User talk:SdHb

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Ethnic groups in Afghanistan".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

-- Xan747 (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should really refrain from any sort of criticism of the other editor as you did here. You might consider striking it. -- Xan747 (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Division of effort on statistics

To avoid duplication of effort on this damn table, I propose you manage the entire list of sources and copy the relevant text into the references template as you've been doing. Once we've settled on a final format, I can make a script which will make it easy to add/change/delete the actual cells of data without having to manually enter them. (I'll keep the actual data in a machine-readable file that is simpler to edit, and my script will generate the wikicode.) Sound like a deal? Do you have other ideas? Xan747 (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Xan747 I would be glad to assist you. Please forgive me for being slightly confused on what we are talking about now. Are we talking about the statistics table that we are creating for the live version? If yes, were should I maintain the reference templates? In my draft version or in the sources overview here? (And while we are talking about it: can you archive this table here so nobody gets confused with the one on the discussion of table talk page?) And to make the data machine-readable: do I have to take into account how I write down the data in the references? SdHb (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where to maintain a central list of the reference templates--for the stats only--is a good question. I think as a section of Talk:Ethnic groups in Afghanistan/Discussion of Table is better that at DRN, since the DRN discussion will eventually be archived and break links to it. I would just copy over the list you already have at DRN and we'll go from there. This might be a good opportunity to adopt standard naming for the sources, eg CIA-2005 or DW-1968, etc.

I'm talking about all the stats in all the candidate sources. We already have them, may as well extract them. Then if they get approved, we can simply zip them into the live version of the table. If that's too much work for you, that's fine. I'll do them all myself, but I was hoping in the long run it would save everyone time to do all this work up front once.

IDK if we should archive that old discussion quite yet. I'll look at it in a minute. Xan747 (talk) 21:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, you don't need to put extracted data into a table. Just in the citation template. I'll transcribe them into my database. Xan747 (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok is it the sources table at DRN you want to archive? This one:Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Fifth_statement_by_editors_(Afghan_groups)? We should leave that one there as part of the permanent record. I hatted it, along with a bunch of other stuff surrounding it, at the suggestion of asilvering. I'll ask Robert if I can move it elsewhere on the page to make it easier to get at. I'll still want it hatted out of courtesy to everyone else using that page, but if it were at the top of the discussion, it would be easier for us to find. Xan747 (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I posed the question to Robert at DRN Xan747 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xan747, is this what you mean?

Ethnic categories in Afghanistan

Ethnic category	Pashtun	Tajik/ Farsiwan[a]	Hazara	Uzbek	Other ethnic categories
					Turkmen	Baloch	Nuristani	Aimaq[b]	Others[c]

????–???? estimates (xyz regime)
1978 Orywal[4]	46–49%	26–28%	7–9%	7–8%	1–3%	1%	1%	5%

But with all round about 70 sources (the ones we used in our 3 draft versions included)? If yes, I can extract all relevant data from the sources and place them in a table (we can move this table into the DRN section). SdHb (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Schetter, Conrad (2005). "Ethnoscapes, National Territorialisation, and the Afghan War". ResearchGate. Retrieved 26 August 2025. [T]he Afghan population [...] use the term "Tajik" pejoratively to refer to people who have no picture of their ancestry and accordingly cannot be placed in any ethnic category[...]; being a Tajik thus incorporated an anti-ethnic alignment per se. As an ethnic category, Tajik refers ultimately to the residual quantity of any Sunni Persian-speaking people with no common ancestral mythology. The Tajiks thus face a difficulty in developing an idea of their own spatial and historical origins. [...] In defining themselves, so-called Tajiks therefore preferred a regional rather than an ethnic identity and still refer to themselves as Panjshiris, Kabulis, Shomalis, Heratis etc. Similarly the jami'at-i islami [...] which tried to position itself as a Tajik party disintegrated into independent regional groups competing with one another.
2. Cite error: The named reference cia2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Afghanistan Targeting of Individuals (PDF) (Report). European Union Agency for Asylum. August 2022. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2025-07-26. For a large part of history, the term Tajik has been ambiguous in the context of Afghanistan. According to Professor Barnett Rubin, an expert on Afghanistan, the term Tajik has been vaguely defined historically. During the soviet occupation, the term Tajik came to refer to 'all settled, Persian [Dari]-speaking, nontribal populations'. [...] According to scholar Ryan Brasher, the term 'Tajik' and other related terms have often been used to describe 'the other' in Afghanistan.
4. Cite error: The named reference schetter-1998 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Hi @SdHb. On review, I think there's nothing for you to do at the moment. I will just extract the statistics myself from our list and use them locally for my own needs. Thanks for being willing to help. Xan747 (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xan747, alright, just let me know as soon as you need my help on something, I‘d be glad to help. Are you working on your own draft page in the meanwhile? SdHb (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SdHb Yes, I updated my table last night and posted a notification to the talk page with a rather verbose discussion of why I made the design choices I did. If you would like me to always ping you on talk pages (or at least for important things like that) I will be happy to do so. I really don't want to ping asilvering all the time, which is why I didn't ping anyone when I made that comment. If that makes any sense. (I must admit to being somewhat fatigued by the topic at the moment, but will get through it.) Xan747 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I totally feel you, the dispute is going on for way too long, and I‘m sorry that you have to go through all of this, I feel exhausted too. But I think by working together we will get through much faster. So yes, please ping me whereever and whenever you make a big change and need an opinion. Just know that I really appreciate your work. SdHb (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I yours. Xan747 (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tearing my hair out a bit right now, and that is all I should say. Xan747 (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you. At least we can agree on many points regarding the table layout. SdHb (talk) 22:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Xan747 I hope you're doing well. I've noticed that you became less active in our case. I hope you still have the nerve to pull through all of it. SdHb (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going anywhere, it just feels like there isn't much for me to add at the moment that I've not already said. Xan747 (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xan747 I've suggested some next steps here. Would you agree with that? If yes, I would create those new sections. SdHb (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answered yes with the condition that we first get approval from the DRN moderator. Xan747 (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know

I did this, so no reason to bring up in article talk in case you were tempted. Xan747 (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We may be nearing the point that we've beaten the issue of monarchy-era statistics to death. If he's not going to yield on it, he's never going to. Also, thanks for bottom-posting without indents, it really helps me follow the discussion at least. Reminder if you don't know, when making comments directly like that, you need to sign your posts with four tildes at the end of your response like this ~~~~. You didn't do that on your last one, so I signed it for you. Xan747 (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xan747 It‘s getting increasingly frustrating and annoying by the minute. If a user is notoriously defiant to all compromise, how long can that be tolerated before being found WP:DISRUPTIVE? Also yes, I forgot to do that, happens pretty fast when using the edit section. :-) SdHb (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it constitutes disruptive at this point, better to just call it a deadlock. If he doesn't budge in his next response, I will propose we table it for now, and finalize the table layout for the sources we all agree on, and put that into the article before revisiting disputed sources. Xan747 (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xan747 Sounds reasonable. When we've finally finished the article one day, we 1. might as well nominate the agreed upon version for the Excellent articles ourselves, and 2. raise a glass to celebrate that all this cr–p is finally over XD. SdHb (talk) 09:10, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the work you've done on this article certainly warrants at least good article status. Xan747 (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SdHb sir/madam now, I have not edited any disputed area of the article or lead section. I have only edited one minor subsection of a minority group with sources. My edit was not part of any dispute. If correction I made in a minor subsection of minority group have any problem you can explain the reason. If you still think, I've done anything wrong plz explain me on talk page pointing my user name. Email Khan hazzarvi (talk) 00:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Email Khan hazzarvi, the entire article is currently being revised, as the discussion concerns not just the table of ethnic statistics but the whole text. You can see my draft text here. When it comes to the Gujjar, you need to consider that the length of each section of each ethnic category is generally proportional to its size in the population. Major ethnic categories receive around 300–400 words, minor categories about 200–300 words, and other, very small categories get around 100–200 words. Since the Gujjar are such a small group, a longer section like you added isn't justified. Keeping the text concise helps maintaining a consistent style across the article, which is important for meeting WP:GOODARTICLE standards which is a long-term goal for the article. Following WP:MOS, content should be clear, concise, and balanced to ensure smooth readability, which is why very small groups are best represented with shorter sections. If you like to add more information, you can edit the redirection articles I've added: Gujars, Gurjar clans, and List of Gurjars. That way, your information finds its way into Wikipedia without having too much WP:UNDUE weight in the "Ethnic groups of Afghanistan" article. Thank you for your understanding. SdHb (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SdHb

ٱلسَّلَامُ عَلَيْكُمْ sir/madam I was not aware about your draft I've added content under only 185 words, as you said minority groups text can be added under 100-200 words limit. Also external article links like Gurjar, Muslim Gujjars & List of Gurjars are fine but not Gurjar clans because this a redirect to Gurjar page. You can check text I've added in your draft without changing any other content their and text is under 185 words limit you can confirm it using (https://wordcounter.net/). Email Khan hazzarvi (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no separate article exit, as Gujars of afghanistan & other tribe-related pages are locked but as you said, under the 100-200 word limit, we can add content for minor minority groups that have 1.5-2 million population. I'd also like to request you that when you complete your draft, before adding to main the article, please assign all ethnic groups sections according to their population-wise estimates like 30 million, 20-15... 1.5 million to the last with 10-5 thousand people. In all sections population should be population wise. Like in minor category there tribes names must be according to their numbers from 5 million, 3, 2, and then 1.5 million to last 10-5 thousand people. Email Khan hazzarvi (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SdHb@Xan747@Badakhshan ziba Kindly also add on lead that the constitution of Afghanistan recognized 14 ethnic groups, and such ethnic group names need to be mentioned on lead whenever you guys finalized your draft. Because the 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan was significant in giving an overview of some main ethnic groups of Afghanistan and their recognition by the Afghan government. Sources were added in this revision with 14 ethnic group names that, 2004 Afghan constitution recognized. Email Khan hazzarvi (talk) 01:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SdHb Like here User:SdHb/Ethnic groups in Afghanistan (working)#Other ethnic categories per population estimates Qizilbash tribe should be in last because they have population of 30,000, while, Pashayi, Kygyz have population near to 1 million but for Gujar estimates are 1.5 million, so names need be re-aranged according to tribes/ ethnic group's population. Email Khan hazzarvi (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

وَعَلَيْكُم ٱلسَّلَامُ @Email Khan hazzarvi, thank you very much for your efforts to improve the article. It's clear that you've put thought into keeping the section concise and supported by sources. However, there are a few important points I want to clarify. Regarding the Gujjar population, no reliable source (per WP:RS) supports figures as high as 1.5–2 million. The question of which sources are considered reliable is still discussed, but for now you can see here which sources have been agreed upon so far. The highest figure among them comes from the Asia Foundation, which lists the Gujjars at less than 0.5% of the total population. That would be under 200,000 individuals as of 2021. Since available reliable demographic and academic estimates are much lower than the sources you refer to, it can safely be considered WP:FRINGE, and giving them the same space as agreed upon reliable sources would create undue weight (WP:UNDUE). To keep the article balanced and consistent, the idea is that smaller groups should therefore have shorter, summary-style sections. As for the ordering of ethnic categories, the plan is to follow approximate population size while also maintaining readability and logical flow (WP:MOS). Because different sources provide different numbers, it isn't always possible to rank them strictly by population. Regarding your point about the 2004 Constitution of Afghanistan, it's important to note that this constitution is de facto no longer in effect after the fall of Kabul in 2021. While it may still be mentioned in a historical context, it should not be presented as the current legal basis for ethnic recognition. The article must reflect this change in a neutral and up-to-date manner. And lastly, if you'd like to include more detailed information about the Gujjars, you are very welcome to create a separate article, for example Afghan Gujars or Gujars in Afghanistan. That way, you can expand on their history and culture with appropriate sources, while the main "Ethnic groups in Afghanistan" article remains concise and balanced. I hope this explanation helped you understand the reasoning behind the current structure and sourcing approach. Thank you again for your cooperation and constructive work on the article. SdHb (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ethnic groups in Afghanistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How to close a discussion?

Hi. The initiator of the "no original research" dispute has asked me to close the discussion. I don't actually know how to do that, or if I'm "allowed" to do that (I'm not an admin). Maybe another neutral 3rd party could do it? Do you have any suggestions on who I might ask? Thanks. BetsyRogers (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @BetsyRogers, imperatrix did it four us :). SdHb (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Thanks for the update. I really tried to get to the core issue of the original complaint, but I'm not certain that the OP even knows what that is at this point. I even went through your back-and-forth discussions between you, BZ & Xan (because I hate an unsolved puzzle and this situation was definitely a puzzle). But I can't see any rationale for that level of anger, the strange accusations, and the subsequent formal reporting of what seems to be good faith writing/editing. I'm baffled. BetsyRogers (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BetsyRogers, that's very noble of you. That may even be the right way, although time consuming, so thank you for trying to understand the wohle picture and that this wasn't just framing by me.

But I can't see any rationale for that level of anger, the strange accusations, and the subsequent formal reporting of what seems to be good faith writing/editing. I'm baffled.

You can trust me, we all were/are. Just try for months and months to assume good faith and willing to collaborate, just to wake up to another myriad of unreasonable accusations. It wasn't fun for me the whole time. This whole ordeal took so much of my free time, and my private life partly suffered from it. I wonder myself why it took me or others so long to finally put an end to the whole misery/this fever dream. Maybe Asilvering said it best: "Perhaps it was just that distractingly bad already." SdHb (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so sorry that this has had such an impact on you, and obviously on a few other people. Thinking back on my (admittedly brief) interactions with BZ, I think what threw me off was the frequent use of polite words like please and thank you, and the feigned intent to reach a peaceful resolution (despite there being no real evidence of that).

It reminds me of a cultural phenomenon with Southern women in the US (Southeastern US) who historically are taught (by example from other women) a style of conversion where you maintain a smile and a polite tone no matter what you're saying, even if what you're saying is "politely" insulting. Like you can essentially be telling someone to f*ck off, but you say it in a way that sounds polite. A classic example is

"Bless your heart" (scroll down to "I'd Rather Not Say What I'm Thinking"). Also see "Well Isn't That Special". ;)

Anyway, I've dealt with a couple of very skilled manipulators in my lifetime, and I can't say for sure that this qualifies as that, but one thing that my experiences have had in common was that when I looked back at certain events, I couldn't believe that I didn't immediately see I was being manipulated. The best manipulators get you to doubt your own instincts. Some of them might not even realize what they're doing, but that doesn't change the end result.

Also, I need to add "distractingly bad" to my vocabulary. :-/ BetsyRogers (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @BetsyRogers, thanks for sharing your thoughts and reflections so openly. I completely understand how exhausting and confusing situations like this can be, especially when good-faith efforts to resolve an issue feel unrecognized or even misinterpreted. It really takes patience and emotional energy to try to see the full picture and assume good faith over such a long time. Your observation about the Southern politeness phenomenon is insightful, I think I've heard of it before. Has it something to do with Southern women saying things like "sweetheart" often? Anyways, it really highlights how tone can mask intent and make interactions feel unpredictable or even manipulative, ao it's understandable to feel baffled after navigating that kind of communication repeatedly. It sounds like you've done your best to engage thoughtfully, and that effort absolutely matters. Hopefully now that the discussion has been closed, there can be some space to move forward without further stress. And yes, "distractingly bad" is definitely a phrase worth keeping in our heads :) Take care of yourself, and thank you again for trying to bring clarity and understanding to this tricky situation. SdHb (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Badakhshan Province, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mawlawi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Baghlan Province

added links pointing to Unpaved road and Dolomite

Balkh Province

added links pointing to Settlement and Unpaved road

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

December 2025

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Nangarhar Province, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:35, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).