Talk:British Pakistanis

Sectarianism

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

• Emergence of sectarianism in the diaspora: The case of anti-Ahmadiyya discrimination within the United Kingdom-Zayn Qureshi - Utrecht University -03/08/2016 dspace.library.uu.nl PDF link cited by R Wade

• Is anti-Ahmadiyya discrimination an issue in the British Muslim community? Rory Wade September 2019 - cardiff.ac.uk PDF link

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

• Living ‘True’ Islam in Multicultural Britain: An Ahmadi Case Study-Farrah Sheikh 18 May 2018

• We have turned a blind eye to extremism against the British Ahmadi Muslim community By Fiyaz Mughal 2018 July.

• The Perception of Honour Among the British-Pakistani Community in Watford, United Kingdom Zubaida Metlo

• Frontline Pakistan: The Path to Catastrophe Amd the Killing of Benazir Bhutto By Zahid Hussain

• Religion in Political rivalry

Let's form a consensus

Thanks, warm regards and greetings

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for frank and open discussion. Regards and greetings.

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

IMO, you would need to frame this as a claim - not a 'revelation', a few news sources saying something exists is a claim (even the BBC is not 'holy writ'). I haven't had time to look at all the sources, but if this is solely, or mainly about Ahmadi's, then why not say that - 'sectarianism' is very broad and would cover conflicts with any/all religious groups, both within and outside their own community. You can't say 'prevalence' because even the Radio 4 source doesn't say that - it claims hate speech etc exist, not that they are prevalent, in fact that is a difficult thing to quantify anyway. This is a tentative reply, I haven't read all your sources to see how they impact on UK Pakistanis and what exactly they say.Pincrete (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

:) At lighter note, most of the world has not read most of sources in Wikipedia, so should entire Wikipedia be deleted? Or there is some thing called good faith.

:) In a way most things in this world are just 'claims'! including that of some one being a God, Prophet, last prophet or some one being in line of prophet!! These 'claims' give rise to 'differences' -even to level of hate, persecution in quite many cases- which in many cases amounts to sectarianism; in earlier reply you said sectarianism is every where world over but again you want to 'claim' or doesn't wish to agree that it can be among British Muslim. A community which is under enough media and academic lenses. :) But still as of now I am even okay with your 'claim' of using word 'claim'

Other than for purpose of close paraphrasing to avoid 'copy right' I am not saying any thing, only references speak for themselves. BBC Radio 4 used word 'Some' and then there are other sources cited above hence I used word prevalence, but there is no strict copyright on word 'some' so we can say 'BBC Radio4 claims some'

Even 'Sectarian' word is not my own invention but is mentioned in BBC Radio 4 report. If enough instances 'with enough academic references' (emphasis added) do exist people being adviced to preferably not to conduct business with, make friendships and marriages beyond own communities, treat communities of other faiths unequal and their beliefs and cultures inferior, not accept natural differences in sexual orientations but continue with discriminatory behaviors and Sectarianism does not exist! I wish that should have been truth but unfortunately references do not seem to agree; and good news is I am still amicable to use any alternate terminology which Wikipedians can mutually agree :)

The last but not least if facts are inconvenient then many times sources start becoming 'unholy' so I asked you tell which sources and information you find it to be 'holy' I will try to source from there, no issues. Alternatively you or others can write from above mentioned sources and still I have no issues. :)

Thanks :)

Bookku (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

People are happy to delete any criticism on some pretext, but no effort to take encyclopedic note of not so positive aspects Bookku (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Following is link to youtube interview of two research scholars confirming a level of sectarianism. Whether one accepts Youtube as RS or not how would that change the fact of sectarianism very well existed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uiwtRMV7wqc

Bookku (talk) 08:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion is requested @ WP:3O Bookku (talk) 10:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I'm not an expert on British Pakistani people by any means. However, [1] is clearly quite POV pushing. As others have said, a single radio program isn't grounds for claims of prevalence. The second source provided only focuses on single instance in a single newspaper. The first source is slightly better in terms of coverage, but I'm still not convinced. I would keep this section off the article until better sources are found, and the prose will definitely have to be rewritten. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 11:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

@Bookku: I've left a brief note at DRN, but I'm afraid there is no dispute to resolve. The sources which have been provided simply don't support the text you want to include. Please read all the comments here - including the text below, look at the sources again. You simply cannot invent text about British Pakistanis based on comments about Muslims in general, or a single BBC programme about Urdu magazines produced in Pakistan - which incidentally does not even say what you claim it says. The comment about 'hate speech' etc in the BBC programme with which you want to open the text, does not even appear to be about sectarianism or anti-Ahmadi-ism, but about extremism in general - ie anti-western sentiment in Pakistan produced magazines sold in the UK.

The subject of relations between mainstream Muslims and Ahmadi is already covered in Persecution_of_Ahmadis#United_Kingdom and Ahmadiyya_in_the_United_Kingdom#Anti-Ahmadiyya_Campaign - which is where it belongs IMO. There is no valid reason in the sources supplied so far to cover it on this page, nor on any other specific "Muslim community in the UK" pages. You are flogging a dead horse I'm afraid!Pincrete (talk) 09:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

References

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

Except none of the sources actually mentions British Pakistanis, or sectarianism for that matter! The BBC source you used actually specifically says "Many Muslims regard Ahmadis as being outside of the religion, but don’t see this as anything more than just a theological difference. But there is a minority which is actively fuelling sectarian hate" so the opening sentence about hate speech being prevalent is wholly contradicted by the source. The source makes no such claims about Muslims in general, nor Urdu readers, and doesn't even mention British Pakistanis. Apart from the fact of course that a single BBC programme does not establish a general truth about an entire community.

I'm afraid the content isn't supported by the source - apart from the fact that antipathy between Muslims in general, and Ahmadi in paricular can only be laid at the door of British Pakistanis, to the extent that sources highlight that specific connection. We wouldn't expect British Irish or British Italians to be held responsible for the fact that the Catholic Church may not care for Mormons, simply because they are mainly Catho;ics! Content about relations betwwen Muslims and Ahmadis belongs elsewhere. Pincrete (talk) 20:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of this material requires sources that make it clearer that it's about British Pakistanis. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Mirpuri

Greetings,

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

Any ways coming to content dispute

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

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

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

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

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

References

useful refs list 2021

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

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

• Jilani, Sarah. "COMING OUT." TLS. Times Literary Supplement, no. 6152, 26 Feb. 2021, p. 24. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A653469855/AONE?u=anon~6aaa52be&sid=googleScholar&xid=4ee04d8d. Accessed 7 Dec. 2021.

• Katharine Charsley & Marta Bolognani (2021) Marrying ‘in’/marrying ‘out’? Blurred boundaries in British Pakistani marriage choices, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 47:2, 361-378, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2019.1625131

• Chapter 7 (Page 121-150): Healing, Agency, and Life Crisis Among British Pakistani Ruqya Patients ~ Andreas Gadeberg Nielsen - Islam, Migration and Jinn: Spiritual Medicine in Muslim Health Management. Germany, Springer International Publishing, 2021. (Preview available on Google books)
• Postcolonial Islam in My Son the Fanatic: From Deobandi Revivalism to the Secular Transposition of the Sufi Imaginary
• https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-the-ordeal-of-abandoned-wives-left-behind-by-uk-families/a-58177420
• https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/forced-marriage-unit-statistics-2020/forced-marriage-unit-statistics-2020
  • https://www.desiblitz.com/content/are-british-pakistani-girls-free-from-patriarchy

References

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

Genetics study refs

• Genetic history of British Pakistanis mapped for first time University of Leeds 10 December 2021

• • British Pakistani genomics study illustrates need for diversity By Nuala Moran Dec. 28, 2021 Bio World

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

2022

• Why Claiming British Identity Is Complicated ~ by Aina J. Khan, Mohsin Zaidi, Miriam Walker-Khan Feb. 3, 2022

• Anti-Semitism is rife in the British-Pakistani community ~ by Jake Wallis Simons 18 January 2022
• AMIN, H., & MAJOTHI, A. (2022). The Ahl-e-Hadith: From British India to Britain. Modern Asian Studies, 56(1), 176-206. doi:10.1017/S0026749X21000093
• Nash, Patrick S.. British Islam and English Law: A Classical Pluralist Perspective. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press. 2022

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

STREET GROOMING

In the contemporary issues section, there needs to be some reference to the street grooming issue

https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/news/17353046.councillor-call-work-identify-disproportionately-high-number-grooming-suspects-pakistani-community/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MqrO6p2Woc

https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/20/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-about-grooming-gangs/

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/revealed-disproportionately-high-numbers-pakistani-8439716

https://www.nationalheraldindia.com/international/uk-court-jails-20-men-mostly-pakistanis-for-sexual-abuse-of-teenage-girls

ROC7 (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems like your alternate account Koppite added it and it seems you are desperate to push a grooming narrative to the Pakistani/Asian community maybe you should discuss with others apart from yourself ? 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 07:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Koppite1 Personally I am inclusivist and would prefer to have content with credible sources. Still would like to share a friendly advice.

I do not know specific rules on false accusations still Same time deleting talk page messages can be problematic many times.

Besides avoid edit war because either of the side does not get more than 2 chances and most likely to get blocked if rule not followed.

Last but not least try to use academic studies from Google scholar might give better weightage to the aspiring content.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 08:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Restored the talk page as not sure of rules re deletion. Will ignore the unfounded accusation re account...for now. Koppite1 (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Koppite as come with an obvious agenda to downplay social issues pertaining to Black/Carribean folks and over play and smear other communities in particular South Asians. It is therefore imperative to counter and challenge the sources which are mostly tabloids and newspapers. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 08:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Prima facie there likely to be breach of WP:3RR from edit warriors can WP:3RR read and take before admin board if any one feel so.

By the way this topic has been handled previously can be found in archives. Better both of you study previous arguments and add new credible sources if any and present the case than personalizing.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:49, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Comparing to similar other pages, for instance, Bangladesh, there is mention of the issue regarding gangs, issues that affect the community. Another example is Albanians--there's mention of organised crime affecting their community. In the same vain, Street grooming is a contemporary issue that is affecting the Pakistani community, and is therefore a valid topic to include in the social issues section. Therefore, i'm inclined to reinstate the section.Koppite1 (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Terrorism

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

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

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