This page is for requesting input on possibleoriginal research. Ask for advice here regarding material that might be original research or originalsynthesis.
If you mention specific editors, please notify them. You may use{{subst:NORN-notice}} to do so.
Additional notes:
"Original research" includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. Such content is prohibited on Wikipedia.
For volunteers wishing to mark a discussion resolved, use{{Resolved|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the top of the section.
To start a new request, enter a name (section header) for your request below:
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
hello. I am involved in a content dispute in which another editor has used personal speculation and personal statistical analysis to advance his position.I am requesting guidance on a possible case ofNo Original Research in a content dispute.First, I should say that the text is somewhat long in order to fully explain the problem. I apologize for that.
The issue is related to a sensitive data regarding the percentage ofAfghanistan Ethnic Percentage Table, and we have discussed this for a long time and made some progress.But now the discussion has reached an stalemate with another editor because he refusing to accept the violation ofNOR.
I should also say that all the information inAfghanistan Ethnic Percentage Table is base on theentire territory of Afghanistan and includes all 34 provinces of Afghanistan.
but what is the problem?To understand the problem, I invite you to look atpages 39 and 40 of this ABC News survey.Please look at this PDF.https://abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1083a1Afghanistan2009.pdf On pages 39 and 40, you will see the names of the 34provinces of Afghanistan in which the survey was conducted. And the numbers in front of the provinces indicate thenumber of data collectioncenters and information.The year and time of the survey are also written in the top row of these statistics.For example, the years2004. 2005. 2006. 2007 and 2009.Everything is written very clearly and understandable.
pages 39-40 explicitly shows incomplete and flawed geographical coverage for certain years:
Year2004 = Information is available for 28 provinces. (Two provinces were not yet formed at that time)
Year2005 = Information is available for 31 provinces.
Year2006 = Information is available for 31 provinces.
Year2007 = Information is available for all 34 provinces.
Year2009 = Information is available for all 34 provinces.
As we can see,The source clearly states thefact of incomplete coverage. the data for2004, 2005, 2006 are not from the entire territory of Afghanistan.The Original Research Violation: (another editorSdHb insists on keeping this geographically incomplete data in the main national table.to support this position, he have introduced his own novel statistical analysis, arguing that:
( these provinces that are not in the statistics together account for 2.8% of the Afghan population and it is not important and this is smaller than thesampling error (Margin of Error) of ±3.5%." Therefore, this incomplete and defect data still provides a reliable national representative )
The editor's argument confuses two distinct statistical concepts:
Sampling Error (Margin of Error)'= Uncertainty measures the size of a given sample. For example, in Year 2005 sample, it measured the uncertainty of 31 provinces.
Coverage Error: Occurs when parts of the population are systematically excluded from the sampling frame.
The Margin of error only measures the uncertainty due to sample size.
An example to help you understand:Suppose you want to measure the average temperature of the “whole” of a lake.
The “margin of error” says: “I measured 100 random points on the lake, so my measurement Uncertainty is ±1 degree.”
The “coverage error” says: But I completely omit all points to the north of the lake from the measurement.
the result is You havemeasured the average temperature of a part of the lake, not the whole lake, because the points to the north of the lakeare not covered. So the claim that the data are for the whole lake is completely disproved.
The truth is thatSdHb have no right or permission toignore or downplay the lack of statistics for three different provinces.- The editor uses his false personal speculation and personal statistical analysis to advance his position.This is a case ofNOR that is prohibited in wikipedia.
This doesn't seem likeOR onSdHb's part. If a poll claims to be tracking national statistics, it's not original research to say that. Without knowing the poll's methodology, it's impossible to say how they accounted for those missing provinces. As a compromise, possible limitations with the data could be mentioned in a footnote.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)02:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everybody, I'm deeply disappointed that we couldn't solve this without escalating to WP:NORN. That said, I want to clarify that my edits don't violate said policy.At no point have I introduced unpublished analysis or synthesis. I have relied strictly on what theABC News survey reports state explicitly in their published methodology reports (https://abcnews.go.com/images/International/1026MethodologyNote.pdf,https://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/998MethodologyNote.pdf), which is that these polls were designed and executed as nationally representative opinion surveys based onstratified random sampling proportional to population size. The sources themselves also explain that sampling points were allocated according to population distribution and thatmargins of sampling error already account fordesign effects andclustering.
Badakhshan ziba argues that because some provinces had no sampling points in 2004, 2005, and 2006 because of security and accessability problems, the results are illegitimate on a national level. This is a misinterpretation of what national representativeness means insurvey methodology. Coverage of all first-level administrative units (in this case provinces) isn't a methodological prerequisite but proportionally distributed sampling is. This doesn't invalidate the national estimate unless the survey organisation itself says so. And ABC News doesn't ever state that the data for these years are invalid or non-national. On the contrary, they explicitly present the statistics as national findings ([1],[2]):
An ABC News poll in Afghanistan -- the firstnational survey there sponsored by a news organization ...
... ABC News has sponsored fivenational public opinion polls in Afghanistan ...
The claim that including these survey years would be "original research" by me is ridiculous.I didn't interpret raw data or calculate new statistics. I merely summarised what the survey documents already state, which is that the surveys reflect national opinion and that their uncertainty is reported through a margin of sampling error of ±3.5%.Anne drew said:
As a compromise, possible limitations with the data could be mentioned in a footnote.
That's exactlywhat I proposed, thank you for confirming that this is an acceptable compromise. Including these years in achronological table, accompanied by a transparent footnote identifying the unsampled provinces and noting that they together represent maximum 2.8% of the population, just reflects verifiable, published data from an otherwisemutually agreed upon reliable source.No interpretation or synthesis beyond what the ABC methodology itself states has been introduced by me. For even more details you can follow thediscussion on the talk page. Thank you.SdHb (talk)09:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne drew Please look at the above post by @SdHb. This is in my opinion a clear violation of Wikipedia's rules onWP:NOR.
@SdHb The word "national" that I initially mentioned is not a media headline or media claim, but rather the full coverage of the 34 provinces of Afghanistan and the entire territory of Afghanistan. @SdHb You are usingan article in ABC News site that claims that this was a "national poll". This is amedia claim.
The problem is not about defining the word "national". The main problem here is that the poll data(ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD POLL) in 2004, 2005 and 2006does not cover the entire territory of Afghanistan.
Incidentally, ABC itself has also fully confirmed that in those three years, the entire territory of Afghanistan was not covered by the survey.
The information mentioned in theAfghanistan Ethnic Percentage Table , is allbased on information from the entire territory of Afghanistan (all 34 provinces of Afghanistan) andwe are not allowed to include data( that does not cover the entire territory of Afghanistan) in this table with personal interpretations and opinions.
As Wikipedia editors, we must follow the policy of ""No Original Research". This means that we must base our edits on verifiable facts from the original source, not on claims, whether personal claims or unverified media claims.
We want to use the data and statistics of this source in Wikipedia ((ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD POLL ).
In fact, this is the main source cited. So what does the main source tell us? It is clearly stated on pages 39 and 40 of the main source that the survey in the three years 2004, 2005 and 2006 does not have complete coverage (it does not cover all 34 provinces of Afghanistan and the entire territory of Afghanistan)
Note = I did not see anywhere in the main source that claimed that a survey was conducted in entire territory of Afghanistan in 2004, 2005, and 2006. If any person find anything about this, please show us.Badakhshan ziba (talk)22:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While the PDF explicitly identifies this as anational public opinion poll, I completely understand your objection: how can a survey be "national" if it excludes entire provinces? The reality is that polls often rely on statistical methods to correct for incomplete samples.
Regardless, it isn't our job to peer-review the methodology of reliable sources. If the source claims the data is national, we should describe it as such. Excluding data based on our personal analysis of their sampling is simply editorial overreach.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)22:59, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne drew I do not intend to completely delete this survey.
I have been discussing this table with @SdHb for three months.i think He is not impartial andneutral.
possibly He has been trying to find sources in these three months to increase the percentage of Pashtun statistics. (I will register a request inWikipedia:Neutral point of view soon in this regard) Now, if we want to put incomplete and incorrect data of 2004,2005,2006 in the table, the number of Pashtuns will beartificially increased. And in my opinion this is the possible reason why @SdHb insists on including these incomplete statistics in the table.
Therefore, we cannot include the data of 2004, 2005, and 2006 in this table.Instead,the data of 2007 and 2009 can be included in this table. Instead, the data of 2007 and 2009 can be included in this table. This way everything will be perfectly fine.
Let's leave aside the discussion about the definition of the word national. My main objection is the lack of complete coverage of all 34 provinces of Afghanistan. Not the discussion about the word national. Please someone address my objection. Why should we include information that does not include 3-4 provinces of Afghanistan in theEthnic Percentage Table of Afghanistan؟Badakhshan ziba (talk)23:37, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SdHb Again, you have made the wrong interpretations and personal opinions.
Let'scompare what thesource'says withwhat the editor @SdHbadds.
1. What the authoritative source(ABC NEWS/BBC/ARD POLL) states as fact:
Fact A: For 2004, 2005, and 2006, the poll was conducted in 28, 31, and 31 states, respectively, not all 34 states.(Source, pp. 39-40).Fact B: The poll has amargin of sampling error of ±3.5%.
The source reports these as two separate facts. The two item are completely unrelated with each other.The source never links this two facts together.Itnever states thatfact B (the margin of error) makesfact A (incomplete coverage) statistically un important.
The editor makes aWikipedia:Synthesis. that is not found in the source:he calculate that the omitted provinces constitute 2.8% of the population. then he correlate andblend this 2.8% with a margin of error of 3.5%.thenhe draw a new conclusion and say: Therefore, the data are "reliable" and "representative of the entire territory of Afghanistan" despite the incomplete coverage.
The editor is not reporting the findings in the source; he is creating a new, derived conclusion to advance his own personal position.
3. The editor's entire argument is based on a fundamental statistical error.
He is confusing two different concepts: Sampling Error (Margin of Error): and Coverage Error:
I have already explained the difference between the two in detailthis text, but (@SdHb) still insists on his wrong position and apparently does not understand the difference between the two.we cannot use "Margin of Error" to justify "Coverage Error".
No, I don't agree. AsXan747 correctly pointed out,WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. This isn't an original research issue - it's at best aWP:RS issue (if you're saying the source is questionable) or aWP:NPOV issue (if you think the source's content is being givenundue weight). I also would caution you from questioning the motives of other editors; toassume good faith is a Wikipedia guideline, and continually violating it could result in sanctions. I'm not going to participate in this discussion any further - I've said my piece and I'm not a fan ofrepeating myself.Anne drew (talk ·contribs)16:22, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the different descriptions of the issue, I don't think this qualifies as original research. However, it does sound like an extrapolation, if you're essentially trying to apply a different data set to another set that has gaps. This could arguably be considered a personal opinion (possiblyWP:NPOV) since most extrapolation relies a bit on assumptions that are sometimes up for debate. Why not just acknowledge the gaps in the data, explaining the (legitimate) reason for the missing data, and let it stand as-is?
Separately, I don't think the gaps in the data should be considered a "sampling error". There was no error made. It was a known "limitation" on collecting data from the excluded regions. It wasn't included in the original sampled population to begin with, so the probability was zero (0) that it would end up being represented in the final data.
If it seems I've misunderstood the reasons for data limitations/gaps and the difference of opinion on how to handle the data set, please let me know.
(EDIT: Sorry for all the edits I made to my reply. It's a long discussion and I intended to address it to the involved editors directly but made some typos/omissions. I probably still left someone out anyway.)BetsyRogers (talk)22:48, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRogers thank you for your answer. maybe i have raised my issue in the wrong place.
@SdHb is insisting on something wrong that is not true at all. The truth is that in 2004, 2005 and 2006, no polls were conducted in 3-4 provinces of Afghanistan and this is quite clear. please see p 39-40
But unfortunately, another editor (probably with the help of artificial intelligence or chatGPT) insists on hiding this issue by making wrong arguments. thank you.Badakhshan ziba (talk)18:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Badakhshan ziba I'm aware that there is data missing from those years, and I haven't seen SdHb suggest otherwise, at least not here. But either way, could you clarify how you think the survey data from those years should be handled? Are you suggesting that the data shouldn't be shown at all, or do you think it be shown in a different way? Or something else? (You might have already clarified this somewhere else, but I only came across this discussion yesterday and it's a lot to read, so I might have missed it.)BetsyRogers (talk)20:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am an involved editor. I would just like to add thatWP:NOR does not apply to talk pages:
This policy does not apply totalk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.
So, even if SdHb's reasoning would be considered OR if used in an article, its putative use in a talk page to evaluate a source's reliability would not be a violation. Also, these ABC polls are particularly strong relative to other sources also in use because they disclose so much detail about their methodology that others don't, giving them relatively better compliance withWP:V, allowing readers the ability to judge their reliability for themselves instead of us doing that for them as the filer would have us do—which would be a potential violation ofWP:POV, and what SdHb and I are attempting to avoid by including sources the filer would have us remove.Xan747 (talk)16:00, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xan747 I don't understand what you mean. Our discussion on the talk page reached a dead end andwas not resolved. So I'm stating my point here. This issue is not resolved yet.
And that I see no reason to keep content that violates Wikipedia rules in the table.
Can you answer a few follow-up questions to make sure I understand? (Apologies if this was already answered somewhere but this is the first time I'm reading this, as an uninvolved editor, and it's a lot of information to process.)
- Regarding the table you linked from your talk page, does this also appear in a specific article here? (If so could you add a link to that, for context?).
- When you said this is sensitive data, could you clarify what you mean by sensitive?
- In the pdf you shared showing data from ABC, for the years with gaps in the data are they just using a simple average/mean calculation (where data from each province is expressed as a portion of 100%)?
- On the table on your talk page, when a province has missing data and just has a "--" mark in it, would it be feasible to add a footnote symbol and add corresponding footnotes to the bottom of the table stating how many provinces were included that year? That way it's abundantly clear if people are only looking at the table (a lot of people skim over the text and just look at tables). For example if a cell has " -- " in it, you could add a footnote symbol like " --a" (or b, c, d, etc) where "a" would link to a footnote at the bottom of the table stating exactly how many provinces were included/omitted in that particular year.BetsyRogers (talk)00:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRogers Thank you very much for your careful attention to this matter.
Just compare the content of this article with January 2023 and January 2022.
2-Meaning of "Sensitive Data = I use the term “sensitive” because data on the ethnic composition of the Afghan population is a highly political and controversial issue in the country of Afghanistan. The percentages assigned to each group can have significant social and political consequences.
TheTaliban terrorist group and itsleaders from the Pashtun ethnic group, and of course there is a lot of evidence that various Pashtun governments in Afghanistan have always tried to drastically reduce the population of other ethnic groups or make them look small for the past 60 years. They are trying very hard to make themselves look above 50%. While most of their sources mention between 38 and 42 percent. Even a one to two percent increase or decrease in the population percentage is sensitive in Afghanistan.
Therefore, it is crucial that the data we provide is as accurate and methodologically sound as possible to avoid misrepresenting the country's demographic landscape.
3- the pdf and data from ABC = The data on the page 39 and 40 is not % percent or simple average .On pages 39 and 40, we see the names of the 34provinces of Afghanistan in which the survey was conducted. And the numbers in front of the provinces indicate thenumber of data collectioncenters. Wherever the number 0 is placed in front of a province, it means there is nodata collection center there.
4- There is dispute over the data in this table. This table shows thetotal percentage of different ethnic groupsbased on all 34 provinces of Afghanistan.Afghanistan ethnic group table
Adding a footnote, although transparent, does not change the fact that the number shown in the table is presented as representative of 34 provinces, when objectively it is derived from only 29 to 31 provinces.
Forexample It is like labeling a map as "France" but only examining 30 of the 34 regions.The presentation (title "Map of France") is still misleading.The solution is to either not present that map or to label it correctly as “Map of 30 Regions of France”.
Your answer isyes. If we enter the incomplete and defect data into the table, the data and precentage will change in a misleading way.
For example, some percent % will be artificially and incorrectly added to the Pashtun ethnicity. And again, your answer isyes. Many people do not pay attention to the footnotes at all and only look at the top and header of the table.
The "--" sign does not refer to the provinces of Afghanistan. It refers to the ethnic groups of Afghanistan. The "--" sign means that information about that ethnicity is not mentioned in the source.
I think it is correct to include only years with complete and verified geographical coverage in the table (such as 2007 and 2009) ABC for which all provinces of Afghanistan are fully covered.
In my table, the data for 2004, 2005, 2006 has been removed.
But @SdHb insists that we should present the incorrect and incomplete data of 2004, 2005, and 2006 (which lack 3-4 provinces)as representative of the ( 34 province) entire territory of Afghanistan in the table. thanks for your attention.Badakhshan ziba (talk)20:43, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Anne drew The main problem we have and the main reason why this discussion is going on for over 3 months now (this isn't reduced to this particular case only) is that Badakhshan ziba still doesn't understand the difference betweenWP:VERIFIABILITY andWP:NOR. On WP the rule is very straightforward:if something is verifiable throughWP:RS, it can be included. It's not our job to decide whether we personally believe the methodology of a source is scientifically perfect or whether we would have designed the survey differently. What matters is what the published, reliable source itself states, not what an editor think the source "should" have done.
The ABC News surveys we're discussing are professionally conducted opinion polls with publicly available methodology notes (this is mutually agreed upon). These documents (as I've shown in my comment above) explicitly describe the sampling strategy, allocation of interview points, margin of sampling error, and limitations in accessibility during some years. Most importantly, they clearly and consistently present the surveys from 2004 to 2009 asnational public opinion polls. Since this comes directly from a reliable source, they are verifiable and therefore must be included perWP:V. Whether an editorpersonally agrees with the methodology orthinks (WP:NOR!) the coverage is incomplete is irrelevant. The only relevant question is:does the source itself present these results as national? Yes, it does. So the data belong in the article, plain and simple. An editor's personal opinion can't override the statements of a reliable source.
Badakhshan ziba keeps claiming that I'm speculating or doing original research. I'm not. None of my edits fall underWP:OR. I didn't generate new results (I quoteWP:CALC here directly: "Routine calculations do not count as original research", and counting 1.2, 1.1 and 0.5% together is a routine calculation). I didn't interpret raw data. I didn't contradict the source. All I did was summarize what the ABC methodology reports already state, which is how the sampling was designed and how ABC News itself presents the surveys.
By contrast, whatwould be OR is insisting that certain years should be excluded because "true national coverage" supposedly requires sampling all 34 provinces.That's anew, editor-generated conclusion and not supported by any reliable source!The ABC methodology never claims that limited access to a few provinces invalidates the national estimates. If that were the case, the source would say so. But it doesn't. If ABC News calls their survey a national poll, then Wikipedia reports it as a national poll. No need for recalculating anything, for deciding whether the "northern lake region" analogy even makes sense, or for personally deciding how many provinces are "good enough". Removing these years based on personal methodological opinions would be the actualWP:SYNTH andWP:OR.
If the source acknowledges limited access (which it does), we we handle this with afootnote, as it is already consensus betweenXan747,Anne drew and myself, instead of deleting data. This is fully in line withWP:NPOV with how we normally deal with methodological notes in reliable sources. Now please let's rest this case for good now.SdHb (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Edit: Just for the record: I've seen Badakhshan ziba's repeated claims of an alleged bias that I have. This violatesWP:PA andWP:AGF, and this is not the first time this happens. Can anything be done against it?SdHb (talk)11:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SdHb there is sufficient evidence that you are not neutral about the pashtun ethnic statistic.
If we use incomplete and defect data, the numbers and information of ethnics in the table will change deeply.
Footnotes do not solve our problem. Basically, there should be no wrong numbers or percentages in the table.For example, is it correct to say: 2+3=6 and then write a footnote for it?
The truth is that data that does not cover the entire territory of Afghanistan ( all 34 province of Afghanistan) should not be included in the table. All the information in this table is based on the entire territory of Afghanistan. And you are destroying the validity of this table by insisting on including incomplete and defect data.
"Is it correct to say: 2+3=6 and then write a footnote for it?" Yes, if people genuinely claim that, then here at Wikipedia it is. Thus our coverage of (e.g.) Mochizuki's "proof" of theabc conjecture.
Remember, our goal is not to truthfully describe the world, but to truthfully describewhat other people think about the world. That is the point ofWP:NOTTRUTH. I highly recommend that you read and internalize that essay.Bernanke's Crossbow (talk)20:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.WP:LETITGO So I will remove the data thatdoes not relate to the entire territory of Afghanistan from the table. I hope there is no objection to this.
What I am doing isbased on pages 39 and 40 of the main source.
Wikipedia's policies require us to base our content onverifiable facts, not claims. You prioritize a general claim on page 1 over the verifiable, methodological data** on pages 39-40. Your position is synthesizing the page 1 claim with the pages 39-40 data to create a new conclusion: "Data from 31 provinces can represent 34 provinces !? ! ! Thissynthesis is youroriginal research.Badakhshan ziba (talk)21:18, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[D]oes th[e table] also appear in a specific article here?
Yes, you can find the table in the articleEthnic groups in Afghanistan in a slightly modified way which we agreed uponhere. The live version does only contain reliable sources wediscussed and agreed upon beforehand, whereas the other user's talk page table contains sources we haven't even discussed yet, let alone mutually agreed. The ABC survey years are one of several sources used in that table.
When you said this is sensitive data, could you clarify what you mean by sensitive?
In the pdf you shared showing data from ABC, for the years with gaps in the data are they just using a simple average/mean calculation (where data from each province is expressed as a portion of 100%)?
I'm not 100% sure if I understood that question, but I'll try to answer. The ABC methodology notes (e. g.[3],[4],[5]) explain that all years, the ones with accessibility limitations included, were conducted as national opinion surveys using stratified random sampling proportional to population size. Sampling points were allocated to provinces according to population, and then further distributed randomly to districts, villages, and households. They didn't calculate "province means" in the sense that each province accounts for 1/n and the missing provinces were calculated as "0*1/n". Instead, the survey results are based on the provinces that were actually surveyed, with sampling points weighted according to population. Since this is how the source itself presents the data, byWP:V we have to reflect that without re-evaluating the sampling strategy.
Why not just acknowledge the gaps in the data, explaining the (legitimate) reason for the missing data, and let it stand as-is?
That's exactly whatI've donea couple of days ago. I fully support the use of footnotes. This has already been proposed by multiple editors (you, Anne drew, Xan747, Bernanke's Crossbow, myself). This way we avoid deleting reliably sourced content, andWP:NPOV is satisfied, because we present allverifiable data plus the methodological limitations that the source itself acknowledges.SdHb (talk)09:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Wikipedia editors need to parse out the distinctions between sampling errors and coverage errors or to, in general, understand statistical inference at a high level in order to determine whetherthis oft-cited in the above statement from ABC means that what we have at hand is a national poll, regardless of whether people in every province were sampled. This may be annoyingly simple-minded but if we agree that the ABC poll is RS, then how it describes the situation (it describes it as a national poll) is what we need to rely on.Novellasyes (talk)19:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, so the debate is whether or not this should be referred to as a "national" poll? That's the main issue? (If so, then I'm officially lost on why this is being discussed here under a "no original research" heading).BetsyRogers (talk)20:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BetsyRogers If only one could tell the filing user exactly that (that this isn‘t an issue of OR) and that repeating themselves twenty times over won‘t help their case …SdHb (talk)21:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I thought the issue was whether you had added some of your own statistical analysis to the table, separate from whatever was listed/stated in the pdf from the ABC report.BetsyRogers (talk)22:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Novellasyes . @BetsyRogers What I am doing isbased on pages 39 and 40 of the main source.
@Novellasyes Is our priority page 1 or pages 39 and 40? we use page 39-40 data in table. The page 1 and 39-40contradict each other.Wikipedia's policies require us to base our content onverifiable facts, not claims.
@SdHb prioritize a general claim on page 1 over theverifiable, methodological data on pages 39-40. his position issynthesizing
the page 1 claim with the pages 39-40 data tocreate a new conclusion:"Data from 31 provinces can represent as 34 provinces! !
@BetsyRogers I think that due to the long length of the discussion, I may have misrepresented my point.
And some one may not have understood the point.If I am allowed by Wikipedia rules I suggest that this discussionbe closed and after that i open a new discussion tomorrow or the day after thatjust only focused solely on the issue of (NOR ).Badakhshan ziba (talk)21:39, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SdHb The source's own methodologyin page 39 -40 note verifies the data is from 29 to 31 provinces, yet you insist on placing it in a table cell that represents 34 provinces??? This is the heart of the problem.
please Tell me why you insist on using incomplete and incorrect data in the table? This completely questions your impartiality and neutrality.
Removing the 2004, 2005 and 2006 ABC survey data from the table does not create any problem with the data.
But adding this data artificially and incorrectly changes the percentage of Afghan ethnic groups in favor of the Pashtuns. Do you intend to increase the percentage of the Pashtuns in the table by removing data from 3 to 4 Afghan provinces? This also violatesNeutral Point of View ..Badakhshan ziba (talk)21:01, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Novellasyes @BetsyRogers I thinkcombining and synthesizing the claim and content on page 1 with the content on pages 39 and 40 and creating a new, false and defect conclusion, is related to this link.
this link -- If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article
I'm still not completely understanding where the "original research" is. Could you link to one example (for example one specific year) in the table and specifically state in what way you think original research is being included?BetsyRogers (talk)22:10, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, can you link to the exact version of the table you're discussing (I think I've seen multiple versions) and explain exactly what we should be looking at to determine if there's any original research being included? Thank you.BetsyRogers (talk)22:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.
In this case, a violation of the rules has occurred regarding tosynthesis .
@SdHb are combining two separate parts of the ABC source.
Part A (from page 1, the article): This is a national survey" (claim) ! ! ( just national in 2007 and 2009)
Part B (from pages 39-40, the methodology): The factual data showing the survey of 2004 .2005.2006 was conducted in only 29-31 province out of 34 provinces.
Part C (then hesynthesizing and combining these two parts to create and advance a new conclusion by his own false statistical analysis:"Data from 30 provinces can represent as 34 provinces ! !
And thatno argument was provided in the ABC poll for this Contradiction between the page one and pages 39 and 40.
As a result, according to this Wikipedia rule, data from 2004, 2005, and 2006 must be removed.
Please look at theperiod 2004 - 2021. Click on the expand column.
The rows related to2006 ABC, 2005 ABC, and 2004 ABC should be deleted according to a violation of thesynthesis and wikipedia rules. Thank you for your attention.
( If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.)this link
@Badakhshan ziba, No. Based on the information you've provided here (in your intial post and subsequent clarifications) I don't see any violation related to original research, synthesis, or even neutral POV.BetsyRogers (talk)23:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay
What part of „it‘s not me who says this is a national poll but the very source itself“ is OR exactly? As I have pointed out earlier, if anything, it‘syou who is doing the OR here, because you’re insisting that "true national coverage" supposedly requires sampling all 34 provinces. ABC News itself states it‘s national, so it‘s verifiable. It’s not me who does the conclusion. End of the discussion. @BetsyRogers I would like you to stop giving them a platform to repeat unreasonable claims for the 1000th time. By now it‘s obvious that they are alone with their opinion, as 6 separate users are sharing a consensus that this case in fact isn‘t OR by me. Thank you.SdHb (talk)23:20, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SdHb You still claim, citing page one, that this is a national poll and should be included in the table, butyou still ignored pages 39 and 40. Why? WHY ?
You are deliberately ignoring pages 39 and 40 and trying to advance your position.
The source saysA ("national survey") on page 1.
- The same source says B ("conducted in 31 provinces") on pages 39-40.
- You are synthesizing A and B to create C: "Therefore, the data from 30 provinces can be presented as representing 34 provinces in the national table."
Hey @SdHb, to put it simply, we cannotsynthesizing and combining the article on page 1 with pages 39 and 40 and then claim that the source data represents 34 provinces and the whole of Afghanistan. A+B=CBadakhshan ziba (talk)23:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, Iforgot to mentionpage 38.We got the data for the Ethnicity table from page 38, not pages 39 and 40.
So the ABC News source itself is in violation.
This is also Wikipedia's rule regarding sources abc
( If asingle source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article)
This law is mostly about the source, not about people or editors . ( Although individuals can sometimes be subject to this law )
Does this source apply and relate to this law in this case? if yes please say yes or if no. please say that why not?
==
In my opinion, there is no doubt that the source violated this law and at least the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 can be removed fromthis Table according to this law.
I suggestclosing this very long discussion and then opening a new discussionjust only about the source itself so that people can give poinion about the source itself and comment on it.
This is a very important and sensitive issue. I hope at least 4 or 5 people will give their opinion on this.
Badakhshan ziba: You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if you just find the right rule that the ABC source violates, then we'll be forced to omit that source from the article. Wikipedia does not work that way.
Wikipedia has neither laws nor rules, only guidelines. (It is, at best, acommon law orcustomary law system.) Even if you find aWP:ESSAY directly on point, editors will always be able to citeWP:IAR. One of the central principles of Wikipedia is to include as many sources as possible, but with caveats as necessary. AFAICT theonly exceptions are sources that are entirely faked (to be clear: this does not apply to the ABC News source, since even you don't dispute that the didn't fake their data for 31 of the provinces), or published bycrackpots (again, not ABC News).
Your argument against the ABC News source seems to be that the content of the source is an unjustified extrapolation, that Afghanistanis care a lot about these numbers, and that we should be cautious in any claims to avoid inciting political/ethnic conflict in Afghanistan. Wikipedia doesn't care about any of those things. Wikipedia isfine with other people's extrapolations, Wikipedia is notswayed by controversy, and Wikipedia includes informationeven if it makes people violently uncomfortable.
IMHO this discussion issnowballing towards a conclusion that the source should stay. Creating a second discussion would waste editor time and not produce much of value. I recommend that youmake your peace with the fact that Wikipedia is going to include the source and the data from it. You canstop wasting your time here and find other areas of the encyclopedia to improve.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
It is a documented fact that mathematicianEmily Riehl has performed in a band named "Unstraight", and has also published mathematical research on "unstraightening". I think that the conjunction of these two facts does not lead readers to any inappropriate conclusions about how that coincidence of nomenclature may have come about, and is not of great significance to the biography but adds interest to it and is appropriate to mention for that reason. In fact, this exact conjunction of facts was the hook for a DYK entry that ran in 2018.
After a not-logged-in editor tried to remove even the band name because it "could be misconstrued as something to do with sexual orientation" (duh, the subject also served as a board member of a notable LGBTQ association), established editorUser:Cagliost backed up the other editor in the same removal until confronted with source overkill for the band name, and has since repeatedly tried to remove the mention of mathematical unstraightening, next to the band name, claiming (per the topic of this noticeboard) that this conjunction is intended to lead the reader to an unsourced conclusion and therefore forbidden byWP:SYNTH. In support of this position, Cagliost jumped to an unsourced conclusion (that the band was named after the mathematics, something I have no knowledge of and no intention to imply) and moved this unsourced conclusion into a footnote. When I reverted, saying all this, Cagliost removed the material altogether for the fourth time and demanded a third opinion.
So here we are: can I have a third opinion about whether it is permissible to mention mathematical unstraightening next to the band name Unstraight (as inthis old version and the DYK hook), with the only intended connection between the two being that this is an intriguing coincidence of nomenclature that could plausibly have many different explanations and makes a connection between two facets of her life? Or is this going too far in leading readers to some particular conclusion about what this coincidence of nomenclature actually means? —David Eppstein (talk)08:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The pageFuzzy concept can be kindly described as a rummage sale of WP:OR nonsense. But it is in fact just an alphabet soup of meaningless items. I do not want to just wipe it out by myself, and certainly do not see how it can be easily fixed. Should it just be AFDed to avoid embarrassment for Wikipedia? If someone places the AFD flag I will support it. Or perhaps redirect toFuzzy logic orFuzzy set ? ThanksYesterday, all my dreams... (talk)07:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recently came across new articles on theFBI Richmond Catholic memo investigation and itsArctic Frost investigation, as well as older articles that have had sections about these investigations added to them (e.g.Paul Abbate) that heavily use, to verify factual claims, various reports and memos ofChuck Grassley'sSenate Judiciary Committee which has been raking through Biden-era FBI investigations for arguably partisan reasons. My initial thought was that these are primary sources and over-using them risks OR. But on reflection I wonder if these are not just primary but also hyper-partisan, akin to press releases by politicians. Should they therefore be treated as opinion pieces that need attribution, rather than as primary documents? (Neutral eyes on these articles also likely beneficial.)BobFromBrockley (talk)03:54, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Congressional committee reports are official government documents, not press releases. WP:PRIMARY allows primary sources for straightforward facts - "the investigation issued 197 subpoenas" doesn't need a secondary source to explain what it means.
Calling Senate Judiciary oversight "arguably partisan" could apply to literally any congressional investigation of the opposing party. Should we discount all Democratic committee reports from 2017-2021 too?
The actual articles use tier-1 sources (CNN, AP, NBC, PBS, Washington Post, Axios) as their backbone. Committee reports fill in specific details those outlets didn't cover. The DOJ IG's April 2024 report independently corroborates the Catholic memo findings.
If you think specific claims are unsupported, please take it to the article talk pages. That's where the content disputes belong not here with vague concerns about entire source categories.Bladerunner24 (talk)21:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Virginia AG press release documents an official action - 20 state AGs sent a letter. Primary source for the fact the letter was sent.
The Grassley/Johnson release publishes actual FBI documents obtained through oversight. The underlying FBI documents are primary sources; the press release is just how they were published. Same as FOIA releases.
Both are used with attribution ("According to Grassley," etc.). And the articles use CNN, NBC, PBS, AP, DOJ IG as their backbone.
Whether OR or not would depend how the sources were used. While partisan, they do contain a significant concentration of basic facts, and the editor has recently started to trim any OR down by using secondary sources, so for most of what they were doing I don't see this as an OR issue.Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ)08:54, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"DOJ IG" is another primary source, if I understand right: it's theInspector General report on FBI and DOJ actions in the 2016 election. I appreciate the editor has trimmed down their use and started adding attribution and primary sources, so these specific articles are in a far better place (they certainly didn't use CNN etc as "their backbone" when I raised the question!). However, my question, which perhaps I didn't articulate well, was a more general one. Something like:To what extent can we treat press releases by elected officials, especially partisan press releases on contentious topics, as usable primary sources for facts? I feel that the response to my raising this (find secondary sources, attribute) shows that the consensus seems to be that these are poor sources for facts, unless the facts are banal. Is that right?BobFromBrockley (talk)10:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a policy on this specific issue, but my not within my knowledge. I would merely advise the editor to use discretion, taking into account fact manipulability, likelihood of omissions and in this caseespecially weasel words, excessive interpretation with insufficient supporting evidence, etc. So pretty much the same as most news articles. The facts concentration just happens to be denser in these government press releases, which might give an inexperienced encyclopedist a false impression of neutrality? This isn't an ordinary new editor, though. They seem to have a decent grasp on what they're using and how they're using it, so I wouldn't worry too much about them getting carried away now that they have been made aware of the relevant policies and are complying. It is also worth noting that almost all of the sources being objected to contain a mix of primary and secondary text. Some are almost completely primary, others secondary. Much easier to handle on a case-by-case basis at the article's talk page than in a general discussion.Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ)10:32, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was discussed here in November 2025 (see above). The conclusion was that the sources are being used appropriately — primary sources for facts with attribution, tier-1 secondary sources as backbone.
Since then, I've continued to add secondary sourcing per feedback. The Thibault BLP uses CBS News, CNN, NBC News, TIME, and Newsweek as its primary sources for the allegations. The Grassley releases provide specifics (exact quotes, dates) that news coverage references.
Attorney denials and FBI Director testimony are included for balance.
If there are specific claims Bob believes lack appropriate sourcing, he should identify them on the article talk pages. "Might benefit from experienced eyes" isn't a content dispute — it's a request for backup after losing talk page discussions.
Bob's notice here was within policy (see the first line ofWP:CANVASSING), but while there is some continued discussion on the use ofWP:PRIMARY sources in certain cases, there is scarcely anyWP:OR left in the article, if at all. For anyone reading here and wondering whether or not to bother weighing in, the article no longer has the pervasive issues it had when this section was created and discussion has shifted to a few select cases, most of which end up resolved within a few days thanks to constructive talk page activity.Ⰻⱁⰲⰰⱀⱏ (ⰳⰾ)04:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The articles that raised my concerns are now massively improved, no doubt, including improvements since my most recent post here. I just felt a discussion involving the same four editors (plus one IP editor who repeatedly reverted some of the secondary sourced material added in, which partly prompted my return here) has continued for weeks, and I thought it beneficial if uninvolved editors with good understanding of OR issues had a look.BobFromBrockley (talk)13:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your perception that unless an entity is widely recognized as an empire (or having been one), it shouldn't be in that template. Then the question becomes, what to do about that. There are two different things you could end up having knock-down dragouts about. Those two things are (1) is it true (as you and I think it is) that to be in that template, the entity has to be widely regarded as an empire and (2) even if everyone agrees with that, then I think you'd have to proceed to identify the entities currently in the template that don't qualify. Then you would probably get a knock-down dragout for each of those entities. So if there are ten contested ones, that would be a lot of talk page going-back-and-forth about whether RSes have or haven't said it is an empire. What you might consider doing is opening up a discussion onTemplate talk:Empires about this, and direct folks here to have the conversation about (1). Then if you get a consensus here about (1) -- the idea that something has to be identified by RS as an empire or else it shouldn't be in the template, you can proceed to the work on (2).Novellasyes (talk)18:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you achieve consensus on what has to be true of an entity to be listed in the template (namely some relevant RSes need to have described it as an empire), then I would assume that you would then proceed to remove from the template the ones that as far as you are aware, don't make the grade. But then I wouldn't be surprised if people who want a particular entity to be listed in the template would then look for relevant RSes that have described it as an empire. But maybe not! It's possible that once you get agreement on the main principle, it will be easy to remove the non-empire entities from the template because people who would otherwise want a particular entity listed in the template won't try to make the claim that such-and-such entity has been described by relevant RSes as an empire.Novellasyes (talk)16:16, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure if this is the right place but I'm really just trying to get some clarity on the substance of this issue. The opening credits of the TV ShowNCIS: Sydney state "Paramount+ and CBS Studios present." There is an end credit screen for "Endemol Shine Australia." Primary sources associated withEndemol Shine Australia,Paramount Plus Australia andCBS Studios use the wording "Produced by Endemol Shine Australia for CBS Studios and Paramount Australia" or "NCIS: SYDNEY is produced for CBS Studios and Paramount Australia by Endemol Shine Australia." This wording, which is also adopted by manysecondary sources, has beentaken to mean by others that CBS Studios does not have any meaningful production role and should not be listed as a production company for this series. To me this seems like tending towards original research, overintepretation or synthesis.
It was also suggested this means CBS Studios is acting as a distributor, even though the same primary source officially listsParamount Global Content Distribution as the distributor. The officialpage on the distributor site only lists CBS Studios. There are secondary sources both Australian and American that refer to the series as aco-production or refer to CBS Studios having a production role such ashere andhere.The articlepreviously did list CBS Studios as a production company without any references and not added by me. I tried adding the information backwith references or just listing the primary source wording likehere with a reference
The primary source wording I quoted above *is* the same wording that is being cited to support not including it, which has been adopted without any secondary interpretation by several secondary sources, which I do not deny and am not cherrypicking. It is some *secondary sources* and other equally valid primary sources that suggest including the other company as well as the actual opening credits of the series itself. I would say this guidance about original research applies here " Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication, going beyond what the sources express, or using them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using materialout of context. In short, one muststick to the sources." And this: "Any passages open to multiple interpretations should be precisely cited or avoided." The full context would include the full description and full citation from the same primary source language that everyone is citing "Produced by Endemol Shine Australia for CBS Studios and Paramount Australia."newsjunkie (talk)20:46, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe this editor is still harping on about this, despite being told multiple times by multiple editors toWP:DROPTHESTICK. AsEducatedRedneck points out, this has been lengthily litigated by newsjunkie in several different places and a firm consensus has been reached on each occasion. Not one other editor supports their position.Barry Wom (talk)13:12, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is not suppose to be determined by votes, but by engagement with the actual substance based on the policies and guidelines, which there has actually been very little of in this case.newsjunkie (talk)16:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This issue could benefit just as much from a textual source analysis as the dispute below. "Cherrypicking" is not a Wikipedia policy objection unless there is some identifiable issue with the actual sourcing in terms of reliability or something else. The *only* explicit source cited by anyone in opposition on this specific question was one primary sourcehere[1]. I was the only one to mention any secondary sources at all, which is normally what is preferred. All the secondary sources whether they just adopt the primary source language or go beyond it, mention *all* the credited companies, even when they don't characterize their specific role, and all the secondary sources both American and Australian are reliable, neutral, and unbiased news sources.newsjunkie (talk)22:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is not accurate. A reading of the linked other fora where newsjunkie's arguments failed to sway other editors will show that opposition to their ideas relied on multiple sources. It's true "cherrypicking" is not a Wikipedia policy, butWP:RS andWP:NPOV are, and cherrypicking the few sources that say what you want and ignoring the myriad reliable secondary sources that you claim "just adopt the primary source language" runs afoul of them.EducatedRedneck (talk)22:53, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody linked to any other other secondary sources at all and and it's not accurate to say I'm ignoring them either. I'd be happy to cite any of them using the full wording that they all include. In its current form, nothing is cited at all. The substantive discussion there was involved some speculation (on both sides) about what that the phrasing meant in terms of being a distributor (which separately *is* explicitly identified in all the sources as Paramount Global Content Distribution), in the context of showsbeing greenlit or a comparison to theairline industry. That was it.newsjunkie (talk)22:59, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would you find it acceptable to include the full wording in the main body of the article sourced to the primary source above and/or any preferred secondary source for example under Production? (separate from the infobox) "The series is produced by Endemol Shine Australia for CBS Studios and Paramount Australia."newsjunkie (talk)05:53, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeking assistance regarding persistentWP:SYNTH andWP:FV on the pageJhandewali Mata. UserUser:Aragorn1208 insists on changing the image caption of the deity to "Adi Shakti Durga Roopni Maa Jhandewali". I have reviewed all 7 citations provided by the user (including TourMyIndia, TemplePurohit, and AskGanesha). None of them contain the phrase "Durga Roopni" or the compound title "Adi Shakti Durga Roopni.". The sources identify the deity as "Adi Shakti" or "Maa Jhandewali". Some sources describe her in brackets as "(avatar of Durga)". The user is synthesizing the name ("Adi Shakti") with the description ("Form of Durga") and inventing a neologism ("Roopni") to create a new title that appears nowhere in the literature. To support this unsourced title, the user has stacked 7 citations [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] onto the word, none of which verify the specific phrasing.When I requested a direct quote for the phrase "Durga Roopni" on the Talk Page, the user refused to provide one and instead resorted to personal attacks and casting aspersions, stating:"@Junereads is editing this page arbitrarily, I request strict action against her misadventures.""Let me enlighten you, your actions, as of now, amount to an incitement to Edit Warring"I am requesting a review of the sources to confirm that "Adi Shakti Durga Roopni" is Original Research and that the caption should reflect the explicit terminology found in the sources ("Adi Shakti" or "Maa Jhandewali").Junereads (talk)11:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Junereads is responsible for generating the neologism 'Roopni' as is evident by the edit history. She introduced the title 'Mahalakshmi Roopni' in one of her edits. I merely replaced 'Mahalaksmi' with 'Adi Shakti Durga'. Upon her persistent requests, I changed 'Adi Shakti Durga' to 'Adi Shakti(a form of Durga)'. It is baffling that somebody whose claims are not supported by sources is registering a complaint against somebody whose arguments are backed by multiple sources. Respectfully, this is hypocrisy at its peak.Aragorn1208 (talk)11:30, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I used the term "Mahalakshmi Roopni" because it appears in the English edition of the temple's text (which I possess). However, if you believe "Roopni" is a neologism, why did you insist on retaining it in the caption ("Adi Shakti Durga Roopni") for multiple edits? You cannot claim the term is invalid while simultaneously fighting to keep it on the page. I am happy to drop the word "Roopni" entirely. Use the exact terminology found in your own citations (TourMyIndia/TemplePurohit): "Adi Shakti" or "Maa Jhandewali". You are refusing to use these verified names unless you can attach the word "Durga" to them, even though the sources do not use the compound title "Adi Shakti Durga". Changing a verifiable name ("Adi Shakti") into a theological explanation ("Adi Shakti a form of Durga") within an image caption is editorializing. Captions should identify the subject's name as per the source, not provide theological commentary. Can we agree to remove "Roopni" and "Durga" from the caption, and simply use the name explicitly supported by all cited sources: "Adi Shakti Maa Jhandewali"?Junereads (talk)11:39, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You fabricated sources. Now you claim 'Mahalakshmi Roopni' is absent from the cited source; if so, you should not have cited that prayer book to support your claim. That is false verification and misrepresentation. The English version (which I also own) contains no mention of “Mahalakshmi Roopni.” Please stop using such tactics. I was as polite as I could be.
I categorically deny the accusation of fabrication. Since you claim to own the English version, please open it to Page 14.
The text explicitly contains the line "Mahalakshmi Roopni Jhandewali". The fact that you overlooked this line does not justify accusing another editor of "fabrication." While I appreciate the removal of the word "Roopni," the current caption "Adi Shakti (a form of Durga)" remains problematic for two reasons:
Incorrect Wiki-Linking: You have linked the text "Adi Shakti" to the article forDurga. This is factually incorrect. Wikipedia has a specific article forAdi Parashakti (Adi Shakti). Redirecting "Adi Shakti" to "Durga" is misleading to readers.
Captions should identify the subject's name, not provide theological commentary. Adding "(a form of Durga)" is unnecessary clutter. The sources (TourMyIndia/TemplePurohit) identify the deity primarily as "Maa Aadi Shakti" or "Maa Jhandewali".
To resolve this finally, we should use the accurate, neutral name supported by the sources and link it correctly like this -
Caption: "Kali (left),Adi Shakti Maa Jhandewali (middle), Saraswati (right)"
It say 'Sri Mahakali Mahalakshmi Mahasaraswati Trigunatmikaya Jhandewali Devi'. Keep this article aside for moment, what problem do you have with Goddess Durga? Do you know that Pakki Bhents are offered to Maa Jhandewali during Navratri? 'Adding a form of Durga' is not 'unnecessary clutter' rather, if anything, it is 'being precise'.Aragorn1208 (talk)12:29, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just quoted the title: 'Sri Mahakali Mahalakshmi Mahasaraswati Trigunatmikaya Jhandewali Devi'.
Earlier, you claimed: "No citation whatsoever calls her Mahalakshmi." Now, you admit the title explicitly includes "Mahalakshmi." This validates my original position. However, to keep the peace, I am still willing to stick to the neutral compromise "Adi Shakti". I have no "problem" with Goddess Durga. This is strictly about Wikipedia Policy, not personal devotion. You claim adding "(a form of Durga)" is precise. It is not. The source says "Adi Shakti". You have linked "Adi Shakti" to the pageDurga. This is factually incorrect. Wikipedia has a specific article forAdi Parashakti (The Primordial Power). Redirecting "Adi Shakti" to "Durga" confuses the reader and ignores the distinction between the Primordial Source (Adi Shakti) and her manifestations. The fact that Bhents (hymns) are sung to Durga during Navratri does not rename the central idol. Devotees sing hymns to many deities. We must caption the image based on the temple's official identification, which you cite as "Adi Shakti." Please fix the wikilink. "Adi Shakti" must link toAdi Parashakti, notDurga. And please remove the unsourced editorialization "(a form of Durga)." Let us stick to the verified text: "Adi Shakti Maa Jhandewali."Junereads (talk)12:41, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still maintain my position, I have always referred to her as 'Trigunatmika' or 'Trigunatmika Mahalakshmi of Sri Durga Saptshati'. Also, I am talking about Bhents(Sacrifices) not the Bhents(Bhajans). Come on, be honest, the source clearly says 'Adi Shakti (a form of Goddess Durga) '.Aragorn1208 (talk)13:37, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You stated: "the source clearly says 'Adi Shakti (a form of Goddess Durga)'". Yes, exactly. In this sentence, "Adi Shakti" is the Proper Noun (Name). The phrase "(a form of Goddess Durga)" is a Parenthetical Description. We caption images with the Name of the subject, not the Name + Description. Therefore, the caption must use the Proper Noun identified in the source: "Adi Shakti" (or "Maa Jhandewali"). Your argument about "Bhents (Sacrifices)" is Original Research (WP:OR). You are analyzing temple rituals to deduce a theological connection to rename the idol. Wikipedia relies on what reliable sources call the idol, not on our own interpretation of the rituals performed there. You still have not addressed the fundamental technical error. You are piping the linkAdi Shakti. This is factually wrong. Wikipedia has a specific article forAdi Parashakti. Deliberately linking to a less specific page to enforce a theological point is disruptive. I ask again that we simply use the Proper Noun found in the citations "Adi Shakti" and link it to the correct article (Adi Parashakti).Junereads (talk)14:18, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since filing this report, the user has continued to revert the article to include the theological gloss "(a form of Durga)" and has now incorrectly wikilinked the text "Adi Shakti" to the article forDurga. Incorrect Linking: Wikipedia has a specific, distinct article forAdi Parashakti (Adi Shakti). Linking "Adi Shakti" to "Durga" is factually incorrect and misleading to readers. Editorializing: The user refuses to use the neutral name "Adi Shakti" (supported by sources like TourMyIndia) without attaching the parenthetical "(a form of Durga)". Captions should identify the subject's name, not enforce a specific theological hierarchy that contradicts the distinct wiki-topics. I am pausing my edits to avoid edit warring, but I request neutral input on the proper wikilinking and the removal of the unsourced parenthetical description.Junereads (talk)12:11, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the term "Adi Shakti" is mentioned in theDurga article does not justify piping the wikilink there. Wikipedia has a dedicated, specific article forAdi Parashakti (Adi Shakti). Per standard linking conventions, internal links must point to the most specific article available, not a related broad topic. "Prime Minister" is mentioned in the "India" article, but we link "Prime Minister" toPrime Minister of India, notIndia. Redirecting "Adi Shakti" (The Primordial Cosmic Power) to "Durga" (a specific manifestation) enforces a theological hierarchy that is not universally accepted and contradicts the existence of the separateAdi Parashakti page. The link must be corrected to point to the actual subject:Adi Parashakti. If the user wishes to discuss the relationship between Adi Shakti and Durga, that belongs in the article body text, not disguised as a misleading link in a caption.Junereads (talk)12:44, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want people to look at the complaint, I suggest you stop debating each other and let the evidence speak for yourself. Few editors will wade through a massive back-and-forth to figure out who's right.EducatedRedneck (talk)14:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've had a chance to take a bit of a look. Here are my thoughts. The bottom line up front is that I think Adi Shakti in the caption should neither have "(a form of Durga)" included nor be wikilinked toDurga. Details follow:
The main issue still in dispute is whether to state and/or wikilink Adi Shakti as a form of Durga.
Both have cited sources, but the veracity of the citations are disputed by each other.
This wasn't brought up above, but there areeight citations attached to the Adi Shakti portion in the infobox. This is clearWP:OVERCITE. If none of those state it clearly and reliably, it'd beWP:SYNTH to include. The two most reliable sources should be retained, and the others removed from the infobox.
Other issues mentioned ("Roopni") don't appear in the article at this time, and so don't appear to be disputed and are left out.
TheDurga article states[Durga] is regarded as the principal aspect of Adi Parashakti... in Shaktism.Adi Parashakti redirects toMahadevi, which similar language of,Shaktas often worship her as Durga.
Shaktas are described asa major Hindu denomination, which is not the entire Hindu faith. Other denominations may have different interpretations.
Jesus is not pipe linked toHoly Trinity, despite a major denomination (Catholicism) believing one to be an aspect of the other.
WP:PLA states that links should be the least surprising possible. The piping of "Adi Shakti (a form of Durga)" toDurga is far less intuitive than piping it toAdi Shakti.
Piping "Adi Shakti" to Durga also fails the specificity test mentioned above; "the study of heat work and temperature" would pipe toThermodynamics, notPhysics.
I accept the verdict. Only question that I have is how @Junereads's source reliable? Her Hindi source doesn't mention Mahalakshmi. In addition, the eight sources I have provided all mention 'Adi Shakti (a form of Goddess Durga) '. Nonetheless, I think that mentioning 'Adi Shakti' alone is sufficient. As for the 'link', I accept that, I was at fault there. Lastly, will you not penalize @Junereads for putting unsourced information in the article, in the first place?Aragorn1208 (talk)17:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to some of the sources, or the Hindi expertise to assess them; if I tried, I'd just be using a machine translation that would probably make me even more wrong. Regarding unsourced information, first I can't penalize anyone; I'm not an administrator, just another editor. Even if I could,WP:NOTPENAL discusses how the point of penalties is to stop disruption. In this case, they are no longer attempting to add unsourced information, so I doubt an administrator would do anything. I hope this answered your questions.EducatedRedneck (talk)17:26, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@EducatedRedneck Thank you for the clear and detailed analysis. I appreciate your time in reviewing the policy points regarding specific linkingWP:PLA and over-citationWP:OVERCITE.
@Aragorn1208 thank you for accepting the consensus. I am glad we could resolve the content dispute.
What do you mean by valid? You know that the image you have shared is not the actual one, right? That particular form is a replica of the original Swarūp. The picture you have put up is in Katra not Delhi (where the Jhandewalan temple is). Kindly restore the previous image or with some other suitable(actual) image. I am replacing it for now.Aragorn1208 (talk)13:36, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like your concerns about original research are settled; I suggest taking this discussion about images to the article talk page. I suspect you two can come to a good solution. :)EducatedRedneck (talk)14:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My question for this board is: "For a website to be included on/listed in the articleList of fake news troll farms should it be the case that aWP:RS has referred to the website as a troll farm?" Background: The article lists many dozens of websites. I opened up a talk page conversation (Talk:List of fake news troll farms#Original research/guidelines for what to include in this article) back in May raising that question and then came back to the article in October. For most of the websites in the article, the attached citations don't refer to the website as a troll farm or with any other phrase using the word 'troll'. I went through and removed many websites for that reason. Here's atypical diff. After that, an editoradded back all the websites I had removed with the edit summary "Incorrect actions of subjective reading of meaning of troll." That editor also discussed this change with me on the article's talk page, here:Talk:List of fake news troll farms#Definition of sites. The original creator of the article has returned to the talk page, and disagrees with my belief that for a website to be listed on the article, it should be the case that a WP:RS has referred to it as a troll farm. As the article stands, it currently contains many dozens of websites that haven't been referred to as troll farms or using the word 'troll'. Two editors very strongly disagree with how I see this, so I'm asking those of you who hang out on this board and often think about WP:OR issues for your perspective. Thanks!Novellasyes (talk)17:11, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First, I note that the lead of the article has been changed from identifying troll farms to,The following is a list of websites, separated by country,that have been described by journalists and researchers as spreading false information or impersonating established news websites. (Emphasis mine.) I'll be reverting that shortly.
I would agree that a website would have to be explicitly described as "fake news" and "troll farm" to be included, as to do otherwise is tosynthesize a conclusion not stated by the source. It seems to me that the other editors want to write a different article than the current one: they want a list of misinformation news sites, not a list of troll farms, which is a different subject. They should consider proposing a move to a new title if they believe that direction is best.EducatedRedneck (talk)21:00, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Nick Fuentes#"Assassination Attempt"; I believe that this is a clear violation ofWP:OR. No reliable sources claim that Fuentes faced an assassination attempt; only he says that. It's especially dangerous because the BLP is about afar-right influencer who can use the claim that he was supposedly targeted for an "assassination" to show how his viewpoints are being censored.Bill Williams19:37, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that referring to it as an assassination attempt constitutesWP:OR. Is it likely that's what it was? Sure. But noWP:RS I've seen says that, and although Lyons was armed, that isn't enough tounambiguously claim it was an assassination attempt. The intent could've been to scare, to wound, or to coerce, all of which are potential, if unlikely explanations. Terming it an assassination attempt, alleged assassination, or whatever is allWP:OR. Fuentes' own terms can't be used as he's very much not a secondary source on this matter. I also think the section should be renamed, perhaps to "claimed assassination attempt" or somesuch, to make it clear Fuentes is the only one who's described it thus.EducatedRedneck (talk)19:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being in agreement. I just fixed[9] the WP:OR violation, since it's an urgent issue. I also think this file[10] should be deleted. Its title is also WP:OR and its content is not WP:NOTABLE enough for the file to exist. Few reliable sources place significant emphasis on the event.Bill Williams07:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
![[10]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aAttempted_murder_of_Nick_Fuentes.png){kind=link}