Talk:British Pakistanis/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Kashmiris

I want to bring attention to this edit ([[1]]) that i made. UK citizens that have roots from Mirpur, Azad Kashmir are not Kashmiris. Placing them as "Kashmiris" under "Ethnicity and cultural assimilation" subheading when they do not belong to Kashmiri ethnicity is totally contradictory and wrong, as i stated in my edit summary. However @Mar4d: reverted my edits without addressing the actual concerns. Going through the page history i have found users: @NeilN:, @Kautilya3: and @Cordless Larry: among the experienced Users that have frequently edited this page. I am revering Mar4d's edit back to my version, having explained it all here. Ahmadrashid167 (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a genuine ambiguity here. In India, "Kashmiri" means ethnic Kashmiris, typically from the Valley. On the Pakistani side, "Kashmiri" has been used for all people from the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir. This ambiguity goes back to colonial times, and perhaps even earlier. There are even people with "Kashmiri" as their last name, who are either Mirpuris or Poonchis that migrated to Punjab. So this is not an easy problem to resolve. We have had a WP:DRN case about it, where we agreed that we would use a limited amount of the Pakistani usage on this page, while making it clear that these people are not ethnic Kashmiris. So, please look at the article in that light. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Some Points:

1) People from the entire Jammu and Kashmir state that existed in the British era have never been called as "Kashmiris". People from Gilgit, Baltistan and Ladakh have never been called as Kashmiris neither do they identify themselves as "Kashmiri". There are however few Kashmiris that do live in Gilgit.

2) There is a very large Biradri (community) of ethnic Kashmiris that migrated to Punjab back in the 18th and 19th centuries. There is a significant population of ethnic Kashmiris in the Indian side of Poonch and Rajori districts and some of them do mention "Kashmiri" as their last name though typically they carry Kashmiri lastnames such as "Bhat, Dar, Lone, Wani, etc". There are also some ethnic Kashmiris that live in the various districts of Azad Kashmir, most of them (probably 90%) in Muzaffarabad division. Over all, the overwhelming majority of the population in Azad Kashmir are ethnically Jats, Gujjars, Rajputs such as Janjuas, Khokhers,etc and many other tribes. The "Kashmiri" label in Azad Kashmir is a self imposed label (a mislabel actually). Lots of people in Pakistan do not know who the ethnic Kashmiris actually are and thus commonly confuse people from Azad Kashmir as "Kashmiris". However, this confusion/mislabel in Pakistan is confined only to Azad Kashmir and not to Gilgit Baltistan (and so it is not the case with the entire state) . The only apparent reason is that "Azad Kashmir" has a "Kashmir" in its name and also because the "Kashmiri" label became popular in Azad Kashmir owing to some "Kashmiri nationalist organizations" calling for a "united independent Kashmir" as existed in British India.

3) Sources on Kashmir dispute and historical references used the term "Kashmiri" for ethnic Kashmiris, never as a term for the people of the entire pre 1947 Jammu and Kashmir state.

4) The subheading in this article is "Ethnicity and cultural assimilation" and mentioning "Kashmiris" under that heading is not correct, simply because it implies that those people from Mirpur origins are ethnic Kashmiris.

I hope this is clear. Regards, Ahmadrashid167 (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

You're mixing apples with oranges. The article is not referring to ethnic Kashmiris (or the people of Gilgit and Baltistan), but residents of Azad Kashmir whose region is known as Kashmir, and whose people self-identify as Kashmiris in the geographic sense. There are lots of reliable sources on this, that I can put up. The article makes it abundantly clear which Kashmiris it is referring to, so I don't see why you should consider that as an issue. Even in Pakistan, the people of Azad Kashmir are usually called Kashmiri; not 'Mirpuris', 'Poonchi', 'Potohari', 'Pahari' or their castes like Jat, Gujjar or Rajputs. The problem with using 'Mirpuri' alone is that not all Azad Kashmir migrants are from Mirpur, many are from surrounding districts (also, Mirpur is a city, not a region). 'Azad Kashmiri' could be considered, but it's not as common. As the article identifies other regional groups like Punjabis, Sindhis etc., consistency is really important. 'Kashmiri' is fine and encapsulates all people of Azad Kashmir.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on British Pakistanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Child sexual exploitation scandals and Pakistani Muslims

In UK you have events like Rochdale sex trafficking gang and Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. The perpetrators in several known cases were british pakistanis. I miss the reference to this in the article. How does the British community deal with it? These incidents are known throughout Europe. The Hindu Council UK and the Sikh Federation criticised media and government for referring to the criminal gangs involved as "Asian", claiming that political correctness is preventing them being described as "Pakistani Muslims".[1]--Falkmart (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Not clear what should be added. Please feel free to suggest wording. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done Jim Michael (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that Kautilya3 was suggesting that the text be proposed here, Jim Michael, but anyway, now that you've added it and been reverted, it needs discussion here. The first sentence of your addition reads "Most of the gangs who groom, traffick and sexually abuse underage girls in the UK consist of Muslims of Pakistani origin". The source you cite in support of this states that "Pakistani men are disproportionately involved", not that most offenders are Pakistani. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You have reinstated the material, Jim Michael, adding another source. This doesn't verify the statement either, since 37 out of 75 is not "most", and the stats are for Birmingham only, not the whole of the UK. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Have you considered trying to help improve the section, rather than repeatedly remove the whole of it? Jim Michael (talk) 19:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
That's what I am trying to do here by starting a discussion, but the onus is on the editor who adds material to ensure that it is verified. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I meant you could make changes to the article. If the word most is the issue, change it to a something like a high proportion, or say how many times more likely Pakistanis are to be members of these gangs. The massive over-representation of Pakistanis in the many high-profile cases that have gone through the courts in recent years is very clear. Jim Michael (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:BRD. You made a bold addition and were reverted, so now we discuss it here to reach consensus on the wording. I don't know how many times more likely Pakistanis are to be members of these gangs - I'd have to research the available sources. I can do that given time, but I'm sure others will want to contribute too. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You've now reinstated the material with this additional source, which again doesn't cover the whole of the UK. I suggest that you self-revert in case you are blocked for violating WP:3RR, Jim Michael. Kautilya3, do you have a view on this? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not the same version that I reinstated, so it's not a violation of 3RR. Different sources cover different parts of the UK. There are sources on the other Wikipedia articles that I linked to. I've removed the word most, so what's the problem with it now? Jim Michael (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's very, very close to the first version, so you are arguably breaking the edit warring rules in spirit. The problem remains that the statement "A greatly disproportionate number of the gangs who groom, traffick and sexually abuse underage girls in the UK consist of Muslims of Pakistani origin" is not verified by any of the sources cited. One is just about Rotherham, one Birmingham and the Guardian source says "disproportionately", not "greatly disproportionate". Can you please remove the paragraph until we can agree on wording supported by the sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Do I have a view on this? I think it is a difficult subject and we need to go slow on this. This article[2] starts with a nice dialogue between two pitiful characters that illustrates the difficulties. Off-hand, I thought Jim Michael's text was fair, but then I haven't studied the subject in any great detail. Now I am trying to, and gathered a bunch of sources[3][4][5] I won't say anything more until I understand what is going on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's another RS.[6] It's paywalled, but you can see the top of the article, which says "Most of the victims are white and most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage.... " Jim Michael (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone have full access? That statistic appears to refer to northern England and the Midlands rather than the UK as a whole (which isn't necessarily to say it can't be mentioned, but we need to understand what the stats refer to). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The reference [3] among those below says this: In fact, The Times’ figures derived from a search of press coverage from 1997 to 2011 aimed at identifying convictions involving two or more men for sexually abusing girls aged 11–16 years they had met locally, hence the ‘on-street’ in grooming.31 These inclusion parameters have never been explained or justified... This indicates that The Times wasn't reporting news, but rather publishing its own half-baked research. It is a WP:PRIMARY source in our terminology, and all that it says has to be attributed.

  • Apparently, The Times report says that of fifty-six offenders, convicted across seventeen trials, ‘[t]hree of the 56 were white, 53 were Asian. Of those, 50 were Muslim and a majority were members of the British Pakistani community’.[28]
  • But the reference [3] also cites other more authoritative studies stating, Of the 31 per cent of suspects for whom race was known, 49 per cent were white and 46 per cent Asian.[36] and Of a total of 1,514 suspects thus identified, race data were available for 84 per cent. For those suspects where race was known, 43 per cent were white and 33 per cent Asian.[39]

In the light of this more authoritative data, it seems that The Times story was a sensationalised, racialised report of poor-quality research. I think we should probably drop this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

All the sources show that Pakistanis are multiple times more likely to be members of grooming/sex-trafficking gangs targeting underage girls; the only difference between the sources is how many times. None of the sources says anything like; 'Pakistanis are no more likely that anyone else to be in grooming gangs, it's a load of propaganda'. Even left-wing MSM such as The Guardian and the Independent acknowledge the massive over-representation of Pakistanis in these gangs. This isn't fabricated or trivial. The Aylesbury sex gang, Banbury sex gang, Derby sex gang, Halifax sex gang, Keighley sex gang, Oxford sex gang, Peterborough sex abuse case, Rochdale sex trafficking gang, Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal and Telford sex gang all consisted of mostly or solely Pakistanis. The Bristol sex gang were Somalis. Why has the only action on the page been to remove the whole section, rather than slightly alter the wording, if you think it isn't quite accurate? Jim Michael (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
As per WP:NPOV, your content needs to represent the consensus among all reliable sources. And, scholarly sources count much more than individual news reports. You also need to keep in mind the natural biases of the news media in blowing up racialised stories, as opposed to non-racial stories. I suggest that you propose NPOV text in a separate section below so that we can discuss it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
In what way was the last version I added to the page not neutral? In what way do you think it should be altered? I don't know how to move the section I added to the article to this talk page. Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Without having checked all the sources fully, what appears to me to be not neutral is that this appears to be attempting to extrapolate general truths from individual cases, and in some cases opinion pieces (Scruton).
To analogise, we all know the troubles that various churches have had with child abuse, but that would not lead us to conclusions about what percentage of crimes were committed by priests unless the very reliable source were absolutely explicit that in a particular period X% of cases in a particular area were thus committed. Then we would want to ask whether the topic was so widely covered/central to the subject that it should be in the Priest article, (or whichever religious group was at fault). If the subject has received widespread coverage, perhaps it's worthy of inclusion, but phrasing needs to be much more cautious IMO. Pincrete (talk) 17:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
"All the sources show that Pakistanis are multiple times more likely to be members of grooming/sex-trafficking gangs targeting underage girls". No they don't, Jim Michael. The Guardian source perhaps gets closest, stating that they are disproportionately more likely to be members of such gangs, but it doesn't support the statement that they are multiple times more likely. Inferring this from a list of recent cases is original research on your part, too. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Look at what proportion of the offenders are Pakistani - compare that to 2%, which is the proportion of the UK population which are Pakistani. Jim Michael (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
The comparison with the Catholic Church is a good one. That article has a section devoted to the issue. It has a link to two articles devoted to the Church's sex abuse epidemic: Catholic Church sexual abuse cases and Catholic Church sex abuse cases by country. Jim Michael (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
That 2% thing is more WP:OR I am afraid. You can't just compare national populations. The ethnic mix of the local population is what matters. Further, you would also need to consider the class, income levels, educational backgrounds etc. of the offenders. Only when all those are factored out, will you be ready to deal with ethnicity and cultural factors. Nobody has done that kind of analysis. Neither should we. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Many of these Pakistani gangs were in towns in which only a small minority of the population is of Pakistani origin, including Telford, Rotherham, Banbury and Aylesbury. If they weren't massively over-represented, then the gangs in those overwhelmingly white towns would have consisted solely or predominantly of white men. As for socioeconomic factors: a) they don't explain or encourage someone to join or form a gang to sexually abuse underage girls; b) if socioeconomic class was a major factor, then many of the poor, newly-arrived Poles, Chinese etc. would be over-represented in these gangs. Was there one Polish or Chinese member of any of these gangs? This is a cultural issue, not one of socioeconomic class. Jim Michael (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Unless we have a reliable source that says they are massively over-represented, then we can't say so in the article. It's as simply as that. To do otherwise would be original research, and we're not in that game. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW, Bristol sex gang were Somali, Halifax sex gang were 'predominantly Asian' according to the sources used. Keighley sex gang again refers to 'Asian', but I haven't checked the source there. Oxford were 5/7 Pakistani. I gave up at that point since it would be WP:OR to extrapolate from these cases anyway. Pincrete (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
"Figures from Greater Manchester Police have revealed that 95 per cent of those on its sex offenders' register were white" according to "in an analysis of more than 1,200 cases across the country, just 28 per cent of abusers were Asian" note 'Asian', no idea how 'good' the analysis is. Although disproportionately high, not massively so. this might be useful, but I didn't have time to find out. Overall, I think this is an issue, but needs very careful handling. Pincrete (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest a way out of this, the strongest source is the Gdn in which a named individual official says that British Pakistanis are disproportionately likely to be responsible, he doesn't I think say 'most' or put a percentage. I think he does put figures on number of 'non-Asian' victims (not same as 'white') but also says, he thinks, that Asians as victims are under represented because of under-reporting by them, which it would be only fair to include. Attributed to that individual, both claims are RS. The other sources are making comments on specific instances, maybe some can be used (attributed), as 'notable comments' referring to those cases. What we were being offered previously were claims by Scruton (about Rotherham?) and claims about the non=publication of a single report (Birmingham?), being extrapolated into general nationwide long term trends that apply to all 'grooming' cases (even when no souce actually mentions 'Pakistani' iro that casr). Pincrete (talk) 19:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I would support that general approach, although I am a bit wary of singling out one individual to highlight their interpretation, even if that person is the Crown Prosecution Service's lead on child sexual abuse. This strikes me as a case where an RfC might be useful, Pincrete. What do you think? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
No strong feelings either way about RfC, it might be simpler to try to formulate text, then, if needs, RfC it. An additional possibility that occurred is to expand the topic area somewhat, a link in the Gdn piece gave me thia idea. In the linked article (which I've only glanced at), a commentator says the root problem is the attitude to women among these men. I can foresee a bunch of problems in including that as a topic area, but is the attempt worthwhile? Pincrete (talk) 09:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I would support an attempt, Pincrete, but I have been waiting for Jim Michael to give his view, given that he was the one who wanted to add the material in the first place. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
The sources are typically about individual cases, or about individual cities/towns/counties. Getting sources on the statistics nationally is what's proving difficult. Jim Michael (talk) 21:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Highly possible that such stats don't exist, given that ethnic definition is substantially self-definition and court cases do not automatically record such info. Pincrete (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dearden, Lizzie (28 February 2016). "Sikh group calls for politicians and media to stop using term 'Asian' to describe Rotherham grooming gang". The Independent. Retrieved 8 March 2016.
  2. ^ Bolognani, M.; Lyon, S. (2011), "Being Pakistani beyond Europe and South Asia", Pakistan and Its Diaspora: Multidisciplinary Approaches, Springer, pp. 239–, ISBN 978-0-230-11907-9
  3. ^ Cockbain, E. (2013), "Grooming and the 'Asian sex gang predator': the construction of a racial crime threat", Race & Class, 54 (4): 22–32, doi:10.1177/0306396813475983, ISSN 0306-3968
  4. ^ Tufail, Waqas; Poynting, Scott (2016), "Muslim and Dangerous: 'Grooming' and the Politics of Racialisation", in Douglas Pratt; Rachel Woodlock (eds.), Fear of Muslims?: International Perspectives on Islamophobia, Springer, pp. 79–92, ISBN 978-3-319-29698-2{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  5. ^ Abass, T.; Reeves, C.; Raikes, B. (2016), "Breaking down barriers: Understanding the experience of British Pakistani families affected by imprisonment", Probation Journal, 63 (3): 256–272, doi:10.1177/0264550516648395, ISSN 0264-5505
  6. ^ Revealed: conspiracy of silence on UK sex gangs

Proposed text

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on British Pakistanis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Contributing to British Pakistani

Hello,

I believe it would be useful to add a paragraph on the community in Sheffield on the main article as it's a large community there. 86.26.124.15 (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC) 

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.124.15 (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

The title of this article

The Article is entitled British Pakistanis, yet the description at the head is regarding British people of Pakistani descent. Does that not suggest that the latter is the better title for the article? Fiddle Faddle 21:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The title reflects census descriptions, see British Asians. Further complicated by the fact that people may have come to Britain at a time when people living in commonwealth countries were still British citizens. 89.241.196.77 (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
The title also reflects fairly standard descriptions of most racial groups in UK, in the US the order tends to be reversed, Italian Americans etcPincrete (talk) 17:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)..

Sectarianism

It seems that there is bit of discomfort in having a (well referenced) subsection about Sectarianism. Deletion attempt 1 Deletion attempt 2 attempt to deny that any sectarianism ever exists or existed. (On side note if British waters have some magic that sectarianism disappears then British waters need to be globally exported) While above 2 deletion attempts claimed sectarianism does not exist are true then What does this edit in between indicates? I know this is not sufficient argument and Wikipedia needs more references.And brief visit to Google scholar provided following references. Let other editors decide which one are RS so article can be suitably updated.

  • [sites.cardiff.ac.uk/islamukcentre/files/2020/03/Rory-Wade-Ma-2018.pdf Muslims, Trust and MulticulturalismNew Directions-University of BristolBristol, UK -ISBN:978-3-319-71308-3 ISBN:978-3-319-71309-0 PDF link]


Let's form a consensus

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

Bookku (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I have no opinion nor knowledge as to whether sectarianism exists in the UK Pakistani community (probably since it tends to exist in most faith communities). But I do have an objection to using individual news reports, about specific instances or periods of time to make general points - with little or no attempt to quantify or contextualise. Which is what the previous offering appeared to be. Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


First of all thanks for response. Other global humanities may have sectarianism, if references are available ought to be dealt in those respective articles. IMHO It would be fallacious and insincere to show finger else where and ignore hide information gap in this article too. Above and other refs are there to take more encyclopedic note of British Pakistani Ahmadiyya community. If you feel afraid about term Sectarianism in section heading you can have "Concerns of minority within minority" as section heading.

As far as sentence you objected is concerned was carefully enough crafted. You can re-read it. The sentence talked about "...prevalence in UK based Urdu print media.." The sentence has no where made claims against whole community. As such above mentioned references add to credence to word "Prevalence" as far as print and advice media goes. But still if you are afraid change wording to 'instances' rather than 'prevalence'. But I am not sure how far entire blanking out stand test of encyclopedic times. It is okay for me to rewrite a section after this mutual consultation. Taking above references into account. Let me know which references you do not wish to consider as RS.


A 2017 BBC Radio 4 programme revealed prevalence of hate speech, sectarianism and extreme point of views in U.K. based Urdu language print media.[2][3] Many times content edited in Pakistan being republished as is in UK without consideration of British laws and values.[2][3] One of the U.K. based Pakistani newspaper even used to run adverts to boycott a fruit company for some of the share holders being from Ahmadi community (a sect which believes itself to be Muslim but most Pakistanis do not).[2][3]

Second is in my next topic list would refer from Sayeeda Warsi's book, let me know if you want to take me in account any other references along vis a vis her book.

Thanks for frank and open discussion. Regards and greetings.

Bookku (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

IMO, you would need to frame this as a claim - not a 'revelation', a few news sources saying something exists is a claim (even the BBC is not 'holy writ'). I haven't had time to look at all the sources, but if this is solely, or mainly about Ahmadi's, then why not say that - 'sectarianism' is very broad and would cover conflicts with any/all religious groups, both within and outside their own community. You can't say 'prevalence' because even the Radio 4 source doesn't say that - it claims hate speech etc exist, not that they are prevalent, in fact that is a difficult thing to quantify anyway. This is a tentative reply, I haven't read all your sources to see how they impact on UK Pakistanis and what exactly they say.Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
:) At lighter note, most of the world has not read most of sources in Wikipedia, so should entire Wikipedia be deleted? Or there is some thing called good faith.
:) In a way most things in this world are just 'claims'! including that of some one being a God, Prophet, last prophet or some one being in line of prophet!! These 'claims' give rise to 'differences' -even to level of hate, persecution in quite many cases- which in many cases amounts to sectarianism; in earlier reply you said sectarianism is every where world over but again you want to 'claim' or doesn't wish to agree that it can be among British Muslim. A community which is under enough media and academic lenses. :) But still as of now I am even okay with your 'claim' of using word 'claim'
Other than for purpose of close paraphrasing to avoid 'copy right' I am not saying any thing, only references speak for themselves. BBC Radio 4 used word 'Some' and then there are other sources cited above hence I used word prevalence, but there is no strict copyright on word 'some' so we can say 'BBC Radio4 claims some'
Even 'Sectarian' word is not my own invention but is mentioned in BBC Radio 4 report. If enough instances 'with enough academic references' (emphasis added) do exist people being adviced to preferably not to conduct business with, make friendships and marriages beyond own communities, treat communities of other faiths unequal and their beliefs and cultures inferior, not accept natural differences in sexual orientations but continue with discriminatory behaviors and Sectarianism does not exist! I wish that should have been truth but unfortunately references do not seem to agree[4]; and good news is I am still amicable to use any alternate terminology which Wikipedians can mutually agree :)
The last but not least if facts are inconvenient then many times sources start becoming 'unholy' so I asked you tell which sources and information you find it to be 'holy' I will try to source from there, no issues. Alternatively you or others can write from above mentioned sources and still I have no issues. :)
Thanks :)
Bookku (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
People are happy to delete any criticism on some pretext, but no effort to take encyclopedic note of not so positive aspects Bookku (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Following is link to youtube interview of two research scholars confirming a level of sectarianism. Whether one accepts Youtube as RS or not how would that change the fact of sectarianism very well existed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiwtRMV7wqc
Bookku (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Third opinion is requested @ WP:3O Bookku (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request:
I'm not an expert on British Pakistani people by any means. However, [2] is clearly quite POV pushing. As others have said, a single radio program isn't grounds for claims of prevalence. The second source provided only focuses on single instance in a single newspaper. The first source is slightly better in terms of coverage, but I'm still not convinced. I would keep this section off the article until better sources are found, and the prose will definitely have to be rewritten. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


@Pincrete: Greetings, I had requested third opinion but not being satisfied with result this content dispute is now nominated at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#British_Pakistanis for amicable resolution. I hope this helps. Thanks. Bookku (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Bookku, some of the sources you give above are student doctorates/theses, many of the journalistic sources refer to anti-Ahmadiyya discrimination from British Muslims, not specifically British Pakistanis, and not sectarianism in general. You can't make the two synonymous, just as you can't blame the Irish for all the failings of Catholicism! Also there are specific articles about the Ahmadiyya and anti-Ahmadiyya discrimination. To be honest I know little about Br Pakistanis, and even less about Ahmadi, but it isn't a very persuasive case to include anything here IMO. I would be surprised if British Pakistanis were not as plagued by forms of sectarianism as most faith based communities, but would it make sense to blame British Irish for anti-protestant words and deeds back in Ireland or elsewhere in the catholic world ? And to do so with such 'unspecific' sources. You do what you want, but I think you are flogging a dead horse based on the current sources, which hardly even refer to British Pakistanis AFAI can see.Pincrete (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pincrete:, Greetings, Now issue is at Dispute resolution noticeboard and you are expected mention your side in sub-section allotted to you @ Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#British_Pakistanis, Thanks. Bookku (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Bookku: I've left a brief note at DRN, but I'm afraid there is no dispute to resolve. The sources which have been provided simply don't support the text you want to include. Please read all the comments here - including the text below, look at the sources again. You simply cannot invent text about British Pakistanis based on comments about Muslims in general, or a single BBC programme about Urdu magazines produced in Pakistan - which incidentally does not even say what you claim it says. The comment about 'hate speech' etc in the BBC programme with which you want to open the text, does not even appear to be about sectarianism or anti-Ahmadi-ism, but about extremism in general - ie anti-western sentiment in Pakistan produced magazines sold in the UK.
The subject of relations between mainstream Muslims and Ahmadi is already covered in Persecution_of_Ahmadis#United_Kingdom and Ahmadiyya_in_the_United_Kingdom#Anti-Ahmadiyya_Campaign - which is where it belongs IMO. There is no valid reason in the sources supplied so far to cover it on this page, nor on any other specific "Muslim community in the UK" pages. You are flogging a dead horse I'm afraid!Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/6762/1/582105.pdf
  2. ^ a b c "BBC Radio 4 - File on 4, Extremism: Hidden in Plain Sight". BBC. Retrieved 2020-06-05.
  3. ^ a b c Twitter, Abbas Panjwani (2017-10-12). "BBC investigation exposes sectarian content in UK Urdu language newspapers". Press Gazette. Retrieved 2020-06-05. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  4. ^ https://barficulture.tv/world/172

Obviously notable and with strong sources. No good reason has been given for removal. Is this an attempt at censorship?--ScorchingElijah (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Except none of the sources actually mentions British Pakistanis, or sectarianism for that matter! The BBC source you used actually specifically says "Many Muslims regard Ahmadis as being outside of the religion, but don’t see this as anything more than just a theological difference. But there is a minority which is actively fuelling sectarian hate" so the opening sentence about hate speech being prevalent is wholly contradicted by the source. The source makes no such claims about Muslims in general, nor Urdu readers, and doesn't even mention British Pakistanis. Apart from the fact of course that a single BBC programme does not establish a general truth about an entire community.
I'm afraid the content isn't supported by the source - apart from the fact that antipathy between Muslims in general, and Ahmadi in paricular can only be laid at the door of British Pakistanis, to the extent that sources highlight that specific connection. We wouldn't expect British Irish or British Italians to be held responsible for the fact that the Catholic Church may not care for Mormons, simply because they are mainly Catho;ics! Content about relations betwwen Muslims and Ahmadis belongs elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree that inclusion of this material requires sources that make it clearer that it's about British Pakistanis. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mirpuri

Greetings,

You seem to be 4 steps ahead of Pincrete in censoring content that he himself reverting your censorship. May be he thought if every Pakistani censors some thing then article will get soon empty ;) Or some people may like to be single owners of the article. Any ways don't revert more than three times in single day because the opposite side can get you blocked and you might easily loose edit war on a simple rule.

Any ways coming to content dispute

One of the sentence with ref in article Pahari-Pothwari is as follows.

"...The British Mirpuri diaspora now numbers several hundred thousand, and Pahari has been argued to be the second most common mother tongue in the UK, yet the language is little known in the wider society there and its status has remained surrounded by confusion.[1]..."

It has a reference too, so why do you want to censor that information?

Bookku (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have almost no idea which languages/dialects are spoken by British Pakistanis (beyond the very common ones). but the information is sourced. Changing the info requires a source at least as reliable as that being overruled - otherwise we are dealing with personal anecdote - that was the logicof my revert. The infobox does not claim prevalence, merely that these languages are spoken (by sufficient numbers to warrant inclusion).. Until a new source can be provided, the long-term text should be restored, since we have no idea why the change was made. Maybe the editor removing is right, but we have no way of knowing. Pincrete (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ Hussain 2015, pp. 483–84.

useful refs list 2021

  • Vicky Mooney. (2021) A systematic review of the United Kingdom's contact child sexual exploitation perpetrator literature: Pointing a way forward for future research and practice. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling 13.

Crossref Beatriz Benavente, Diego A. Díaz-Faes, Lluís Ballester, Noemí Pereda. (2021) Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children and Adolescents in Europe: A Systematic Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 25, pages 152483802199937. Crossref Kish Bhatti-Sinclair, Charles M. Sutcliffe. (2018) Group Localised Child Sexual Exploitation: Identifying Those Who Have Been Prosecuted. SSRN Electronic Journal.

  • Jilani, Sarah. "COMING OUT." TLS. Times Literary Supplement, no. 6152, 26 Feb. 2021, p. 24. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A653469855/AONE?u=anon~6aaa52be&sid=googleScholar&xid=4ee04d8d. Accessed 7 Dec. 2021.
  • Katharine Charsley & Marta Bolognani (2021) Marrying ‘in’/marrying ‘out’? Blurred boundaries in British Pakistani marriage choices, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47:2, 361-378, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2019.1625131

References

  1. ^ https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/10/1/1

Bookku (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Genetics study refs

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

2022

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism

Again in social issues, what about the links to terrorism e.g.

https://www.efsas.org/publications/articles-by-efsas/london-bridge-attack-2019-three-out-of-four-terror-plots-in-the-uk-have-roots-in-pakistan/

https://www.dw.com/en/banishing-the-extremist-image-a-crucial-task-for-british-pakistanis/a-39129778 ROC7 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Ancestral roots

The article says British Pakistanis are people “whose ancestral roots lie in Pakistan”. Is this accurate? Pakistan has only existed for 75 years. There are British Pakistanis who were born before Pakistan existed. GimliDotNet (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Murder of Kriss Donald

There has been something of an edit war going on over a disputed section regarding the Murder of Kriss Donald - see here [3] for the material concerned. Personally, I'm inclined to agree with the suggestion that the content is unbalenced, given the singling out of this particular incident. There are also issues with the wording, even if it were to be included. I would strongly recommend that people discuss the content here, and if that doesn't resolve the matter, maybe consider a WP:RfC. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You can’t discuss content with people who switch IPs and create accounts to push their agenda. The content is cited, is relevant (if somewhat ironic) as the section is about racism linked to the Pakistani community, the fact the IP switching POV pusher doesn’t like that is not an argument against it. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
You are required to discuss disputed content. That is how Wikipedia works. I suggest you do so, and refrain from engaging in hyperbole. You could start by perhaps explaining why you think that this one specific incident merits inclusion, when numerous other incidents don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Hyperbole? Quit the personal attacks right now. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I will ignore the irrational allegations by Gimli for now. This excuse of "cited" means nothing this event has zero place on a article about the community let alone in a section about racism towards them. It's Undue and is a edit made to distort and undermine the entire section downplaying the racism issue they face its not notable and undue and as describe as above unbalanced with the obvious intention to deflect and divert. It had no place here. Plenty of White racists have murdered people why not add every single racist murder to their respective community pages? We have nothing more to discuss its not relevant, notable or balanced. Heauwo0 (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
The fact that it was the FIRST conviction in Scotland under this legislation is especially pertinent. GimliDotNet (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Given that this article is about the British Pakistani community, not Scottish legislation regarding racially-motivated murder, I fail to see why. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, it’s not Scottish Legislation, it’s British Legislation - there is a difference. And the section is about racism and the British Pakistani community, this was a notable example, the first conviction in Scotland under legislation that included racism as a defining factor, and it was carried out by members of the British Pakistani community. There’s no way it doesn’t fit into the narrative of race related crime in the British Pakistani community. To ignore it is white-washing. GimliDotNet (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
It is legislation under Scottish law. As for this being a 'notable example', who says so? Why is it any more notable than any other racially-motivated crime? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
It's obviously an attempt to derail and downplay the racism faced by the community to add one rare example of a crime while hundreds of other crimes are never mentioned its got no place here simple as it has its own article go and write whatever you want there but dont push your confusion and defelcting agenda here. The fact is overwhelming evidence suggests race related crimes are committed by Whites against Pakistanis to give this non notable crime any weight is ridiculous and as stated clearly agenda driven editing. Heauwo0 (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Whatever your feelings on this matter WP:NPA and WP:AGF are policies. Withdraw your accusation of racism or else we can take this to WP:ANI. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that would be in your best interest. And meanwhile, please answer my question. Who says that this particular crime is a 'notable example' of anything directly relevant to the article topic? Why is it any more 'notable' than the numerous serious crimes committed against people from the British Pakistani community - none of which the article discusses in any detail? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Pakistanis/Archive_2&oldid=1155438637"