source has to be discussed whether it belongs in the table or not.
2. We haven't gotten into the discussion of the text of the article but there was more or less a consensus between Xan747, Asilvering and me. I don't know if Badakhshan ziba has an issue with the text.
3. Yes, the table should be restored. SdHb (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ninth statement by moderator (Afghan ethnic groups)
It is my understanding that creating a new table is the primary concern in this dispute resolution. If there are any issues with the article text, please state now what you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change (or vice versa).
There was a question about whether discussion may continue on the article talk page in addition to in the DRN. The usual answer is that discussion on the article talk page should be avoided, because all of the discussion should be in DRN; however, it seems that the discussion that was taking place here was either useful or harmless, and resuming that discussion on the article talk page will be either useful or harmless. So discussion on the article page is permitted
I will make another statement shortly. Are there any questions at this time?
Ninth statements by editors (Afghan ethnic groups)
I have written DRN Rule J for use in a contentious topic when there is side discussion that is permitted. Please read it. By participating in this discussion, you are acknowledging that you have been notified of the contentious topic.
I have created a subpage of the article talk page, Talk:Ethnic groups in Afghanistan/Discussion of Table. You may discuss in that subpage so as not to disturb editors who are discussing other matters.
I have three questions at this time:
1. Is the reconstruction of the table the most important task for this DRN? If not, what is?
2. Are there any particular cells in the table that are disputed?
3. Are there any specific paragraphs in the text of the article that are disputed?
Regarding question 3.There has been no discussion on the text of the paragraph yet as most of the attention has been on the content of the table and the sources used in the table.
Please take a look at these five links related to the history of the article.
.
1-- 19 April 2021 = before Taliban attack and come in to the power in Afghanistan.There is practically not much text.
.
I suggest,first discuss the content of the tables. Then, if any disagreements remain, we can talk about the text.
Based on previous years,the "Ethnic composition section" is the place for the tables and also for the ethnic maps.This section is not the place to write a lot of text and paragraphs.
.
Robert, these are the answers to your numbered questions above:
As far as I am concerned, reintroducing a statistical table is the main goal of these negotiations, and the main dispute is over which sources to use for those figures.
There are differences over general layout which I had hoped could be discussed outside this forum. Since we three main disputants have agreed on six suitable sources for the table, my thought was to defer debate over the slew of other candidate sources catalogued in the table above, come to an agreement on layout, then reintroduce the table with the smaller set of agreeable sources before returning to contested ones.
I have no pressing issues with any specific prose in the current state of the article.
Additional comments: I have read the new document DRN Rule J, noted that Rule 7 is changed to allow talk page discussion, while all the rest is not materially different. I have further noticed that you created Talk:Ethnic groups in Afghanistan/Discussion of Table to relieve the main article talk of this dispute, which I think is a great idea. However, discussion there has immediately returned the other disputed candidate sources for the table instead of how to present data (the layout) from the six agreed-upon sources. This is unlikely to be productive and I am choosing to not engage there. However, I remain committed to the moderated process here and will engage with any further questions you have for the community. Thank you. -- Xan747 (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have been asked to mediate this dispute. I have also been told that there are some matters that are being discussed productively without moderator assistance, and I have created a subpage for that purpose. What exactly am I being asked to mediate? I understand that the main purpose of this dispute resolution is to reconstruct the table. Is there agreement on what the columns and rows of the table are? Is the issue about what numbers to put in the cells of the table? Is the issue that different sources cover different cells in the table, and different sources are thought to be more reliable or more appropriate for some cells than for others? Is discussion in progress on the subpage? Where is the disagreement?
Is there an ongoing need for moderated discussion, or do you want a stand-by moderator in case discussion on some matter, such as some cell, becomes inconclusive?
So far, I haven't seen a clear statement as to what needs to be moderated or mediated. What have I missed, or what has been missed in the description of the problem?
The way of displaying the information in the table was agreed upon.now we have reached the important part of the work. However, there is still disagreement about the sources used in table.
@Robert McClenon, in preparation for the upcoming debate about sources, it might be convenient for participants to have easier access to the list of sources at Fifth statement by_editors (Afghan_groups). I was thinking that moving it downthread so that it is always below the most recent comments, in collapsed form, might reduce the amount of scrolling we'd need to do to see the table in the same context of the current discussion. Open to other options. With your permission I am willing to move it, unless you'd rather do that yourself, or something else. Thank you. Xan747 (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, we are in rough agreement on table formatting. However, there are now unresolved questions summarized here and here that do not directly relate to sourcing, but do touch on how to handle their data. There is mutual agreement that we should be able to continue those topics there, but I wanted to check in with you first before proceeding. Thanks, Xan747 (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eleventh statements by editors (Afghan ethnic groups)
Short answer: Yes there is progress in article talk. Putting your moderation on stand-by is my view of how to best proceed. If other editors disagree, I will be happy to reengage here with your moderation.
To your other questions:
The main dispute is over sources to use for the data table. We have agreed on six; there are on the order of thrice that or more still in dispute. The full list is in the big table above in this section.
There is not yet agreement on how to format the data table, and it is that which we are working on in article talk. I've asked both other editors to make candidate versions of the table using only those six sources, and I will do the same. Then we will hopefully be able to work out any differences amongst ourselves, and put the consensus version of the table into the article.
A single source typically contains percentages the Afghan population by ethnic group. Most sources have figures for the Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, and Uzbek groups. Some sources have those, plus any of several other smaller groups, and some sources have an Others bucket. AFAIK, the buckets themselves are not a point of controversy.
What sources to use for populating those percentages is the main reason we are here, and that is mainly a question of which sources most accurately represent the "true" percentages.
This is complicated by the fact that ethnicities are historically fluid, not universally defined, or controversially defined.
It is well-known that political factions tied to particular ethnicities have attempted to influence the gathering and dissemination of such statistics, and then attempted to use those biased statistics to their own political advantage.
A further complication is that no complete census has ever been taken in Afghanistan. An attempt was made in 1979 and and failed. A partial one was done in 2002, renewed in 2008 but cancelled, and one in 2013 that is of unclear disposition. Thus all estimates in the modern era (going back to the 1960s AFAIK) have been based on some sort of sampling, usually by non-governmental and non-domestic organizations; encyclopedias, research universities, NGOs, the CIA/UN/NATO, etc.
There is an argument in this dispute that the most reliable estimates were taken during the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) because the western powers there made it possible for gathering such statistics with minimal factional influence relative to other periods in the country's history, and thus estimates from other periods before then and after then should be down-weighted, if not entirely excluded from not only the table, but the entire article.
My main counter-argument is that Wikipedia doesn't censor history, or arbitrarily discard sources because editors find them personally suspect. That does not mean that I blindly accept the accuracy of any source, and that we should do the best job that we can to find reliable secondary and tertiary sources which comment on the reliability of estimates during various periods of the country's history. IOW, provide properly-sourced context for the reader to be able to evaluate the raw numbers.
I have tried to make this as concise as possible. As you can see it is quite a complex issue, and you have my apologies for my own struggles to encapsulate the entire scope of this thing in a way that is actionable. Hopefully this helps. I am available for your further questions. Xan747 (talk) 22:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Twelfth statements by editors (Afghan ethnic groups)
Hello @Asilvering, as you saw we are making some progress in the "Discussion on Table" talk page. While we sort out how we want to represent the data, we will have to come back here soon to discuss disputed sources. I put a column with your name in the sources overview to have the opinion on all sources from everybody who was involved in the discussions. Do you consider yourself involved enough to give your opinion on every single source? If yes, I would kindly ask you to add your opinion into the overview as soon as possible, so once we have reached consensus on the ethnicity table layout, we can discuss the disputed sources without wasting too much time. If you don't feel involved enough (anymore), that's also fine, then I would remove your name from the table. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there agreement on the format of the table? Then is the remaining disagreement about the content of the table, or about the text of the article? I will be looking at this dispute in more detail within 48 hours, and will post another statement.
hello @Robert McClenon Thank you for reviewing this dispute. While there's some how agreement on the table format, the main issues are with content, especially ethnicity percentages in the table and prose ( text of the article).
There is a disagreement about the ethnic statistics section (like percentages for Pashtuns and other groups).
if some editors try to use weak or unreliable or low-credibility sources in the table and prose (text of the article),probably
this sources is not acceptable for any part of an article, according to wikipedia rules this kind of sources should not be use neither in tables nor in prose (text).
i think maybe some editors has selectively gathered unverifiable sourcesthis link to promote and increase the percentage of specific ethnic group while minimizing other ethnic groups, This violates multiple Wikipedia rules.
We've had several days of discussions about the shape and format of the table, and now it seems like we should move on to the next step.
I think the remaining issues can be resolved by evaluating the sources according to Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources (WP:RS), neutrality (WP:NPOV), and verifiability (WP:V) No Original Research (WP:NOR).
I also recommend reviewing the page
this link , as they may be relevant to our discussion.
In my view, resolving these issues doesn't need to be overly complex, as some aspects are clear.
I would like to ask you to please pay attention to these few things.
1- Wikipedia rules
2- the history and content of the article for the past years.
3- Use the most reliable sources and use unbiased sources.
4- Remove low-credibility or poor sources or unreliable sources or biased sources or personal comments and articles .... in accordance with Wikipedia rules.
Addressing Problematic Contributions
If an editor insists on using low-credibility biased, poor sources ,or unreliable sources to promote a specific agenda, such as inflating the statistics of an ethnic group, this violates multiple Wikipedia policies.
This may also be considered disruptive editing. please seethis link
To solve these problems = removing unreliable sources, maintaining neutrality, checking the article's history in previous years, Implementing WP:NOR and ...
I have suggested that this version be uploaded to the table in compliance with all Wikipedia rules
candidate version
In the candidate version only the most reliable sources have been used. These sources mainly come from encyclopedias, government organizations, official research from top U.S universities, neutral international institutes linked to the US and Europe, and the United Nations and ...
There are also Many low-credibility, unreliable, or random sources on the internet about the ethnic statistics in Afghanistan.
If it is decided to use unreliable or low-credibility sources in Afghanistan's ethnic groups article, Please give us time to go and find this kind of sources in the internet.If needed,
Hello @Robert McClenon, yes, there is more or less agreement on the table layout (for more details see Xan747's comment earlier). Also, yes, the remaining disagreement for now is about the content of the table. For now, the text of the article is not the main disagreement point (although this might be the case after the content disagreement is sorted out). For more information, please read the section "table layout" on the talk page. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 13:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that the next decision is which sources to include. I would like to remind everyone that discussion at DRN is supposed to be structured: please do not reply to other editors, and do not start new headings (eg "nth statement by editors"). Each "nth statement by editors" section should have at most one post by each involved editor in it. The moderator is only going to be able to handle this if the dispute is clearly and neatly contained.
I've been asked to put my views on the individual sources in the table above. I have not done so, because it is simpler to sum up my general argument in prose: to start, I do not think we should use any of the sources that are not repeated entries from encyclopedias, almanacs, etc. That is, as a basic foundation for discussion, any source that is cited only once in the table should not be used. There are many reasons why I think this is an appropriate approach, but two main ones: a) all of the sources I am skeptical of at a glance fall into this category, and b) it is important that, as much as possible, we use consistent data sources, obtained via similar methodologies, so that the chart is not comparing apples to oranges. Given the topic, this is particularly difficult, and my understanding is that we are unable to pick any specific source as "most reliable", which would otherwise be preferable. Henceforth I am happy to consider any one of these individual sources on a case-by-case basis, but the case I would want to see made is why that particular source is so reliable and useful that we ought to include it, not the converse (ie, why it is so unreliable that we cannot). -- asilvering (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fourteenth statement by moderator (Afghan ethnic groups)
Is the discussion about the format of the table completed? Is there agreement on the format of the table? Where is the table located?
Are the editors, who originally said that they wanted moderated discussion but then wanted to work on the article talk page, ready for moderated discussion?
Is the discussion about the format of the table completed? Mostly, but not completely.
Is there agreement on the format of the table? All involved users agree on just about everything what the table design should be at the end in the live article. Just maybe a few tweaks here and there (e. g. is a separate column for the hide/show button necessary for better readability?) One of the issues remaining is how to present the "other" ethnicities; options are a) only showing percentage ranges for the eight largest ethnic categories and leaving it at that, and b) also showing percentage ranges for the other ethnicities but having to discuss how to deal with sources who give no specific data on who is meant by "others". One other issue is whether there should be a separate table for (native) languages and/or polls for ethnic estimation or not. And the lastly, there is an issue with sources that use total population numbers instead of percentage ranges (or some sources who even use both) and the question whether they should remain in the table or for the sake of better readability (e. g. no % sign in the table) should be used in prose only.
Are the editors, who originally said that they wanted moderated discussion but then wanted to work on the article talk page, ready for moderated discussion? I quote Xan747 on that: "There is mutual agreement that we should be able to continue those topics [on the article talk page]." For that, I'd suggest to open up three new sections where we can propose ideas to the remaining issues and hopefully find common ground very quickly. When we are done, @Asilvering suggested to find common ground on the disputed sources via a case-by-case discussion, which I fully support. SdHb (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by Xan747
Robert; I join SdHb's comment. At this point we're just looking for your permission to slightly extend the article talk discussion beyond its original scope. Thank you. Xan747 (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Statement by badakhshan ziba =
Is the discussion about the format of the table completed? The main part of the discussion on the table format is done. Only minor issues remain, which I believe if the discussion on the sources is done first, the remaining minor problems on the table format will be solved.
Is there agreement on the format of the table?
There has been good agreement on the table format. Only one user has made a statement about the other column and language table, apparently maybe wanting to remove other column.
There has been no discussion on this because I think the task of removing unreliable and low-quality sources should be determined first, and then a decision should be made on the other column.
1- about the present the „other“ ethnicities column= If reliable source has provided information about "Others" in general terms, we should not speculate or extrapolate or make change according to this link
2- As for sources that use population numbers instead of percentage ranges, we should first see that if the source is reliable or not reliable?
When a source is considered unreliable and poor sources according to Wikipedia's rules, I think there is no need to discuss about it.
3- For languages table = We have listed all reliable sources in the table and have not mention their ethnicity in order to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Language table
probably this is the best approach in the case of the table on the languages of Afghanistan.
4- I think that if it is not against Wikipedia rules, we can still have a separate section with full details on Afghanistan National surveys for interested readers.
The location of the table is in the Ethnic composition section.
Are the editors, who originally said that they wanted moderated discussion but then wanted to work on the article talk page, ready for moderated discussion?
Yes, I am ready for moderated discussion here at DRN, I @Robert McClenonmoderator decide to where the discussion should take place.
But I think it would be better if the discussion were to take place here and under the supervision of DRN, because I think it is to hard that a discussion on the sources will reach any conclusion on a Talk page. this is a controversial issue and we have discussed about this for a long time on the article talk page, but we did not reach a conclusion. Therefore, it is better to discuss the sources under the supervision of DRN and according to Wikipedia rules.
Will each editor please state concisely what they think the content issues are.
a-The main content issues are: Ensuring all ethnicity data (percentages, "others," languages/surveys) is supported only by high-quality, reliable sources (e.g., official censuses, recent peer-reviewed studies . government organizations, official research from top U.S universities, neutral international institutes linked to the US and Europe, and the United Nations and ...) per WP:RS and WP:V—
b- weak, outdated, or selective sources (e.g., incomplete news reports omitting other ethnicities or inflating specific ethnic groups) should be removed entirely to avoid bias, undue weight (WP:NPOV,WP:NOR) and avoid the disruptive editing this link.
C- Balancing presentation to reflect reliable information without advocacy, especially in this controversial topic area.
This is my first time on DRN and I have tried to follow the rules as much as possible. Please let me know if I have done or said anything that is against Wikipedia rules so I can correct it. Thank you very much. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteenth statement by moderator (Afghan ethnic groups)
I am unsure about at least two aspects of this dispute. First, I am told that the editors have agreed on the format of the table. However, I see three versions of the table. I see that Badakhshan ziba's table is formatted differently. That does not appear to indicate that there is agreement on the format of the table.
Is there any identifiable content dispute at this point?
Is there any reason why I should keep this dispute open? Would there be any harm if I just closed this dispute as opened through good-faith mistake? I think that we are here partly because User:asilvering said that this was a dispute about a combined question of what were the best sources to use for particular entries in the table, and I haven't seen any issues that weren't being handled by discussion. DRN is used when discussion about article content has become unproductive. It appears that discussion is still underway. Is there any reason why I should keep this dispute open?
Yes there is a difference of opinion. please Compare the numbers in 1- here, 2-here and 3- here. with each other and these are different in numbers inside the table. the main dispute is here.
i think we need dispute under supervision of DRN. This issue has not been resolved after alot of discussion before. I mean the numbers in the tables.
suggestion 1 = This table is from the most reliable sources available. If others do not have problem, I would like to ask permission to upload this candidate table.to the main live article. Unfortunately I tried to do this before but each time someone came along and change the numbers in this table.
suggestion 2 = we can Close this dispute here and then me, someone else, or you, open a new DRN request just for the sources used within the table. then we can discuss about the numbers and sources in the table.
suggestion 3 = We can continue according to
(First statement by possible moderator (Ethnic groups in Afghanistan)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Some editors add lines about Safal Worker's Street Committee that was supposedly active in the 2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests. This group was supposedly formed the day after the protests started and only has a twitter page. This twitter page is cited by some other left-inclined websites but have no mention in any Nepalese sources in Nepali or in English and other reputable foreign English media. I do not believe that such a group should be given any mention in Wikipedia, since a quick search in engines will reveal that searching their group will give you either the Wikipedia page or other online forums which cite this Wikipedia page.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
All their sources lean politically left. The group has no mention in any non-leftist sources or in any Nepali sources. If they can prove the groups involvement is not limited online in a significant way, I will not oppose their inclusion. Hami Nepal was given as an example for why Safal should be allowed, but Hami Nepal's coverage has been extensive and detailed. Unless Safal has similar coverage, I do not believe that they should be mentioned in the article.
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
My view is that Safal is more or less extensively covered by a number of sources, all of which satisfy WP:RS. These sources include, Diario Socialista[38], Organise [39], Freedom [40] and some others. It is true these are left-leaning sources, but WP:RS does not state that bias alone means a source cannot be used. (Freedom for instance has been noted as especially reliable, despite it's far-left bias[41]). Overall, though it is definitely smaller than other protest groups, I think enough RS' cover it or discuss it to merit its inclusion. And its inclusion also adds to give a more holistic view of the different forces that take part in the protest.
@Robert McClenon I'd also like to add that one of the editors mentioned, Emac07, was not involved in any discussion on the Safal Committee. I wonder if this was a mistake? But it should be brought up. Also I have notified Grnchrst on their behalf, but I am not sure if I should notify Emac since it's likely their being mentioned was a mistake. Genabab (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Nepalese protests)
I am willing to moderate this dispute. Please raad DRN Rule D. Then please read the ArbCom designation of South Asia as a contentious topic. By taking part in this discussion, you are acknowledging that you are aware of expedited procedures for disruptive editing, and that Nepal is in South Asia. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. So I am asking each editor to state what the article content dispute is. What do you want to change in the article that another editor does not want to change? Or what do you want to leave the same in the article that another editor wants to change?
We have one statement from one editor who wants to include the Safal Committee in the infobox and the article. Please specify where in the infobox they want to insert a reference to the committee, and what text they want to insert into the article, in what section and paragraph. If any other editor disagrees, please state the disagreement, and state what if anything else you want. If there are no other statements, I will close this case.
So for the infobox I want to add Safal COmmittee to the infobox under Hami Nepal.
Then I want to add it into the body for 9 September saying:
"Workers and independent Communists in Nepal formed the Safal Workers' Street Committee to defend protestors from violence in reaction to the killings of 8 September.[1][2][3][4] Their demands included the arrest of the government, the disarming of the state, the expropriation of enemy property, the arming of the Nepalese population, the dissolution of parliament and the election of worker assemblies.[3]" Genabab (talk) 10:34, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have one statement from one editor who wants to include the Safal Committee in the infobox and the article. Do any of the other editors disagree? If so, please state the disagreement concisely.
We have one statement from one editor who wants to include the Safal Committee in the infobox and the article. The other editors have not commented. I will suspend the rule against editing the article to allow Genabab to make the edits that they have requested, and will keep this case open for a few days. If the edits are reverted, please discuss them here, and on the user talk page of the reverting editor.
@Robert McClenon I am not sure what the exact procedure here for something like this is, but it hasn't escaped my notice that PenGear has violated WP:Canvas, by notifying another user to come and support their claim here.[5]. Not sure what this would mean specifically in terms of this Dispute Resolution but it seems I should bring it up. Genabab (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am still against adding this content. The source is biased and nobody mentions Safal Committee at all. Searching for them brings up Wikipedia. If that's the standard wikipedia wants to keep then great, perhaps all hearsay and social media posts can be added as sources. This committee has not been mentioned in any Nepali sources at all, but if western leftists want to create propaganda, what can I say. I concede. PenGear (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was just reminded of this thread and I'm sad to see PenGear is still assuming bad faith of other editors. As I said above, I don't think we should be assigning this group undue weight by placing it in the infobox, when there's no indication it has played any substantial role in the protests. But I also don't see the problem with including a short mention of it in the body of the article, limited to what reliable, secondary sources such as Freedom have said. I think this is a perfectly fair compromise between PenGear's position on removal and Genabab's position on inclusion. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not a fair compromise. This group does not exist and is only active online. There's no inclination anywhere that this group was even in the protests. But because of a tweet cited by biased sources it needs to be included? PenGear (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that there are other editors who have opinions on the mention of the Sahal Committee besides those who took part in this discussion. In particular, it appears that there is disagreement about whether to include a mention of the Safal Committee in the infobox, and disagreement about whether to include a mention of the Sahal Committee in the text of the article. Is that conclusion correct? I am asking each editor who is viewing this discussion, whether or not they are a named participant, to answer whether they want to mention the Sahal Committee in the infobox, and whether they want to mention the Sahal Committee in the article. If there is disagreement, it does not appear that we are about to resolve the dispute by discussion, and so an RFC will be in order.
Ideally, I would want it to be included in both the infobox and the body, but at this point I am willing to accept Grnrchst's suggestions on just putting it in the body and not the infobox as a compromise.
No to infobox, maybe to article (depending on due weight). If an RfC takes place, I will not be participating in it. I'm sick of being badgered and having accusations of bad faith thrown at me over a content dispute I never wanted to be involved in in the first place. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a draft RFC at Talk:2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests/RFC on Safal Committee. Please review and comment on the draft RFC. Please do not vote in the draft RFC at this time, because it is not a live RFC. Please do not put your comments in the draft RFC itself. Please put your comments about the draft RFC here, in DRN. When we are more or less in agreement as to what the RFC should ask, I will move the RFC to the article talk page and activate it, and then it will be a live RFC.
The RFC looks good to me as well, but I do have to ask once again at the risk of repeating myself, but what about the WP:CANVAS concerns raised earlier? How should that factor into the DR or the RFC? Genabab (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One editor is asking about canvassing by another editor. DRN is a content forum. The purpose of discussion here is to improve the article. The canvassing issue appears to be an issue about the conduct of another editor. From a content issue, the involvement of other editors in a discussion about content may result in more eyes and brains on the article, and is not an immediate problem, if it is a problem at all.
So my immediate question is whether any canvassing has impacted the development of an RFC, which is intended to determine the view of the community.
An editor can report the canvassing issue to WP:ANI, which will cause this DRN to be failed. A report at WP:ANI is likely to be dismissed as of little import. The RFC is ready to be launched anyway, regardless of how this DRN is concluded.
DRN has usually welcomed the inclusion of more editors in a discussion of article content. So I am not sure whether there is a problem, or what if anything to do about it if there is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
^Sykes, Cristina. "Nepal: Parliament torched after police kill 19 protesters". Freedom. Retrieved 14 September 2025. Parliament and government buildings were torched, the prime minister and home minister have resigned, and the ban has been scrapped. The newly formed Safal Committee went further, calling the massacre of protesters "the first shot in a class war" and demanding disarmament of the police, dissolution of parliament and arming of the masses.
A collection of disputes regarding the warbox that has been ongoing between me and another user for around a week. Includes whether flags should be displayed on the wikibox in the units and commanders section, which units (such as the Free French Battalion and the Third Indian Motor Brigade) and countries (such as Free France) should be included, etc. Progress has been incredibly slow (Although some progress has been made, Free France was allowed on the war box). A request for a third comment was tried, but achieved little. Repeated reverting coming close (but not entering) an edit war. Another user has sometimes refused to discuss the issue, or stated they will not be continuing to discuss the issue, yet still reverts, making the discussion very hard. It seems hard to resolve without outside help. Thank you!
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
I am willing to serve as a potential volunteer on this case; however, @Pencilceaser123:, can you please notify TurboSuperA+ about this filing, since they have engaged in discussion at Talk:Operation Sonnenblume by providing a WP:3O, by posting a message on their talk page about this DRN request? Also, I would like to remind all parties that infoboxes are a contentious topic. Also, I advise all parties to cease reverting edits as there appears to be a slow revert war going on. I have requested the page be protected at RFPP for now. [48]~delta(talk • cont)03:22, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I only answered a specific 3O request regarding a single aspect of this discussion (flags in infoboxes). I have no opinion on the matter beyond the one I gave. I recommended that they ask for input at WP:MILHIST, because those are the editors who deal with military conflicts. TurboSuperA+[talk]03:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
> This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict
So I would guess by a strict textual definition a couple extra flags on the allied side may be allowed but only if it improves reader comprehension.
My first thought having read the article is that it does not appear to aid my comprehension in fact it may confuse readers who think the infobox is suggesting the Free French might be a major player in the battle when in fact it was a single company? If I am correct.
Now given that free french forces are only mentioned twice in the text of the article at least it does not seem to me that the french unit was notable in its participation in the battle beyond its size and may not warrant inclusion.
As a counterargument or at least a doubt that I have some pages do include very small participants;
Battle of Leipzig includes a British rocket artillery battery of some 200 men in a battle involving 100,000s. But the battery is notable I would assume for its novelty. (Perhaps it shouldnt include it im not sure)
Perhaps the conflict could be resolved while still including a free french flag in the infoxbox but a similar inclusion of any indian/Aus and any other nationality units.
Off the top of my head you might have Rhodesian's as they had company level units iirc in the KRRC.
The infoxbox might also need SA's at this time in 1941 most major SA formation were in east africa but there may well have been some company sized units I dont know about.
NZ too I know they had a rail logistics group active early on they might still be in theatre.
I raise these because they by setting the bar for infoxbox inclusion at company you risk having now a whole set of flags in the infoxbox, Indian, Aus, NZ, Rhodesian, and Free French.
Applying the same standard to subsequent battles in north africa you will include, greeks, czechs and poles in nearly every one.
Broadly my comment would be in general the allies of WW2 comprised many nations often fighting as coalitions. Infoxbox inclusion of every multinational force however small would lead to overload of what is supposed to be a quick reference resource to aid comprehension. Infobox non inclusion should not be taken as a sign of disrespect to anyone who served or any nation who contributed.
However if inclusion were to take place I would recommend you follow the Leipzig model and add a note at the very least specifying the size of any minor nation contributors for at least some clarity as you flood the infoxbox with 2-4 extra flags.
The free french contribution was larger than a single company, they had a battalion. The Warbox template suggests if you have alot of combatants, you limit the amount in the war box to around 3 or 4. So I think the free french, being the 4th biggest combatant on the allied side, should be included. But yes alot of pages include very small combatants, often they include ones with an extremely limited role, like only 2 planes or a warship in support. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah i had missed the 1 BIM in the Order of battle
Honestly given the scale of the Western Desert theatre (primary manoeuvre unit is brigades) my own thought would be to draw the line for inclusion in the major engagements - either at brigade or battalion level with no strong feeling for either one.. And at some level this is subjective. Company I do feel would be quite silly given the overall scale and the possibility to really crowd the infobox if applied.
I note that the BIM is smaller other contributors (Aus is division sized and the Indian Army unit is a brigade, but infobox crowding arguments dont really apply now.
alright ill do a request for comment on the hilhist board when I get time. In the meantime what is your thoughts on having flags in said warbox next to the commanders and unit names? Additionally should the Indian motor brigade, as it was fairly large and independent from the others be included in the unit list in the infobox? Thanks Pencilceaser123 (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm not sure
Either the standard for inclusion is divisions and up that were heavily engaged (noting the Italians arent listed)
But I can see an argument for including the indians they seem to have conducted some very independent operations as they withdrew.
@Keith-264, are you still willing to participate in the discussion here at DRN regarding the infobox? I noticed you have removed the talk page notification about the DRN case request but have not commented here. ~delta(talk • cont)11:11, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When Dying Light first released it wasn't clear if Harran was in Turkey or not. Now Dying Light: The Beast is released. It's the third game in the series but a direct continuation of the first game, Dying Light. The main character of the game, Kyle Crane, directly tells that Harran is indeed in Turkey when talking about the events on the previous game, Dying Light. Wikipedia article says it's in some random Middle Eastern territories. Well, it's stated now it is in Turkey and it should be changed. But an user disagrees without valid reasons. The involved user claims that further explanation of the lore shouldn't be included in the article like it can't be updated forever. User also tells that Turkey has no bearing on the rest of the plot and the Wikipedia article. I find it ridiculous because when it's stated that the place is in Middle Eastern territories, the user finds it has bearing but when Turkey is mentioned the user disapproves. I think it's personal to the user.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
The dispute needs a certain and noncontestable decision to prevent a revert war because more people will come and see it when they play the new game and want to change the article.
Dying Light takes place in "Harran" but no country is mentioned in the game and contemporary sources describe the setting as fictional, thus the plot description mirrors this. In the past, there have been a number of edits adding Turkey because there happened to be a real place with that name. While Dying Light: The Beast, released 10 years later, does mention Turkey, game plots are usually written in isolation and rarely incorporate lore information that did not exist at the time of release. Additionally, the country has no impact on the rest of the article, so its exclusion is no major loss. IceWelder [✉] 20:19, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=upper-alpha> tags or {{efn-ua}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=upper-alpha}} template or {{notelist-ua}} template (see the help page).
to add your name! You don't need to volunteer to help. Please feel free to comment below on any case. Be civil and remember; Maintain Wikipedia policy: it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Editors must take particular care adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. This may also apply to some groups.
– Discussion in progress.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
– New discussion.