Misplaced Pages

Talk:British Pakistanis: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:58, 6 May 2013 editAndyTheGrump (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers54,013 edits →Content removal: reply to DS← Previous edit Revision as of 15:05, 6 May 2013 edit undoDarkness Shines (talk | contribs)31,762 edits →Content removal: Stop wasting my timeNext edit →
Line 151: Line 151:
::::::::Not needed, you have failed to give a single reason within policy to exclude it. I am going to argue with you till the end of time. If consensus depends on you ever agreeing to anything then nothing would ever get done. OrangesRyellow says I have cleared the burden on this content, and to be frank only you have tried to use policy to keep the content out, but you have failed. Per WP:V, NPOV, BURDEN all criteria for inclusion have been met. ] (]) 14:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC) ::::::::Not needed, you have failed to give a single reason within policy to exclude it. I am going to argue with you till the end of time. If consensus depends on you ever agreeing to anything then nothing would ever get done. OrangesRyellow says I have cleared the burden on this content, and to be frank only you have tried to use policy to keep the content out, but you have failed. Per WP:V, NPOV, BURDEN all criteria for inclusion have been met. ] (]) 14:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
:::::::::So because '''one''' person agrees with you, you can go ahead? What about the views of the '''five''' people who don't? Anyway, read WP:NPOV again, with specific reference to WP:UNDUE. You have singularly failed to demonstrate that any general discussion of British Pakistanis must necessarily have anything to say regarding the events in a single northern English town over a few days in 2001. Instead, you have resorted to cherry-picking, and self-evident misrepresentation of sources in order to 'justify' this otherwise unmerited inclusion. ] (]) 14:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC) :::::::::So because '''one''' person agrees with you, you can go ahead? What about the views of the '''five''' people who don't? Anyway, read WP:NPOV again, with specific reference to WP:UNDUE. You have singularly failed to demonstrate that any general discussion of British Pakistanis must necessarily have anything to say regarding the events in a single northern English town over a few days in 2001. Instead, you have resorted to cherry-picking, and self-evident misrepresentation of sources in order to 'justify' this otherwise unmerited inclusion. ] (]) 14:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
::::::::::No, their views do not matter, they gave no reasons in policy to exclude the content. The sources I have provided show that a few lines is more than DUE, the sources I have provided which discuss British Pakistanis all discuss the riots as well, so your third point is moot. The rest is your usual filibustering, you demand sources, when sources are given you make accusations of misrepresentation and cherry picking. The content will go back Andy, stop wasting my time. ] (]) 15:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


==Nothing whatsoever to do with this article== ==Nothing whatsoever to do with this article==

Revision as of 15:05, 6 May 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the British Pakistanis article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Former good articleBritish Pakistanis was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 17, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
November 20, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
January 28, 2011Good article nomineeListed
March 9, 2011Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconUnited Kingdom Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPakistan Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEthnic groups Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

To-do list for British Pakistanis: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-08-05

  • Clean up the References section. It currently uses bare URL's, so a {{Cite web}} template (or other if you prefer) will have to be added to each citation. Done
  • For full list of what now needs doing in relation to this article, please refer to its review page. Done
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Pol430, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 26 December 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors


Archives

1, 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Template:Findnotice

Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Edit protection and notice for personal attacks

As similar controversial material has been added and removed several times over the last week, in response to a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected this article for one week as an uninvolved administrator. The intention of full protection is for contributors and interested parties to reach a consensus on this talk page through open discussion of the issues, sources and appropriate weight for this article. If discussion here, or the more structured discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#British_Pakistanis does not establish a consensus, please consider the other options available as described at WP:Dispute resolution. --Fæ (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Calling other editors abusive names such as prick, liar and bigot is clearly intended as a personal attack. Please consider this a first warning to all those that have indulged themselves in using Misplaced Pages as if it were the worst of 4chan, any further blatant personal attacks on this page will result in that contribution being deleted, a final user warning on your talk page, followed by a block for the individual if you then persist. If you feel you are genuinely unable to contribute here without resorting to abuse, now would be a good time to take this page off your watchlist. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The current full protection expires on 21 May 2012. If problems persist after the protection expires, then please raise another request at Requests for page protection. I am disappointed at the language and ad hominem arguments that have been used during this discussion, and would like to see everyone think twice and write calmly about the issues. AndyTheGrump has suggested I may be overly involved due to expressing an opinion about his inflammatory use of fruity language elsewhere, a point I had not considered as the action here was not especially related to him as an editor. I stand by the one week full protection as a sensible precaution but I do not intend to use any sysop tools on this article from this point on, hopefully to ensure there is no question of inappropriate use. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested edit

Requested edit: please remove the sentence "Many of these protests were of a violent nature and often took place in Pakistani-populated areas such as Bradford" in British_Pakistanis#Allegations_of_extremism.

I find the sentence to be synthesis. The source does mention the fact that the protests happened in Bradford, but doesn't specifically say that the area is "Pakistani-populated" or that it was Pakistanis who were behind the protests. Finally, the source doesn't say the protests at Bradford were violent, only that the book was burned and we should be more specific.VR talk 12:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done --Fæ (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Baroness Warsi

I'm sure someone with an interest can make something of this . A "small minority" of Pakistani men see white girls as "fair game", Baroness Warsi has said. It is important to "speak out" and acknowledge the problem in order to tackle it, she added. Lady Warsi, the daughter of Pakistani immigrants, is co-chair of the Conservative party. Leaky Caldron 17:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick read - big problems with the article

In February 2009, it was reported that the Central Intelligence Agency believed that a British-born Pakistani extremist entering the US under the Visa Waiver Program was the most likely source of a major terrorist attack on American soil. - by whom? By the Telegraph. This needs to be attributed if it is included. And I'm not sure it should be included since it's pretty much a single sentence from a single source but a very substantial claim. And substantial claims require more serious sources. This is just cherry picking and undue. Additionally, it is also a COPYVIO since it's pretty much copied verbatim from the original source. Please remove this ASAP, or at least reword it appropriately.

The publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses in 1988 is said to have been a precursor for the September 11 attacks. - this is supposedly sourced to the New York Times. But actually the link is to middleeast.about.com. Furthermore, the page very clearly states that it was actually originally published by Daytona Beach, Fla., News-Journal. This may or may not be a reliable source, but unless I'm missing something, it ain't the New York Times. Additionally this appears to be an opinion piece, which opens up with "In 2005, anyone who loves the American language celebrated the 50th anniversary of Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, still the greatest American novel of the last half century. " - so actually, it's NOT a reliable source. And on top of that the present Misplaced Pages article, by pulling a sentence completely out of context, manages to give a very different impression than what is actually in the source (hint: verbatim =/ representative) Remove it.

This: "The publication of The Satanic Verses, coupled with violence in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world, helped radicalised Muslim men whose ancestors had come to the UK from Pakistan and elsewhere" is cited to two sources. The first one is, again, an opinion piece, and NOT a reliable source for these kinds of claims. It is also disputable whether or not the source actually supports the text being included. The other source is this which is another opinion piece.

This: "British Pakistanis, male and female, on average claim to have had only one sexual partner. The average British Pakistani male claims to have lost his virginity at the age of 20, the average female at 22, giving an average age of 21. 3.2 per cent of Pakistani males report that they have been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI), compared to 3.6 per cent of Pakistani females. Cultural norms regarding issues such as chastity and marriage have resulted in British Pakistanis having a substantially older age for first intercourse, lower number of partners, and lower STI rates than the national average". WHO. THE. FUCK. CARES? This is not encyclopedic content. At BEST it's trivia.

The rest of the section is also very much in the "let's find as many negative things as possible to say about these people we don't like vein". It's mostly UNDUE.

Ant this is just for starters. Another Misplaced Pages article made into total shit by folks with an odious agenda.VolunteerMarek 23:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

:Indeed I concur this article unfortunately was tainted by specific users who have animosity towards Pakistani people for example user Wikireader41 has been blocked in the past for his pov pushing and anti Pakistan rhetoric and he is the fellow who added all the bull shit about "extremists" and salman rushdies reaction section unfortunately he did this a while ago and no one removed his obvious pov pushing since no one took notice of the article until now Extramnmsm (talk) 20:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Blocked sock Darkness Shines (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

So can the relevant text be removed from the article? At the very least get the copyright vio stuff out of there.VolunteerMarek 21:10, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

yes.-- altetendekrabbe  21:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
The "British Pakistanis, male and female, on average claim to have had..." stuff. I think it can be rephrased. But it is probably interesting to note. Such info is MUCH better than making a list of "person X, who committed crime Y, happens to be a British-Pakistani". But hard statistics about the British Pakistani community should be fine.VR talk 02:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Content removal

An explanation within policy for the removal of this relaibly sourced content is warrented, or it will be going back in. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Not without community consensus. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Consensus is not needed to restore reliably sourced content, now where is your reason for removal of that text? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The material is misleading (it grossly oversimplifies a complex situation), and entirely unwarranted in the context of an article about an ethnic group. Misplaced Pages isn't here to serve the interests of those intent on presenting an ethnic minority in the worst possible light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is here to present the facts, it is a fact that the edit is correct, your preferences for what should be here are irrelevant. The majority of Asians involved in the riots were British Pakistanis per the sources, this article is about that particular ethnic group, so it goes back. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The 'facts' are (a) that this is an article about an ethnic minority, not an article regarding the ethnic makeup of rioters in one particular location at one point in time. (b) There are two of us so far opposing inclusion - and consensus so far is against you. You have offered no legitimate justification whatsoever for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Erm what consensus, it is not a vote Andy. Policy is all that matters here, so we have is the content verifiable? Yes, it is. Are the sources reliable? Yes, they are. Is content about British Pakistanis living in Bradford rioting, belong in a section about British Pakistanis living in Bradford DUE? Obviously, given the amount of sources which discuss it indepth. So it will go back, as policy, not your preferences dictate what we do. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The material is undue, and you have no support to include it. There is no policy whatsoever that says that content 'must' be included in articles because sources can be found for it, as you are well aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" Which means in a nutshell you cannot take out or exclude content you do not like. Also WP:DUE "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable source" So the few lines you insist on editwarring out are more than DUE given the coverage given in RS. I shall pop it back in tomorrow. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Already pointed out above, how can we have a section on Pakistanis in Bradford and exclude the fact that they were the majority of rioters in the same place? We can either remove the section or comply with policy and put the content back. Or is trivia such as "The majority of British Pakistanis here can trace their roots to the Mirpur District of Kashmir" encyclopedic but academic sources discussing riots are not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Darkness Shines, can you explain where this 'significant view' comes from? Which 'viewpoint' on this particular ethnic minority considers the events in one particular town over a few days in 2001 so significant as to merit inclusion in a general discussion of the subject? Please provide citations for the sources that do this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Erm, these guys. Paul Bagguley, Yasmin Hussain Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain Ikhlaq Din The New British: The Impact of Culture And Community on Young Pakistanis Gabriele Rosenthal, Artur Bogne(Eds) Ethnicity, Belonging and Biography: Ethnographical and Biographical Perspectives Cara. Aitchison, Peter E. Hopkins, Mei-Po Kwa(Eds) Geographies of Muslim Identities: Diaspora Gender and Belonging Tracy J. Prince Culture Wars in British Literature Alison Shaw Negotiating risk: British Pakistani experiences of genetics And of course a great many others who discuss British Pakistanis, and also of course mention the riots. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I asked for properly-cited sources from a general discussion British Pakistanis as a subject, not the results of a facile exercise in Google-mining. Or are you seriously suggesting that books entitled 'Culture Wars in British Literature' and 'Negotiating risk: British Pakistani experiences of genetics' are in fact about something else entirely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Andy, I do not have to show you any such sources, the sources already used do the job. The sources above are only to show that books which discuss British Pakistanis also mention the riots. And it is not Google mining, it is supplying what you asked for. Now you can give a reason within policy for the removal of this content, or it goes back in. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, now explain why you have selected this particular material from these particular sources. Are you accurately representing the opinions of the authors regarding British Pakistanis, (Personal attack removed) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I was curious as to how long it would be before you began the smear campaign, well I am done and the content goes back per policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
DS, I would point out that (a) you are at 3R on this article, and (b) consensus above appears to be against you including it. I think you need to discuss this further and meet the concerns, specifically UNDUE, of the above editors. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
UNDUE my ass, look at the sources, the coverage given in both the MSM and academic books shows that this content is DUE. Consensus is not a vote, and I have yet to see a single argument within policy to exclude this content. A few lines is all it is, and all this is, is a waste of my time. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Come on, you know this is the way that Misplaced Pages works. If other editors have concerns about something you want to include you need to show that their concerns are invalid. Just because something's reliably sourced doesn't mean it must be automatically included in an article; being reliably sourced does not necessarily meet UNDUE and/or NPOV, for a start. I haven't even looked at the sources myself but I can say the above because I don't need to see them - this is standard Misplaced Pages WP:BRD procedure. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
BK, that is already done. See all those books above, the ones Andy has not bothered to look at? The sources he asked for? All of those are discussing British Pakistanis and all mention the riots. I can get you hundreds of sources which cover this for gods sake. NPOV is not an excuse to remove something which makes people look bad, NPOV means everything goes in so long as it is reliably sourced and DUE, it is DUE because academics say it is, if they write about British Pakistanis and the riots are mentioned along with that, then so should we. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:NPOV: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". You are cherry-picking isolated references to riots from material about other subjects - entirely undue, and unjustifiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

(od)but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject Do you not get that bit then? Given the sheer amount of sources covering it how can you say it is not significant to the subject? So, wrong again. Stop wasting my time with this nonsense and give a reason within policy to excludes these few lines from this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." That you have to resort to cherry-picking from books on genetics and literature to justify your edits looks "disproportionate" to me. This isn't an article about Bradford. This isn't an article about riots. It is an article about British Pakistanis, the overwhelming majority of which took no part whatsoever in rioting in Bradford or anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Your constant personal attacks are tedious, so how about stopping. I have not cherry picked anything, you asked for sources, I supplied them. Do not ask a person to get sources and then attack them for getting what you asked for. The article is about British Pakistanis. It has a section for said fellows who live in Bradford, hence that section is DUE a few lines on how the majority of the Asians involved in the riots were, British Pakistanis. This is not rocket science Andy, it is common sense. When academics write books about British Pakistanis they seem to mention the Bradford riots, if it is good enough for them it is most certainly good enoguh for Misplaced Pages. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The clear consensus here is that inclusion of this material is undue. If you insist on ignoring consensus in order to push your own opinions, you can expect to be held to account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I am sure there is a policy or essay about people claiming a consensus where none actually exists, but I really cannot be arsed to go find it. Again, not a vote. Policy decides, and as you are the only one who has tried (and failed) to argue policy I see no consensus at all for the exclusion of this content. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
DS, you say "When academics write about British Pakistanis they seem to mention the Bradford riots." Do you mean all academics writing about British Pakistanis, most, or many? When you say "they seem to mention" do you mean "they mention"? When you say "mention", do you mean that they mention the riots in Bradford in passing or discuss them at length? Overall, do these mentions or discussions form a larger, similar or smaller part of the academic texts on British Pakistanis than the disputed text would in the Misplaced Pages article British Pakistanis? NebY (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
By "When academics write about British Pakistanis they seem to mention the Bradford riots." I mean the sources already given, and yes they discuss the riots in-depth. Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain has two chapters on it first is on p39 which gives an overview and comparison on three riots. Oldham, Burnley & Bradford. The second chapter also goes into detail and begins on p65. The New British: The Impact of Culture And Community on Young Pakistanis discusses the riots and probable reasons behind them. In fact this is a good find as there it can be used to source the feelings of the community at large over their fears of being tarred with the same brush. Geographies of Muslim Identities: Diaspora Gender and Belonging goes into great detail on both subjects from p65 onwards I quote from the start "Over the last four years British Pakistanis have come under intense public scrutiny in response to events both global and local" It then discusses the riots and the potential fallout from them. Culture Wars in British Literature: Multiculturalism and National Identity Goes into a lot of detail about the riots and British Pakistanis. Culture Wars in British Literature says they were the worst race riots since Brixton. Islamic Radicalism and Multicultural Politics: The British Experience again covers the riots, and the reasons behind them extensively, per the edit I made the book discusses the attacks by extreme right wing groups which culminated in the riot. There are no shortage of sources which discuss this in-depth. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
So would it be more appropriate to say "Some academics discuss the Bradford riots"? NebY (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Unless you want me to go and ask them all, then I suppose so. Or we can try GBooks and see what we get on the first page (citing just books from academic publishers), Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain already discussed above. The Police And Social Conflict plenty of detail on the riots. Returning (to) Communities: Theory, Culture and Political Practice of the Communal plenty in there. Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century plenty in there. Exactly how many sources do you want me to produce? But we can go with "Some academics". it makes no difference really. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps "Some academics discuss the Bradford riots and they can be found in GBooks with an appropriate search term"? That still doesn't help us to determine due weight: was the participation of some of the British Pakistani community in the 2001 riots sufficiently characteristic of the Bradford community to be included in Misplaced Pages's brief overview of them? NebY (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Other than the majority of those rioting being British Pakistanis you mean? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, other than that, otherwise we fall into a very basic logical fallacy by suggesting that because a majority of A were B, A is typical of B. NebY (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Do we have a source that states that "the majority of those rioting British Pakistanis" though? I've seen sources that state that the majority of rioters from ethnic minorities were British Pakistanis, but that is another matter entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually no for two reasons, one we are just pointing out a fact, the other per The New British: The Impact of Culture And Community on Young Pakistanis which I said was a good find, as it gives A's perspective on what happened on and how B's actions impacted on them, which I think is quite important to put across. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Re Andy, so when you reverted me and then started your dramafest you had not even looked at the sources I had used? The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy p275. & Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain p7 Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
The source you cite does not state that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
"We are just pointing out a fact" is not an adequate justification for inclusion. Misplaced Pages is not a mere collection of facts and we must pay attention to due weight. Worse, "I'm just pointing out a fact" is all too familar a defence of the presentation of an isolated incident as typical of whatever grouping is under discussion and risks the appearance of NPOV at best. Second, "which I said was a good find" strongly implies that you did not insert text into the article after reading the sources but instead, after making the insertion, have been using Google Books to seek out sources that might justify it and have not read more than snippets and titles of those sources. Third, the existence of a text on a subject does not indicate that the inclusion of that subject in any given article would comply with WP:UNDUE; the pressure to publish is such that we can find academic texts and extended journalism on an astonishing range of subjects but cannot justify inclusion of those subjects on that basis alone. Perhaps a single example will help: there are many scholarly texts and much extended journalism on the Tate-LaBianca murders that situate the Manson family in the contemporary context of California and consider the effects upon California, yet you will not find any mention of the murders in the California article. NebY (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(od)Excuse me? The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy Bradford, Burnley and Oldham, all towns with primarily Pakistani communities. Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain "Those involved in the riots were predominantly from a Pakistani background" How does that not cover it? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The first source simply does not say that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. Regarding the second source, you are plucking a phrase out of context. It is far from clear whether the phrase "those involved in the riots" refers to rioters as a whole, or the subset of those involved from the minority ethnic communities - the subject of the study, which the authors interviewed. Note too that 'involvement' need not necessarily have involved rioting in any real sense, as the authors make clear on page 6. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, I note that you added the second source while I was responding to your post timestamped 23:14 - hence my reference to 'source', rather than 'sources'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Going through the above discussion, it has become very obvious that DS has provided more than enough sources to support the material and to establish that the material is due. Excluding the material would be censorship.OrangesRyellow (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, that is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing I have yet to read from you, to say that "Those involved in the riots were predominantly from a Pakistani background" is out of context is disingenuous as it could not be any clearer. But from the same source on p73 the same thing is said "A crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" We also have Applying theory to policy and practice which says the majority of those arrested and charged were mainly from a Pakistani background. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
A simple question, DarknessShines. Do you have access to the sources you cite, or are you relying on Google snippets? Anyway, judging from what I can see from Google, you have omitted the first part of the quote from Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain in order to make it appear to say something it doesn't - it is part of a longer sentence, for which I don't have the start, but the section reads "...demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police..." There is no way whatsoever that one can ascertain the broader context of this, and read it as a statement regarding the overall proportion of rioters from a British Pakistani background. Please cite sources for what they say, rather than for what you'd like them to say.
Furthermore, on neither of the two pages referring to British Pakistanis (109, 117)of Applying theory to policy and practice I can access via Google books does it say that the majority of Bradford rioters were British Pakistanis. Can you please provide the relevant page number, and quote the relevant paragraph so we can see the context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Andy, what do you think "the majority of those arrested and charged were mainly from a Pakistani background" means? The context is quite obvious, those fighting were obviously mainly Pakistani in heritage. I have given you the sources, and you are just filibustering. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Filibustering? Nope - asking you to stop misrepresenting sources. The quote in question is "It was mentioned at the outset that a large number of local people, mainly young men of Muslim faith background and Pakistani heritage, were arrested and charged with public order offences in connection with the 2001 riots". 2001 riots. Not specifically Bradford - and note the 'local people'. We know that in the Bradford case there were large numbers of non-locals present for the fascist march and counter-demonstration. Furthermore, you should know better than to equate 'proportion of arrests' with 'proportion of participants'. The source doesn't make that equation, so we can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The non locals had all fucked off home. Which is in the source provided "What became an ethnically diverse crowd of men and women at the anti Nazi league demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain p73. I see no reason at all for this continued filibustering to continue, I am putting the content back. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus whatsoever here for the inclusion of material relating to the Bradford riots. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Not needed, you have failed to give a single reason within policy to exclude it. I am going to argue with you till the end of time. If consensus depends on you ever agreeing to anything then nothing would ever get done. OrangesRyellow says I have cleared the burden on this content, and to be frank only you have tried to use policy to keep the content out, but you have failed. Per WP:V, NPOV, BURDEN all criteria for inclusion have been met. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
So because one person agrees with you, you can go ahead? What about the views of the five people who don't? Anyway, read WP:NPOV again, with specific reference to WP:UNDUE. You have singularly failed to demonstrate that any general discussion of British Pakistanis must necessarily have anything to say regarding the events in a single northern English town over a few days in 2001. Instead, you have resorted to cherry-picking, and self-evident misrepresentation of sources in order to 'justify' this otherwise unmerited inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
No, their views do not matter, they gave no reasons in policy to exclude the content. The sources I have provided show that a few lines is more than DUE, the sources I have provided which discuss British Pakistanis all discuss the riots as well, so your third point is moot. The rest is your usual filibustering, you demand sources, when sources are given you make accusations of misrepresentation and cherry picking. The content will go back Andy, stop wasting my time. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing whatsoever to do with this article

discuss this in an appropriate place AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Almost the same matter once existed on Mukti Bahini. The sources which I presented at Mukti Bahini were not reliable Darkness? Why they were reverted by you? Even if they were reliable? Even if they were from Reliable News Agencies? Even if they were from Google Books? Faizan -Let's talk! 13:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
What, you mean the edit where you wrote that the MB had torture and execution camps? But the sources were actually speaking about the Al-Badr and Al-Shams? Still waiting since 31 March 2013 for the new sources you said you had BTW. If you want to discuss the MB do it there, not here. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not wrote it, I just contributed and was concerned only with the figures of Biharis killed. And despite adding reliable sources of these killings, ranging from a thousand to millions, they were reverted. Even if the torture info was not correct, then why was the whole of the section concerning that reverted? Faizan -Let's talk! 13:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The torture info ought to be removed, it also had references, but why were the facts and figures of the Bihari killings reverted too? Faizan -Let's talk! 13:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Wrong talk page, head on over to here were that was already explained and were any further discussion belongs. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Correct Talk page, the matter is the same, just the article is different. And as far as the article of Mukti Bahini is concerned, This Section would be more appropriate, where I am still searching for a reply, even today. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Categories: