Talk:British Pakistanis - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) at 17:07, 5 May 2013 (→Content removal: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:07, 5 May 2013 by AndyTheGrump (talk | contribs) (→Content removal: reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

British 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
Date	Process	Result
June 17, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
November 20, 2010	Peer review	Reviewed
January 28, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
March 9, 2011	Good article reassessment	Delisted
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.

United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This 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
Mid	This 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.

Pakistan Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This 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
Mid	This 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.

Ethnic groups Mid‑importance

This 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

Mid

This 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:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

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

Guild of Copy Editors

This 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

Please 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.

Blatant pov pushing child grooming

This incident involving a gang of british pakistanis does not deserve mention unless other incidences are mentioned about other communitys this is basically cherry picking of events and an obvious pov push Spacech45 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Nangerbat Darkness Shines (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. I especially find the long quoting of one POV in the source article without reference to police opinions on the matter baffling. Henrik.karlstrom (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that these events did involve a lot of cherry picking.Ankh.Morpork 14:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's cute. However, the more I think about it the less I think this section belongs in a general article on a large population. Here it seems to be implying that pedophilia is somehow something to do with their ethnic background, which is a pretty strong claim to make in a supposedly NPOV article. Notice that the Belgium page does not feature a subsection on the innate pedophilia of Belgians, to name one example. The incident already has its own wiki entry, and that should be enough. I say we take this section out. Henrik.karlstrom (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I know where this is coming from its got nothing to do with concerns for crimes or whatever its basically a few pov pushers with a dislike of certain people in reality there have been gangs of rapists from Romania, Africa and other places but there is no mention blatant pov 86.178.30.102 (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Nangparbat sock Ankh.Morpork 20:49, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

this sort of information belongs to pages like Human trafficking in the United Kingdom or Slavery in Britain and Ireland. however, user ankhmorpork is hellbent on adding this content not only to this page but others as well (check out his edit history), and thus reveals his agenda. there are several pages about racial groups on wikipedia and none of them contain such content. for example, millions of such crimes are comitted in the usa every year but not one of them are mentioned here . this is blatant pov-pushing, and should be deleted.-- altetendekrabbe 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

These crimes have been commented on by several sources as directly affecting the British Pakistani community. Comment on content, not the editor per WP:NPAAnkh.Morpork 15:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Here I agree with AnkhMorpork, let's keep this civil. But I still don't see why this section belongs on this page. It creates the false impression that single instances of crime somehow reflect upon the larger group, a logic which only seems to apply in the case of this specific group of immigrants. This goes against the NPOV policy of Misplaced Pages. We're not talking about removing all references to the child grooming issue, as it already has its own entry. Even if you can find sources that say that this reflects badly upon Pakistanis in Britain (which is probably true), that doesn't make this a general controversy regarding the continued existence of Pakistani immigrants in Britain, and that is why this section should be removed. Henrik.karlstrom (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The insertion does not refer to "single instances of crime". The impact of these events and their effect on the Pakistani community has been commented upon by sources, including a BBC documentary that investigated the grooming of young girls for sex by Pakistani men in the UK.Ankh.Morpork 17:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ankh on this, there was a massive backlash in the UK after this case. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the paragraph should be rephrased to reflect the backlash, as that is what is pertinent to the main article. Also, I see that on the wiki page for the Rochdale sex trafficking gang, the "concerns" section has been marked with a weasel tag. I don't think this paragraph should be restored until it is rewritten to reflect how this case has caused a massive backlash, and sourced correctly.Henrik.karlstrom (talk) 17:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not just that though is it? "in the recent scandal regarding two Asian men found guilty of grooming young girls for sex, and then abusing them. The local MP, Jack Straw, said that it was “a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men”" Thought Paralysis: The Virtues of Discrimination "Agencies have identified a long term pattern of offending by gangs of men, predominately from the British Pakistani community, who have befriended and abused hundreds of vulnerable girls aged 11 to 16" The Terrorist Next Door Darkness Shines (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think these last changes cut it. The source of the first claim, Erick Stakelbeck, cannot be called neutral by any definition of the word. He is a known anti-Muslim agitator with no formal training in cases of terrorism and Muslim immigration (I believe he used to be a sports reporter) and also subscribes to bizarre views such as fearing that Muslims will attack the U.S. with electro-magnetic pulse weapons. He has also said he thinks George Bush jr. was a coward because he did not declare war on Islam after 9/11. The second source not only contradicts its own title later in the article (most UK child abusers are in fact whites, even if Asians are overrepresented), but the Times article that is referenced is not a news article but an opinion piece. It even states unequivocally "Of course, most British Pakistanis are not in a CSE network." So why does this issue deserve its own subsection on this page? I still think it should be left out completely until someone comes up with a well-sourced argument for why some sex offenders should be connected to the larger population of British Pakistanis (and I suspect that this is the reason we don't see similar entries on the main pages for Belgium or Austria) Henrik.karlstrom (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

::::: Then with your logic every page should mention the crimes of certain people like say american jews? British africans? etc its totally pov to single out one community while ignoring others maybe an article on europeans travelling to thailand for "holidays" with kids and mention what part of europe they come from ? Spacech45 (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)This account has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Nangerbat Darkness Shines (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Could someone explain to me why relevant and sourced information is removed from the article?--Shrike (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

no consensus. take it to the npov-noticeboard and you'll see what happens.-- altetendekrabbe 17:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Who don't agree except of you?And why do you object there are plenty WP:RS that make the connection--Shrike (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

i disagree. that is sufficient. let's take this to dispute resolution.-- altetendekrabbe 17:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

No its not, majority of users agree, you may take it of course to any relevant board if you wish of course--Shrike (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

i am taking this to dispute resolution.-- altetendekrabbe 18:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

What are you thinking? A few news articles on a recent group of crimes are nowhere near sufficient for attributing substantial criminal behaviour to a group of approximately 1.2 million people with a history of four centuries. Remember WP:RECENT — we write to reflect what the majority of sources study throughout time, not to give the latest tidbits of information. Wait until books (from strong publishers, not something like "Karnac Books") or other academic work is published on this subject, and only reintroduce it if those publications attribute a close connection between the crimes and the British Pakistani community as a whole. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

i totally agree with you, nyttend. this highly contentious content was forced into the article by user ankmorpork and user shrike by an edit war. i have started a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard here, .-- altetendekrabbe 13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This is POV-pushing bigotry, end of story. Shit like this doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, and the sooner we get rid of the sort of individuals who think it does, the better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

user ankmorpork should be banned as he is quite disruptive. what is the right venue to address his behavior?-- altetendekrabbe 15:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you concentrate on the disputed content rather than hectoring the editor with whom you are in dispute? On the bare facts he has been no more disruptive than you have been. Leaky Caldron 16:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not call me a bigot andy, statistically Pakistanis carry out a disproportionate amount of sex attacks in the UK, as is reflected in the reliable sources. Which doe snot make adding it to this article bigotry but DUE. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Pakistanis carry out a disproportionate amount of sex attacks in the UK, as is reflected in the reliable sources". Please cite a source that states this. I've not seen any. And BTW, those involved in the Rochdale case weren't 'Pakistanis', they were British citizens on Pakistani descent (apart from the one who was an Afghan refugee). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Try 'Most UK girl child abusers are British Pakistanis' or this.Ankh.Morpork 18:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Now find a reliable source that states that "Pakistanis carry out a disproportionate amount of sex attacks in the UK", rather than one that makes a claim in the headline which it fails to support in the story. And are you really trying to present that source as neutral? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

as noted by user:benjamil, this all boils down to badges of shame. to quote benjamil who sarcastically wrote:

"Couldn't we add similar badges of shame on many articles on national/ethnic groups? Austrians, it seems, have a unique proclivity for private incarcerations with pedophilic/incestuous motives. Belgians are known for pedophilia and Norwegians are mass consumers of sex workers abroad, to the point that the goverment needs to regulate it"

another user noted above: "belgium page does not feature a subsection on the innate pedophilia of belgians". many europeans are involved in the disgusting thai sex trade but there is no subsection about this on the europeans-page either. user:Iloveandrea noted:"Can you imagine the reaction if someone posted something about Jews having a propensity to paedophilia, citing some right-wing Saudi website?" and what if black americans "carry out a disproportionate amount of sex attacks" in the us? are you going to add a subsection about that too? i don't think so. you are now maligning a whole a racial group. shame on you. -- altetendekrabbe 18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

British Austrian bugger, your argument just failed. The fact remains, a disproportionate amount of sex attacks in the UK are carried out by British Pakistanis, apologies to Andy for my missing that earlier Darkness Shines (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The 'fact remains' that you have yet to provide a source for that assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

For fucks sake Andy, you can only look the other way so often. Always problem with the left, everyone is a "bigot" BBC Independent Guardian Darkness Shines (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The Independant article says nothing about 'British Pakistanis' whatsoever. The BBC source (from 2004) says nothing about 'British Pakistanis' in general, or about disproportionate levels of anything. The third source you cite states "Thus no official data exists on the ethnic or religious background of perpetrators of this form of child abuse, and local charities have stated publicly that they do not consider it a race issue. But it is worth noting that, when asked by the Times to collate its recent work according to ethnicity, Engage – based in Blackburn and one of the largest multi-agency organisations working on this issue – found that in the past year that 80% of offenders were white." You are (Personal attack removed) unfit to contribute to Misplaced Pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy - Sources were provided; claims of 'bias' do not invalidate sources. How about this one: "The string of convictions in cities such as Rotherham, Preston, Blackburn, Rochdale and now Derby have more often than not involved Asian men, specifically men of Pakistani origin, and mainly Muslim."Ankh.Morpork 22:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

personal attacks removed per WP:TPO Nobody Ent 18:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

LOL! Why would I want to e-mail you? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Andy - Can you please at least comment on the sources, say something informative such as "you are a bigot because..." and "you lied because the sources in fact state..."Ankh.Morpork 23:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Another source to contemplate, this time, The Times. "child protection experts have identified a repeated pattern of sex offending...most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage...The Times has seen a briefing document by researchers at the UCL Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, which notes that victims are typically white girls aged 13 to 16 and that “most central offenders are Pakistani”". And dare yourself to peek at this Telegraph article.Ankh.Morpork 23:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

How convenient that the Times article is behind a firewall. No chance to see how you've cherry-picked it like you've done with the Telegraph. The article is clearly referring to specific cases, rather than to any broader statistics - and it is only repeating the Times anyway, it isn't another source for anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, well. AnkhMorpork, would you like to provide the entire sentence for "most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage..."? Actually, you'd better, because, from what I've been able to find elsewhere, it seems to continue "..., unlike other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white". This blatant misrepresentation of sources is sufficient grounds alone to call for a topic ban, if not an outright block. I suggest you start thinking about finding another forum for your hate-fuelled POV-pushing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

he should be banned along with sidekick shrike. the whole mess is a farce. ankhmmorpork is disingenuous.-- altetendekrabbe 06:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

the guardian source actually states:

"Anecdotally, as far back as the mid-90s, local agencies have been aware of the participation of ethnic minority men in some cases of serial abuse. But what has *not* emerged is *any* consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry, as is now being suggested."

the claims are dubious. thus, british-pakistani men are *not* disproportionately involved in these crimes. anyway, the issue is still about ankhmorpork adding badges of shame. the second source provided by user:ds claims that young black men are behind a high proportion of gang rapes...now, is ankhmorpork going to add a subsection about this on the page of Black Briton?-- altetendekrabbe 23:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I found the paywalled Times article, it can be read in its entirety here . It explicitly states that indeed street-level grooming in certain parts of Britain is dominated by British Pakistanis, but also that in general grooming is dominated by white Brits. Other areas of the country are plagued with Kurdish, West Caribbean and Bangladeshi grooming gangs. Seems to me that the case for this being a particularly British Pakistani problem is pretty weak. And that's it from me, now I'm off to edit somewhere people can work together to make good articles instead of bickering like this. Henrik.karlstrom (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yup, that confirms it. AnkhMorpork has grossly misrepresented a source here, in order to push an obnoxious POV. I will repeat what I said earlier - that Misplaced Pages would be better off without such 'contributors' entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If the evidence is clear, please raise the matter for a proposed sanction at ANI (maybe as a subsection of the current thread about this article) rather than grumping further about it here. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I have repeatedly raised this in the AN/I thread - but it seems to have been ignored in all the drama over 'civility'. And BTW, Fae, given our recent run-in over Sceptre's dubious efforts to regender Bradley Manning (where incidentally he labelled contributors who disagreed with him as 'bigots'), I'm not sure I'd necessarily consider you a neutral admin, perhaps you could ask another uninvolved admin to keep an eye on this page, just to be on the safe side? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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)

I'm inclined to agree with Andy, I'm afraid. Why does it merit a mention in this article? --John (talk) 17:00, 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)

Categories: