Nationmaster page lists India as 5th in 56 in Asia, for number of terrorist groups present. The recent addition claims 4th worldwide. Both this data contradict each other. Nationmaster may not be a reliable source per WP:RS guidelines. I suggest that we discuss this so we can either identify a more reliable, verifiable source; or take other appropriate action. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to the state department sources. Here is the source document link. See: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/45313.pdf After review, Nationmaster seems to be unreliable secondary source indeed. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you reached this conclusion given that the state government documents are not only referenced but validate the data given. Reichsfurst (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The state department document is why I left it in the table. The issue with nationmaster website is that the data seems inconsistent across its various pages. The one you cited compares India with UK. Other pages on same topic, but different context and comparisons, had conflicting data, last time I checked. I suggest the citation source be updated to the state department link, rather than nationmaster - as it provides a complete context and satisfies wiki's WP:RS guidelines. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do it then, you do however miss my point which is really that there is an abundance of 'data' which could be put on such a page and no means of determining what to include. The whole idea is impractical. Reichsfurst (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that wiki article or article talk pages are not the place to make personal points, only good faith contribution and discussion of the content. Please comply with wiki WP:AFDEQ guidelines and Wikietiquette, limit making your points relating to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fact sheet on India to where it belongs. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Reichsfurst - since you seem to be relatively new to wikipedia, I urge you to read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, particularly the section on "How to use article talk pages". Note the statement: Talk pages are for discussing the article. Please respect wikipedia policies, and the time and effort put in by other contributors to wikipedia. Thank you, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back over that past discussion, I think AVC has been highly unfair to Reichsfurst. Reichsfurst did not make any personal points, assumptions of bad faith, disrespect of other people's contributions, or off-topic discussion. There certainly isn't any such thing above, and I don't see it in the page history (if Reichsfurst said anything inappropriate, then deleted it, I've missed it). On the face of it, AVC's over-the-top response is itself a breach of Wikietiquette. Criticism and disagreement about an article happen all the time, and all participants need to react in a constructive way rather than telling each other off. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verification effort found India listed as 6th, not 56th. The NationMaster site does not identify its source. Does NationMaster satisfy WP:RS guidelines? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the sources cited for each. Can not find support for the alleged OR. Wiki contributor is requested to use ^{[citation needed]} tag to more clearly identify content that he or she finds as OR. Or explain on this talk page, which section or data is Original Research. Please see WP:NOR and WP:RS guidelines, and then help me improve this article. Thanks, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki contributor is requested to follow the community-agreed wiki guideline for original research template use: Note: This template should not be applied without explanation on the talk page, and should be removed if the original research is not readily apparent when no explanation is given. For more details, please read the complete instructions on the template page, before inserting the tag into any wiki article. Thank you, ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The large footnote seems to be taking an original research approach, since it's not giving additional information about the article's topic or sources, but justifying the particular approach used in the list. It's a bad sign if the part of the article is used to justify the format of the article. MartinPoulter (talk) 08:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]