Talk:Hinduism in Pakistan/Archive 1

No it is not, my friend
this must be a cut copy, or a typeout of some book. formatting nessisary.--69.159.1.238 (talk) 03:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC).
 * This is no cut, copy of any book, but material composed after much research--User:Nirav.maurya (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2005 (UTC).

Edits by User:Siddiqui
Can someone look at this edit by ? The Bangladesh Liberation War genocide was deleted, Siddiqui claims that "thousands Muslim religious places in India" were destroyed and other things.-- User:Kefalonia (talk) 12:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC).

Improvement
Hi All,

I ask that this article be improved - there is a problem about sources, potential pro-Hindu, anti-Pakistan, pro-Pakistan, anti-Hindu conflicts and factual accuracy issues. I created this article, but I need your help in improving it.

Jai Sri Rama! Rama&#39;s Arrow 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

East Pakistan - Bangladesh
The East Pakistan - Bangladesh issue should be discussed in it's own page.

Siddiqui 22:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sarasvati River
The Hinduism was created around the holy Sarasvati River and not in Indus Valley civilization. The Hindu scriptures only talk about Sarasvati River.

Siddiqui 22:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk page
User:Siddiqui please DO NOT delete the talk page. And please don't delete anything without explanation on talk. Thank you.


 * agreed.--Dangerous-Boy 21:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Andy 04:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Iwill post the details of 1998 census later showing number of Hindus in every district and province.--Andy 04:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"One of the smallest religions in Pakistan"
In what sense is this opening claim really true? Technically, Hinduism is still one of the largest! What I guess it means to say is that they are now very small in number, like all non-Muslim faiths.205.212.74.252 17:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging Pakistani Hindus into Hinduism in Pakistan
I think the stub, which was created later, has only three edits since March, and doesn't contain any information that wouldn't also belong here, should be merged into this article. Let's discuss. --skoosh (háblame) 11:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Red patch - not a false reference
The red patch in turbans bit is not a false reference. The article (dated:March 16, 2009) clearly states that: ''Though there were no direct threats, the Hindu families were never left in any doubt about their minority status. Sometimes it would be a warning not to stare at Muslim women for long, at other times, it would be the subtle coercion of the local administrators to sell their land when the situation was still normal. The families were weighing their options until October when they were asked to wear a red patch in their pagadis (turban).'' Please don't remove parts without reading the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nshuks7 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot to sign :) And here's the link to the article: No more safe at home, Pak Hindus flee to India. It would also do well to read:

Nshuks7 (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Your temple is a threat to our religion'
 * 'Our neighbours are behaving differently today'
 * 'I never got wind of what is coming'
 * 'There has always been shadow of the Taliban'
 * Apologies for jumping the gun. I was reviewing the edits made by a sock of a banned editor (Hkelkar). I skimmed half of it and skipped over the relevant paragraph in the source. However, the text attributed to that reference fails our policies regarding original research and synthesis. You're welcome to rewrite it of course. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 06:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, which part of the following text is "complete bullshit"?:
 * "Reports from Pakistan indicate that Hindu minorities under Taliban rule in Swat are being forced to wear Red headgear such as turbans to make it easier for the Islamic militants to target them for discrimination. In light of these deprivations, Pakistani Hindu minorities have started fleeing to India."
 * In fact, there's a lot more to it as people have been forced to sell off their property for lower prices, local authorities are in cohort with the fundamentalists and places of worship have been evicted forcibly. It's all there in the article. Have you read it yet? I am reverting your "Undo" one last time. Please categorically state which parts of the write-up you have an issue with. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Radio Pakistan urges Sikhs, Muslims to unite against Hindus Nshuks7 (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Islamic militants". Please familiarize with Hkelkar at least. This guy was banned for being an extreme pro-India POV pusher. Regardless of the way it is sourced, it's quite clear that his edit was meant to be inflammatory towards Paks. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to rewrite and expand this section to provide readers with more of a context for anti-Indian attitudes in Pakistan. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 16:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest Nonsense from Indian media, paying Indian Hindus to pose as "Hindus from Pakistan"
Now the Indian media is paying Indian Hindus to pose as "Hindus from Pakistan". Pakistan has literally no Hindu/Sikh/Jain population, at maximum the estimate would be around 0.4% or 0.6%. The tiny group of Hindus who remained in Pakistan and chose not to go during the population exchange between India and Pakistan at independence converted to Islam a long time ago because they found Islam much more sensible than Hinduism. The Indian media is angry that there are no Hindus/Sikhs/Jains in Pakistan so they are paying actors to pose as "Hindus from Pakistan". Indian media should not waste its time in nonsense and concentrate on helping the poor people in India. Please obsess over some other country thanks. PakiMania (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Indian media is ALWAYS crazy. Now they are claiming that pakistan fired on indian posts when in fact you turn to pakistan news and you get the truth that drunk indian soldiers fire into pakistan and pakistan has to retaliate. This is the same indian media that said pakistan during mumbai bombings and then when the truth came out from other sources they had to shamelessly agree that there were hindu fanatics involved. The reality is it irks them that pakistan is busy developing and does not care about india whereas india has long gone past any hope of developing and is riddled with poverty. They also claimed that indian muslims were involved in the train burning of pilgrims only to later shamelessly admit when the truth came out that hindu fanatics were involved. Indian media is really absurd.... Mighty Azeem (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Persecution
my friend who write this article i will tel in hare Pakistan all people are equal. in education, low, politics, etc are equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.81.20 (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I added two references from reputed Pakistani newspapers, that is and . Why is it being removed?&mdash;Khabboos (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a form of original research and its not allowed on Wikipedia (you have broken other rules and have already been told to stop). This has also been | said by another editor. The mob event is not exactly a form of persecution but a response to an alleged Quran burning (which was a very stupid act). Also could you please stop making multiple topics about the same thing? AcidSnow (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That the "Pakistani Government has also done a deal with the Taliban to enforce the Sharia in parts of the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan" is supported by a citation. However the citation did not mention anything I could find that would support the statement that: "Terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and the Taliban in Pakistan, have been an influential factor in the persecution of and discrimination against religious minorities, including Hindus." I have changed the first sentence back to what it used to be - and that needs a fact tag.

Also I am not really sure how Sharia Law being enforced in the North West Frontier is connected to the claim that "this can lead to more persecution of minorities". They seem unconnected facts.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm... It might have been wise not to use the exact wording from the newspaper, but to paraphrase it. These are such important topics, to all of you; better try to use neutral language, lest everyone gets inflamed to soon. After all, we're all human beings, who try to do our best. All the best to all of you,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what you mean by "the exact wording from the newspaper".
 * CNN - "Pakistani government officials announced Monday an agreement with the Taliban to allow strict Islamic law, or sharia, to be implemented in parts of North West Frontier Province."
 * Article - "The Pakistani Government has also done a deal with the Taliban to enforce the Sharia in parts of the North West Frontier Province of Pakistan"
 * Have I misunderstood?--Toddy1 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I mean the "mob" etc.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I misunderstood.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Joshua Jonathan  why don't you add that sentence (about the mob attack) in the right way then?—Khabboos (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Allegations that Hindus have declined as a percentage of the population
According to the article, in 1951, Hindus made up less than 2% of the population of West Pakistan. By 1998, Hindus made up 1.7% of the population of the same area. This suggests that Hindus were about the same percentage of the population in the late 1990s as in the early 1950s. So where is the evidence for a decline?

There is little point comparing the percentage of Hindus in the whole of pre-1971 Pakistan with that in modern Pakistan. The comparison is to make is between West Pakistan and modern Pakistan.

It is of course true that many Hindus have emigrated. But so have many Muslims. Some people who emigrate to other countries do so for economic reasons, but claim that they do it to avoid persecution; such people are called "bogus asylum seekers" in English newspapers.

I think that the article needs some proper evidence of a decline in Hindu numbers in modern Pakistan (former West Pakistan).

If we cannot find such evidence, then the claims that the proportion of Hindus has declined should be rephrased as claims, and not as facts.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * There has been a decline (2% to 1.7%), but finding references online could be difficult! More importantly, if Pakistan's total population has multiplied, while the number of Hindus are still the same, the Hindus have obviously fled/migrated from Pakistan. There are lots of "bogus asylum seekers (Pakistanis, Indians, Afghans, Ukrainians, Russians etc.)", but do you want to mention that in this article?—Khabboos (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No you have completely misunderstood.


 * In 1951 there were "less than 2%". That is not 2%.  It is a number close to 2% but less than it.  Any number between 1.5% and 1.99% would count as "less than 2%".


 * If the population of West Pakistan was about 40m in the early 50s and about 140m in the late 90s, and the percentage of Hindus is about the same, then this means that the for every 10 Hindus in the early 50s, there were about 35 Hindus in the late 90s. That is an enormous increase in the number of Hindus.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Grazdanin, I believe you know a lot about wikipedia, but I'm a novice. I think I'll take a break from wikipedia - I'm spending/wasting too much time here.—Khabboos (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism in Pakistan#Persecution
I added a sentence, 'In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan' with this as a reference:. The reference says the same thing as my sentence, but User:AcidSnow is reverting my edit repeatedly, so I request others to add that sentence in the wikipedia article on Hinduism in Pakistan in the 'persecution' section.Khabboos (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Khabboos, AcidSnow has been more forgiving with your edits than I would have been. Your references are reliable, but they do not make the connection between the attacks and "persecution". That is coming from you, and is thus WP:Original Research, specifically Synthesis of materials. Articles like this tend to be troll magnets, and become a dumping ground for every incident any ethnicity finds offensive. Unfortunately that's an incredibly bad way to write an encyclopedia. You have a noble goal, trying to inform, but we can't just read the news and decide a particular event is part of a group's persecution. If you want to expand on this section, you should begin by searching for information about "persecution of Hindus within Pakistan", rather than searching for events and labeling them so yourself. Keep in mind that in a search like this, opinionated sources are OK, so long as they are by experts or notable figures. And I bet you will find a lot of that. Your research methodology up until now has been backwards, and I completely understand because I used to do the same thing. Hopefully if you decide to take my advice, you can produce some more balanced and legitimate material. PraetorianFury (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your right PraetorianFury, but after seeing him try to get me banned, insulting me, and ignoring my responses instead of discussing anything I don't see why he should be allowed to edit here let alone me being so forgiving to him. AcidSnow (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PraetorianFury, AcidSnow and Toddy1 - you know that I'm a wikipedia novice (rookie), so please tell me how to insert that sentence, 'Mob ransacks...........' properly (I want it in this article).—Khabboos (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You need a reliable source, or at least a notable figure, that calls that particular incident "persecution". Let me give you an example: the Boston Bombings.  An editor could theoretically head over to Persecution of Christians and add that incident somewhere on the page.  But is it really an incident of "persecution"?  How do you define "persecution"?  Is it distinct from "discrimination" or is one of those terms an umbrella, containing the other?  At what point does one individuals hate-based murder become "persecution"?  How many individuals does it take to become "persecution"?  What if the bomb hadn't gone off, could it be called "attempted persecution"?  You see how many assumptions you are making when you decide that this event is persecution?  As it turns out, labels like this are incredibly subjective, and people often disagree on whether they are appropriate.  That's why it's not our right or responsibility to make that decision.  If reliable sources have referred to the incident as persecution, then we can definitely include it.  But it's going to be up to you to find those sources.  And, if it so happens, you are unable to find any that label it this way, that should be an indication to you that most mainstream sources infact do not consider it "persecution", and it should therefore be excluded from this article.  I hope that helps. PraetorianFury (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with many of the editors here that this is not an example of persecution and that we should take RS and SYN very seriously. Perhaps it could be mentioned, after some edits, in community life or in a new section on discrimination? Here is another source that may be reliable. The source also notes that "Parliamentarians commission for human rights condemned the act of burning of a Hindu Temple in Nowshera." So if included, their condemnation should be mentioned as well. --Precision123 (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings, I was called in by the RTC 'bot. I also checked the reference and while the act was a horrible one, I also don't think it counts as "persecution," if we had that standard here in the United States, every building that gets looted could be called "persecution" when in fact it's just plain ole vandalism. I would recommend against including the sentence and against including the link, not in that context, Khabboos. Sorry. :) Thanks for editing this, though, it's a fascinating Wiki page. Damotclese (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fake citations
An editor has added some citations.


 * The Taliban in Pakistan have been an influential factor in the persecution of and discrimination against religious minorities, including Hindus and Hazaras.


 * 

Let us examine them.
 * 1. This article does not mention the Taliban. Nor does it mention Hazaras.
 * 2. This article does not mention the Taliban. Nor does it mention Hazaras.
 * 3. This is a dead URL. I do not mind dead URLs that were live when they were posted.  But posting a new reference to a dead URL is not acceptable.
 * 4 This 14 June 2001 news report really does mention the Taliban - however it deals with alleged persecution of Hindus in Afghanistan. It is not relevant to an article on Hinduism in Pakistan.
 * 5 This is another 2001 news report - when I tried the URL, it was a dead link.
 * 6 This article is about persecution of Hazaras by the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is of no relevance to this article.
 * 7 This is exactly the same URL as No. 6.

Since the only citations to the bit about the Taliban are all fake, I am going to remove the reference to the Taliban from the article, just as I warned the editor in question I would. As there are no citations to link the Taliban to Hinduism in Pakistan, it is not relevant that the Pakistan Government has done a deal with the Taliban over Sharia law, so that can go too.--Toddy1 (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Toddy1, the Taliban is one unit, although they are operating in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and if they're doing something in Afghanistan, they are doing it in Pakistan also, so I hope you can leave the sentences in question intact (please read the article on the Taliban).—Khabboos (talk) 19:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier, I am not the only one that has a problem with your disruptive edits. "so I request others to add that sentence", are you reading anything we have said so far? It does not seem like it at all after reading this. Not just that, but could you please stop forum shopping? AcidSnow (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No original research says: "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". The citations provided were either dead links or were irrelevant to the topic of this article. (A dead link is perfectly acceptable if it is live at the time of posting - but it is not acceptable if it is dead at the time of posting.)--Toddy1 (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is some more rubbish about the Taliban that was in the article. If you compare the source from Rediff.com with what was claimed, it does not really stand up.
 * Hindu minorities, under Taliban rule in Swat, were forced to wear red headgear such as turbans as a symbol of dhimmi.
 * 

--Toddy1 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Rediff.com article says that what is being talked about with in the Orakzai Agency Area, whereas the Wikipedia sentence says Swat. If you look at the map, you will see Orakzai and Swat.
 * Secondly, the Rediff.com article is very weak in its claims. Rediff.com does not actually say that the story is true.  It merely states that some guy who "who says he is a Pandit from the region" made some of the claims, and another guy "who is now in Amritsar with his family" made another of the claims.
 * Nor does that article state that anyone actually wore the red patch in their turban - merely that some people were asked to.
 * Nor does Rediff.com claim that anywhere is under Taliban rule.

Comment by JJ: Okay, I've been reading through the full thread, and took a look at the article. Some comments: Again, let wisdom prevail, and try to talk, also (especially?!?) when you're on different sides of the line. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @AcidSnow: it's clear that you're not pleased by Khabboos behaviour, but could you please separate your complaints from the issues under discussion here? If you want to discuss Khabboos behaviour, please do this at his talk page. Thank you.
 * @Khabboos: Toddy1 has been making a great effort to point out why your "references" can't be used. As far as I can see, he's correct. Please take him serious.
 * Regarding the "Persecution"-section:
 * The header does not fit the content. Has there been any "official" persecution of Hindus in Pakistan? Or is it a matter of conflicts and violence at the local level? Something like "conflicts and violence" or so might fit better.
 * The section lacks an introduction. Since when has there been violence against Hindus in Pakistan? According to which sources?
 * If examples are included, they should be properly introduced, and explained why they are part of a "pattern of violence" gainst Hindus. What exactly has been going on, why is "desecration" an issue in Pakistan, is this a charge only directed against Hindus, or is it a "bigger" problem? Please provide context, based on WP:RS. Otherwise, Wikipedia is simply being used for political reasons, and will only aid in further escalations of violence.
 * What's the role of Hindu nationalism? Don't forget about that influence.
 * Sources should be cited and paraphrased correctly. The "mob article" also contains the following line: "Jamaat-i-Islami Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmad also visited the temple and assured the Hindu community gathered there of full protection. The JI leader, who was elected to the National Assembly from the same constituency, told them that the government was duty bound to protect their lives and property. “Islam fully guarantees the rights of religious minorities,” he said." why not use that piece of information?

Use of blog as source for girl-kidnapping and conversion
Here is another statement in the article, which I think we ought to discuss:
 * The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan came out with a report in 2010 stating that at least 25 Hindu girls are abducted in Pakistan every month.

One thing to note is that the sources says: "An activist and council member of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Amarnath Motumal, stated that at least 20 to 25 girls are abducted and converted to Islam against their will every single month." i.e. It was not a report, it was an activist and council member. Though there are references to a report in the source - but the statement Wikipedia made is not attributed to the report in the source. And the source did not say not "at least 25" it said "least 20 to 25" (so it might have been 21).

But big problem is at the bottom of the source, which reads: "The opinions expressed within this article or blog are the personal opinions of the author. The Chakra News is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information on this blog. All information is provided on an as-is basis. The information, facts or opinions appearing on the blog do not reflect the views of The Chakra News and The Chakra News does not assume any responsibility or liability for the same."

Wikipedia should not be making a strong statement of fact on the basis of a source that has this disclaimer. In my opinion, the statement should be modified to "It has been claimed 'that at least 20 to 25 girls are abducted and converted to Islam against their will every single month.'" with the part from "that" to "month" as a quotation in inverted commas. It would probably also be useful to try to build on this by finding other sources (if they exist), so instead of building a hate-piece as now, we try to explain why girls are being allegedly-kidnapped and converted.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Toddy1, I read administrator Callanecc's post on your Talk page at User_talk:Toddy1 and wonder if your objections are right (he's also put up a discretionary sanctions template/warning at the top of this page). However, as I mentioned that I am a wikipedia novice, may be you can cite the wikipedia rules that you want for your removal of the sentences that you feel had made this article a 'hate-piece' (minorities are really persecuted in Pakistan).—Khabboos (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I found these on the internet: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/opinion/pakistans-persecuted-christians.html?_r=0, http://www.persecution.org/category/countries/asia/pakistan/ and http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/blasphemy-teen-flees-pakistan-amid-persecution-christians-v19299987 - can we have these references in this article to highlight the persecution of minorities in Pakistan?—Khabboos (talk) 08:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The two three references in your post of 08:54, 14 February 2014 are about persecution of Christians in Pakistan. If there is a Wikipedia article on Christians in Pakistan, they are relevant to that article.  Sources about Christians in Pakistan that do not mention Hindus are not relevant to "Hinduism in Pakistan".--Toddy1 (talk) 09:05, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Joshua Jonathan  told me that this template:  can be used to add blogs as references at Talk:Hinduism. Can we? I hope you don't blank the persecution section in this article.—Khabboos (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on the blog c.q. source, the goal of linking to such blogs, and providing a contextualization. This article is about a sensitive topic, so I think you should take care to present a balanced overview of opinions; see WP:NPOV. In this case, I would be very careful; it might very easily become WP:UNDUE c.q. POV-pushing. By the way, you can slo use when you'd like me to drop in for comments. Take care, and be wise,   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   10:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I have changed the article along the lines suggested above as a temporary measure. However there are better sources, and in time I think the issue of forced conversion and marriage could make a subsection - with a title such as "forced conversion and marriage". Here are some of what I have found so far. Some of this relates to forced conversion, some to other types of alleged ill-treatment of Hindus by Muslims. I think that it is clear from this that Amarnath Motumal is not an unbiased observer. He's a Hindu community leader.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The Guardian Article is about a court case where a Hindu family claim their teenage daughter (Rinkle Kumari) was forcibly converted to Islam and married to a muslim. The muslims claim that she did this of her own free will.  "Throughout the whole saga Rinkle's voice has barely been heard, although both sides say she has made clear statements supporting their contradictory claims."  Article mentions the claims of "Amarnath Motumal, from the Sindh chapter of Pakistan's human rights commission".
 * Europe News Mentions the Rinkle Kumari case. Also mentions a rape case, and says that "Hindu girls and women have not only been targeted for rape".  "Pakistan’s Dawn.com claims that, because of the forced conversion of Hindu girls, as well as other discriminations and crimes — such as attacks on Hindu temples — 3,000 Hindus fled for India in 2012 — a third more than the previous year."
 * The Express Tribune "As many as four girls and three boys of the Hindu community [in Balochistan] forcibly converted to Islam in 2011." "Criminals consider Hindus an easy target for earning money." "at least 25 people of his community have been kidnapped for ransom this year. “There were 55 cases last year and we are witnessing a sharp rise this year.”"
 * The Hindu "On an average around 20 to 25 Hindu girls are being forcibly converted to Islam every month in the southern Sindh province, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has said." Mentions the Rinkle Kumari case.
 * IRIN Another forced conversion marriage case, but does not give the girl's real name. "Amarnath Motumal, a lawyer and leader of Karachi’s Hindu community, told IRIN. “This trend has been growing over the past four or five years, and it is getting worse day by day.”  He said there were at least 15-20 forced abductions and conversions of young girls from Karachi each month".


 * There is a section about this at Forced conversion.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:04, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So Toddy1, can you add some of these references in this article in the appropriate way (I'm under some discretionary sanction and dare not risk it myself)?—Khabboos (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You changed 'guard' to 'policeman' and I changed it to, 'policeman standing guard outside a Hindu temple', which is what the newspaper reference says. I hope that's acceptable.—Khabboos (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Talking of temple attacks, I added a sentence, 'In 2005, a mob ransacked a temple in Nowshera, Pakistan' with this as a reference: (we can also use the reference at http://www.paktribune.com/news/print.php?id=111190 ). The reference says the same thing as my sentence, but User:AcidSnow is reverting my edit repeatedly, so I request you/others to add that sentence in this wikipedia article on Hinduism in Pakistan in the 'persecution' section (it's worse than a policeman guarding a temple being gunned down). Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we have this sentence in this article, with the same rediff reference: 'Hindu minorities, under Taliban rule in Orakzai, were asked to wear red headgear such as turbans as a symbol of dhimmi.'?—Khabboos (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can we use these references in this article in some way: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Trust-offers-shelter-to-scared-family-members-of-a-minor-Hindu-rape-victim-in-Pakistan/articleshow/29117530.cms, http://zeenews.india.com/news/south-asia/persecution-of-religious-minorities-in-pakistan_884708.html , http://www.rediff.com/news/slide-show/slide-show-1-the-hindus-of-pakistan-nobody-s-children/20130412.htm , http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/hindu-refugees-protest-against-persecution-in-sindh/article5446079.ece , http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/minorities-in-a-naya-pakistan/article4703142.ece , http://in.news.yahoo.com/no-country-for-pakistani-hindus-.html?page=all , http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/171-hindus-arrive-from-pakistan-seeking-refugee-status/article3877910.ece , http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/rising-extremism-in-pakistan-hindus-a-target-256761 , http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-growing-intolerance/article3800097.ece and http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/kafirs-there-pakistanis-here/article4415355.ece ?
 * I hope you can also reply to all my queries here above - you mentioned that the mob attack can be paraphrased and used ( Joshua Jonathan , please tell me if I should use this 'ping' template here or on your Talk page)!—Khabboos (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Khabboos, you're not under a sanction, rather that you have been clearly informed of Wikipedia's policies (I have already told you them, but you have constantly ignored me). If you do violate them then you will be sanctioned. Your edit of "policeman" to "policeman standing guard" is perfectly fine. Anyways, I have already told you that the mob attack was not a form of persecution so we can not add it to the "Persecution" section of the page. Could you also please stop asking admins and forum shopping to get this added in? All you are doing is making them break NPOV, original research and misrepresentation of sources instead of yourself. Most of all, please DON'T insult me or try to get me banned for NO legitimate reason! I hope you continue this "discussion" before you do something inappropriate. AcidSnow (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AcidSnow, I believe that the Nowshera mob attack needs to be mentioned here in some way. I have absolutely no intention of insulting you and I'm sorry if you have felt that way. I promise to stick to the wikipedia rules. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you did when you wrote this attacking my English skills, | "AcidSnow's english is also poor and so, editing the english wikipedia may not be the best thing to allow him to do - he doesn't even know the spelling of stalking, he spells it as stacking (he had typed that on the request for mediation page, but that page is deleted now)". This happened right after I asked to answer a question, but you went and insulted me instead. So I don't understand how you could have no "intention" when you clearly did insult me. Anyways, I am not sure at the moment where to add the mob attack as it has nothing to do with persecution. AcidSnow (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Khabboos, as a starting position, please could you use the talk page to go through the "new" references you propose to use and summarise what is in each of them.


 * You also made mention on the talk page of some people being under Taliban rule in the Orakzai Agency Area. Do you have any citations that say this.?  If so, please say what they are.  I hope that the citation you mean is not .  This does not say that people are under Taliban rule in the Orakzai Agency Area - as has been pointed out to you earlier.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment by JJ: Okay, I've been reading through the full thread, and took a look at the article. Some comments: Again, let wisdom prevail, and try to talk, also (especially?!?) when you're on different sides of the line. Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @AcidSnow: it's clear that you're not pleased by Khabboos behaviour, but could you please separate your complaints from the issues under discussion here? If you want to discuss Khabboos behaviour, please do this at his talk page. Thank you.
 * @Khabboos: Toddy1 has been making a great effort to point out why your "references" can't be used. As far as I can see, he's correct. Please take him serious.
 * Regarding the "Persecution"-section:
 * The header does not fit the content. Has there been any "official" persecution of Hindus in Pakistan? Or is it a matter of conflicts and violence at the local level? Something like "conflicts and violence" or so might fit better.
 * The section lacks an introduction. Since when has there been violence against Hindus in Pakistan? According to which sources?
 * If examples are included, they should be properly introduced, and explained why they are part of a "pattern of violence" gainst Hindus. What exactly has been going on, why is "desecration" an issue in Pakistan, is this a charge only directed against Hindus, or is it a "bigger" problem? Please provide context, based on WP:RS. Otherwise, Wikipedia is simply being used for political reasons, and will only aid in further escalations of violence.
 * What's the role of Hindu nationalism? Don't forget about that influence.
 * Sources should be cited and paraphrased correctly. The "mob article" also contains the following line: "Jamaat-i-Islami Amir Qazi Hussain Ahmad also visited the temple and assured the Hindu community gathered there of full protection. The JI leader, who was elected to the National Assembly from the same constituency, told them that the government was duty bound to protect their lives and property. “Islam fully guarantees the rights of religious minorities,” he said." why not use that piece of information?
 * Toddy1,  Joshua Jonathan , to me, temple attacks, ethnic cleansing/killing of minorities (Hindus in this article), forced conversions are all 'persecution'. However, if you guys want to put each of those under different headings in this article, you're welcome - that means we'll have one section for temple attacks, one section for ethnic cleansing/killing of minorities (while Christians, Shias as well as Hindus are being killed, in this article, I think we should stick to the killing of Hindus), one section for forced conversions and so on.—Khabboos (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Khabboos, start with an overview: what's the big picture, what's going on? Then, if you want to mention specific events, use better sources and quotes than "mob". I guess there's a lot more to find on this; take this topic seriously and do some research. Best regards,   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   18:03, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I added a new section and added the temple attack as a retaliatory attack and so, it should be acceptable now! I'm now planning to import the matter from Forced_conversion into this article, but should it be in a new section or under the 'persecution' section? I would like to see some consensus before I do that.—Khabboos (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Khabboos, I have told you numerous times that the temple attack was not persecution, but rather done out of anger which is clearly said in the first sentence of the article. Despite being told countless of time you continue to add it under the persecution section of the article. Why is that? Whats even more strange is that you claim to have included that it was a retaliatory attack, but your sentence does not show that. The sentence, however creates doubt for their motive of doing so. AcidSnow (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Khabboos, copying lumps of text from other articles and pasting into this one is not helpful. If you want to contribute do some research.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added two of the sources mentioned above to the article, and added the name of Amarnath Motumal (or Amarnath Motumel) to the article. I think Motumal is the correct spelling, and that Motumel is perhaps a typographical error - there are about ten times as many hits on Google for the "a" spelling. It would be a good thing if someone did a stub article on him.

I also moved Khabboos' new sentence to the start of the section on persecution, as it seems to be an introduction. I have added some hedging words. I agree with Joshua Jonathan's comments at 21:46, 15 February 2014.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * AcidSnow, I had put that sentence under the temple attacks heading, not under the 'persecution' section. Why don't you yourself insert that sentence (about the Nowshera temple burning) the way you want?
 * That sentence comes from a source that talks about different bad things that happen in Pakistan to some people, and alleges that all these disparate events somehow make up a persecution of Hindus. It is a piece of evidence that some people really do believe that Hindus are persecuted, and that the "persecution" consists of the kinds of events listed in the section.  It is best as an introduction.  I am not saying that it is a very good introduction - but it is the nearest thing to an introduction we have.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:28, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Toddy1, I shall write an article about Amarnath Motumal (Motumal is the right spelling) when I find time. I'm happy with your addition of the link to the Forced_conversion section of that article and so, I will not import the matter from there into this article. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Greetings, I was called in by the RTC 'bot. I also checked the reference and while the act was a horrible one, I also don't think it counts as "persecution," if we had that standard here in the United States, every building that gets looted could be called "persecution" when in fact it's just plain ole vandalism. I would recommend against including the sentence and against including the link, not in that context, Khabboos. Sorry. :) Thanks for editing this, though, it's a fascinating Wiki page. Damotclese (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Revert by Smsarmad
Smsarmad, I have cited references for the sentence I added. The reference of M.A.Khan I added here is reference#30 at Forced conversion. Only some muslims left India to live in Pakistan at the time of Partition (remember that British India had the largest muslim population in the world at that time and Pakistan would certainly not have been able to accommodate all of them).—Khabboos (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * About the M. A. Khan reference, did you read the edit summary of that edit? It said the said source is not a reliable source as it is a self published source. Do you understand that?
 * About the strength of Muslims who migrated to Pakistan, don't insert OR and POV as it is very much clear from your comment above. -- S M S  Talk 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is clear from Khabboos' comment above and on his talk page that he/she has not bothered to read the sources that he/she is citing. This impression is also clear from comparing his/her text with the web sources he/she cited - what the sources cited say and what Khabboos wrote do not match up.


 * In addition the claim that people who changed religion to reduce their taxes suffered forced conversion is bogus. You might just as well claim that companies who move their business premises from Kansas to Missouri to reduce their taxes are victims of forced relocation.  I realise that the POV sites cited do sort-of make this claim - but if Wikipedia is to repeat such a claim, then it needs to be explained carefully.


 * Finally, what Khabboos has done is a breach of Copying within Wikipedia. I realise that he/she has tried to avoid the copyright problems by summarising and putting them in his/her own words.  But as he/she has not bothered to read the sources his/her summaries are wrong.


 * I have reverted this rubbish, on the grounds of multiple policy violations.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Smsarmad is correct about M.A.Khan's book being self-published. Page ii of the pdf version says "Printed in the U.S.A. by Felibri.com".  The Felibri website says that Felibri is not a publisher, and that they "help the author to become their own publishers."  Clearly the book is self-published.  It also has more than a few factual errors.--Toddy1 (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK Toddy1, so we can remove the M.A.Khan book as a reference and put back all the rest right (all the other web-sites can be seen online)?—Khabboos (talk) 03:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Khabboos - did you understand the point about your not reading the sources you cited?--Toddy1 (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @Smsarmad: I just changed an OR, POV statement, "muslims from India settled down in Pakistan", which meant that all the muslims of British India settled in Pakistan, to a NPOV, "some muslims from India settled down in Pakistan", based on the fact that only some muslims left India to live in Pakistan at the time of Partition (remember that British India had the largest muslim population in the world at that time and Pakistan would certainly not have been able to accommodate all of them).—Khabboos (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Khabboos - in your edits of 19:35-19:37 23 March 2014 you changed "the Muslims refugees from India" to "some Muslims from India". Did you not realise that?  Your comment of 03:34, 24 March 2014 above is not consistent with the edit that you did.  Was it a mistake that you deleted the word "refugees"?--Toddy1 (talk) 08:47, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Toddy1, I found this online:, which clearly mentions, "The Muslim homeland was supposed to become the homeland of all the Muslims living in pre-partition India. This did not happen. Nearly 50 per cent of the Muslim population remained in the Indian Republic, ultimately leading to an anti-climax where India today has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan and is the second most populous Muslim country in the world." Now, I have read in many places, including my school History books that only some Muslims went to live in Pakistan from the rest of pre-partition India and that is why I added some. This book doesn't mention refugees, so do you want to cite this as a reference here?—Khabboos (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also planning to add these references for 'forced conversions': —Khabboos (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And then I will revert you, those sources are junk. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We have a discussion on the Talk Page of Hinduism in Pakistan, which can be seen here: . Please comment on the Talk page there. Thanks!—Khabboos (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We've decided already to avoid mentioning M.A.Khan's book, but we need to discuss about adding the citations: (1) the one that mentions, "...the Muslim population remained in the Indian Republic...", (2) Timur's memoirs and (3) FROM MONGOLS TO MUGHALS: RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE IN INDIA 9TH-18TH CENTURIES.—Khabboos (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Anyone trying to understand this discussion should also read Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive148 which has two discussions about Khabboos.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Mathematical Error in Percentage of Hindus.
In 1951, Hindus constituted 22% of the Pakistani population (this includes East Pakistan, modern day Bangladesh);,[6][7] the West Pakistan, modern Pakistan, had 2% Hindu population,[6] today, the share of Hindus is down to 1.6% in Pakistan,[4] and 9.2% in Bangladesh.[8] (In 1951, Bangladesh alone had a 22% Hindu population.[9])

Doesnt make sense, If there were 22% Hindus in Pakistan in 1951 and 22% of the population of East Pakistan was Hindus then Pakistan should also had 22% of Hindus? For above statement to be true in 1951 Pakistan should have only 12% approx as Hindus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.240.46 (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Improvement in Persecution section
I think persecution section can be improved. This article seems very stub. , you please keep this page on watchlist because you have special interest in WikiProject Hinduism. You can keep this page on your watchlist and you can improve this whenever you want. I will also try to improve this topic. Also tell interested editors in WikiProject Hinduism that you know.-- Human 3015  Say Hey!! • 08:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Percentage of Hindus in 1951
Someone tries to add this information about Hidus' percentage being 22% in 1951, which doesn't have an authentic source. One link is about Bangladesh only. Also the statement in article said there were 15% Hindus in West Pakistan, 22.5% in East Pakistan and overall percentage was 22%. And these statements contradict each other. If it was 15% in West and 22.5% in East, then the total would be somewhere between 18 and 19, considering the populations of East and West were almost same. The source I posted is more authentic as it gives tables for all the censuses in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. User:Ahkk145 18:21, 30 Jul 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources corroborate this: "Less than a million Hindus stayed behind in West Pakistan, but East Pakistan’s population was approximately 20 percent Hindu." - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That doesn't point to the figure being 15% in West Pakistan or overall percentage in Pakistan being 22%. The population of West Pakistan in 1951 was 33 million. According to you Hindus were less than a million, so how does that make the percentage 15%? User:Ahkk145 05:04, 31 Jul 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh? I am supporting your statement! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok sorry about that. Then this statement should not be in the article. With semi-protected editing, I can't edit it. Please edit it or tag someone you know who can do it. User:Ahkk145 18:44, 31 Jul 2015 (UTC)
 * Semi-protection is only temporary. You can edit it after it expires. Please take away the lesson to look for scholarly sources when there are contentious issues. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Census data
Regarding this edit, you can't edit scheduled caste data for one entry in the table while leaving the others unchanged. The "+" figure becomes misleading. You can either add it to all of them or none. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Just finding the information! Will edit as soon as I've found reliable data.

Population statistics
Your edits here are highly problematic. You are using newspapers as sources for historical information, which is not reliable. Scholarly sources, e.g. and, clearly contradict what you have written. Can you please do proper research and revise your contributions accordingly? - Kautilya3 (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Ali Eteraz
An IP has deleted material sourced to Ali Eteraz's Guardian blog. According to WP:UGC, Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Ali Eteraz is the author of a book published by Harper Collins, which won "the New Statesman Book of the Year, won the Nautilus Book Award Gold, and was featured by PBS, NPR, and the CBC." Another book here, and frequent columns in Guardian which are cited by scholars, e.g., , establish him as an expert. So, it appears to me that he is a reliable source even if the column is a blog. - Kautilya3 (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Hinduism in Pakistan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222185234/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/area_pop/area_pop.html to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/area_pop/area_pop.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222185234/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/area_pop/area_pop.html to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/area_pop/area_pop.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6CXEdgYii to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Hinduism in Pakistan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140719185303/http://census.gov.pk/Religion.htm to http://census.gov.pk/Religion.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706132048/http://www.banbeis.gov.bd/bd_pro.htm to http://www.banbeis.gov.bd/bd_pro.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.sdpi.org/whats_new/reporton/State%20of%20Curr%26TextBooks.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606143452/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C25%5Cstory_25-4-2006_pg7_26 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2006%5C04%5C25%5Cstory_25-4-2006_pg7_26

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Hinduism in Pakistan. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617205811/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_religion.pdf to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_religion.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222185234/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/area_pop/area_pop.html to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/area_pop/area_pop.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101222185234/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/area_pop/area_pop.html to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/area_pop/area_pop.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060617205811/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_religion.pdf to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/statistics/other_tables/pop_by_religion.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20140303211814/http://www.thestatesman.net/news/41450-pak-sc-seeks-report-on-denial-of-access-to-hindu-temple.html to http://www.thestatesman.net/news/41450-pak-sc-seeks-report-on-denial-of-access-to-hindu-temple.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sdpi.org/whats_new/reporton/State%20of%20Curr%26TextBooks.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100724191724/http://pakistanhinducouncil.org/default.asp to http://www.pakistanhinducouncil.org/default.asp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201172811/http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=77004 to http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/assessment.asp?groupId=77004

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

introductory photo
Should change the image of the gate in the introduction section with a more appropriate photo Jishnusavith (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hindu population by district
Vikram Nankani, I have re-reverted your edit to the Hinduism in Pakistan page because even if we set aside due weight concerns that had raised, we will need a reliable source for the Hindu population per district. Do you know if the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics collects and publishes such information? I didn't find it in the pdf you linked, and advocacy groups like Pakistan Hindu Council are not a reliable source for such data especially if they don't specify how they obtained it. More generally, if an edit of yours is reverted in good faith, it behooves you to discuss the issue on the article talkpage rather than simply trying to "force" that edit through by repetition. See WP:BRD for related information. Abecedare (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I went wrong in the process.


 * You re-reverted my edit and asked me if I know that the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics collects and publishes religion wise population information or not. You may refer this link which confirms religion wise data in every administrative division is recorded and published. Although we are unable to search the district level data but that doesn't mean data is not recorded and further not provided to Citizens or Organizations. In Pakistan there is Freedom of Information Act whereby data is availed within 21 days.
 * Further you claim Pakistan Hindu Council is not a reliable source for such data. I would like to ask you how do you conclude that? Did you know it is one of the largest representative body of Hindus residing in Pakistan? The founder of Pakistan Hindu Council i.e. Ramesh Kumar Vankwani is a Member of National Assembly of Pakistan with seat for minorities. Apart from this he also belongs to Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf political party of Pakistan which is the governing party of Pakistan.


 * I would like to know what was your logic to judge this organization or how you claimed it was unreliable? Hope I was able to clear your doubts about the source of information and the my edits gets added again. Thanks :)
 * Vikram Nankani (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The burden to show that Pakistan Hindu Council (PHC) is a "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" lies with the persons wishing to include it and one way to show such a reputation would be if we can show that scholars use it for the type of data you wish to cite it for. An established politician leading an advocacy group may make that group more noteworthy, but does not help establish it as a reliable or independent source.
 * Secondly, PHC does not say that it got its numbers from Pakistan Bureau of Statistics (PBS) or another relevant agency through a Freedom of Information Act request, as you speculate. All it says is that According to an estimation by Pakistan Hindu Council there are more than 8000000 Hindus are currently living in the different states of Pakistan...They constitute about 4% of the population of 200 million. Incidentally, those numbers are higher than the the official PBS figure of 1.6% (roughly 3.2 million) by a factor of 2.5x. I am not claiming that we have to treat the official figures as gospel but we do at least need to show that scholars take the PHC numbers seriously before citing them, even with attribution. Abecedare (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As specified by you there is a need for some information to cite which proves or suggest reliability and reputation for Pakistan Hindu Council and Ramesh Kumar Vankwani(The Founder). You also added that such information should be from scholars. So I would like to share with you this report which is prepared by University of Birmingham and it also has contributions from scholars of Brunel University London. This report has exclusively mentioned about Pakistan Hindu Council and further also about Ramesh Kumar Vankwani(which could be skipped) provided with references. Further in same report while they mention about "The Pakistan Hindu Seva Welfare Trust" (skipping the name of Founder along with it) they have used the word "claims" for details added from references. Both references have some details in figures but the word "claims" only comes with one organization. So this implicitly suggest us the level of reliability and reputation shown by these scholars for Pakistan Hindu Council and Ramesh Kumar Vankwani. Apart from this, you may also refer a report on Women and Disasters in South Asia which has reference of Hindu population data retrieved from Pakistan Hindu Council's official website for preparing that report.


 * This is level of international reputation and reliability. Now let us consider same thing at Pakistan level and know how deeply Government of Pakistan coordinates with Pakistan Hindu Council for working on National matters. By referring report1 and report2 one can easily understand and know what is the level of involvement in economy, reliability and expertise in works by Pakistan Hindu Council and Ramesh Kumar Vankwani. Also, these evidences are enough to judge reliability of them nationally and internationally.


 * While I was trying to clear your confusion whether or not data based on Religion is recorded and published in Pakistan, I made you aware that somehow if we are unable to get such data from PBS website it doesn't mean such data won't be available to public in general or organizations. I further said there is an option in form of Freedom of Information Act for the same to avail such data. I never claimed or speculated anywhere that the data provided by PHC is from PBS. In fact, PHC has several committees and its own huge network and operations across Pakistan through which they can easily survey and collect the required data.


 * Now let us consider the "reliable or independent source" point as specified by you. You may go through many reports at ReliefWeb website for natural calamities in several regions of Pakistan or other parts of world where you may find that many of the references or information considered to create reports are from Non-Government bodies. Even when data is about Demographics the Census Bureau Data is not considered for such reports or relief operations. So does it mean the Census Bureau or data published by them is unreliable? In cases where Census Data is combined with Non-Government Organization Data for consideration and perform relief operations, does that mean Census Bureau is not an independent source? Same thing applies to non-government bodies and their data. Lack of awareness by rest of world about some local organization doesn't make it unreliable or dependent source. If there was anything like such then organizations like United States Agency for International Development and Department for International Development would have strictly considered only Government Data for their relief operations ignoring such local organizations which they never heard or came across at international levels.


 * No government or non-government organization data is or can be perfect because everyone has its own strength and limitations. For the same reason, even the Governments among Top economies are also asking data or information from other private organizations or some IT giants to fulfill their official works. Further many times same government doesn't publicly endorse reliability of data provided by those organization nor do they publicly reject the reliability. In such cases scholars are wise enough to understand what is reliable and what is unreliable on own rather than depending on some advocates who reject everything if they can't research some small information by self or when they are unable to come across such information in their limited world of mobiles and computers. The scholars also understand that not every detail in this world is available by sitting on internet rather many times they need to know, collect or experience it from getting into those environments.


 * It is most unfortunate part of Wikipedia that there are some users who exclusively sit merely/mostly to revert and wipe-off entire valuable information on some Pages or Topics of Wikipedia in which they are neither expert nor they have basic knowledge. A user who doesn't even knows areas or parameters of information collected by Pakistan Bureau of Statistics in census and further asks me if there is any religion based data collected and published or not, is in rush to remove valuable data and claims I am trying to "force" the edits.


 * If my edits are referred again, it can be seen that it says:
 * " Hindus as per 2017 based on Census and Pakistan Hindu Council "
 * In Column Total Population the values are of Census and in Coulmn of Hindu Population data is from PHC. I should have added cite on individual column rather than both together before tables begin to avoid anything going ambiguous. Instead of those minor corrections entire edit gets reverted.


 * I feel for a healthy Wikipedia environment, users with knowledge or expertise in Topics of Hinduism, Pakistan and Hinduism in Pakistan may revert directly on their knowledge basis if they feel rather than those users who have no knowledge or least knowledge about it and are dependent on information from somewhere to reach some final decision. Such users who are either in rush to make maximum reverts for earning some badges or trying to show-off their arrogance should understand this is not a platform like some of common social media platforms in today's world where anyone without any source can abuse or allege or judge character of somebody be it from politics or any other field. Any baseless judgement or statements made by self even in Help:Talk pages on any Religion, Country or Organization of any country should also be avoided. Especially, such users who are lacking direct knowledge on such sensitive topics should at the most add a note or initially talk before rushing to revert edits. Such act of wiping off helpful data may promote chaos among different communities or societies and create loopholes for exploitation for spicy media houses. Considering current topic Hinduism in Pakistan when people refer such regional base population data they can easily relate how and where Hindus are also flourishing in Pakistan.


 * Regards.
 * Vikram Nankani (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's a lengthy reply! Having read through it, I find one bit of relevant evidence for noteworthiness of the PHC's population figures. Namely, the article by Sana Saleem on Pakistan floods in this book, where she says:
 * "Although Sind is predominantly Muslim, it is the place where much of the Hindu community that comprises 5.5 per cent (Pakistan Hindu Council) of Pakistan's population lives."


 * and, in the notes, cites this webpage in support. Looking up that cited reference, one finds the cited 5.5% figure itself to be internally inconsistent. The cited PHC webpage says, According to an estimation by Pakistan Hindu Council there are more than 7000000 Hindus are [sic] currently living in the different states of Pakistan... They constitute about 5.5% of the population of 170 million., while a population of ~7 million is 4.1% of 170 million. Given such meager and flawed citation of PHC's Hindu population estimate (which, as I have pointed of before, differ by a factor of 2.5x from the official census figures), I don't see how we can justify adding 17KB of tables of PHC's district-wise estimate of Hindu population in Pakistan. Abecedare (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On a more positive note, and based on Saleem at least citing PHC to this context, I'll be ok with adding a sentence in Demography section along the lines of "The Pakistan Hindu Council estimates that 8 million Hindus live in Pakistan, constituting 4% of the total population." Ideally, better counterpoints to the census figures can be found in the future but the inclusion will at least indicate that higher figures exits. Abecedare (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am glad there is no more confusion about reliability of the source.
 * Regarding the "internally inconsistent" point as specified by you in:
 * According to an estimation by Pakistan Hindu Council there are more than 7000000  Hindus are currently living in the different states of Pakistan... They constitute  about 5.5%  of the population of 170 million.


 * Here 5.5% of 170 million = 9,350,000
 * And  9,350,000  = more than 7000000


 * more than  ≠   about  ( internally consistent) [interpretation consistent]
 * more than  =   about  ( internally inconsistent) [interpretation inconsistent]


 * I think it is internally inconsistent due to interpretation inconsistent


 * Further I agree with you that we can't justify 17KB of tables of District-wise Hindu population in Pakistan - which has 6 coulmns


 * But if we remove 2 columns as seen (Before)
 * But if we remove 2 columns as seen (Before)


 * And make it look like this (After)
 * And make it look like this (After)
 * And make it look like this (After)


 * then the matter of justification won't arise since entire data will be only from 1 source rather than 2 sources as before.


 * Regards.
 * Vikram Nankani (talk) 12:07, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * For reasons I have stated previously, I don't think reducing the table from 6 to 4 columns (by removing the census data!) will address the central issues or make the addition of the destrict-wise PHC numbers acceptable. Abecedare (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Let us consider your pending reasons hindering the data to be added:
 * A reference report by some scholar using PHC's population figures. (Cleared)
 * Noteworthiness/Reliability of the Pakistan Hindu Council. (Cleared)
 * Your claim about internally inconsistent/meager/flawed citation of PHC's Hindu population estimate based on your own inconsistent interpretation. (Cleared)


 * What else is/are your reasons which blocks this data to be added?


 * You said earlier as
 * On a more positive note, and based on Saleem at least citing PHC to this context, I'll be ok with adding a sentence in Demography section along the lines of "The Pakistan Hindu Council estimates that 8 million Hindus live in Pakistan, constituting 4% of the total population."
 * But that information is already available on the Top of that page in the Infobox so there is nothing positive to notice.


 * When you say
 * I don't think reducing the table from 6 to 4 columns (by removing the census data!) will address the central issues..
 * Again, I don't understand your logic of such thought. I hope it is not like earlier where claims for character or reliability of something came by your own opinion.
 * Again, I don't understand your logic of such thought. I hope it is not like earlier where claims for character or reliability of something came by your own opinion.


 * Kindly be precise to specify the reasons hindering this data to be added. Or how exactly adding such data will violate Wikipedia Standards?


 * Regards.
 * Vikram Nankani (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't believe your summary of the discussion in your previous two-posts is accurate, and think that the discussion and formatting are getting increasingly more repetitive and baroque respectively. If you are not yet convinced by Pepperbeast's reason for the original revert or my arguments, I'd suggest you invite a WP:3O. Abecedare (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I hope you very well know Wikipedia is a platform where individual's baseless opinion do not matter so you believe or not anything is your own problem. Here one needs a precise point or reference to specify any matter. It is as simple as possible to understand.( 1 ) If you bring Pepperbeast's reason then as I stated earlier it is unbiased objection and if that objection is considered valid then even the past District-wise and Province-wise Data should be removed along with Demography section completely. ( 2 )Secondly, coming to your objection for District-wise data and no objection for National Level Data again becomes unbiased decision or rather self-tailored rules where a fact or figure available on the upper part of a source page is allowed to be imported but from same page, the data just below that is denied to be imported knowing the fact that Total Population(imported data from source) is ultimately obtained by merging those District-wise Population data. In both the reasons or objection we see unbiased objections. If there is an objection then keep it same for all rather than double-standard objections.


 * Further when you said earlier that burden to show PHC data is a published sources with a reputation lies on me, ( 3 )I provided you references which you accepted positively. Similarly, the burden of bringing objections lies on your side so you may consult other users or invite WP:3O to bring some new objection. There is nothing like I am not convinced for reverts on my edits but my point is if you revert my edits then revert all those data/edits which are exactly same pattern.


 * Initially you are in rush to revert and bringing your own opinions(without researching and knowing the topics). Discussion are getting increasingly more repetitive since you are not precise about your list of objections. Further keep jumping on previous objection or current objection rather than sticking to one objection and making it clear to jump on other one. For the same reason I am forced to introduce formatting. As of now, I conclude 2 precise objections - First Pepperbeast's objection ( 1 ) and second your objection that PHC not reliable source( 3,2 ).


 * Now how would you like to end this discussion?
 * Regards.

Vikram Nankani (talk) 18:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Have requested a third opinion. Abecedare (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hindu population by year
Help me! Heading converted to bold text ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

In the "23:14, 14 August 2019‎ 99.244.148.132" edit of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_in_Pakistan, crucial table titled "‎Hindu population by year" was gutted. Numerous subsequent edits completely removed this pivotal information. Given the current India-Pakistan tensions and accusation of religious genocides etc., the gutting of the above-mentioned table is a deliberate attempt to hide information.

Can you please look into the above mentioned unethical edits that removed the table titled "‎Hindu population by year"?

98.196.254.136 (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: Special:Diff/910883093, Special:Contributions/99.244.148.132, ping . ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have concerns about how an article has been edited, you should first discuss it on the article talk page. I see that ToBeFree has moved your message here so discussion has been opened. When discussing Wikipedia articles, you should comment on content, not contributors. Saying that another editor in a content dispute is deliberately trying to hide information is not constructive. Because of the tensions you mentioned, special rules called Discresionary Sanctions apply to this page. These rules encourage editors to discuss issues calmly and constructively and allow administrators to take action if they do not. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2019
Manmohan Singh, prime minister of India was born in Gah, Pakistan too He must be cited. Iyermuku477 (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Not done. This article is about Hinduism. Mr. Singh is not a Hindu.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  03:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2019
Change Currently there are around 8 million Hindus living in Pakistan, comprising 4% of Pakistani population according to the Pakistan Hindu Council.[9][3]

TO

Currently there are around 3.07 million Hindus living in Pakistan, comprising 1.55% of Pakistani population according to the Pakistan Hindu Council.[9][3] Arvind2205 (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As per cited references already present in the articles, the numbers are clearly wrong. Additionally the prediction is for 5.6 million in 2030 which is already below the erroneous 8 million figure. This must be correct asap especially in the background of CAB as people are citing erroneous data from Wikipedia on social media.
 * Not done. The Pakistan Hindu Council claim it's 8 million. I've rearranged the sentence order to clarify their position slightly.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  19:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference dump
This section exists to clear any spare references from preceding discussions

the hindu council estimate is unrealistic and shouldnt be mentioned in official figures. It is not based on any data or census. a popultion of 8 million Hindus, mostly concentrated in Sindh would mean they make up over 10-15% of Sindh which contradicts all ground reports and census figures. an outlier figure presented by a council can be mentioned somewhere below but shouldn't be put as the official figure, it's misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.190.44.162 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2020 (UTC)