Welcome to the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN)

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.

Do you need assistance?

Would you like to help?

Request dispute resolution

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.
We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other content or conduct dispute resolution forums or in decision-making processes such as Requests for comments, Articles for deletion, or Requested moves.
The dispute must have been recently 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 enter text that has been generated by a large language model or other artificial intelligence. All statements in dispute resolution must be in your own words.
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.

Become a volunteer

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).

Case		Created		Last volunteer edit		Last modified
Title	Status	User	Time	User	Time	User	Time
Socotra Airport	Resolved	The Banner (t)	13 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours
Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season	New	Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (t)	12 days, 14 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	PeeJay (t)	12 hours
Attack on Fort St. Philip (1815)	Closed	Keith H99 (t)	11 days, 12 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 17 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	2 days, 17 hours
Ethnic groups in Afghanistan	In Progress	Xan747 (t)	9 days, 16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	SdHb (t)	4 hours
2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests	New	PenGear (t)	3 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours	Grnrchst (t)	2 days, 3 hours
Rape in Islamic law	In Progress	John Not Real Name (t)	3 days, 19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	3 days, 6 hours	Curbon7 (t)	2 days, 17 hours
Parasnath	New	ChaseKiwi (t)	3 days, 1 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	ChaseKiwi (t)	13 hours
Operation Sonnenblume	In Progress	Pencilceaser123 (t)	1 days, 11 hours	~delta (t)	23 hours	~delta (t)	23 hours
New Perspective on Paul	New	MainBody (t)	19 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	16 hours
Nikolas Schreck	Closed	Makali2 (t)	10 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours	Robert McClenon (t)	9 hours

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.

Archived DRN Cases

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210
211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220
221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230
231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240
241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250
251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260
261, 262

This page has archives. Sections older than 72 hours may be auto-archived by if there are more than 1.

Current disputes

Socotra Airport

Dispute resolved successfully. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by The Banner on 18:23, 5 September 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.

Location of dispute

Socotra Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

There are charter flights between Socotra Airport and Abu Dhabi that seem to be unauthorised and the text reflects that. But an editor wants to add a note to the destinations table declaring those flights illegal, based on sources that do not declare it illegal and a source involved in WP:MEMO. In my opinion, the note is superfluous (due to the prior text in the article) and POV (due to the quality of the sources given and the stance of the expressed opinion). The contested edit is this one.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

By discussion on Talk:Socotra Airport and - unfortunately - on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:The Banner

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Investigate if the added note is neutral and necessary.

Summary of dispute by Abo Yemen

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I'm going to keep this very brief since the other participants here have already provided a good enough summary: Our current dispute is about whether to include the note in the destinations table or not. The UAE has been operating flights to Socotra via Air Arabia following the Southern Transitional Council takeover of Socotra. We have sources saying reporting on the issue, saying that the Yemeni government did not authorize those flights and are illegal. The Banner thinks that note violates WP:NPOV and had called me a POV-pusher for wanting to keep that note. IMO that note is very much relevant and should be there since there are no sources that oppose the illegal designation of the flight 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:35, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Mitchp10

First, I am a new editor so I apologize for any errors I make or have made during this process. Also, I am still learning how to format and I’m currently on mobile.

My main issue was with the wording of the article as I read it | in this revision.

This section of “History” I felt was both not in line with neutral POV and also poorly sourced:

“Flights have been operated illegally out of the airport to transfer Israeli tourists to the island following the occupation of the airport by the United Arab Emirates.”

As I explained in Talk: Socotra Airport, I felt that there was insufficient sources for this claim, and also while I understand that this is a hot geopolitical topic, I don’t see the reasoning behind specifically calling out Israeli tourists in this wiki article especially not with a shaky source like it had.

I have not really been following the back and forth in the last week, but I think the wording of the article as it stands is mostly fine. I don’t think it’s necessary to have a note that the flight is operating illegally in the table, but I think a mention of it is probably good. Can I propose the word “unauthorized” instead of “illegal”? Clearly, someone thinks these flights are legal or otherwise they wouldn’t be running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchp10 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also just like to make clear that while i made the original edit and talk page post, I’ve pretty much entirely stayed out of this discussion. Mitchp10 (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Paprikaiser

I've already replied in the original thread, so I'll try not to be too repetitive. I don't follow the claim of POV pushing based on "the quality of the sources". The sources cited are not making their own assessment but quoting government officials. As long as those statements are properly attributed, they seem worthy of inclusion. Excluding this content altogether does come across as POV pushing, especially since one of the sources was previously dismissed as "pro-Palestinian" even though it was government figures making the claim that the flights were illegal. All of the sources, not just MEMO, are simply reporting on their statements; they are not making an editorial judgment of their own. This can be resolved by avoiding wiki voice and attributing the illegality claim to the government, or by stating that the flights were unauthorized by the government. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:26, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Grimforge

I am inserting myself in this dispute resolution because I have also reverted the addition of the "illegal" note to the article. The supposed "illegal" branding of the flights has only been endorsed by news outlets critical of both the UAE and Israel. There are no neutral WP:RS calling it illegal and the official that has declared it "illegal" is an unnamed source from Yemen's presidential leadership council controlled information ministry which is exactly what the text of the article states (note that Yemen is in a civil war with multiple factions, each of who consider themselves as the "rightful government" and the other as "illegal"). The rest of media coverage of it are all sympathetic to either the Houthi or the PLC factions in Yemen who unsurprisingly do not control Socotra as it falls under another faction due to a civil war in Yemen, the southern transitional council. Also to note that there are a lot of propaganda about how Israeli tourists and Israel intelligence supposedly have built a base in Socotra all published by non-neutral, secretarian, and biased media outlets which is part of the broader trend of propaganda in the region. This is not verified by neutral non-sectarian sources. It is not in the interest of the wiki project to push sectarian view points in wikivoice and to stick to WP:NPOV, therefore I do not support inclusion of supposed "illegality" until there is a neutral court of law that determines this. Grimforge (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Socotra Airport discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Socotra Airport)

I am ready to act as the moderator if moderated discussion is requested. Please read DRN Rule A. I have added a user to the list of editors. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. Please state concisely what you want to change in the article that another editor disagrees about, or what you want to leave the same that another editor wants to change. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

I've read DRN Rule A. I want to keep the note regarding the designation of the flight. I am open to alternative wordings 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 17:49, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read DRN Rule A. In my opinion the note is superfluous (already covered in the text) and biased, as explained in the original filing. The Banner talk 22:27, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The note is biased and is not in keeping with wikipedias neutrality as it claims illegality which is not endorsed by neutral mainstream RS or a court of law. I recommend it's removal, what's written in the text suffice. Grimforge (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by moderator (Socotra Airport)

The disagreement appears to be only about a note that restates what is already stated in the body of the article. Is that correct? If so, I would like each editor to make a concise statement as to why they think that the encyclopedia will be better with or without the Note, respectively. If the editors cannot agree on whether to include or exclude the Note, we will have to resolve the dispute by a Request for Comments. Do we really want to spend significant volunteer time on whether to include or exclude a Note that is already in the text of the article?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:48, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

Please see my summary & opinion above. I'm only but a novice but I think WP:CONACHIEVE has been achieved with at least 3 users dissenting & reverting the inclusion of an unnecessary "illegal" note to an airport destination table? If not, I guess we'll need more volunteer's opinions. Grimforge (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. Feel free to start one if you wish. As for Grim's comment above, consensus is not achieved by edit warring. Plus 2 editors arguing for its inclusion to 3 arguing otherwise just means that there is no consensus 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 05:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am missing something, but from the article history it seems multiple users (Mitchp10, The Banner, Johnj1995, and at least 2 IP users, Xxk9bomber, What-ifpaypay, and myself) have all removed the "illegal" part since at least last year and were reverted in part by you. Not sure who else agrees with adding the note but maybe opening an Rfc would be the best. Grimforge (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. I hope to see a determination if the note is warranted, preferably without being brought to AN/I by Abo Yemen as he did before when he disagreed with my concerns. The Banner talk 11:21, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took you there because of the personal attacks. Crazy that you haven't noticed it yet 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:41, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second statement by moderator (Socotra Airport)

When I said to read DRN Rule A, I meant to read it and follow it, not just to read it and say that you had read it. It says not to engage in back-and-forth discussion. It also says to comment on content, not contributors. Do some of us really want an RFC on the addition of a Note that restates what is already in the text of the article? Please provide a concise statement as to why the inclusion or the exclusion of the Note will improve the encyclopedia.

Are there any other questions, or should I fail this discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

Sorry, but that AN/I discussion pointed to Dispute Resolution as a way to solve this issue, so I see them as related. And in fact a continuation. But my position is to solve the content issue. The Banner talk 19:37, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the only options being discussed are either keeping the note as it was or removing it entirely. Abo Yemen has already suggested an alternative phrasing. We can simply note that the flights were unauthorized by both the Houthi and the internationally recognized Yemeni government, without labeling them as illegal in wiki voice. Including that doesn't harm the article; it's just a short explanatory note, and that's exactly what notes are for. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:57, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The note is disputed and is likely to invite future edit warring as evident in the article history. It's context is already included in details in the text where disputed content should be. Adding notes in wiki voice with sectarian statements does not improve the neutrality of wikipedia and invites future disputes. Grimforge (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by moderator (Socotra Airport)

Paprikaiser has proposed a compromise note. Do the editors agree to the compromise?

The Banner wrote: Sorry, but that AN/I discussion pointed to Dispute Resolution as a way to solve this issue, so I see them as related. And in fact a continuation. But my position is to solve the content issue. I am not sure what is being said to be related to what. We are here to solve the content issue, and the ANI discussion was closed as a content dispute. So please focus on the content issue about whether to include a note, and do not refer to closed ANI discussions.

I would like each editor to state whether they agree to the compromise, and, if not, why their preferred option will improve the encyclopedia.

Are there any other questions ? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

The compromise proposed seems pretty similar to my suggestion, so I am in favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchp10 (talk • contribs) 00:09, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I have no issues with Paprikaiser's compromise 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 12:00, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to disagree as inessential and contentious, already covered in text, and likely to invite future edit warring. If consensus determines its inclusion, then by WP:OR it should state what the source states as in the text which is described as unauthorized by the Houthi government and
a source in the Information, Tourism and Culture Ministry in Aden
While Houthi leadership has clearly stated it's an unauthorized flight, there's more ambiguity from the Int. recognized govt of Yemen unless other sources remove this ambiguity. Grimforge (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statement by moderator (Socotra Airport)

One of the editors who was in this discussion has been blocked for one month. I will ask the remaining editors (and any editors who are watching and want to participate) which of the options they will be satisfied with. There are three options, where option A is the original note, option B is the compromise note, and option C is no note. I would like each editor to state whether they will be satisfied with option A (the original note), whether they will be satisfied with option B (the compromise note), and whether they will be satisfied with option C (no note).

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

Option B should work well, and it addresses the POV issues brought up by the other editors in this discussion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 06:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option B sounds best for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchp10 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option B seems like the best choice. Paprikaiser (talk) 19:33, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option C as the least controversial and should prevent any future edit warring. However if others deem it necessary, then a note with expanded clarification as in the text. Grimforge (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statement by moderator (Socotra Airport)

I guess I didn't ask mt question clearly. I mean to ask each of you not only what your first choice was, but what other choices you would be willing to agree to. However, I don't think I need to ask that. I see three first choices for Option B. So my question is whether the fourth editor is willing to accept Option B. If so, we will close this dispute as resolved by a compromise, which is the best possible outcome of DRN (although not the most common).

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth statements by editors (Socotra Airport)

Yes, in my comment I mentioned if other deem it necessary (which is what seems to be in this case) then I am willing to accept what the majority agree to even if I don't really agree with it, and suggest an expanded explanation as it is written in text to minimize any future edit warring. You can proceed to close this. Thank you for your work. Grimforge (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season

– New discussion.

Filed by Alpha Beta Delta Lambda on 21:31, 6 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk · contribs)
PeeJay (talk · contribs)
Erkatta11 (talk · contribs)
Ikhouvanjou14 (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

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?

Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season#Matches summary User talk:Alpha Beta Delta Lambda#2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

By providing an (policy/guideline-based) independent opinion on this matter.

Summary of dispute by PeeJay

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

We have a manual of style for football club season articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Club seasons. Both the table format and the {{footballbox collapsible}} format are acceptable, but OP has not presented sufficient grounds for this article or any other to change format. I have plenty of arguments against {{footballbox collapsible}}, but that's ground that's been well trod over my time editing Wikipedia (see here). If anyone wants to hear them again, please ping me. – Pee Jay 18:45, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Erkatta11

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Ikhouvanjou14

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Talk:2025–26 Manchester United F.C. season discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Manchester United)

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.

I will ask more questions after I read the answers. Are there any questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. – Pee Jay 13:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Manchester United)

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]

First statement by moderator (Manchester United)

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]

First statements by editors (Manchester United)

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]

Second statement by moderator (Manchester United)

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?

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (Manchester United)

I am pretty sure that none of the editors have participated in this discussion since my statement. So, no, there are no agreements yet. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 17:13, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third statement by moderator (Manchester United)

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.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. – Pee Jay 23:45, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third statements by editors (Manchester United)

Attack on Fort St. Philip (1815)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Keith H99 on 23:41, 7 September 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.

Location of dispute

Attack on Fort St. Philip (1815) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Keith H99 (talk · contribs)
LucyGermanDog (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

For the time period July 27 through September 2, the result field of the infobox was changed seven times by LucyGermanDog, to delete “inconclusive” and to insert “American victory”. The initial justification was that was it was stated on a website. (The website states that the victory occurred on January 12. Other sources disagree with the concluding date.) https://www.battlefields.org/learn/war-1812/battles/fort-st-philip?utm_source=chatgpt.com

The subsequent argument was that there are universal rules for victories of battles, and the Royal Navy has fallen foul of these rules.

The latest rationale, as of September 7, is that the officer commanding the garrison wrote a letter to his commanding officer, to tell him that he was victorious.

When these bold edits were performed, there was no discussion occurring. The first discourse started on September 2 at 09:22 US PDT (Daylight Saving) / 12:22 US EDT (Daylight Saving)/ 16:22 UK GMT.

The purpose of the edits has been to amend the outcome of the "battle" in the infobox. The underlying content in the core of the body of the article has been unchanged. I am of the opinion that the c̶u̶r̶r̶e̶n̶t̶ outcome "inconclusive" conforms with WP:NPOV, avoids a WP:NATIONALIST stance, and that the laws of physics (around physical impossibility of big ships in shallow riverbeds) play a big part in determining the outcome of this riverine engagement.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Please see older content Talk:Attack on Fort St. Philip (1815)#Outcome of the siege - inconclusive, or a victory User talk:LucyGermanDog

Please see most recent content Talk:Attack on Fort St. Philip (1815)#a victory, or an inconclusive result/outcome

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Previously, there were bold edits of the outcome. They were reverted by various editors, as the justification for the change did not stand up to verification. No discussion took place in this time period. The strong desire for "American victory" to be recorded in this article resulted in an edit war.

The best way forward is to evaluate the dispute against core content policies—WP:RS, WP:V, WP:DUE, and WP:NPOV,rather than personal views. A neutral third party could help by reviewing

Summary of dispute by LucyGermanDog

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Attack on Fort St. Philip (1815) discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer Note - The other editor has not edited since this case request was filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Ethnic groups in Afghanistan

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Xan747 on 19:52, 9 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Ethnic groups in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

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?

Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Vandalism Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Request_to_remove_unreliable_Sources_in_the_"Ethnic_Groups_in_Afghanistan"_Article Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Unreliable_sources,_part_3 User_talk:Badakhshan_ziba#Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan User_talk:SdHb#Do_not_revert User_talk:Asilvering#Another_big_revert_in_Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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.

Summary of dispute by Badakhshan ziba

hello please read this link I think explained the problem well.

thank you ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Request_for_correction_and_revision_in_the_ethnic_composition_table_and_activate_dispute_resolution_mechanisms) Badakhshan ziba (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by SdHb

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).

Summary of dispute by Xan747

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]

As I was writing, I became aware that Badakhshan again removed content from the article against consensus, explaining why in article talk. Xan747 (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have entirely removed the data table from the article as that is main point of contention and started a new "fresh-start" thread at Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan#Data_table_discussion with the hope that we can add back "common ground" content before moving on to disputed stuff. -- Xan747 (talk) 23:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by asilvering

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]

Ethnic groups in Afghanistan discussion

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?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan&diff=prev&oldid=1310542667 Badakhshan ziba (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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, [8]

I thought I could edit the old version. So, I mistakenly assumed I had the right to replace the older version with a more correct one. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 12:09, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

@Robert McClenon Can I ask you any questions I have here? Or should I do it on the talk page? Badakhshan ziba (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 0.1 by possible moderator (Ethnic groups in Afghanistan)

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)

Robert McClenon, thanks for offering to help out. It looks like we may have been able to jumpstart the talk page discussion - maybe we can hold off on DR for now? -- asilvering (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, I've changed my mind. I think a quick glance at the state of the talk page will suffice to explain why. -- asilvering (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, fyi that IPA isn't a CTOP since July, it's now part of WP:CT/SA. -- asilvering (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First statement by possible moderator (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.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello moderator and other editors,

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.

((Please delete or move this text if it is in the wrong place. If it is okay, I will delete this post in the next day or two.)) Badakhshan ziba (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First statements by editors (Afghan groups)

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.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Robert McClenon thank you, I think I will need the full 48-72 hours to do a full summary of what I (don’t) want to keep and what I (don’t) want to change. Thank you. SdHb (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second statements by editors (Afghan groups)

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.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Hello. I really apologize for the delay. It was actually an initial difference between the two versions.

1- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1310470594#cite_note-wilber62-109

2- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1309410604#:~:text=Ethnic%20groups%20in%20Afghanistan%20based%20on%20alternative%20estimates

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

Therefore, these two tables required in-depth review because they contained multiple violations of Wikipedia rules. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon I propose that this revised version User:Badakhshan ziba/Ethnic groups in Afghanistan (working)#Ethnic composition replace the previous long and poor quality tables. I hope it will be approved.I would be happy if experienced Wikipedia administrators and editors would comment on this. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Third statements by editors (Afghan groups)

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:

1969 Kingdom of Afghanistan
1978-1979 Soviet–Afghan War (beginning of)
1981-1991 Democratic Republic of Afghanistan (overlaps with the war)
1992-2003 Islamic State of Afghanistan
2006-2021 Islamic Republic of Afghanistan

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]

Update: This new version updates individual estimates with ranges or less than/greater than signs when those were given by original sources. Xan747 (talk) 21:37, 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]

fourth statements by editors (Afghan groups)

.

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

'this updated link[9]

another table add ='' This link is still being updated. International survey data on Afghan ethnicities has been added. A page that using this information will be uploaded soon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Badakhshan_ziba/Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan_(working)#:~:text=Answers%20regarding%20ethnicity%20Survey%20of%20the%20Afghan%20People%20in%20national%20opinion%20polls .

Fifth statement by editors (Afghan groups)

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"?
Source		SdHb	Badakhshan ziba	Xan747	Asilvering
Fischer Weltalmanach Ethnische Gruppen/Bevölkerung (German)	1969^[1]	Yes	No	Yes
	1978^[2]
	1979^[3]
	1981^[4]
	1982^[5]
	1984^[6]
	1985^[7]
	1986^[8]
	1988^[9]
	1991^[10]
	1993^[11]
	1995^[12]
	1996^[13]
	1998^[14]
	2000^[15]
	2003^[16]		Yes
	2006^[17]
	2009^[18]
	2010^[19]
	2019^[20]
CIA World Factbook Ethnic groups	1981^[21]	Yes	Yes	Yes
	1991^[22]
	1992^[23]
	2013^[24]
Library of Congress Ethnic groups	1996^[25]	Yes	Yes	Yes
Asia Foundation Ethnic groups	2004^[26]	Rather yes	Not this table	Yes
	2006^[27]
	2007^[28]
	2008^[29]	No
	2009^[30]	No
	2010^[31]	Rather yes
	2011^[32]	Rather no
	2012^[33]	No
	2013^[34]	Rather no
	2014^[35]
	2015^[36]
	2016^[37]	No
	2017^[38]	Rather no
	2018^[39]
	2019^[40]
	2021^[41]
Donald Newton Wilber Afghanistan: its people, its society, its culture	1962^[42]	Yes	No	Yes
Conrad Schetter Afghanistan zwischen Chaos und Machtpolitik (German)	1978^[43]	Yes	No	Yes
Mohammad Bashir Mobasher Political Laws and Ethnic Accommodation: Why Cross-Ethnic Coalitions Have Failed to Institutionalize in Afghanistan.	2017^[44]	Partially yes^[a]^[b]	No	Prose only
Louis Dupree AFGHANISTAN iv. Ethnography	1983^[47]	Yes	No	Yes
The Gulf/2000 Project Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan (summary)	2002^[48]	Partially yes^[c]	Yes	Not this table
Encyclopædia Britannica Tajik	2011^[50]	Yes	No	Prose only
The New York Times Afghan Factions Sign Pact to Fight New Kabul Rulers	1996^[51]	Yes	No	Prose only
Keith Brown, Sarah Ogilvie Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world	2009^[52]	Prose only	No	Prose only
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Why Tajikistan Is Taking a Stand Against the Taliban	2021^[53]	Yes	No	Prose only
ABC News, BBC, ARD Ethnicity	2010^[54]	Yes	Yes	Yes
WorldData Mother tongue	2023^[55]	Prose only	No	No
William Maley Fundamentalism reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban	1998^[56]	Yes	No	Undecided
US Department of State Afghanistan – People	2004^[57]	Yes	Yes	Yes
	2005^[58]
	2006^[59]
Parliamentary elections in Afghanistan	2005^[44]	No	Yes	Not this table
Parliamentary elections in Afghanistan	2010^[44]	No	Yes	Not this table
Encyclopædia Britannica Languages of Afghanistan	2025^[60]	Prose only	Yes	Prose only
Minority Rights Group Main minority or indigenous communities	2021^[61]	Yes	Yes	Yes
Minority Rights Group Main languages	2021^[61]	Prose only	Yes	Prose only
CIA World Factbook Languages	2014^[62]	Prose only	Yes	Prose only
CIA World Factbook Languages	2021^[63]	Prose only	Yes	Prose only
The Gulf/2000 Project Languages of Afghanistan (summary)	2002^[64]	Prose only	Yes	Prose only
Bundesamt für Fremdenwesen und Asyl Dossier der Staatendokumentation: AfPak. Grundlagen der Stammes- & Clanstruktur (German)	2016^[65]	Yes	No	Undecided
Mohammad Ekram Yawar Historical Study and Analysis of the Role of Ethnic Politics in the Political Structure of Afghanistan (Contemporary Period)	2021^[66]	No	Partially yes	No
Encyclopædia Britannica Afghanistan ethnolinguistic composition	2004^[67]	Yes		Yes

^ "Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1969" (in German). S. Fischer Verlag. 1968. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – Zahlen & Fakten: Ethnische Gruppen: Paschtunen 60%, Tadschiken 30%, Hazara 3%, Usbeken 6%, Sonstige: Aimak, Nuristani, Belutschen, Turmenen, Kirgisen u.a..
^ "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..
^ "Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2006". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 2005. p. 11. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – BEVÖLKERUNG – 40% Paschtunen, 25% Tadschiken, 15% Hazara, 5% Usbeken u. a..
^ "Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2009". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 2008. p. 11. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – Bevölkerung 40% Paschtunen, 25% Tadschiken, 15% mongolstämmige Hesoren (Hazara), 5% Usbeken; außerdem Aimak, Nuristani, Balutschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen u. a..
^ "Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2010". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 2009. p. 11. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – BEVÖLKERUNG – 40% Paschtunen, 25% Tadschiken, 15% mongolstämmige Hesoren (Hazara), 5% Usbeken; außerdem Aimak, Nuristani, Balutschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen u. a..
^ "Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2019" (in German). S. Fischer Verlag. 2018. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – Zahlen & Fakten: Ethnische Gruppen: Paschtunen 42%, Tadschiken 27%, Hazara 9%, Usbeken 9%, Sonstige: Aimak, Nuristani, Belutschen, Turmenen, 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.
^ "The World Factbook 1992". Central Intelligence Agency. University of Missouri. 22 January 1993. Archived from the original on 9 October 1999. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – Ethnic divisions: Pashtun 38%, Tajik 25%, Uzbek 6%, Hazara 19%; minor ethnic groups include Chahar Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others.
^ "The World Factbook 2013". Central Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 11 January 2022. Afghanistan – Ethnic groups: Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%.
^ "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 2008 – A survey of the Afghan people" (PDF). Kabul, Afghanistan: The Asia Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 September 2012. Retrieved September 12, 2025. [No question about ethnicity]
^ "Afghanistan in 2009: A Survey of the Afghan People" (PDF). Kabul, Afghanistan: The Asia Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 September 2012. Retrieved September 12, 2025. [No question about ethnicity]
^ "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 2012: A Survey of the Afghan People" (PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. [No question about ethnicity]
^ "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 2016: A Survey of the Afghan People" (PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. [No question about ethnicity]
^ "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%
^ Wilber, Donald Newton (1962). Afghanistan: its people, its society, its culture
^ 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).
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d Mobasher, Mohammad Bashir. Political Laws and Ethnic Accommodation: Why Cross-Ethnic Coalitions Have Failed to Institutionalize in Afghanistan. Diss. 2017, p. 42. Link: [1]
^ Rasuly-Paleczek, Gabriele (2001). "The Struggle for the Afghan State: Centralization, Nationalism and their Discontents". In Willem van Schendel (ed.). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. I.B. Tauris. p. 162. Although no concrete information is available it is generally assumed that the Uzbeks account for about 14 per cent of the total Afghan population (the Pashtuns being 22 per cent, the Tajiks 34 per cent and the Hazara 14 per cent). Footnote: The Pashtuns are supposed to have constituted the largest refugee group outside Afghanistan, accounting for 80–85 per cent of all Afghan refugees in Pakistan, whereas only 6 per cent were Tajiks and 1 per cent were Turkmen. Uzbeks and Hazaras each accounted for less than 1 per cent.
^ Rasuly-Paleczek, Gabriele (2001). "The Struggle for the Afghan State: Centralization, Nationalism and their Discontents". In Willem van Schendel (ed.). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. I.B. Tauris. p. 162. [B]ecause of the war-induced mass exodus and displacement of large numbers of the Afghan population, the percentage rates of the various ethnic groups in total, as well as the distribution of speciﬁc ethnic groups in various regions of the country, may have changed substantially since the early 1980s. Footnote: Ibid, p. 21. No data are available on the current situation.
^ Louis Dupree (December 15, 1983). "AFGHANISTAN iv. Ethnography". Encyclopaedia Iranica. Retrieved 26 August 2025.
^ "Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan (summmary)".
^ see [2], [3])
^ "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. ISBN 978-0-08-087774-7. 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.
^ "Why Tajikistan Is Taking a Stand Against the Taliban". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 26 October 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2025. [M]ost researchers' estimates [of ethnic Tajiks] hover around 20 percent.
^ "ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD poll - Afghanistan: Where Things Stand" (PDF). ABC News. Kabul, Afghanistan. pp. 38–40. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 June 2011. Retrieved 29 October 2010.
^ "Afghanistan: Country data and statistics". Archived from the original on 4 January 2024.
^ Maley, William (1998). Fundamentalism reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban. Hurst & Company. p. 169–172. Retrieved 14 September 2025.
^ "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.
^ "Languages of Afghanistan". www.britannica.com. 2025-09-13. Retrieved 2025-09-13.
^ ^a ^b "Afghanistan - Minority Rights Group".
^ "Afghanistan - Languages".
^ "Afghanistan - Languages".
^ "Languages of Afghanistan (summary)".
^ "AfPak. Grundlagen der Stammes- & Clanstruktur – Ethnische Gruppen" (PDF). pp. 13–26.
^ "Ethnic composition of the members of the National Unity Cabinet". p. 73.
^ Dupree, Nancy Hatch; Dupree, Louis (September 16, 2025). "Afghanistan". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the original on September 3, 2025. Retrieved September 16, 2025.

^ In 2001, Gabriele Rasuly-Paleczek wrote in an essay that the ethnic composition of Afghanistan is "generally assumed" to be 22% Pashtuns, 34% Tajiks, 14% Hazaras and 14% Uzbeks.^[45] However, these figures constitute a marked outlier when compared with the majority of contemporary scholarly and institutional estimates, which placed Pashtuns between 38–63%, Tajiks between 12–30%, Hazaras between 7–19% and Uzbeks between 5–9%. Rasuly-Paleczek attributes this divergence to the war-induced mass exodus of millions of Afghans and to large-scale internal displacement.^[46] Given that her figures are not reaffirmed by other major sources, the characterization as "generally assumed" cannot be sustained, as the data never represented a broadly accepted demographic consensus.
^ Some sources estimated that Uzbeks and Turkmen together made up 16% of the population.^[44]
^ Some sources put Hazaras and Sayyids in the same category and claim an ethnic make up of 24.5% together (see [4]). However, this procedure is disputed as it is discussed whether the term Sayyid even refers to an ethnic group or only to an honorific title and should be grouped with Hazaras or Arabs.^[49]

Sixth statement by editors (Afghan groups)

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.

new Update[10]

'''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 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.'''

New update =

'''https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Badakhshan_ziba/Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan_(working)#Ethnic_composition:~:text=%5B72%5D-,Ethnic%20composition,-%5B%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B4%5D'''

'''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.

.

A brief review of the sources discussed in the article @Asilvering @Xan747 @Robert McClenon

.

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.

2-CIA World Factbook Ethnic groups . 1981 -1991 -1992--2013- 2014 = acceptable

3- Library of Congress Ethnic groups = 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.

8- The Gulf/2000 Project Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan (summary)= acceptable .https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/index.shtml

https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/reference.shtml

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 Britannica Tajik = 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
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. 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, ARD Ethnicity = 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.

16- US Department of State Afghanistan – People = acceptable

17- Parliamentary elections in Afghanistan = acceptable https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Afghanistan_Ethnic_summary_lg.png

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.

18- Encyclopædia Britannica Languages of Afghanistan = acceptable https://www.britannica.com/place/Afghanistan/Languages

19- Minority Rights Group Main minority or indigenous communities = acceptable

20- Minority Rights Group Main languages = acceptable https://minorityrights.org/country/afghanistan/

21- CIA World Factbook Languages = acceptable

https://web.archive.org/web/20141006083130/https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html

22- The Gulf/2000 Project Languages of Afghanistan (summary) = acceptable

https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Afghanistan_Languages_lg.png

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.

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. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 23:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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 73 https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/4533727 regarding 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.

about the 17- Parliamentary elections in Afghanistan = acceptable. the reference is not this https://digital.lib.washington.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/35da82f3-3bac-4ac9-9cd8-d4a534b72a9f/content

the real reference with true information is here https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/about.shtml

https://gulf2000.columbia.edu/images/maps/Afghanistan_Ethnic_summary_lg.png

. .

There is agreement in some sources, but in some cases there is still no agreement and suggest that if disagreements over sources are continuing, as well as over how to display and show the information in the ethnicity table, we can request help from Reliable sources/Noticeboard and No original research/Noticeboard if needed. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.

Seventh statement by editors (Afghan groups)

@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]

Update: see the first draft. SdHb (talk) 12:00, 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]

@SdHb Do you mind then if I change those entries to light green "prose only" as I have for some of the other sources? Xan747 (talk) 15:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xan747 Yes, I would be fine with it, go ahead. SdHb (talk) 15:08, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Xan747 (talk) 15:15, 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]

Fair enough. Xan747 (talk) 15:18, 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]

Aright, adding "margin:0" to each table definition gets rid of the whitespace between them. Xan747 (talk) 17:18, 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”)." ([5]).
^ 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." ([6])
^ 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." ([7]).

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.

Are there any procedural questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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 ?

1- User:Badakhshan ziba/Ethnic groups in Afghanistan (working)#Ethnic composition:~:text=Ethnic groups in Afghanistan based on the most reliable sources available

2-https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Xan747/Drafts/Ethnic_Groups_in_Afghanistan_table&oldid=1311775884

Point 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.

3- Yes, the old table needs to be restored. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 07:54, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth statements by editors (Afghan ethnic groups)

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)

Sounds good to me. I think with this kind of discussion we will find a solution on the talk page very fast. —SdHb (talk) 22:37, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Robert. I have copied over the relevant part of the above discussion to Table layout. I have no pressing concerns about any other article content at this time. Xan747 (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth statement by moderator (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?

Are there any questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon :1- I'm sorry, I had a question.

There is agreement in some sources in the table, but in some cases there is still no agreement.

When we are discussing on the subpage Talk:Ethnic groups in Afghanistan/Discussion of Table, can we ask for help or give opinions from Reliable sources/Noticeboard and No original research/Noticeboard if needed? Is this possible?

.

2-about three questions i think the answer is here in this link =

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#:~:text=@Robert McClenon hello. yes,table needs to be restored.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1018644507#:~:text=%5B33%5D-,Ethnic%20composition,-The%20population%20of

2-- 16 JAN 2022 = There is practically not much text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1065953463#:~:text=%5B34%5D-,Ethnic%20composition,-The%20population%20of

3-- 14 August 2025 = There is practically not much text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1305826591#:~:text=%5B72%5D-,Ethnic%20composition,-The%20population%20of

4 -- 24 August 2025 = There is practically not much text.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1307597664#:~:text=%5B74%5D-,Ethnic%20composition,-This%20section%27s%20factual

5-- 1 September 2025 = A surprisingly large amount of content and text was added on September 1st .

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan&oldid=1308940978#:~:text=%5Be%5D-,Ethnic%20composition,-Reliability%20of%20estimates

. 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. .

I agree that discussions continue under the supervision of the (DRN)in the area you specified https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan/Discussion_of_Table so that disagreements in this area become fewer and fewer.

Thank you for your attention
Badakhshan ziba (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tenth statements by editors (Afghan ethnic groups)

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]

Update: I moved the statistical table format discussion to the dedicated talk page per the moderator's wishes to not flood main article talk. Xan747 (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eleventh statement by moderator (Afghan ethnic groups)

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?

Are there any questions at this time? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon Hello, yes, progress step by step has been made in the article.

In this table, there are a couple of incorrect information about me in this link and table Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#:~:text=Acceptable source in a table called "ethnic categories"? Am I allowed to edit it?

If I don't have permission to edit, please delete this table completely. Badakhshan ziba (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I explicitly invited you twice to edit the table. Plase do as you like. SdHb (talk) 07:10, 19 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]

2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests

– New discussion.

Filed by PenGear on 16:09, 15 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

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?

Talk:2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests#Safal_Workers'_Street_Committee

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

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.

Summary of dispute by Genabab

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[11], Organise [12], Freedom [13] 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[14]). 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.

Summary of dispute by Grnrchst

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

I had no position on the content dispute, so I’m not sure why I’m being included here. My involvement was limited to reverting an edit by PenGear, as I had noticed they were edit warring and had already reverted three edits that day ([15][16][17]) and another three the previous day ([18][19][20]); they then reverted my reversion, which put them firmly over the 3 Revert Rule line. I went to the talk page discussion, where I noticed PenGear had accused Genabab of “pushing propaganda”, so I encouraged them to assume good faith of other editors; PenGear refused to do this and then accused me of “promoting misinformation”. I also saw that PenGear was disputing whether Freedom News was a reliable source, for seemingly the sole reason that the publication has a left-wing bias. I pointed out that political leanings are not relevant to reliability (per WP:BIASED) and cited the Media Bias/Fact Check website, which listed Freedom as a highly credible source. This was the extent of my involvement. As I said on the talk page, I have no strong feelings about whether or not this should be included, I was just pointing out the guidelines for disputes and reliability. If I were pressed to take a stance on this, I’d say: if it is to be included, then it should be given due weight (i.e. a sentence in the body, but not in the infobox). But again, if it is removed that’s no skin off my back either. --Grnrchst (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Emac07

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

Rape in Islamic law

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by John Not Real Name on 16:36, 15 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Rape in Islamic law (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

Objection to the inclusion of this line: Leslie P. Peirce writes that "The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law...tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside “the domain of Islam”".

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

[[21]] [[22]]

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

I am trying to edit the Rape in Islamic law page and my edit was reverted. Long story short this line is objected to: "Leslie P. Peirce writes that "The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law...tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside “the domain of Islam”".^[1]" The other editor has been notified that the source is reliable by the third-party: [23] and another editor: [24]. He asked for one source for the claim that Sharī'a is suspendable by the Ḥanafī school: [25] as well as this: [26] and I have produced four now: [27] (These are two sources. The first is the citation given by Leslie P. Pierce and the second mentions the inapplicability of islamic law in the Domain of War.), [28] and [29]. Despite my proving my point with reliable secondary sources he still refuses to accept his error which I think is because he is not being neutral.

The text I propose for inclusion is here:

"According to the Ḥanafī school, crimes committed within the dar al-harb are not punishable by Islamic courts even if they returned to the dar al-Islam.^[2] This includes war-time rape by soldiers.^[3] Leslie P. Peirce writes that "The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law...tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside “the domain of Islam”".^[4] Neither the Mālikī nor the Shāfiʿī schools subscribed to this view.^[4]"

I have even offered a compromise which removes text from Leslie P. Pierce: [30] and yet he still refuses on grounds that are nonsensical (The text I propose does not mention implying or allowing. Also in the compromise offered I excluded the Pierce text as you can see in the previous link.): [31] and [32].

The relevance of the matter is that there are sections on prosecuting and punishing rapists: Rape in Islamic law#Prosecution of rape or Rape in Islamic law#Punishment of a convicted rapist.

In short by allowing me to include the text.

Summary of dispute by Rulioz

My issue is that the source literally says the hanafis unofficially or tacitlt allowed rape and crimes to be commited during war time and that was the hanafis intended purpose when the hanafis themselves didn't imply or legalized such things dyring war times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rulioz (talk • contribs) 23:06, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Curbon7

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

The two editors above were edit warring, so I FP'd the page per an RfPP request. I was pinged at the start of the talk page discussion, so gave my cents that Peirce is a subject-matter expert so the question isn't reliability but rather whether the quote was WP:DUE and whether it should be in Wikivoice or attributed. I came back two days later to see the talk page discussion literally went off the page margin, at which point I recommended WP:DRN. Curbon7 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of dispute by Veko

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Rape in Islamic Law discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Zeroth statement by moderator (Rape in Islamic law)

I am ready to act as the moderator for this dispute if the editors agree to moderated discussion. Please read DRN Rule D and also read the statement that topics involving sexuality are contentious. If you agree to moderated discussion, you are acknowledging that you have been notified of the contentious topic. I have not read all of the discussion on the article talk page, because the amount of back-and-forth was excessive and was causing the discussion to be unreadable. So we are starting over. I am asking each editor to state 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. Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion; that has not worked. Address your answers to the moderator and to the community. Be civil and concise.

Two editors have been notified and have not yet responded. Discussion will begin among the two editors who have made statements, and other editors are welcome.

Are there any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I accept this. I indicated my reasoning above. Is that sufficient? John Not Real Name (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to engage much in this @Robert McClenon; I simply was there to stop the edit war and provide a third opinion, towards the being of the conflict. As you can obviously tell, my third opinion did not help much, as the discussion continued to go back and forth between this. @Curbon7 is also in a similar position as me; being there to disengage the edit war and provide 1-2 comments revolving the conflict. Also do keep in mind in Curbon is on WikiBreak and it may take a bit for him to add to this if he adds at all.

To be honest, this has gotten so long, I'm unsure what the conflict is to begin with. I've never even edited the article before, nor is this really my topic of interest. Also something that I'd like to make clear is that I am a minor, and the topic of this article is quite contentious for my age. However, please please don't disregard the statements I've made or will make regarding this topic, I am a mature editor nevertheless. You can read the results of my third opinion at the original comment of Talk:Rape in Islamic law#Dispute resolution (third_opinion). I'll add the dispute summary soon. veko. (user | talk | contribs) he/him 15:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statements by editors (Rape in Islamic law)

References

^ Pierce, Leslie P. (2005). "Rape: The Ottoman Empire". In Joseph, Suad; Najmabadi, Afsaneh; Peteet, Julie M.; Shami, Seteney Khalid; Siapno, Jacqueline Aquino; Smith, Jane Idleman (eds.). Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures Volume II Family, Law and Politics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 701. ISBN 90-04-12818-2. The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law, adopted by the Ottoman sultans (but not necessarily by their Muslim subjects), tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside "the domain of Islam" (in contrast, the Mālikī and Shāfiʿī schools required Muslims to follow Sharī'a – and thus avoid zinā – wherever they found themselves).
^ Ayoub, Samy (1 June 2012). "Territorial jurisprudence, ikhtilaf al-darayn: Political boundaries & legal jurisdiction". Contemporary Islamic Studies. 2012 (1): 9, 12. doi:10.5339/cis.2012.2 – via QScience.com. By contrast, Hanafis maintain that if a Muslim or a dhimmi commit a crime in dar al-harb, such as theft or murder, they would not be punished in dar al-Islam." "This theory is explicit in their discussions on applying hudud in dar al-harb. For instance, Hanafis maintained that if a Muslim committs adultery (zina), theft, false accusation of adultery (qadhf ), or is involved in drinking alcohol in dar al-harb, the individual would not be liable for any of these crimes....Furthermore, the individual would not be not liable for any punishment upon their return to dar al-Islam as these crimes would have occurred within the context of dar al-harb which does not constitute a valid reason for applying the hadd.
^ Sonbol, Amira El Azhary (1 Jul 1997). "Rape and Law in Ottoman and Modern Egypt". In Zilfi, Madeline C. (ed.). Women in the Ottoman Empire Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 218. ISBN 978-90-04-10804-2. Two final important differences between the schools involve the dar al-harb (house of war) and the religion of the rapist. While the schools agreed that if a Christian commits zina with a Muslim woman he had to be killed, they differ in regards to punishing a soldier who commits zina in the dar al-harb, i.e., outside Islamic lands....Abu Hanifa, too, saw no reason for applying the hudud for zina during war because "the authority of the Muslim Imam does not extend to dar al-harb". In contradistinction, both Malik and Shafi'i consider the rapist liable to the hudud while at war because, as a Muslim, he had to follow the rules of Islam wherever he lived.
^ ^a ^b Pierce, Leslie P. (2005). "Rape: The Ottoman Empire". In Joseph, Suad; Najmabadi, Afsaneh; Peteet, Julie M.; Shami, Seteney Khalid; Siapno, Jacqueline Aquino; Smith, Jane Idleman (eds.). Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures Volume II Family, Law and Politics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 701. ISBN 90-04-12818-2. The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law, adopted by the Ottoman sultans (but not necessarily by their Muslim subjects), tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside "the domain of Islam" (in contrast, the Mālikī and Shāfiʿī schools required Muslims to follow Sharī'a – and thus avoid zinā – wherever they found themselves).

Parasnath

– New discussion.

Filed by ChaseKiwi on 10:01, 16 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Parasnath (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I have attempted to advise two editors on my understanding of the community consensus who seem to have only recently become active in the wikimedia community on a potential contentious topic. I have implied that they should not remove content until there is agreement in talk to do so. However this has now happened. My own understanding is that they should err on side of caution as the issues discussed are on the list at WP:CT. In this case the main issue is deletion of material that was indifferently sourced before in talk I identified a peer reviewed and contemporary reference. I can not exclude CoI given their responses.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

Talk:Parasnath User talk:Pawapuri Winds

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Potentially advise us editors on a way forward that allows current and recent controversy relevant to geographic feature to be mentioned in an article on that feature. My own understanding is that some of the issues have been documented since the 19th century and have legal/political/religious overtones.

Summary of dispute by Starry Pine

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Pawapuri Winds

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Parasnath discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

Volunteer note: The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Being new to process I have now. I put the notice on only Talk:Parasnath as they appeared to be actively monitoring this page. ChaseKiwi (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroth statement by possible moderator (Parasnath)

I am ready to try to moderate this discussion if the other editors agree to moderated discussion. The other editors have acknowledged that they have been notified, but they have neither agreed nor disagreed with moderated discussion. The filing editor has also been a little vague about what they want. The purpose of moderated discussion is to improve the article. I am asking all of the editors to read DRN Rule D and the ruling that South Asia is a contentious topic. Each editor is asked 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. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with your moderation. I expect to be able to submit my zeroth statement within a 72 hour time frame due to issues outside my control ChaseKiwi (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other questions?

Zeroth statements by editors (Parasnath)

Operation Sonnenblume

– Discussion in progress.

Filed by Pencilceaser123 on 00:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

Operation Sonnenblume (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

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?

Talk:Operation Sonnenblume#Recent edits

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Provide a variety of opinions on what should be on the wikibox and how, and hopefully end this discussion.

Summary of dispute by Keith-264

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Operation Sonnenblume discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I will start looking over this and leave comments shortly. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 02:52, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. [33] ~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]

Understood, I wont notify Turbo now as they seem to have found it now. Pencilceaser123 (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kieth has seen my notification on there talk page. But removed it. I have a feeling they wont respond to this. What do I do? Pencilceaser123 (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@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]

Just a general note: the article recently got fully protected by Isabelle Belato until 11:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC) for slow-burn edit warring. [34] ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 12:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Perspective on Paul

– New discussion.

Filed by MainBody on 16:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Have you discussed this on a talk page?

Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.

Location of dispute

New Perspective on Paul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Dispute overview

I would like to raise a concern on the recent edits on New Perspective on Paul, on which my further well-sourced developmet of a section, namely Lutheran intepretation, was blocked by two editors for baseless reasons:

1) Accusing the reference I used as unreliable, despite its multi-year existence on wikipedia 2) Weirdly referencing "Catholic dominance" which indeed has nothing to do with my edits which are connected to some non-Catholic responses to a non-Catholic theological perspective. 3) Claiming that the source non-representative in the specific religious community while the involved party is the second largest in that community.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_Perspective_on_Paul

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Review by administrators is hereby requested, their further input on this article is welcome to preserve wikipedia's neutrality.

Summary of dispute by Pbritti

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

Summary of dispute by Joshua Jonathan

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

New Perspective on Paul discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

I may be willing to look over this as a volunteer. In the meantime, @MainBody:, please do not use LLMs to generate requests. Please make a summary of this dispute again, this time in your own words. ~deltasock ^{(talk • cont)} 16:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Note - The filing editor has not notified the other editors on their user talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Just asking as I'm new to helping out at DRN - can DRN cases have multiple volunteers/moderators working on it? I noticed we have both commented here so oh well. ~deltasock ^{(talk • cont)} 19:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Volunteer Note - Neither of us appears to be moderating the case. Multiple volunteers can comment on a case. Only one person can moderate a case. There doesn't appear to be a case anyway, because the filing editor erased much of their statement after they were told not to use a large language model. If there isn't a human-written case, I will close this case as not having been adequately filed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Schreck

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Makali2 on 01:38, 19 September 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.

Location of dispute

Nikolas Schreck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Users involved

Makali2 (talk · contribs)
PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs)

Dispute overview

The editor PARAKANYAA consistently violates Wikipedia's policy of neutrality in this article by including sheer speculation, conjecture and unverified claims taken exclusively from already biased sources. Additionally,that editor gets facts and dates wrong while evading more accurate and up to date information. We assume the editor's errors are made in good faith, but we request some sort of resolution in order to present an objective and accurate article. Thank you for your consideration.

How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

We have explained the reasons for reversion several times.

How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Help us to remove bias and inaccuracies by removing the many speculations and conjectures in the version composed by Parakanyaa

Summary of dispute by Makali2 PARAKANYAA

Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.

This person is whitewashing the subject of the article's connection to white supremacy by removing citations to academic press books that discuss the article subject's connection to white supremacy (who is primarily notable for their connections to white supremacy and his interest in Charles Manson, and his revisionist perspective on his crimes), baselessly saying the sources are unreliable without evidence. They refuse to engage on the talk page, or anywhere at all, and are edit warring. They have not discussed on the talk page despite being pinged several times. Dispute resolution will not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolas Schreck discussion

Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.

@Makali2:, you haven't discussed this on the talk page, unlike what you said. The thread is Talk:Nikolas Schreck#Whitewashing. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) 01:52, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1969-1] "Der Fischer Weltalmanach 1969" (in German). S. Fischer Verlag. 1968. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – Zahlen & Fakten: Ethnische Gruppen: Paschtunen 60%, Tadschiken 30%, Hazara 3%, Usbeken 6%, Sonstige: Aimak, Nuristani, Belutschen, Turmenen, Kirgisen u.a..

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1978-2] "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.

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1979-3] "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.

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1981-4] "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.

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1982-5] "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..

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1984-6] "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.

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1985-7] "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.

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1986-8] "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.

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1988-9] "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.

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1991-10] "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.

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1993-11] "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).

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1995-12] "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.

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1996-13] "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..

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-1998-14] "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..

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-2000-15] "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..

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-2003-16] "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..

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-2006-17] "Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2006". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 2005. p. 11. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – BEVÖLKERUNG – 40% Paschtunen, 25% Tadschiken, 15% Hazara, 5% Usbeken u. a..

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-2009-18] "Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2009". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 2008. p. 11. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – Bevölkerung 40% Paschtunen, 25% Tadschiken, 15% mongolstämmige Hesoren (Hazara), 5% Usbeken; außerdem Aimak, Nuristani, Balutschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen u. a..

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-2010-19] "Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2010". S. Fischer Verlag (in German). 2009. p. 11. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – BEVÖLKERUNG – 40% Paschtunen, 25% Tadschiken, 15% mongolstämmige Hesoren (Hazara), 5% Usbeken; außerdem Aimak, Nuristani, Balutschen, Turkmenen, Kirgisen u. a..

[Fischer-Weltalmanach-2019-20] "Der Fischer Weltalmanach 2019" (in German). S. Fischer Verlag. 2018. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – Zahlen & Fakten: Ethnische Gruppen: Paschtunen 42%, Tadschiken 27%, Hazara 9%, Usbeken 9%, Sonstige: Aimak, Nuristani, Belutschen, Turmenen, Kirgisen u.a..

[CIA-1981-21] "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.

[CIA-1991-22] "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.

[CIA-1992-23] "The World Factbook 1992". Central Intelligence Agency. University of Missouri. 22 January 1993. Archived from the original on 9 October 1999. Retrieved 2 September 2025. Afghanistan – Ethnic divisions: Pashtun 38%, Tajik 25%, Uzbek 6%, Hazara 19%; minor ethnic groups include Chahar Aimaks, Turkmen, Baloch, and others.

[CIA-2013-24] "The World Factbook 2013". Central Intelligence Agency. Archived from the original on 14 October 2013. Retrieved 11 January 2022. Afghanistan – Ethnic groups: Pashtun 42%, Tajik 27%, Hazara 9%, Uzbek 9%, Aimak 4%, Turkmen 3%, Baloch 2%, other 4%.

[Ethnic-Groups-25] "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.

[Asia_Foundation_2004-26] "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%.

[Asia_Foundation_2006-27] "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%

[Asia_Foundation_2007-28] "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%

[Asia_Foundation_2008-29] "Afghanistan in 2008 – A survey of the Afghan people" (PDF). Kabul, Afghanistan: The Asia Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 September 2012. Retrieved September 12, 2025. [No question about ethnicity]

[Asia_Foundation_2009-30] "Afghanistan in 2009: A Survey of the Afghan People" (PDF). Kabul, Afghanistan: The Asia Foundation. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 September 2012. Retrieved September 12, 2025. [No question about ethnicity]

[Asia_Foundation_2010-31] "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 *

[Asia_Foundation_2011-32] "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 *

[Asia_Foundation_2012-33] "Afghanistan in 2012: A Survey of the Afghan People" (PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. [No question about ethnicity]

[Asia_Foundation_2013-34] "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%

[Asia_Foundation_2014-35] "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%

[Asia_Foundation_2015-36] "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%

[Asia_Foundation_2016-37] "Afghanistan in 2016: A Survey of the Afghan People" (PDF). Retrieved September 12, 2025. [No question about ethnicity]

[Asia_Foundation_2017-38] "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%

[Asia_Foundation_2018-39] "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%

[Asia_Foundation_2019-40] "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

[Asia_Foundation_2021-41] "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%

[wilber62-42] Wilber, Donald Newton (1962). Afghanistan: its people, its society, its culture

[schetter-1998-43] 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).

[washington-44] Mobasher, Mohammad Bashir. Political Laws and Ethnic Accommodation: Why Cross-Ethnic Coalitions Have Failed to Institutionalize in Afghanistan. Diss. 2017, p. 42. Link: [1]

[rasulypaleczek1-45] Rasuly-Paleczek, Gabriele (2001). "The Struggle for the Afghan State: Centralization, Nationalism and their Discontents". In Willem van Schendel (ed.). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. I.B. Tauris. p. 162. Although no concrete information is available it is generally assumed that the Uzbeks account for about 14 per cent of the total Afghan population (the Pashtuns being 22 per cent, the Tajiks 34 per cent and the Hazara 14 per cent). Footnote: The Pashtuns are supposed to have constituted the largest refugee group outside Afghanistan, accounting for 80–85 per cent of all Afghan refugees in Pakistan, whereas only 6 per cent were Tajiks and 1 per cent were Turkmen. Uzbeks and Hazaras each accounted for less than 1 per cent.

[rasulypaleczek2-46] Rasuly-Paleczek, Gabriele (2001). "The Struggle for the Afghan State: Centralization, Nationalism and their Discontents". In Willem van Schendel (ed.). Identity Politics in Central Asia and the Muslim World: Nationalism, Ethnicity and Labour in the Twentieth Century. I.B. Tauris. p. 162. [B]ecause of the war-induced mass exodus and displacement of large numbers of the Afghan population, the percentage rates of the various ethnic groups in total, as well as the distribution of speciﬁc ethnic groups in various regions of the country, may have changed substantially since the early 1980s. Footnote: Ibid, p. 21. No data are available on the current situation.

[iranica-ethnography-49] Louis Dupree (December 15, 1983). "AFGHANISTAN iv. Ethnography". Encyclopaedia Iranica. Retrieved 26 August 2025.

[gulf2000-50] "Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan (summmary)".

[hazara-sayyid-note-51] see [2], [3])

[Brit-Tajik-53] "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.

[nytimes-1996-54] "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.

[concise-encyclopedia-55] Brown, Keith; Sarah Ogilvie (2009). Concise encyclopedia of languages of the world. Elsevie. p. 845. ISBN 978-0-08-087774-7. 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.

[carnegie-endowment-56] "Why Tajikistan Is Taking a Stand Against the Taliban". Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 26 October 2021. Retrieved 5 May 2025. [M]ost researchers' estimates [of ethnic Tajiks] hover around 20 percent.

[ABCBBCARD-57] "ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD poll - Afghanistan: Where Things Stand" (PDF). ABC News. Kabul, Afghanistan. pp. 38–40. Archived (PDF) from the original on 28 June 2011. Retrieved 29 October 2010.

[worlddata.info-58] "Afghanistan: Country data and statistics". Archived from the original on 4 January 2024.

[maley1998-59] Maley, William (1998). Fundamentalism reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban. Hurst & Company. p. 169–172. Retrieved 14 September 2025.

[usdep-2004-60] "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.

[usdep-2005-61] "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.

[usdep-2006-62] "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.

[Brit-Lang-63] "Languages of Afghanistan". www.britannica.com. 2025-09-13. Retrieved 2025-09-13.

[mrg-64] "Afghanistan - Minority Rights Group".

[cia-languages-2014-65] "Afghanistan - Languages".

[cia-languages-2021-66] "Afghanistan - Languages".

[gulf2000-language-67] "Languages of Afghanistan (summary)".

[bfa-2016-68] "AfPak. Grundlagen der Stammes- & Clanstruktur – Ethnische Gruppen" (PDF). pp. 13–26.

[69] "Ethnic composition of the members of the National Unity Cabinet". p. 73.

[Britannica_Afghanistan-70] Dupree, Nancy Hatch; Dupree, Louis (September 16, 2025). "Afghanistan". Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from the original on September 3, 2025. Retrieved September 16, 2025.

[decimation-47] In 2001, Gabriele Rasuly-Paleczek wrote in an essay that the ethnic composition of Afghanistan is "generally assumed" to be 22% Pashtuns, 34% Tajiks, 14% Hazaras and 14% Uzbeks.^[45] However, these figures constitute a marked outlier when compared with the majority of contemporary scholarly and institutional estimates, which placed Pashtuns between 38–63%, Tajiks between 12–30%, Hazaras between 7–19% and Uzbeks between 5–9%. Rasuly-Paleczek attributes this divergence to the war-induced mass exodus of millions of Afghans and to large-scale internal displacement.^[46] Given that her figures are not reaffirmed by other major sources, the characterization as "generally assumed" cannot be sustained, as the data never represented a broadly accepted demographic consensus.

[turkic-48] Some sources estimated that Uzbeks and Turkmen together made up 16% of the population.^[44]

[hazara-sayyid-52] Some sources put Hazaras and Sayyids in the same category and claim an ethnic make up of 24.5% together (see [4]). However, this procedure is disputed as it is discussed whether the term Sayyid even refers to an ethnic group or only to an honorific title and should be grouped with Hazaras or Arabs.^[49]

[71] ust 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”)." ([5]).

[72] 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." ([6])

[73] 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." ([7]).

[:0-74] Pierce, Leslie P. (2005). "Rape: The Ottoman Empire". In Joseph, Suad; Najmabadi, Afsaneh; Peteet, Julie M.; Shami, Seteney Khalid; Siapno, Jacqueline Aquino; Smith, Jane Idleman (eds.). Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures Volume II Family, Law and Politics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 701. ISBN 90-04-12818-2. The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law, adopted by the Ottoman sultans (but not necessarily by their Muslim subjects), tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside "the domain of Islam" (in contrast, the Mālikī and Shāfiʿī schools required Muslims to follow Sharī'a – and thus avoid zinā – wherever they found themselves).

[75] Ayoub, Samy (1 June 2012). "Territorial jurisprudence, ikhtilaf al-darayn: Political boundaries & legal jurisdiction". Contemporary Islamic Studies. 2012 (1): 9, 12. doi:10.5339/cis.2012.2 – via QScience.com. By contrast, Hanafis maintain that if a Muslim or a dhimmi commit a crime in dar al-harb, such as theft or murder, they would not be punished in dar al-Islam." "This theory is explicit in their discussions on applying hudud in dar al-harb. For instance, Hanafis maintained that if a Muslim committs adultery (zina), theft, false accusation of adultery (qadhf ), or is involved in drinking alcohol in dar al-harb, the individual would not be liable for any of these crimes....Furthermore, the individual would not be not liable for any punishment upon their return to dar al-Islam as these crimes would have occurred within the context of dar al-harb which does not constitute a valid reason for applying the hadd.

[76] Sonbol, Amira El Azhary (1 Jul 1997). "Rape and Law in Ottoman and Modern Egypt". In Zilfi, Madeline C. (ed.). Women in the Ottoman Empire Middle Eastern Women in the Early Modern Era. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 218. ISBN 978-90-04-10804-2. Two final important differences between the schools involve the dar al-harb (house of war) and the religion of the rapist. While the schools agreed that if a Christian commits zina with a Muslim woman he had to be killed, they differ in regards to punishing a soldier who commits zina in the dar al-harb, i.e., outside Islamic lands....Abu Hanifa, too, saw no reason for applying the hudud for zina during war because "the authority of the Muslim Imam does not extend to dar al-harb". In contradistinction, both Malik and Shafi'i consider the rapist liable to the hudud while at war because, as a Muslim, he had to follow the rules of Islam wherever he lived.

[:02-77] Pierce, Leslie P. (2005). "Rape: The Ottoman Empire". In Joseph, Suad; Najmabadi, Afsaneh; Peteet, Julie M.; Shami, Seteney Khalid; Siapno, Jacqueline Aquino; Smith, Jane Idleman (eds.). Encyclopedia of Women & Islamic Cultures Volume II Family, Law and Politics. Leiden, The Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV. p. 701. ISBN 90-04-12818-2. The Ḥanafī school of Islamic law, adopted by the Ottoman sultans (but not necessarily by their Muslim subjects), tacitly sanctioned wartime rape by permitting the suspension of Sharī'a for Muslims outside "the domain of Islam" (in contrast, the Mālikī and Shāfiʿī schools required Muslims to follow Sharī'a – and thus avoid zinā – wherever they found themselves).

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[a]

[b]

[47]

[48]

[c]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]

[55]

[56]

[57]

[58]

[59]

[60]

[61]

[62]

[63]

[64]

[65]

[66]

[67]

[45]

[46]

[49]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards