Talk:Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. Parts of this page are related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pakistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religion Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

I undid your contribution due to

1. WP:TOI - generally unreliable, plus help desk opinion
2. https://www.ucanews.com/about in their about reads - The Union of Catholic Asian News (UCA News, UCAN) is the leading independent Catholic media service from Asia. - not reliable in religion related matter
3. https://www.voiceofsindh.com.pk/about-vos/ in their about it read - Voice of Sindh is an initiative designed to uncover the untold stories of Sindh. It aims to preserve and promote the diverse culture, heritage, history and traditions that make Sindh the bastion of pluralism and progress. - Not even a reliable source, it seems to be a WP:SPS, so if you need to restore your edit you have to provide a WP:RS —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable because TOI is quoting an actual Hindu organisation in Pakistan. While WP:TOI may be slanted towards the Indian government it is far from being unreliable especially when it quotes an organisation. I'd furthermore appreciate it if you didn't spread your edit warring to this page when we're discussing the very same issue over at Talk:2001–2002 India–Pakistan standoff. The second source is unreliable because it's Catholic? There are other Christian organisations making the opposing claim so in the interests of NPOV, opposing views should also be included and they will be. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't accept WP:TOI, it is listed so for a reason, help desk suggestion also back up that argument! —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes second source is unacceptable too because the matter here related to religion. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We can accept TOI. It isn't listed as wholly unreliable or reliable. Additionally, it isn't TOI making the claim. It's a Hindu organisation making the claim that they're quoting. The second source is also acceptable because the issue pertains to religion. It would also violate NPOV not to have it in there, so it must be included. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to override the decision made by administrators after years of discussion and undermining opinion by Helpdesk, do you think that is right?? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage you to read WP:TOI again and it's corresponding discussion archives. You can't seem to differentiate between claims being made TOI itself versus the actual organisations it is directly quoting word for word. TOI can indeed be used if it quoting other organisations. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, if it's tagged as unreliable, advised to not cite here, then you can't cite that here. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Otherwise it would be in red. It clearly says "The Times of India is considered to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable. It tends to have a bias in favor of the Indian government". It isn't marked as unreliable which means it can be used under particular circumstances. NarSakSasLee (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will move Draft:Forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan to mainspace and have this article merged to the former. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You or anyone cannot move as you wish. As the sources mention, that's how the article name should be. You can move this article directly if you find the name is not right. Create your own draft then merge this to your draft? Why your draft will be more important than this article? This article was created first, so your draft should be merged here. Don't remove any sourced lines to whitewash the negative content. --Knight Skywalker (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NarSakSasLee, Rasnaboy, Banksboomer, Quebec99, Itcouldbepossible, this, this and this can be used to add sentences to this article but I am not sure if they are reliable sources, so please add sentences from those, if they are reliable sources. Thanks!-2405:204:568C:AD1B:4D47:F8D7:5B49:7030 (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Hindu girl resisting kidnap bid shot dead in Rohri, By Imdad Soomro & Imtiaz Hussain, The News International March 23, 2022

• Sukkur man arrested for shooting dead young Hindu woman geo.tv Mar 23 2022

• Hindu girl shot dead over ‘marriage refusal The Express Tribune March 22, 2022

• Another minor Christian girl faces forced faith conversion August 17, 2022

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 07:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 and Bookku: This has been reverted for copyright violation. I thought I had paraphrased it enough but it may not have been so, so please paraphrase and add it. I am also disturbed by the removal of sourced content and other edits of @Googleguy007: on 8 May and 11 May 2023 - please go through the same and restore what is justified.-1Firang (talk) 20:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added the words from the source almost verbatim.

As for Googleguy007's removals, each and every one was accompanied by a valid justification, mostly removing redundant information already stated, and making the lead section comply with WP:LEAD. If there is any edit in particular that you want restored, post the diff and we can discuss it. @Googleguy007: FYI. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This, removed sourced content - some incidents. I will not restore it myself but I think I can ask more experienced editors to do so.-1Firang (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This and this were removed from the lede, but I think it can be incorporated into the body - again I will wait for someone more experienced to do so.-1Firang (talk) 20:35, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What he did on 11 May 2023 should be explained by him only. You and I have pinged him and I think he will respond - I will wait. Good night.-1Firang (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In general you can see my explanations in my edit summaries. The lede was much too long and filled with restatements of the same general idea. I think you might have the idea that content being sourced means it’s appropriate for an article, but that isn’t true. I removed a good amount of the “incidents” section because, even assuming that such a section is valid to begin with, it was way too overcrowded, I removed others for being much too insignificant to be covered (I will note that I personally don’t think an “incidents” section beyond a few legitimately notable incidents is warranted.) Googleguy007 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I’m pretty sure you have chastised before for canvassing, please refrain from pinging editors you believe will agree with you in order to help you win an argument. Googleguy007 (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASSING says In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. Drawing the attention of editors who have previously edited the page or taken part of the discussions is perfectly acceptable. You are welcome to do the same if you need to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing also says The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. given that he didnt mention Andy, Iskander, Tousif, or even myself seems to imply that he wasnt complying with canvassing. And given that you have only made five relatively minor copyedits here, and Bookku hasnt edited here at all, it doesnt seem that he was simply mentioning potentially interested editors of this article. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Sending notices" is a different thing. Pinging editors on the article page is a public activity. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been told that it is allowed to ping all the editors involved - it doesn't count as canvassing. I believe you can ping more editors than me by seeing who edited this article before (I have developed cold feet and will not do so).-1Firang (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine, I dont intend to ping any editors unless the situation on this page evolves drastically. Googleguy007 (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Googleguy007: Can you restore this edit, as it removed sourced content about some incidents? At least start an RfC whether it should be restored!-1Firang (talk) 10:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who made the edit I definitely won’t revert it (and you’ve already had it explained to you why “it’s sourced” isn’t a valid reason).

However once I get back to my computer from the place I’m going to right now I’ll create an RFC (in roughly 4 hours) Googleguy007 (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll be looking forward to that!-1Firang (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Googleguy007: I see that 5hours have passed since you promised to start the RfC! Please start it.-1Firang (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been making some edits on breaks while volunteering at a garden, I’m sorry to keep you waiting but I don’t want to start an RFC while I’m still working, feel free to create one on your own if you like, but don’t feel pressured to. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for delaying this again, but even once I get to my computer, given the current dispute resolution between me and kautilya, and the fact that I’m going to be opening a sockpuppet investigation I may not be able to get the RFC up and running as soon as I would like. I sincerely apologize to @1Firang as you have been exceedingly patient. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added a line. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Forced conversion and (Hindu) women’s agency in Sindh" in Pakistan: Parallel Narratives of the Nation-State, eds. Jürgen Schaflechner, Christina Oesterheld, and Ayesha Asif. Karachi: Oxford University Press. 2020
• "Thrust into Heaven", dir. Jürgen Schaflechner.

TrangaBellam (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. Needs further expansion in the article, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, the social pressures to convert should (imo) be a much larger focus. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am reading Ghazal Asif Farrukhi's award-winning dissertation, scheduled to be in print next year, and there is quite much nuance to the conversions. I will expand the article, probably c. July. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. By “much larger focus” I don’t mean focusing on it over or to the detriment of focusing on conversions coerced through force, I simply mean expanding on the coverage of societally coerced conversions. (I assume everyone was clear on that but in such a contentious space it’s better to be safe than have someone assume I want to minimize the focus on threats of force) Googleguy007 (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @TrangaBellam, AndyTheGrump, Kautilya3, and Googleguy007: This may help with that (expanding on the same).-1Firang (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have full-protected the article to stop the incipient edit-warring between two experienced editors, which was joined in by an obvious throwaway troll account (since blocked). If @Kautilya3 and Googleguy007: can commit to settling the dispute through discussion/WP:DR while maintaining the status-quo, I can reduce the protection level to semi so that other unconnected improvements to the article can continue. PS: Please see WP:WRONGVERSION before complaining about the current version of the article. Abecedare (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: (after ec) On further review, I have undone the last edit by Phloxxara in the edit-war, and further (on my own initiative) removed another para from the protected article, since the version I had originally protected contained the names of several alleged victims (including children), which in my view raised clear WP:BLP concerns. My post-protection edits should not be taken as an endorsement of the now current version] and some of the deleted content may well be re-inserted once the discussion has concluded.

If there is any other content in the article that raises plausible BLP concerns, please bring it to my (or any other admin's) attention and it may be removed pending discussion. And, as usual, please let me know of any objections to my admin actions, which can, if needed, be reviewed at WP:AN. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to discuss our conflict over this article with @Kautilya3 in a civilized manner, however given that my reasons for all of my edits are given in the edit reasons I would like to ask that we (at least in the beginning) focus primarily on kautilyas issues with my edits. I would also like to make it clear that I will be opening a SPI on the connection between kautilya and phloxxara, but would prefer not to let that influence the discussion. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid your claims are nonsense. You say The changes I made advanced NPOV and improved grammar, readability, and phrasing. If you have issues with changes I made to an article you are otherwise uninvolved with take it to talk. But the edit shows 14,000 bytes of text removed. This is clearly not "grammar, readability and phrasing" issue? Your idea of NPOV is to change "under-age girls" to "girls" and then to "people"? People? What is the lead image saying? What are the RS saying? Please state what was non-NPOV about the content you have removed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To address your more immediate issues. I explained why I changed under-aged girls to girls in my edit summary. Underage is heavily implied in the use of “girls” over “women” and otherwise is not very important outside of heightening a potential emotional response. I changed “girls” to “people” as, although the article generally has more of a focus on girls, as you should know the article doesn’t solely focus on girls, it also addresses broader coercion. I removed a lot of the parts of “Notable Incidents” as they were minor, non-notable, and other reasons best summarized here. And, as an experienced editor you should know that the lead image doesn’t influence the article, it’s the other way around. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And to address your claims that I wasn’t making phrasing changes or copyedits, here is the version of part of the text from my edits: According to some child protection activists, the forced conversion of young girls is part of a moneymaking scheme involving corrupt public and religious figures who allow underaged girls to be converted to islam and married to older men in exchange for money and from your reversion: According to the Child Protection activists, these forced conversions money-making network which involves Islamic clerics who solemnize the marriages, magistrates who legalize the unions and corrupt local police who aid the culprits by refusing to investigate or sabotaging investigations. (for clarity, that was the start of the section). Do I need to explain in depth how my version is an improvement?Googleguy007 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute! Until 8 May, this article was called "Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan". You changed it on that day to "Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan" claiming that the old title was "wordy". Now you are claiming the article was never about girls, but about "people"?

On the day you changed the title, there were 74 citations in the article. Today, there are only 21. What happened to the rest? Did you decide that the sources themselves didn't fit your idea of "NPOV"?

On that day, the lead also said that 1,000 girls every year were being forcibly converted to Islam. What happened to that fact? I don't see it anywhere in the article. That is also not "NPOV" for you? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pages title doesn’t really matter to me, but I think the way it is is better. If you read the article you can see the discussion of people who aren’t girls. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is "better" supposed to mean? Scrubbing essential information is in no way "better". The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide accurate and reliable information, not to satisfy your mytical idea of "better".

If there are some non-girl issues mentioned in the article, they can be removed. The article is not about them. You have unilaterally changed the title and scope of the article, without any discussion or obtaining WP:CONSENSUS for your unilateral changes. And you edit-warred, refusing to see CONSENSUS. Is there anything you wish to say about this? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You hit 3rr before I would advise against accusations of edit warring. You are to contest the scope and title of the article as it is be my guest, but imho (and it seems in the opinions of others (also known as rough consensus)) that this title and scope is better, honestly I find it interesting to see someone making an argument that article titles should be prescriptive instead of descriptive, as that certainly seems to be a minority view. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the diff. The 1,000 gils per year fact was mentioned 7 times in the original version, each mention supported by a reliable source. You removed each and every one of them. Why? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special:MobileDiff/1154593709 this link shows that I didn’t make the edit you are accusing me of. If you had gone through the articles revision history you would have seen that I wasn’t the one to remove the 1000 girls number in the lede, and that I actually purposefully left it in, and that I only changed the phrase “girls” to “people” when it was simply referring to a general trend in Pakistan. The reason there are less references is primarily the amount of restatements of information that I trimmed and the vast list of incidents I trimmed. This accusation has led me to believe that you aren’t entirely informed as to the actual edits I made. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should have included “and the new title better represents the article” in my edit summary, sorry. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I support the renaming of "Forced conversion of minority girls in Pakistan" to "Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan" as it covers more than just girls. However, I am pissed with the removal of sourced content by Googleguy007.-1Firang (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimately, and I mean this without a single drop of sarcasm. I want to thank you for being so civil and polite with your opinions, both in this article and others in the topic space. I don’t agree with your opinions about the articles and what constitutes NPOV but I can at least say that I seriously respect you as an editor, and see you growing into a valuable member of the project. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, you respect him now just because he sided with you on something. You never paid attention to anything he said earlier. So what exactly is said about other people (other than girls) that is so important for this article? This question is now for both of you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. I do respect the way he has behaved politely, civilly, and generally in good faith, I guarantee you we disagree about alot more than we agree on, and agreeing on one thing isn’t enough to make me respect someone.
2. The societal pressures to convert are a decent part of the article, this leads me to think that you may have only skimmed the article and didnt like a few of my difs you clicked.
3. I have responded to every criticism you have made of my edits in a manner you couldn’t respond to, given that your getting caught up in whether it was proper for me to change “girls” to “people” and abandoning all of your previous issues I really don’t think you have much of a case here. You also purposefully sandbagged me, seemingly attempting to discredit my NPOV edits by claiming that me moving “girls” to “people” to better reflect the article was an NPOVio
4. Im not going to drop the fact that you accused me of edits I didn’t make, I think we have a WP:CIR issue in regards to your knowledge of this page.

Googleguy007 (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid no. You are stone-walling. You have basically ransacked the article and removed everything of substance as described in RS. You are making a show of having responded to queries with nonsense like "this is better". A Wikipedia article summarises what the reliable sources say, not what its editors claim is "better". Here is a reseach report published by researchers from University of Birmingham, the citation [16] of the present version. What does it say? What is its first sentence? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to this and this which mentioned others but it has been removed now. More importantly, I support the page move/renaming as more forced religious conversions unrelated to girls can be added.-1Firang (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not raising any actual complaints, it seems that you just disagree with the fact that the article was edited at all. The first line of the article you linked says women and girls supporting my underage girls -> girls edit you complained about.

And for the thousandth time I did not remove the 1000 girls claim from the first sentence. I have told you this many times. I told you this in the comment you responded to. To address your other complaint, the article as it stands does represent RS, unless you are trying to claim that because of the first line of that research paper the articles title and scope should be strictly defined to girls, which is, in my opinion ludicrous. If you think I am stonewalling please reply to this with a (separate from your main response if you like) paragraph detailing exactly what you want me to address. Googleguy007 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You removed 6 mentions of the fact and left the single mention in the first sentence only. Then TrangaBellam removed that mention, and you are happy that you can push all the blame to him. How convenient! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to understand the edit-war w/o much success. Should not have meddled, prolly. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I want to make it clear that I am not trying to “blame you” or pull you into this, I think you made a good edit, and it just shows the other users lack of knowledge as to the page they were reverting that they accused me of it. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:05, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that all those 7 mentions (including what TrangaBellam removed) be restored.-1Firang (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First. I’m not trying to “blame them” for anything, I’m showing that you accused me of edits I didn’t make.

Second. Please actually link to the actual difs you are concerned about, it’s impossible to dig through that massive dif.

Third. IIRC I removed those references to “1000 girls” as they were redundant.

Fourth. Would you please stop playing this game where you ignore my response to your claims and move on to something else, at this point it seems to me that you don’t have any individual issues you particularly care about, you just don’t like the general way the article the article has been edited, and I would appreciate it if you would state thay.

Googleguy007 (talk) 22:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They were not exactly redundant. They were mentioning various reports corroborating the information. It would have been fine to consolidate them in some fashion. But the only mention you left in was also removed, you showed no concern whatsoever. Instead you went changed "girls" into "people", in total violation of what the RS have said (like the Birmigham report I cited above). The abduction and forced conversioin + marriage of single girls and women is the central issue of this page! That fact is totally beyond your comprehension, assuming comprehension is your real issue. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

Let us look at another issue. You removed this passage claiming "serious BLP issues". Abdul Haq (politician) is a public figure, with his own biography page. "Mian Mitho" or "Mian Mithu", his nick name, has some 50,000 mentions on the web. Pir Ayub Jan Sarhandi has some 26,000 mentions. The information is sourced to perfectly good secondary sources. So, what exactly is the BLP issue here? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1. The redundant info didn’t need to be included more than once, It would have been good of me to move the information lower into the article when it was removed (perhaps into incidents), but it’s no way a violation of of RS. And whether or not the central issue is focused on girls is irrelevant, the lede should summarize the entire article, which blatantly does not only apply to girls.
2. BLP absolutely applies to public figures, and content related to them needs to be scrutinized carefully, flippantly including a whole section about them running a child sex trafficking is improper, even if you throw in an “allegedly”

Googleguy007 (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what WP:BLP says. BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. Nobody is giving you the authority to "scrutinize carefully", thank God! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not arguing the specific wording of policies with you, bring it up with the administrator who reverted the article based on BLP issues. It seems to me at this point you don’t have any specific issues with the actual content/policy of the edits I made, you just prefer the old version of the article and I would appreciate you saying that. Googleguy007 (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Googleguy007, @Kautilya3: is objecting to your removal of sourced content, not righting great wrongs.-1Firang (talk) 04:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When this article gets unprotected, someone should restore whatever Googleguy007 removed if it conforms to the rules. If the lead is going to become too long due to that, please create a new section and add it there.-1Firang (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request the admins to topic ban Googleguy007 for his biased editing and unprotect this article so that it can be edited.-1Firang (talk) 04:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do that you should go to ANI, thats where you can raise your issues with the admins. Googleguy007 (talk) 04:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not crazy about it. I hope you can stop removing sourced content, then nobody will take you to ANI.-1Firang (talk) 05:09, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be completely honest, as long as im editing wikipedia ill remove content that is sourced if I think the content should be removed, and I dont think that will ever be widely controversial. I would also like to take a moment to clear something up; content being sourced is only grounds for its inclusion as so far as it is not grounds for its exclusion, content that is sourced is held to the exact same standards for NPOV, notability, relevance, and even just whether or not they improve the encyclopedia. Googleguy007 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced isnt a magic word. Youve had the "removal of sourced content" explained to you multiple times from multiple editors explaining multiple reasons for its removal. Googleguy007 (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing sourced content; please read WP:IDONTLIKEIT before you do so again.-1Firang (talk) 05:16, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it seems to me that Idontlikeit only applies here in a loosest possible "dont remove things if you dont like them" interpretation. Googleguy007 (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This passage which cited reliable sources has been removed. It stated, "Islamic institutions and clerics like Abdul Haq (Mitthu Mian) (politician and caretaker of Bharchundi Shareef Dargah) and Pir Ayub Jan Sirhindi (caretaker of Dargah pir sarhandi) are allegedly involved in these forced conversions and are known to have support from the ruling political parties of Sindh.^[1][2][3][4]". Please revert it. 1Firang (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding allegations about named individuals See WP:BLP. Such content would need very strong sourcing (which from a quick look isn't really provided), and evidence that such allegations had been widely discussed. And what the heck is "Islamic institutions and clerics like [the named individuals]..." supposed to mean anyway? This is clear POV-pushing in that it implies, without sourcing, that other 'institutions and clerics' might be involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by Kautilya3 is what prompted me to make this edit request.-1Firang (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the edit request should not have been made at all. "Edit requests to fully protected pages should only be used for edits that are either uncontroversial or supported by consensus". Don't make edit requests to try to bypass discussions that are taking place elsewhere on the page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At the end of the first sentence, please remove the erroneous comma. Thank you! CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 03:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks for catching that. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:01, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The lead paragraph refers to the "commodification" of women. This is a paraphrase from the source, which refers to "ways in which non-Muslim women are commodified".

I am wondering if the author of the source meant "commoditized". It would make more sense. "Commodification" has a very different meaning from "commoditization". Commodification is the assignment of a commercial value to something formerly worthless. This makes no sense for this topic. Commoditization means to transform something into a commodity, which seems to fit better with the context of the topic.

We shoudn't just parrot what a source says if the source makes a mistake. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So please change it. It is locked for editing and only admins can edit it now!-1Firang (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. [2][3] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: No, that isn't fine, as your links clearly demonstrate "commodification" is the wrong word. There is no context about commercial value being assigned to women, or women being bought and sold. That is different from "commoditization".

@1Firang: If you're a new editor, you should be aware that when an article is protected so that only administrators can edit it, that doesn't mean administrators can just make any edit they want, just because they can. The article is protected to encourage consensus building on the talk page. Administrators aren't exempt from this. That is why I brought up this point on the talk page. Otherwise, yes, I would have simply made the change, noting in the edit summary that the author of the source failed to use proper English terms. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anachronist: The second dictionary meaning that AndyTheGrump posted a link to mentions "commoditization/commoditisation" as just another word for, "commodification". Did you read it?-1Firang (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. The first link supports my assertion, and the second link is a trivial mention deep down on a page of an obscure dictionary doesn't establish proper usage. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare given that Kautilya has not edited here in about three days, and I am willing to commit to the BRD cycle for at least 60 days (and I would hope that @Kautilya3 would be willing to agree to the same) I was hoping you could lower the protection on this article to allow it to return to a (somewhat) normal editing state. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reduced the protection level to ECP and also placed the page under the consensus required restriction, i.e any changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. I advise all editors to proceed with caution because any attempts to game the restrictions to force through one's preferred version, to stonewall or go get others blocked is likely to lead to sanctions. Finally, be mindful of WP:BLP (particularly, the sourcing and privacy sections). Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Googleguy007, your "commitment to the BRD" makes no sense. You have ransacked the page in two days, and edit-warred when those edits were reverted. Until you reinstate the reverted version, I am afraid no cooperation with you is possible. You do not have COSENSUS for those edits. So please revert them. Over and out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, you don't have a personal veto on content. If you chose not to engage in discussion, that is your choice. Meanwhile, those prepared to do so can seek consensus without you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry you feel that way. I acknowledge that I edit warred (as did you) and that I behaved incivily, but I’m willing to engage in good faith and polite discussion now, enforced by my commitment to BRD. I also object to your characterization of me “ransacking” the article, at the very least I made a lot of (hopefully) uncontroversial edits to grammar and phrasing, and I took the lede from overstuffed to normal size, I did make some editorial decisions you don’t agree with, but I don’t think that is “ransacking”. I won’t beg you to stay, and I will continue editing and discussing in your absence. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Googleguy007: You have to restore whatever you removed and if the lead has to be shortened, please put that matter in another section - only then can consensus be achieved (even if Kautilya3 is busy now, I am sure he will return to object again and you will have to start all over again if you don't comply).-1Firang (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not, in fact, “have to restore whatever I removed@”. Especially not the “list of incidents” which currently has three opposes to one support. As AndyTheGrump said to kautilya, you do not have a veto on this articles content. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking of any veto. You removed a lot of sentences and passages without consensus and you ought to restore it on your own to avoid any future edit war.-1Firang (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has never been a Wikipedia requirement that prior consensus be obtained for edits. If the only argument for restoration of content is that such consensus wasn't obtained before it was removed, it would be most unwise to attempt to edit-war it back into the article. Content needs to be discussed on its merits. Each item separately, if necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD puts the onus for obtaining consensus on those that want to make edits. Reverting is the way other editors reject edits they disagree with. After reverting, a discussion is supposed to follow. Having rejected the process and having bulldozed your edits, claiming to "commit to BRD" is meaningless. Reinstate the original version. Then we can discuss your concerns. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your refusal to discuss the disputed content on its own merits is noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you would be willing to discuss what you disagree with about my edits im sure we could find consensus, however I hesitate to revert a series of major positive changes to the article based on reasoning that (at this point) seems to boil down to "I dont like it". Googleguy007 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And for clarity, committing to BRD is something im doing as an act of good faith, you seem to believe that it is something I am deeply personally dedicated to, and that you can blackmail me by not engaging in discussion. You cannot, I would shed no tears over engaging in discussion solely with editors like Andy. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People also need to take into consideration what Abecedare wrote above: be mindful of WP:BLP (particularly, the sourcing and privacy sections). It is never legitimate to revert to content violating WP:BLP policy. And if there is a dispute over whether the policy is actually violated, we need to arrive at a consensus that it isn't (or get more input from uninvolved contributors to arrive at such consensus) before restoring. Such consensus can only be obtained by discussing specifics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I note that some of the content is directly copy-pasted from the source cited, in violation of copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them were copyvios. Googleguy007 can start by restoring this passage which cited reliable sources - it stated, "Islamic institutions and clerics like Abdul Haq (Mitthu Mian) (politician and caretaker of Bharchundi Shareef Dargah) and Pir Ayub Jan Sirhindi (caretaker of Dargah pir sarhandi) are allegedly involved in these forced conversions and are known to have support from the ruling political parties of Sindh.^[1][2][3][4]. The other sentences/passages can be paraphrased and added back.-1Firang (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, Id appreciate you not treating me like some child who needs to make amends Googleguy can start by restoring this passage is incredibly condescending. And that text is a quite serious BLP issue, to include such serious allegations there should generally be a compelling reason for its inclusion (for example, including said text on its subjects articles would likely be fine, as it seems to be a relatively major part of discussion and coverage surrounding him, but there really isnt any compelling reason to include it here, all it does is restate the claim that "muslims are converting non muslims" and specify a muslim supposedly doing the conversion.) Googleguy007 (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can leave out names then.-1Firang (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can be "Islamic institutions and clerics like the caretaker of Bharchundi Shareef Dargah and the caretaker of Dargah pir sarhandi are allegedly involved in these forced conversions and are known to have support from the ruling political parties of Sindh.-1Firang (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that still has some BLP issues even without naming names. But aside from that, I don’t see why the content should be included. To me it just looks like restating the fact that forced conversions are taking place. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Omitting names while providing a description which leaves the individual concerned easily identifiable doesn't even remotely address the concerns raised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Googleguy007: We are objecting to your removal of sourced content. Did you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT fully?-1Firang (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: It can then be, "Islamic institutions and clerics are allegedly involved in these forced conversions and are known to have support from the ruling political parties of Sindh."-1Firang (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the information you care about in this passage is that the ruling parties of sindh allegedly support forced conversion. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that those clerics have their support.-1Firang (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are too old to state what the ruling parties of Sindh currently support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can then be, "Islamic institutions and clerics are allegedly involved in these forced conversions."-1Firang (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. We aren't going to cite vague statements to old sources just so you can shoehorn in your preferred content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but saying that directly after talking about them engaging in forced conversions heavily implies that they support the conversions. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, that’s an essay, not a policy, essays are important but you shouldn’t cite them like policies. Content should be notable and relevant/important for the article. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it says:-

• Keep. Baz supporters want to delete it because it makes Baz look bad. – 1Firang (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What point are you trying to make here? Googleguy007 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to say that what you removed should be paraphrased and restored as per the rules (taking care of BLP and other issues).-1Firang (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are absolutely no 'rules' that require specific content to be restored. None at all. Not a policy. Not a guideline. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. None. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn’t have any “rules” saying that. You are citing a single, unexpanded on, example from an essay. And honestly some of those items in the IDONTLIKEIT list seem like they should be removed. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So now you want to remove some of the rules in WP:IDONTLIKEIT?-1Firang (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. There are no “rules” in IDONTLIKEIT, IDONTLIKEIT is an essay, that means it’s just the opinions of some editors, not a rule. I want to remove one of the ~examples~ in the essay (particularly the one about necessity, as that isn’t an issue of liking) Googleguy007 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next you will object to the rules of WP:CONSENSUS which says, "reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"!-1Firang (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: and I want you to restore what you removed, after editing the copyvios and BLPvios.-1Firang (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I showed you an example above by editing out the names of the clerics.-1Firang (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I talked with you about this already. The content without the names of the clerics is still unnecessary. Im happy to have a discussion with you, but it doesnt seem like you have an interest in that. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't just 'unnecessary', it would sitll constitute a violation of WP:BLP policy. Canvassing another contributor to violate such policy really isn't a good look, 1Firang. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged Kautilya3 because you two are unwilling to build consensus by restoring the sourced content (taking care of the copyvios and BLPvios).-1Firang (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand what building consensus is? We come to consensus on changes by discussing them on the talk page, and me and AndyTheGrump dont support those changes. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is how to achieve consensus regarding the disputed content:

(a) Discuss each item individually.

(b) Discuss the sourcing of the item. Is the source appropriate, and reliable?

(c) Discuss the proposed text. Does it fairly represent what the source says?

(d) Discuss whether the item adds anything of significance to what is written elsewhere in the article. Is it informative? Is it balanced? Has it been selected to unduly promote a particular perspective?

These are the discussions we need to be having. Anyone not willing to participate in such a manner should find something else to do. Preferably not on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. What a mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare, TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, AndytheGrump, and Googleguy007: Copy editing and restoring this passage which cited reliable sources seems fine - it stated, "Islamic institutions and clerics like Abdul Haq (Mitthu Mian) (politician and caretaker of Bharchundi Shareef Dargah) and Pir Ayub Jan Sirhindi (caretaker of Dargah pir sarhandi) are allegedly involved in these forced conversions and are known to have support from the ruling political parties of Sindh.", which can be copy edited to state, "Islamic institutions and clerics are allegedly involved in these forced conversions.^[1][2][3][4]".-1Firang (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support adding the edited version. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These can also be restored:-

"According to the Pakistan Hindu Council religious persecution, especially forced conversions, remains the foremost reason for migration of Hindus from Pakistan. This practice is being reported increasingly in the districts of Tharparkar, Umerkot and Mirpur Khas in Sindh.^[1]"

"According to the Child Protection activists, these forced conversions money-making network which involves Islamic clerics who solemnize the marriages, magistrates who legalize the unions and corrupt local police who aid the culprits by refusing to investigate or sabotaging investigations. According to the Child Protection activist Jibran Nasir, these forced conversions are part of a mafia that preys on vulnerable minority girls for older men with pedophilia urges.^[2] The Pakistan Muslim League politician Haresh Chopra has stated that abduction and forced conversion of Hindus and Sikhs girls is a business in Pakistan done by organized gangs of mullahs and terrorists.^[3]"

"A survey conducted by the Pakistan Hindu Seva welfare Trust found that majority of the scheduled caste Hindu families doesn't send their girl children to schools due to the fear of forced conversion.^[4] According to the, Ramesh Kumar Vankwani, member of National Assembly of Pakistan, around 5,000 Hindus are migrating from Pakistan to India every year and the forced conversions are one of the major reasons behind this.^[5] According to the Pakistan Hindu Council, forced conversions is the foremost reason for the declining population of Hindus in Pakistan.^[6] Hindus in Sindh live in fear, due to forced marriage of Hindu girls to Muslim men.^[7] Many Pakistani Hindus migrate to India due to forced conversions.^[8]"

Copy edited this, "In July, 2021 over 60 Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam in Mirpur Khas District and Mithi areas of Sindh.^[9]"

What is wrong with this ?-1Firang (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was the latest incident we had and should be restored.-1Firang (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This should be restored to show that other people are also victims (not just girls)-1Firang (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t oppose that in concept, but it still feels relatively trivial, I would prefer a more high profile example. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD puts the onus on you to find something more extraordinary, until then you must restore it.-1Firang (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)ry[reply]

BRD does not, in fact, do that. I would appreciate it if you were willing to collaborate on this page, you seem to be engaging with a hostile mindset and with a specific goal, which is very disheartening. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be some glitches when using a mobile to post here. It should have been WP:BURDEN (the burden is yours).-1Firang (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burden applies to sourcing claims, but I do understand the point you are making (If I want a higher profile example I should find one). However I was saying that I wouldnt want to add a small scale example. There is no reason that I have to add the content while I wait to find a more notable example. I believe that an example of non-violently coerced and non-female coercion would be a benefit to the article, but only if they are higher profile. Googleguy007 (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that it’s putting an irrelevant local issue into a list of notable incidents. The other text you want readded wasn’t removed, only edited. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify what text you mean with a diff.-1Firang (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This and this. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This gives an alarming age and ought to be at least in the body.-1Firang (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This can be in the body if not in the lead - it is important because it gives a huge figure!-1Firang (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would support adding the figure to incidents, and even potentially readding it to the lede. My primary issue with it was the gross excessive restatement of the number. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After your removals, that figure disappeared completely; please restore it.

-1Firang (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is collaborative. You can’t just say “you must restore this”, explain where it should be restored, how, why. Just stating that you want the information to be in the article isn’t enough. I would greatly appreciate it if you could start engaging as a collaborator here. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can restore and put it anywhere other than the lead since you claim the lead will otherwise become long.-1Firang (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed a lot of stuff, so I suggest you self revert taking care of copy vios and BLPvios.-1Firang (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the start of the section you are editing in. Discuss the changes you want made, propose text you would prefer, discuss what role the changes serve. Reiterating that you want changes to be made ad infinitum will not result in anything positive. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least, please restore what I have mentioned above in this subsection.-1Firang (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop telling other people what to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Googleguy007: hasn't started restoring what I have requested above (but he seems to have time to respond to other points) which is why I requested him to restore what I have asked above in this subsection (I can't do it myself because this article is extended confirmed protected).-1Firang (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

.....and 3 hours have passed since I last made that request.-1Firang (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained to you why I havent made those changes. And it is incredibly entitled of you to complain about me not complying with your malformed requested change. EC protection exists so that editors who arent EC cant edit the page, not so that they get to demand without adequate explanation that their edits be made. I do not know how I can make you understand that you do not have a right to have me add your edits, as you seem to firmly believe based on the many times you have demanded I make a change, or complained about me not making a change. I literally told you Discuss the changes you want made, propose text you would prefer, discuss what role the changes serve. two messages above the one implying I am violating policy for not adding your edits. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you could benefit from reading WP:VOLUNTEER (an explanatory essay). Googleguy007 (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you to add my edits, I am asking you to restore what you removed.-1Firang (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That.Is.The.Same.Thing. It is asking me to make edits that you want made. This entire time I have simply been asking you to follow the process set out in "Achieving Consensus", please do so. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You agreed to restore what was mentioned just above this, this, this and this, so please start.-1Firang (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this essay explaining that wikipedia is a volunteer service. For three of those I was just indicating my support, this is a talk page with a few other frequent editors and I wanted to see their opinions/discussion of the content, and for the [one] I expressly stated that I didnt support the content as is, and then you argued with me over that. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry, im just at a loss for words as to how you construed me supporting changes as agreeing to make them, and then got upset at me for not making them. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare and Anachronist: This is going nowhere. Googleguy007 agreed to restore some sentences and passages that he removed but is not doing it. Please suggest what to do.-1Firang (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right, your relentless attempts to impose your own preferred version of the article are going nowhere. Article content is determined through consensus, after discussion. Discussion involving multiple parties. It isn't determined by negotiation between two individuals. Googleguy007 is in no position to make unilateral 'agreements', and quite properly hasn't given any indication of doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: seems to be busy with something else, so it now needs just Googleguy007, you and me for consensus (until others get involved at least). So what is your view and what should be the consensus?-1Firang (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that you should start by making it entirely clear which specific text is being referred to. There seem to be several proposals in this thread, and it isn't at all clear to me what exactly it is we are supposed to be discussing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat, the sentences Googleguy007 agreed to restore are, "Islamic institutions and clerics are allegedly involved in these forced conversions.^{[10][6][11][12]}".

"Forbes reported that the Human rights organizations estimates that every year 1,000 such girls are forcibly converted to Islam. This estimate could be even higher than 1,000 as many cases remain unreported.^[13] The 2020 US media report also estimates the number of forcibly converted girls to be around 1,000 per year. However the Pakistan government rejected it and termed the report as "rubbish and baseless".^[14]"

"A total of 57 Hindus converted in Pasrur during May 14–19. On May 14, 35 Hindus of the same family were forced to convert by their employer because his sales dropped after Muslims started boycotting his eatable items as they were prepared by Hindus as well as their persecution by the Muslim employees of neighbouring shops according to their relatives. Since the impoverished Hindus had no other way to earn and needed to keep the job to survive, they converted. 14 members of another family converted on May 17 since no one was employing them, later another Hindu man and his family of eight converted under pressure from Muslims to avoid their land from being grabbed.^[15]"

We can discuss the others later (what I feel can be restored).-1Firang (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did not agree to make this changes, I supported the first two and supported the concept but not the text of the third. Googleguy007 (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the third one, you said you are looking for something more extraordinary and the burden for that lies on you as per WP:BURDEN. Now, the first two ought to be restored.-1Firang (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did not say I was looking for something more high profile, I said I would only want to include something more high profile. Googleguy007 (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the first proposal, it is too vague, as I believe I suggested earlier. "Islamic institutions and clerics in some areas are alleged to have been involved in these forced conversions" would be preferable: note that the first source states that not all areas are even seeing forced conversions. And I see no reason to cite the third source, concerning allegations about one specific individual. We are describing a systemic issue, and picking out a specific case using a source that seems to be making some sort of political point regarding internal Pakistani politics is unwise.

The wording of the second proposal could probably be improved somewhat, but it seems ok otherwise.

The third proposal is reporting events from 2010, without stating this. Clearly conversions due to economic pressure need discussion in the article, if properly sourced but not using a source like this, which is essentially anecdotal. Is the headline "57 Hindus convert to Islam in 10 days" intended to suggest this is unusual? We can't tell. What we need are sources discussing the extent of the problem, not instances that may or may not be typical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So please restore whatever is agreeable (by the consensus of Googleguy007, you and me). I want to bring up the other points that were removed.-1Firang (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this a final warning: I am getting utterly sick of your relentless demands that discussion be cut short, before people have had adequate time to respond. The next such demand is very likely to result in a request at WP:ANI that you be topic banned for bludgeoning discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Googleguy007: More than 72 hours have passed since you agreed to restore some of the text you removed. Why haven't you restored what you agreed to restore yet? What are you waiting for?-1Firang (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t agree (explicitly or implicitly) to make any edits, and I would caution you to read WP:VOLUNTEER I am on a bit of a wiki break as my school is letting out for summer Googleguy007 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now, suddenly, you have time to make edits?-1Firang (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been EC’ed so I don’t get your complaint (unless you somehow believe that me making the edits will make them more likely to stick), and yes, I do have time to make a few minor edits that I want to. If you continue whinging about me not being your personal Wikipedia butler I’m taking this to AN/I to request an interaction ban. Googleguy007 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I requested you to restore those edits as this article was extended confirmed protected and I did not have extended confirmed protected rights then. I now have those rights and won't bother you about the same again.-1Firang (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this, "Experts from the United Nations Organization have expressed their alarm at the reported rise in kidnappings, coerced religious conversions and wedding of underaged females from among religious minorities in Pakistan.^[1] They appealed the Government of Pakistan to stop the alleged abuse where people in their teens had been “kidnapped from their families, trafficked … far from their homes (and) made to marry men sometimes twice their age”.^[2]" 1Firang (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: Next time, please specify which section you want it added to. I've added it to the response section. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just looking into this. Ideally, it would be nice to find secondary sources commenting on this, but it'll do at a pinch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Experts"? Why would a weasel word like this be OK to include? ~Anachronist (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has no subject-matter expertise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying it's a weasel word that demands a ^[who?] tag on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll amend it to "Experts from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have expressed their alarm..." instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: Please change, "In January 2023, experts from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have expressed their alarm at the reported rise in kidnappings, coerced religious conversions and wedding of underaged females from among religious minorities in Pakistan" to, "In January 2023, experts from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed their alarm at the reported rise in kidnappings, coerced religious conversions and wedding of underaged females from among religious minorities in Pakistan" - just remove the "have"-1Firang (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, reads much better. Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, almost all (possibly all) the edits made here [4] have been made without consensus. There are clear and unambiguous issues with some of the content, even from a perfunctory examination. Allegations are being presented as fact. Op-ed articles are being cited for factual claims. Sources well over a decade old are being presented as portraying the current situation. And what makes these particular incidents 'notable' anyway? As discussed at length above, we need to achieve consensus regarding article content, and this is clearly not going to be achieved by unilateral mass addition of questionable material. I would strongly advise 1Firang to self-revert, to look again more closely at the material being added (and at relevant Wikipedia policy), and then to discuss each item individually here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy edited (to avoid BLP and copyvio issues) and restored what Googleguy007 removed without consensus from 8 May onwards. You may discuss each of my edits individually if you want.-1Firang (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given your entirely inadequate response above, I have reverted all your edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least, please explain the reversions (what was wrong with each). I merely copy edited (to avoid BLP and copyvio issues) and restored what Googleguy007 removed without consensus from 8 May onwards.-1Firang (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, you 'merely' added/restored a whole lot of material which has been described as problematic by multiple contributors, without prior consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reminder: As noted at the top of this page and in the article's edit-notice, the article is under a consensus required CTOP restriction, i.e any changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.

@1Firang:, your recent edits that reinserted content that had been so challenged violated the restriction unless you can point to existing talk-page agreement to restore the content. @AndyTheGrump: instead of reverting content that violates the restriction yourself, it would be advisable to ask an admin to do it just so that the reason for reversion is clear and it doesn't spark an edit-war. Abecedare (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough - my edit summary could probably have been clearer, though possibly I've misunderstood the finer points of contentious topics editing, and would do better to leave such edits to an admin, as you suggest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: There was a discussion here and Googleguy007 agreed that it was wrong to remove some of those.-1Firang (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the gross misrepresentation in that claim (there was absolutely no discussion of most, if not all, of the material added today), a topic ban for 1Firang would seem entirely appropriate at this point. Consensus cannot be demonstrated through blatant falsehood, and I don't consider it at all reasonable to expect contributors to continue to work alongside someone so willing to engage in such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Googleguy007 agreed to restore what was mentioned just above this, this, this and this but didn't do so which is why I started restoring the same (he refused to do so by stating that Wikipedia editing is voluntary).-1Firang (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing further evidence of your unwillingness and/or inability to actually address the points being made. We seem to be entering WP:CIR territory here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1Firang, your edits went well beyond the (often "in principal") agreement with one editor that your diffs indicate. Please propose and establish explicit consensus for the specific content you wish to reinstate. I don't intend to impose any editor-sanctions at the moment but will do so if the restrictions are violated again or the conduct falls below the high standards expected at contentious topics. That said, please use this page to discuss article content, and bring issues of editor conduct to AN/AE/admin talkpage as appropriate. Abecedare (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: I may, as you say, be incompetent to edit the text you removed with this reversion appropriately, so I will leave it to you to go through each edit and restore (or not restore) those edits.-1Firang (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How many sources use the term coerced and how many use the term forced?

And who made Jürgen Schaflechner as the sole voice of Pakistan Hindus. Why his statement is at the lead? Many paid political editors have taken control of this article.

If there is no religious hate then why are they converted.

Jürgen Schaflechner, a cultural anthropologist specializing on Hindus in Pakistan, states that these conversions are rarely motivated by religious zeal, and are instead a consequence of the commodification of and denial of agency to women in a deeply patriarchal society

The above statement is like this---Charlock Jones who specializes on rape victims said, The rapes done by the serial rapist is not done due to sexual frustration and misogyny but due to loss in football match. Nsar Siraj Khan (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence about Jürgen Schaflechner has been removed. It violates WP:LEAD because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article body.

Your point, however, is a false equivalence. The difference is that Jürgen Schaflechner got his view published in a reliable source, and your fictional Charlock Jones did not. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the content regarding Schaflechner in the article body, where it properly belongs. This article needs more academic sources: per WP:SOURCETYPES these are the best we are likely to get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Does this man getting his article published in The Conversation alone merit his being cited here?

A few points to be noted -

1) Article says that members across both genders of pakistan's minorities - I assume meaning Hindus Sikhs and Christians - endure this. Again the cultural anthropologist's reference mentions that its not religious hate/fanaticism/hegemonism but "patriarchy" that is the cause behind this phenomenon. Does that then not cover only the female half of such instances? How are the male members of the minorities facing the same ordeal then accounted for?

2) In his article he uses the term "religious right" to mean indicate the religious persuasion of the perpetrators whereas for the other side he uses the term "Hindu nationalists". Who are the nationalists here then? The aggrieved victims' families? Or entities verily outside the country itself? And why not use a term like "muslim nationalist" or "islamist" or "islamo-fascist" etc? After all this is occurring in a country with some 96% being of that religious ilk. This country also leads the world in terms of internationally proscribed terror organizations and individuals. Does that not at the outset reek of inherent bias?

3) He does not have a page on Wikipedia. Very few Google matches too. That too mostly from academic uploads sites. The h-index of cultural anthropology is 75. While his is 5. At 42 he should be around 15 years past his PhD and to be considered "good" one needs to ideally have a h-index of around 15 or more. Even higher so for "excellent" and "great".

Finally India is often hyphenated with this country. Listed below are nearly 30 incidents across the North Zone and East Zone and West Zone of the country. From Bidar District (one of the Northernmost border districts of Karnataka State (and of South India) in the South till Punjab in the North and from Gujarat in the West till West Bengal in the East.

There are a dozen others but MSM rescinded them quickly for whatever reason.

Wonder if these were also instances of the murderers trying to "save" the eventual victims (who are no more) from "patriarchy"

I would kindly request the attention of some editors who I have seen editing on related articles.

@Doug Weller @Aman.kumar.goel @Kautilya3 @331dot @CapnJackSp @Toddy1 @RegentsPark @Sandstein @Anachronist @IvanVector @Favonian @Sitush @Vanamonde93 @Tayi Arajakate @Slatersteven @AndyTheGrump

NYCLover2016 (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NYCLover2016: As far as I can see your post is not relevant to the topic of Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan. I looked at the citation you gave for the murder of Mansi Dixit, but it does not seem relevant because (a) she was murdered in India, and (b) her murder was nothing to do with forced religious conversion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request is mostly garbage, but is correct as to the fact that the "expert" opinion is undue. The person was doing research on a temple in Pakistan, and bases his "belief" on anecdotal incidents. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have collapsed the list of incidents as irrelevant to the discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this seems undue. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The grounds given for removal are utterly absurd. Jürgen Schaflechner's comments are the result of following the topic for ten years. He is an assistant professor at the University of Heidelburg, a leading German university. He has had multiple articles published on the topic of forced conversion of Hindus in Pakistan. [5] A book published by the Oxford University Press, of which he is a co-author, has a chapter by him on the topic. [6] Of all the possible sources to reject from the article, people chose the one most closely fitting the description of "most reliable" in WP:RS: "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs", while the article is instead based largely around mass-media articles of questionable reliability written to feed a pre-existing partisan discourse. We do not reject academic sources because they aren't in accord with tabloid rabble-rousing clickbait. I am going to restore the deleted content, and if it is removed again without better grounds than offered so far, I will consider asking for sanctions against whoever does so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Forced" Conversion and (Hindu) Women’s Agency in Sindh by Jürgen Schaflechner: [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it before I saw your comment. I disagree. This is WP:UNDUE emphasis on a non-peer-reviewed primary-source opinion piece by a non-notable professor. The WP:BURDEN for including this has not been met. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is a 'non-notable professor'? 'Notability' as Wikipedia defines it has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of a source. I have linked a whole damned chapter in a book by Schaflechner above discussing the topic of this article, published by the Oxford University Press. This is the very model of an academic source - the exact type of source we are supposed to be using when available. The excuses given for the removal of content regarding Schaflechner's perspective are entirely inadequate. Having taken the time to check with the source I linked above (the OUP book), I am going to restore the content, citing the book chapter. If it is removed again without proper discussion, I will report whoever does so per Wikipedia:Contentious topics procedures, asking for sanctions. We do not reject academic works because they don't agree with partisan tabloid rabble rousing mass-media sources. That is grossly improper, and a violation of core Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained to you in my reply to you on my talk page, you are in violation of the AE sanctions at the top of this page. Go ahead and ask for sanctions, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Consensus is required to include it, not to remove it. I suggest you revert yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And as I have explained to you on your talk page, unless I get an apology from you for your gross misinterpretation of policy, I shall be taking your behaviour to ArbCom. You are so clearly and utterly wrong in multiple ways, to the extent that I find it almost unfathomable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that some sleep will have allowed for some cooling off here, but I do find that AndyTheGrump makes a good point. The causes section has four paragraphs:

• Some Islamic institutions and clerics have been alleged... sourced to three newspapers;
• Some coerced conversions are results of... sourced to a newspaper;
• According to some child protection activists... sourced to a newspaper; and
• Jürgen Schaflechner, ... states ... sourced to an excellent reliable and academic source

Why keep the first three if quibbling about the inclusion of the fourth? Would it help if we replaced his name with some? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the pain to go through this section (which ideally you should have bothered to point to the relevant portions of) and I find it undue still. First, he doesnt focus on the topic of our article, which are forced conversions. Instead, he focuses on a small subset, forced conversions and marriage (referred to as FCM in the paper), which is forced conversion of women followed immediately by marriage. There also, his only claim is that religious zeal is not the only factor, and that it is more complicated than media/hindu victims' families/liberal activists/conservative muslims portray. He also focuses on countering the love jihad angle (already well opposed by many, better scholars), and then concludes by analysing a few anecdotal incidents to justify his findings.
I find this to be undue weight given to a scholar whose primary work revolves around a temple in Balochistan, with this part of commentary focussing on Sindh. Doubtless he would have travelled there time to time, but I would not consider that to make him an expert on the matter. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the choice, I'd rather work according to the Oxford University Press's assessment of who exactly is an 'expert' on this topic than yours. They don't appoint book editors on a whim. They don't include chapters in academic works on a whim. Though maybe Harvard's opinion of Schaflechner should be taken into consideration too. Presumably they took him on as a Visiting Research Scholar at the Department for the Study of Religion [8] for a reason. As for trying to nit-pick about where exactly Schaflechner did his doctoral fieldwork, it is absurd to rule out his commentary on broader aspects of Pakistan society and culture on that basis. There are only ever a finite number of experts on any subject, and their ability to comment meaningfully on broader topics is what makes their expertise useful. Particularly when their expertise lies within topics so clearly adjacent to the one being discussed. Schaflechner's chapter on forced conversion is almost certainly going to be among the best academic exposition of the topic we are likely to get. And can someone please explain to me what the heck is wrong with what Schaflechner is saying anyway? That Pakistan society is deeply patriarchal cannot surely be contested. That the women supposedly at the centre of these incidents have had their voices silenced is more or less self-evident. That behind the shallow partisan discourse around 'conversion' there are whole layers of complexity relating to power and powerlessness, of wealth and poverty, and of individuals from the lower ranks of a minority community trying to scratch a living in amongst the politiking that reduces them (particularly the women, excluded from politics through social norms) to pawns in other people's games. Schaflechner isn't making any 'fringe' claim at all. He isn't making any assessment a competent social science undergraduate might not arrive at, given the same evidence. He argues his point well, because he has the expertise to do so, but nothing he is saying actually contradicts established academic understanding of the topic. It isn't 'fringe'. It isn't even remotely controversial. It is a mainstream academic analysis, the very thing one should compare the 'fringe' against. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And something else he says, that would be well placed in this causes section:

Upon deeper scrutiny, however, cases of forced conversion reveal many layers of complexity, which thwart simple mono-causal explanations offered by both sides—either the liberal groups or the religious right.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. If there is a legitimate critique of our use of Schaflechner's work in out article, it is that we've reduced his commentary on complexities to a level that hides them from view. Rather than excluding him, we should probably be saying more. The section needs expansion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether forced conversion and marriage is a small subset of forced conversion in Pakistan, or the main way forced conversion happens. If there is evidence one way or the other, the article should talk about it, and cite reliable sources such as work by academics.

One aspect that should be mentioned in the article is that the incidence in the press in Pakistan of reports of forced conversion and marriage was much higher in the 2010s than it had been in the 1990s. But it is unclear whether this is because the press mention it more often, or because it occurs more often. As you would expect, this aspect is discussed by Schaflechner.^[9]-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, Andy entirely has the clear right of it. The quibbles over context can be addressed by means of the way in which material from the source is paraphrased and used on the page. The complaints about the scholar's credentials are scraping at the barrel. As mentioned further up this thread, the page is largely newspaper material, and people are complaining about a WP:CHOPSY source? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronist Slatersteven CapnJackSp Vanamonde93 Good morning/afternoon/evening. We all know that this is a 100% subjective topic as it is with social sciences. The author being notable and/or the work being RS - I understand - would be prerequisites. I would briefly repeat the points I made in my op which no one commented on. 1) Conversions of only females are accounted for by the so-called scholar in his apology/justification/explanation which thus does not apply to males while the article at the outset mentions "people" (on which the was some edit-warring too). 2) He uses the term "Hindu nationalists" for those supporting the aggrieved side (Not to mention that world over many have accused islamists of desiring world hegemony by spreading their religion. Regardless of race or color or religion Hindis/Sikhs/Jains/Buddhists and Jews/Christians and everyone else) and called the persecutors merely "the religious right" which IS skewed to say the least and smacks of initial bias. 3) And fact remains that he has a h-index of 5 while Cultural Anthropology has an average h-index of 75 [[10]].

His referenced work *"Forced" Conversion and (Hindu) Women’s Agency in Sindh"* has 16 citations of which 5 are self and another 5 by pakistani muslim authors and a grand zero peer reviews (the Google Scholar link has the figures). This piece in turn is supposedly one of the chapters in his magnum opus "Alternative Imag(in)ings of the Nation State" [[11]] from OUP that enjoys an epic total of 3 citations (per Google Scholar). I am seeing zero reviews on Google and Amazon and elsewhere. For purely scholarly reviews HoyaSearch and ProQuest are the two most popular places and this work draws ZERO search results on them both!

The OUP page describes the book as "This edited volume combines academic and journalistic writings on Pakistans literature, non-Muslim life-worlds, and popular culture. The book brings together national and international authors from fields of literary studies, anthropology, and cultural studies to critique solidified imaginings of the nation state." Does "journalistic writings" pass muster? And "literary studies"??? Please note that he has put the word *Forced* in quotes again implying that he thinks that they are not so. And the word *Imag(in)gs in the title?. The only thing that seems in favor of such a pathetic reference is that it is from OUP but university presses do not publish 100% academic works every time. OUP had also published Salamn Rushdie's controversial work which was not an academic publication.

Lastly I may digress a bit but I have to say this - as an Indian Hindu - for this "culture" we see in the two countries torn out of India in the 1940s does bother us as it rightly should. It was to facilitate such victims of religious hate (the younger women suffer this while their religious places are targeted on a regular basis as are their festivals etc) that India passed the CAA which opened the country's doors to all of the minorities of that country. Not just Hindus/Jains/Buddhists/Sikhs who are Indic by faith, also Christians and all other minorities there can get Indian citizenship. The mentality of the majority in those countries to this day remains the same. Now they concoct cock-and-bull stories to try and get in muslims. ahmadis - back in the 40s there was an ahmadi zafarullah who led the pakistan movement and made the entire stretch from pakistan to North India to bangladesh a mass killing field of non-muslims - and there was a fuqan force - formed by pakistani ahmadis - that played a pivotal role to take away half of Kashmir from India. The last Army chief there (whatever bajwa) is also an ahmadi. Then the shias - their very founder jinnah was a shia - as are even their most prominent political family the bhuttos.

The latter (maybe 80% in volume) of my first post listed incidents where, across Northern and Western and Eastern India, muslim men chased non-muslim women and upon rejection killed them. All of those incidents are from May 2014 after the supposedly Hindu Nationalist Modi came to power. Whether this is more generic of islam or its adherents or only a phenomenon (regardless of its dimensions) particular to South Asia I do not know. I just wanted to point out that these instances where the girls rejected their advances would have had likely had an entirely different ending if in pakistan imo. In India they do not have the numbers and the system in their favor. And also the larger picture. This flies in the face of alleged persecution of this ilk in India. I cannot see the Native Americans or Aboriginals or the more recent non-White migrants behave remotely this way with the older White migrants - who today are in majority - in America or Australia (and they do not to the best of my knowledge). The Asian/African migrants in Europe also do not behave this way (there are stray incidents but with significantly less frequency). None of the msm - NONE - in India has ever talked about this trend. AIA for this getting a bit long.

NYCLover2016 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the "100% subjective ... social sciences". Nothing subjective what so ever in natural sciences like biology. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a thoroughly disgusting display of clueless bigotry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am rather concerned that the current wording of the lead is not supported by the citations cited for it. It says: In Pakistan, it is estimated that several hundred people belonging to the minority Hindu, Christian, and Sikh communities are kidnapped and forcefully converted or coerced through societal pressures to convert to Islam each year. There are two citations:

• "Stories of forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan". BBC News. 1 September 2014. Archived from the original on 2021-10-27. Retrieved 2021-10-27. This says: "Every year in Pakistan, several hundred young Christian or Hindu girls are forcibly converted to Islam, and sometimes married off."
• Siobhan Heanue (25 July 2019). "Hindu sisters Reena and Raveena become face of forced religious conversion in Pakistan". ABC news. Retrieved 2 November 2023. This says "A Pakistani human rights group says 1,000 girls were forcibly converted to Islam last year" and "It is a practice that human rights groups say has been going on for years, targeting Christian and Hindu girls from poor families and low castes." and "Around 1,000 Christian and Hindu minority women were converted to Islam and then forcibly married off to their abductors or rapists".

Notice that the sources mention Christian and Hindu girls. The citations given for the statement do not mention Sikhs and do not suggest that male people or older women get forced into converting.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the 2014 source said that the problem affected "several hundred" girls, whereas the 2019 source said that the problem affected about a thousand girls in 2018. This may be evidence that the problem is growing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly possible that the problem is growing. However, as Jürgen Schaflechner notes in his analysis (cited in the article), the issue has attracted increasing media attention in recent years, and the increased numbers may instead reflect higher levels of reporting. And one needs to take care not to place too high an emphasis on the reported numbers where (again per Schaflechner) the discourse around the issue misses out much of the subtleties of individual events, and where it simply isn't possible to objectively sort the 'forced' from the 'unforced' - more so when those undergoing conversion are least best placed to express their own views on events.

It should also be made clear in the lede that both sources cited make it clear that they are specifically discussing forced conversion and (very often) marriage of young Hindu women, rather than just 'people' in the abstract as the lede currently suggests. The majority of sources cited in the article body are discussing the same thing, and we need to take care not to conflate the broader social and economic pressures being placed on the Hindu minority to convert with the more extreme factors affecting a specific subset of that population. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]