Talk:British Sri Lankan Tamil

Original research removed
I have removed a quote that is about British Indians rather than British Sri Lankan Tamils from the article. Contrary to this claim, it is not vandalism to remove original research. The quote came from this source, which makes no mention of Sri Lankans. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is also original research (the source is not about British Sri Lankan Tamils). Cordless Larry (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , you have reverted me with the edit summary "please do not engage in an edit war. discuss an reach concensus with people on both sides of the argument", but it is you who is not engaging - see my comments above, which you have not replied to. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not "original research" but rather reflects westernisation of "South Asians". The article discusses Muslims and says that westernisation as left them with the "Muslim" identity. I am using that source to convey what westernisation means. Please stop bring extreme political biases onto wikipedia. Lankandude2017 (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It is very clearly original research, Lankandude2017. Your wording "The second generation have received little attention from scholars, but a lot of information can be gleamed from similar diaspora groups in other racial communities" is an admission of that. Wikipedia does not glean (not the spelling) information from sources about subjects different from the one that is the focus of the article. Please read No original research as a matter of urgency before you make any more edits. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:35, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * South Asians are currently a multi-racial construct that includes Middle Easterners and East Asians. Since the article discusses second generationers, westernisation, and a so-called religious division, I presume you should be happy to include it in an article discussing second generationers, westernisation, and religion about "South Asians". As I said before, please do not engage in an edit war or I will be forced to take this higher. Lankandude2017 (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It may well be appropriate to include material based on the Economist source in an article about British Muslims, but not in an article on a more specific community that is not discussed in the source. Similarly, the quote about British Indians from this source might belong at British Indians, because it is about British Indians, but not at British Sri Lankan Tamil. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're obviously looking for an argument seeing as you seem familiar with South Asian culture. The article discusses British Muslims but contains information about westernisation and how it affects second generation immirgrants. The other article about "British Indians" includes a quote about "British Asians". I am afraid that you seem to be looking for a fight and also a ban. Lankandude2017 (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not looking for an argument, but you appear to have misunderstood the rule against original research. I will try to explain it as simply as possible: only material from sources clearly about the topic at hand belong in the article. If you were writing an article about Manchester United, you won't use a source about Manchester City. Please report me at WP:AN/I if you would like to escalate this further. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not make assumptions or claims about other editors or their motivations, please. The group "British Muslims" is not identical to the group "British Sri Lankan Tamil". The Economist article does not mention the latter group at all. Extrapolating results about group A to a statement about group B is, indeed, original research. --bonadea contributions talk 13:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think most readers here can see that the editors complaining are just making futile attempts at creating an argument. The quote the editor above attributes to "British Muslims" discusses how all second generation minorities integrate into western culture (maybe I should make that more clear), while the other quote that is attributed to "British Indians" by the Cordless Larry is in fact a quote about British Asians - making both relevant. Lankandude2017 (talk) 14:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's about British Indians:  Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's about British Asians:  Lankandude2017 (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote is about British Indians, the younger generation of whom Fisher is arguing are being assimilated into a broader Asian British identity. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The Economist article is specifically about British Muslims. (It is impossible to make any general statement about all migrants from all cultures, and the article makes no such claim.) I'm not sure why you claim that The quote the editor above attributes to "British Muslims" discusses how all second generation minorities integrate into western culture when the text that is partially quoted here actually talks specifically about "second-generation British Muslims". And in any case, even if it were about the general population, it would still be original research to extrapolate the findings here. If there are sources talking about the integration of this particular group, please provide them. --bonadea contributions talk 14:57, 22 August 2017 (UTC)