Talk:British Pakistanis/Archive 1

This article needs to be expanded, there are many other issues to talk about.

1. Failure of Integration 2. Economics3. Religion4. Way of Life

These were some of the topics I wanted to cover. Can anyone help me find some information?

User:Bk2006 10:19 October 23 2007 (UTC)

we dont need an section on gentic diseases as its not relevant

There's already an article on the subject at British Asian, so why is another redundant article required? speaks rohith. 22:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasons Why I Started This Article

• 1. The "British Asian" article (if you want to call it that) is biased and grossly one-sided in portraying Indians as sucessful while Bangladeshis and Pakistanis as failures. There is hardly any mention of the 1 million strong Pakistani community in that article, nor are there any photos and even mentioning of any British Pakistanis. Infact the article is more concerned in trying to compare Indians with Pakistanis in Britian than about British Asians themselves, which by the way, includes Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans and Nepalis and not to mention the Asian population from East Africa, Polynesia and the West Indies.

• 2. Asian is to broad. As you can see it covers mostly every part of the world. The West Indies, Polynesia, East Africa and South Asia. Were talking about a community which represents a large chunk of the British population, it would be wise to divide it up as much as possible for simplicity.

BK2006. 13:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay well we really need to start adding information to the article, as of now it just looks like a lot of links and numbers. I don't know if their is already a pattern you follow within the British Articles, but the overseas Pakistani articles generally have this pattern:

1. History in BritainFor the most part it's the same as British Asian, they all came around the same time (during the 70s and 80s), so their isn't much work to do their. However I could use some sources, if anyone could help me find some that would be very much appreciated.

a. Integrating into British societyAs much as all of us would love to sugar coat this, sadly integration of Pakistanis in the UK has not gone as planned for both parties and I think we need to mention that, plus the reasons behind it. I personally don't know the reason, does it have something to do with the UK's immigration policies, the community itself? Both sides need to be addressed.

2. DemographicsI've only got a rough estimate from a few cities, but remember we're talking about the WHOLE UK, so I'm assuming that includes Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as well.

3. LanguagesSimply it's English with any of the languages spoken in Pakistan, being that most of the Pakistanis in the UK are from Kashmir I'd suspect they speak Kashmiri, Hindko and Potwarhi. Again confirmation and sources would be nice.

4. ReligionSurprisingly I found out that Pakistanis in the UK are pretty diverse, and includes a large Sikh and Hindu population, which should be mentioned, along with the Christian and Parsee populations. Islam is the dominant one so we should put a bit more emphasis on that.

5. EconomicsAgain no need to sugar coat it, we need to face the facts. Pakistanis don't make much in the UK, and I'm refering this from the source given from the British Asian article. I don't have the sligtest clue about the economics of British Pakistanis, so someone is going to have to write it up or at least help me.

6. Events & GatheringsAgain, I wouldn't know, all I know is that they're plenty of melas (festivals) that happen around Eid and August 14th. We could also add a little about Green Street.

7. MediaGenerally speaking about Pakistani media within the UK, which would include any movies/tv serials made for or on Pakistanis. Also could talk about television channels/shows which air and originate from the UK to the British Pakistani population or even abroad (as in the case for DM Digital TV). We can also add things about radio (BBC Asian Network for example).

8. List of British PakistanisI'll start a list, because we have more than 100 well known British Pakistanis.

BK2006, 11/01/2008 12:59 (UTC)

Image:Shah LD.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination

there should definately be a section about discrimination the racist word "PAKI" was pioneered in britain after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.66.244 (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Consanguinity and Cousin couple mention facts about the prevalence of close-relative relationships in the British Pakistani community and the corresponding increase in genetic disorders. Include in this article?

A BBC report[2] found that Pakistanis in Britain, 55% of whom marry a first cousin, are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and that one in ten children of cousin marriages either die in infancy or develop a serious disability. Thus Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce "just under a third" of all British children with genetic illnesses.

Is what I'm referring to. 70.21.38.226 (talk) 01:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is rife with a lack of citations coupled with numerous bold assertions. The entire history section lacks any citation. The intergration of Pakistani Punjabis section also lacks any cites while asserting that Punjabis were better intergrated than Mirpuris. Moreover the article casts certain groups of Pakistanis (Mirpuris) as failures while others (Punjabis) as being their betters. Ironic in that the original authors intent for creating this article was to counter the perception that British Pakistanis were failures comapred to British Indians.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalcntrl (talk • contribs) 02:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Lack of depthI suppose I cannot complain to much because of lack of independent study of this community.

While it may be true that there are many British Hindus & Sikhs who can trace their origins to the part of the Punjab that is now Pakistan, they're almost always going to identify themselves as Indian or Punjabi. Find me a Brit who identifies themselves as a "Pakistani Hindu" or a "Pakistani Sikh" and I'll show you a gorilla that can play golf. Jamieli (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm removing this sentence from the article:

"Prime Minister Gordon Brown stated in December 2008 that at any given time British security has to deal with 20 terror plots involving British Pakistanis"

The Telegraph has misconstrued its own articles and Gordon Brown's comments. The reality is that more than 20 terror plots have ties to "Pakistani groups", not British Pakistanis. The phrase British Pakistanis is not present in Brown's original speech, nor is it mentioned in the original articles related to Mumbai. The writer has clearly appropriated the information and applied it to the context of the article he was making. This source cannot be trusted as it contradicts statements made in other Telegraph articles.[4][5] Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The British security service states that the plots involve "British-born foot soldiers"[6] but no mention is made of British Pakistanis. Indeed Richard Reid and Germaine Lindsay are clear reminders of the variety of backgrounds of the people involved.

I would remain cautious of using Telegraph sources. I have discovered another inaccuracy; The Telegraph states that "Robert Mueller, the head of the FBI, who has publicly voiced fears about British-born Pakistani militants entering the US under the visa waiver scheme. "[7]. Yet when we look at the original speech and congressional testimonies from the FBI website, again Mueller made no mention of British Pakistanis.[8][9] This is another indication that The Daily Telegraph is distorting the original statements. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am removing the external link to 'paki.tv', it may have been put up in good faith but it's obviously offensive to most 'British pakistanis'.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K.Khokhar (talk • contribs) 08:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41 has repeatedly added trashy edits claiming british pakistanis are terrorists it needs removal or atleast some edits against indian americans need to be made perhaps support for BJP right wing hindu groups 86.162.69.58 (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

ignore the rants of banned vandal nangparbat. the truth will prevail.Wikireader41 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

some light reading about pakistanis in Britain The immigration superhighwayWikireader41 (talk) 18:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

wikireader41, stop your constant pov and obtrusive additions to this article, I think the editors of this article need to have you banned from this article, at least. Khokhar (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I just tried to make this article compliant with WP:NPOV which is a core wikipolicy. an article with only positive info about British Pakistanis would not be compliant with wikipolicies. and by siding with Nangparbat you may be breaking with another wikipolicy of editing on behalf of banned editors Wikireader41 (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, stay calm and civil, please. Everyone needs to adhere to a neutral point of view. Note that those with strong views on a subject are advised to avoid editing articles on those subjects. This would apply to pro-Pakistani editors as well as those like Wikireader41 who are critical of Pakistan and Islam. Articles shouldn't paint their subjects in a positive light only, but it is also unhelpful to only add negative sources. Fences and windows (talk) 02:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

so you are trying to say that articles which paint the subject in a positive light only should not be edited especially if notable negative info has been artificially suppressed by original editors ?? I do not think I have strong views on this subject or anything else. all info I have added have made this article more NPOV. if the article had only negative info to start with then I would surely have added positive info to it. so please read WP:NPA Wikireader41 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I am questioning the usefulness and value of this section. Just for some context, it was added by a POV user, who has a large history of anti-Pakistan bias. What value does this section add to this article? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

this editor has a long history of trying to revert anything that he feels is critical of pakistan and pakistanis. This issue of Endogamy and cousin marriage has been extensively discussed in the media and was a topic of a BBC program. it needs to stay whether pakistani editors like it or not. British Pakistanis should stop marrying cousins, says MPWikireader41 (talk) 01:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

(1) The information should be judged on its own merits, irrespective of who added it. It seems to be attested in reliable sources.

(2) I have quickly scanned the contributions of User:Boston, who created this section, and I have seen no evidence of bias against Pakistan. If there is evidence for such bias, perhaps it would help to cite specific examples, rather than just asserting it without evidence.

(3) In answer to "What value does this section add to this article?": it adds information about a matter concerning people in Britain of Pakistani origin, which is the subject of the article. The information is certainly likely to be of interest, and it might well be considered important. It seems to me that the information may particularly be of importance to people of Pakistani origin in Britain, to whom it applies, so it is difficult to see why including it should be regarded as "anti-Pakistan". The fact that the information might displease some people is not a reason for suppressing the information.JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I felt that this issue had too much prominence: hence the move into a subsection. However, although mainly negative views seem to be added to this article, endogamy is a relevant point. Marriage of cousins, and the results of this, are common practice amongst British Pakistanis. This need not be an overly negative thing: Charles Darwin was the son of cousins and he seemed to do OK for himself! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 04:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why is a section labled as such? I do not see any other comparable article being labled in this manner.. this is obviously inappropriate and I am changing it to 'Health and social issues', which would be a fair title without making it look like an examination of the sexual behaviour of a 'group of people', furthermore not only do I not see a comparable section in other similar articles, I don't think British Pakistanis are interested in the average age at which they are involved in sexual acts for the first time and I think this section should be removed altogether Khokhar (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

this article is not just for the benefit of British Pakistanis. it is an encyclopedic article.WP:IDL is not a reason to delete information. also you might want to read WP:CENSORED Wikireader41 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41, you might want to re-read WP:NPOV. Fences and windows (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As the majority of British Pakistanis are Muslims, there should be more about that topic, as the Muslim population is split into many subgroups such as: Barelvis, Deobandis, Salafis/Ahl-E-Hadith, Shi'ites, Ismailis a.s.o. and there are conflicts between these sects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.144.220 (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I recently removed the paragraph on British Pakistanis' contribution to UK GDP, but it was re-added because apparently this was suggested in the GA review. What the GA review actually suggested was adding a per capita figure so that the GDP contribution could be compared with other groups. What we got was a per capita figure for Pakistanis and a total figure for Bangladeshis and Indians. This comparison is meaningless because the groups are of different sizes. Also, the per capita figure for British Pakistanis isn't actually in the source, plus the figures for Bangladeshis and Indians come from different sources and so may not be comparable. Finally, no date is given for any of the figures. Even if these problems are overcome, the notion of a contribution to GDP by any one group is rather problematic. I presume that this estimate is based on the sum of British Pakistanis' incomes, since GDP is total national income. To say that Pakistanis "account for" X amount of the UK's GDP might therefore be more accurate. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It was estimated in 2006 that British Asians together contribute £103 billion to the UK economy, which is 10 per cent of the country's economic output. Source - http://www.asianleader.co.uk/business-news/Brown-pound-shores-up-British.1760254.jp - If BP's contribute £31 billion source - http://news.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/body-formed-to-improve-pakistans-image-in-uk-679 - then we can calculate the £31 billion figure as being 30% of this figure. 30% of 6 (the 6% which British Asians contribute to the UK econ') is 1.8 which suggests that British Pakistanis contribute around 1.8% of the UK economic output. --Sansonic (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, you're mixing sources, but in any case I don't think that we can calculate anything because that would constitute original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Do think that it might be better for us to delete the paragraph in question? --Sansonic (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Andy Walsh (talk) 01:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This article has recently been granted good article status, though as has been noted, it might not meet all the criteria. Thanks to Sansonic for removing a problematic section. I've also noticed that the article layout doesn't follow the guidelines at WP:LAYOUT and will fix that now. I'm not sure whether there are other problems, but the fact that these issues were missed means there might be. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Media section of the article seemed to be particularly problematic in terms of grammar and formatting, so I've fixed what seemed to be the most obvious errors. There are a few statements that could do with being referenced. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is full of factual errors, e. Ghulam Noon is not Pakistani but Indian. The majority of 'Indian' restaurants are not owned by Pakistanis but Bangladeshis. Two thirds of Soth Asians in the UK are not Punjabi. Thats just the tip of the inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22Twentytwo (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The article only states that Indian restaurants in a particular region of the UK are mostly owned by British Pakistanis and that statement is accompanied with a source from The Guardian. Two thirds of British Asians are of Punjabi descent, this statement is again accompanied with a source, remember that the term 'British Asian' includes British Indians many of whom are of Punjabi origin. This article has previously been passed as being factually verifiable and there have been no major changes to it since then. If you feel that there are any other issues which need explaining or otherwise then please do discuss here, if not we will assume that all is well. Sansonic (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunatley that is correct there are huge errors in this article. The main article is incorrect. The reason is that it seems to suggest that the Kashmiris are living in the North and not the south and in fact stated that the ethnic groups of pakistan that live in london are punjabis, sindhis muhajirs and pushtuns. The reality is that kashmiris in london are larger than anyone single of the above groups. Please actually visit the areas that Pakistanis live in Ilford, walthamstow, leyton, and cricklewood among others. Further please note that the south includes apart from Luton, High Wycombe, Aylesbury, chesham, Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Bedford, Peterborough, oxford, woking, maidenhead, reading and slough. Please check what the single largest ethnic group is in all of these towns and the Kashmiris will be the largest by far.

Further please also note that the Kashmiris and Punjabis amount to about 85% of pakistanis in the UK. Nearly all the Pakistanis in England hail from southern Kashmir areas around Mirpur and the punjabis from the northern districts of Jhelum, Rawalpindi, Gujarat, sialkot and Attock. They all therefore more or less come from similar backgrounds. Very few are from urban areas like Lahore or Multan.

There is no evidence that the people from southern kashmir are more conservative or less educated than those from other areas. Please note that the southern universities have large amounts of Kashmiris as has already been explained. The reason that the author in the article said that the kashmiris are in northern universities was based on his wrong information about the north and south. This has already been clarified. Further the ward with the highest propertion of pakistanis in the UK is pendle in lancashire ( 77%) and it is about 90% punjabi. The errors continue unabated in this article. There is no reference to valuable statistical evidence but instead anecdotal evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jat punyal (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply visiting an area of London is not enough because we need sources to prove your point. The fact that Punjabis are from Jhelum, Rawalpindi, Gujarat and sialkot is reflected in the article and the fact that many are from irrigated farms is also reflected in the article. Sources from the BBC and the New Statesman confirm that the Mirpur area (of Kashmir) is more conservative than some other parts of Pakistan. Your claims of Kashmiri students in universities of a particular area would need sources if it were to be included in the article, the article does not claim that Kashmiris are only in the north of England. Your claims of Pendle having the highest proportion of Pakistanis is interesting and could be included if you give a link to a source. The article is well sourced with reliable broadsheet newspaper and academic references. If you feel that there are any other issues which need explaining or otherwise then please do discuss here, if not we will assume that all is well. Sansonic (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the mango material. That some shops stock mangoes made in Pakistan doesn't seem particularly interesting/relevant. The article is about Pakistanis in the UK, not products made in Pakistan. Selfridges and Harrods aren't British Pakistani organisations. The picture of the mango is also confusing. It's just a picture of a standard mango, not even of one made in Pakistan (would be hard to tell the difference anyway). Christopher Connor (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is an interesting bit of information. I also think that it is relevent because there it mentions that these mangos were previously only stocked and sold at British Asian wholesale outlets (to cater exclusivly for a British Asian market). But that now tastes/preferences previously only consumed by British Asians are now consumed by a more holistic British market, fits in with the section with is about Economics/Business. The picture is good representation of a simple mango, though it could very easily be changed to that of a Pakistani mango, if that seems more reasonable.--Sansonic (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources for Harrods and Selfridges don't even mention British Pakistanis, so it may be OR to decide it's relevant here. It's like writing in the British Chinese article that soy sauce imported from Hong Kong is sold in Sainsbury's: it's simply irrelevant to the article. The most we can say really is that British Asian shops stock mangoes sold in Pakistan. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to establish a consensus, comments from other editors would be welcomed.--Sansonic (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This article has recently been granted good article status, though as has been noted, it might not meet all the criteria. Thanks to Sansonic for removing a problematic section. I've also noticed that the article layout doesn't follow the guidelines at WP:LAYOUT and will fix that now. I'm not sure whether there are other problems, but the fact that these issues were missed means there might be. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The Media section of the article seemed to be particularly problematic in terms of grammar and formatting, so I've fixed what seemed to be the most obvious errors. There are a few statements that could do with being referenced. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This article is full of factual errors, e. Ghulam Noon is not Pakistani but Indian. The majority of 'Indian' restaurants are not owned by Pakistanis but Bangladeshis. Two thirds of Soth Asians in the UK are not Punjabi. Thats just the tip of the inaccuracies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22Twentytwo (talk • contribs) 22:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The article only states that Indian restaurants in a particular region of the UK are mostly owned by British Pakistanis and that statement is accompanied with a source from The Guardian. Two thirds of British Asians are of Punjabi descent, this statement is again accompanied with a source, remember that the term 'British Asian' includes British Indians many of whom are of Punjabi origin. This article has previously been passed as being factually verifiable and there have been no major changes to it since then. If you feel that there are any other issues which need explaining or otherwise then please do discuss here, if not we will assume that all is well. Sansonic (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunatley that is correct there are huge errors in this article. The main article is incorrect. The reason is that it seems to suggest that the Kashmiris are living in the North and not the south and in fact stated that the ethnic groups of pakistan that live in london are punjabis, sindhis muhajirs and pushtuns. The reality is that kashmiris in london are larger than anyone single of the above groups. Please actually visit the areas that Pakistanis live in Ilford, walthamstow, leyton, and cricklewood among others. Further please note that the south includes apart from Luton, High Wycombe, Aylesbury, chesham, Watford, Hemel Hempstead, Bedford, Peterborough, oxford, woking, maidenhead, reading and slough. Please check what the single largest ethnic group is in all of these towns and the Kashmiris will be the largest by far.

Further please also note that the Kashmiris and Punjabis amount to about 85% of pakistanis in the UK. Nearly all the Pakistanis in England hail from southern Kashmir areas around Mirpur and the punjabis from the northern districts of Jhelum, Rawalpindi, Gujarat, sialkot and Attock. They all therefore more or less come from similar backgrounds. Very few are from urban areas like Lahore or Multan.

There is no evidence that the people from southern kashmir are more conservative or less educated than those from other areas. Please note that the southern universities have large amounts of Kashmiris as has already been explained. The reason that the author in the article said that the kashmiris are in northern universities was based on his wrong information about the north and south. This has already been clarified. Further the ward with the highest propertion of pakistanis in the UK is pendle in lancashire ( 77%) and it is about 90% punjabi. The errors continue unabated in this article. There is no reference to valuable statistical evidence but instead anecdotal evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jat punyal (talk • contribs) 14:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply visiting an area of London is not enough because we need sources to prove your point. The fact that Punjabis are from Jhelum, Rawalpindi, Gujarat and sialkot is reflected in the article and the fact that many are from irrigated farms is also reflected in the article. Sources from the BBC and the New Statesman confirm that the Mirpur area (of Kashmir) is more conservative than some other parts of Pakistan. Your claims of Kashmiri students in universities of a particular area would need sources if it were to be included in the article, the article does not claim that Kashmiris are only in the north of England. Your claims of Pendle having the highest proportion of Pakistanis is interesting and could be included if you give a link to a source. The article is well sourced with reliable broadsheet newspaper and academic references. If you feel that there are any other issues which need explaining or otherwise then please do discuss here, if not we will assume that all is well. Sansonic (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of the mango material. That some shops stock mangoes made in Pakistan doesn't seem particularly interesting/relevant. The article is about Pakistanis in the UK, not products made in Pakistan. Selfridges and Harrods aren't British Pakistani organisations. The picture of the mango is also confusing. It's just a picture of a standard mango, not even of one made in Pakistan (would be hard to tell the difference anyway). Christopher Connor (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that it is an interesting bit of information. I also think that it is relevent because there it mentions that these mangos were previously only stocked and sold at British Asian wholesale outlets (to cater exclusivly for a British Asian market). But that now tastes/preferences previously only consumed by British Asians are now consumed by a more holistic British market, fits in with the section with is about Economics/Business. The picture is good representation of a simple mango, though it could very easily be changed to that of a Pakistani mango, if that seems more reasonable.--Sansonic (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources for Harrods and Selfridges don't even mention British Pakistanis, so it may be OR to decide it's relevant here. It's like writing in the British Chinese article that soy sauce imported from Hong Kong is sold in Sainsbury's: it's simply irrelevant to the article. The most we can say really is that British Asian shops stock mangoes sold in Pakistan. Christopher Connor (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to establish a consensus, comments from other editors would be welcomed.--Sansonic (talk) 17:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"Cameron also appointed Lord Ahmed, a Kashmiri born politician, a life peerage, which made Ahmed the first Pakistani peer in the UK."

Totally false. It was Lord [Nazir] Ahmad of Rotheram appointed by Labour years ago who was first Pakistani peer. Recently (2010) Cameron has appointment Lord [Tariq] Ahmad of Wimbledon who is a different person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.195.12 (talk) 00:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Your claims would need a source. Sansonic (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP appears to be correct. According to this source, Nazir Ahmad was born in Pakistan and made a peer in 1998. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

"Many Kashmiris have named their businesses after the Pakistani region. One of the largest companies incorporating such a name is Kashmir Crown Bakeries, which is a food making business in Bradford. The company is a major local employer and is the largest Asian food manufacturer in Europe. The owner, Mohammed Saleem, claims that combining traditional Kashmiri baking methods with vocational British training has given his baking business a multi-million pound turnover."

This paragraph strikes me as being little more than a thinly disguised advertisement for Mr Saleem and his bakery. As such I would suggest it has no place in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jps 1001 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected}}

Assuming in paragraph two, "was dominated by rigid hierarchies. Economis boom brought dramatic" the word "Economis" should be altered to "Economic". NoelyNoel (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thank you for pointing this out--Jac16888 <sup>Talk</sup> 23:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

i totally agree with you, nyttend. this highly contentious content was forced into the article by user ankmorpork and user shrike by an edit war. i have started a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard here, [10].-- altetendekrabbe  13:18, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Couldn't we add similar badges of shame on many articles on national/ethnic groups? Austrians, it seems, have a unique proclivity for private incarcerations with pedophilic/incestuous motives. Belgians are known for pedophilia and Norwegians are mass consumers of sex workers abroad, to the point that the goverment needs to regulate it"[11]

another user noted above: "belgium page does not feature a subsection on the innate pedophilia of belgians". many europeans are involved in the disgusting thai sex trade but there is no subsection about this on the europeans-page either. user:Iloveandrea noted:"Can you imagine the reaction if someone posted something about Jews having a propensity to paedophilia, citing some right-wing Saudi website?"[12] and what if black americans "carry out a disproportionate amount of sex attacks" in the us? are you going to add a subsection about that too? i don't think so. you are now maligning a whole a racial group. shame on you. -- altetendekrabbe  18:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

The Independant article says nothing about 'British Pakistanis' whatsoever. The BBC source (from 2004) says nothing about 'British Pakistanis' in general, or about disproportionate levels of anything. The third source you cite states "Thus no official data exists on the ethnic or religious background of perpetrators of this form of child abuse, and local charities have stated publicly that they do not consider it a race issue. But it is worth noting that, when asked by the Times to collate its recent work according to ethnicity, Engage – based in Blackburn and one of the largest multi-agency organisations working on this issue – found that in the past year that 80% of offenders were white." [13] You are (Personal attack removed) unfit to contribute to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, well. AnkhMorpork, would you like to provide the entire sentence for "most of the convicted offenders are of Pakistani heritage..."? Actually, you'd better, because, from what I've been able to find elsewhere, it seems to continue "..., unlike other known models of child-sex offending in Britain, including child abuse initiated by online grooming, in which the vast majority of perpetrators are white". [14] This blatant misrepresentation of sources is sufficient grounds alone to call for a topic ban, if not an outright block. I suggest you start thinking about finding another forum for your hate-fuelled POV-pushing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

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

the guardian source actually states:

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

the claims are dubious[15]. thus, british-pakistani men are *not* disproportionately involved in these crimes. anyway, the issue is still about ankhmorpork adding badges of shame. the second source provided by user:ds claims that young black men are behind a high proportion of gang rapes...now, is ankhmorpork going to add a subsection about this on the page of Black Briton?-- altetendekrabbe  23:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Calling other editors abusive names such as prick, liar and bigot is clearly intended as a personal attack. Please consider this a first warning to all those that have indulged themselves in using Wikipedia as if it were the worst of 4chan, any further blatant personal attacks on this page will result in that contribution being deleted, a final user warning on your talk page, followed by a block for the individual if you then persist. If you feel you are genuinely unable to contribute here without resorting to abuse, now would be a good time to take this page off your watchlist. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The current full protection expires on 21 May 2012. If problems persist after the protection expires, then please raise another request at Requests for page protection. I am disappointed at the language and ad hominem arguments that have been used during this discussion, and would like to see everyone think twice and write calmly about the issues. AndyTheGrump has suggested I may be overly involved due to expressing an opinion about his inflammatory use of fruity language elsewhere, a point I had not considered as the action here was not especially related to him as an editor. I stand by the one week full protection as a sensible precaution but I do not intend to use any sysop tools on this article from this point on, hopefully to ensure there is no question of inappropriate use. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The publication of Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses in 1988 is said to have been a precursor for the September 11 attacks.[92] - this is supposedly sourced to the New York Times. But actually the link is to middleeast.about.com. Furthermore, the page very clearly states that it was actually originally published by Daytona Beach, Fla., News-Journal. This may or may not be a reliable source, but unless I'm missing something, it ain't the New York Times. Additionally this appears to be an opinion piece, which opens up with "In 2005, anyone who loves the American language celebrated the 50th anniversary of Vladimir Nabokov’s Lolita, still the greatest American novel of the last half century. " - so actually, it's NOT a reliable source. And on top of that the present Wikipedia article, by pulling a sentence completely out of context, manages to give a very different impression than what is actually in the source (hint: verbatim =/ representative) Remove it.

This: "The publication of The Satanic Verses, coupled with violence in the Middle East and the wider Muslim world, helped radicalised Muslim men whose ancestors had come to the UK from Pakistan and elsewhere" is cited to two sources. The first one [18] is, again, an opinion piece, and NOT a reliable source for these kinds of claims. It is also disputable whether or not the source actually supports the text being included. The other source is this which is another opinion piece.

This: "British Pakistanis, male and female, on average claim to have had only one sexual partner. The average British Pakistani male claims to have lost his virginity at the age of 20, the average female at 22, giving an average age of 21. 3.2 per cent of Pakistani males report that they have been diagnosed with a sexually transmitted infection (STI), compared to 3.6 per cent of Pakistani females.[102] Cultural norms regarding issues such as chastity and marriage have resulted in British Pakistanis having a substantially older age for first intercourse, lower number of partners, and lower STI rates than the national average". WHO. THE. FUCK. CARES? This is not encyclopedic content. At BEST it's trivia.

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

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

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

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

yes.-- altetendekrabbe  21:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Not without community consensus. Faizan -Let's talk! 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to restore reliably sourced content, now where is your reason for removal of that text? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The material is misleading (it grossly oversimplifies a complex situation), and entirely unwarranted in the context of an article about an ethnic group. Wikipedia isn't here to serve the interests of those intent on presenting an ethnic minority in the worst possible light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is here to present the facts, it is a fact that the edit is correct, your preferences for what should be here are irrelevant. The majority of Asians involved in the riots were British Pakistanis per the sources, this article is about that particular ethnic group, so it goes back. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'facts' are (a) that this is an article about an ethnic minority, not an article regarding the ethnic makeup of rioters in one particular location at one point in time. (b) There are two of us so far opposing inclusion - and consensus so far is against you. You have offered no legitimate justification whatsoever for inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Erm what consensus, it is not a vote Andy. Policy is all that matters here, so we have is the content verifiable? Yes, it is. Are the sources reliable? Yes, they are. Is content about British Pakistanis living in Bradford rioting, belong in a section about British Pakistanis living in Bradford DUE? Obviously, given the amount of sources which discuss it indepth. So it will go back, as policy, not your preferences dictate what we do. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The material is undue, and you have no support to include it. There is no policy whatsoever that says that content 'must' be included in articles because sources can be found for it, as you are well aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Wrong, WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" Which means in a nutshell you cannot take out or exclude content you do not like. Also WP:DUE "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable source" So the few lines you insist on editwarring out are more than DUE given the coverage given in RS. I shall pop it back in tomorrow. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with Andy, I'm afraid. Why does it merit a mention in this article? --John (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Already pointed out above, how can we have a section on Pakistanis in Bradford and exclude the fact that they were the majority of rioters in the same place? We can either remove the section or comply with policy and put the content back. Or is trivia such as "The majority of British Pakistanis here can trace their roots to the Mirpur District of Kashmir" encyclopedic but academic sources discussing riots are not? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines, can you explain where this 'significant view' comes from? Which 'viewpoint' on this particular ethnic minority considers the events in one particular town over a few days in 2001 so significant as to merit inclusion in a general discussion of the subject? Please provide citations for the sources that do this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Erm, these guys. Paul Bagguley, Yasmin Hussain Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain Ikhlaq Din The New British: The Impact of Culture And Community on Young Pakistanis Gabriele Rosenthal, Artur Bogne(Eds) Ethnicity, Belonging and Biography: Ethnographical and Biographical Perspectives Cara. Aitchison, Peter E. Hopkins, Mei-Po Kwa(Eds) Geographies of Muslim Identities: Diaspora Gender and Belonging Tracy J. Prince Culture Wars in British Literature Alison Shaw Negotiating risk: British Pakistani experiences of genetics And of course a great many others who discuss British Pakistanis, and also of course mention the riots. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I asked for properly-cited sources from a general discussion British Pakistanis as a subject, not the results of a facile exercise in Google-mining. Or are you seriously suggesting that books entitled 'Culture Wars in British Literature' and 'Negotiating risk: British Pakistani experiences of genetics' are in fact about something else entirely? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, I do not have to show you any such sources, the sources already used do the job. The sources above are only to show that books which discuss British Pakistanis also mention the riots. And it is not Google mining, it is supplying what you asked for. Now you can give a reason within policy for the removal of this content, or it goes back in. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, now explain why you have selected this particular material from these particular sources. Are you accurately representing the opinions of the authors regarding British Pakistanis, (Personal attack removed) AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I was curious as to how long it would be before you began the smear campaign, well I am done and the content goes back per policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

DS, I would point out that (a) you are at 3R on this article, and (b) consensus above appears to be against you including it. I think you need to discuss this further and meet the concerns, specifically UNDUE, of the above editors. Black Kite (talk) 17:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

UNDUE my ass, look at the sources, the coverage given in both the MSM and academic books shows that this content is DUE. Consensus is not a vote, and I have yet to see a single argument within policy to exclude this content. A few lines is all it is, and all this is, is a waste of my time. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Come on, you know this is the way that Wikipedia works. If other editors have concerns about something you want to include you need to show that their concerns are invalid. Just because something's reliably sourced doesn't mean it must be automatically included in an article; being reliably sourced does not necessarily meet UNDUE and/or NPOV, for a start. I haven't even looked at the sources myself but I can say the above because I don't need to see them - this is standard Wikipedia WP:BRD procedure. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

BK, that is already done. See all those books above, the ones Andy has not bothered to look at? The sources he asked for? All of those are discussing British Pakistanis and all mention the riots. I can get you hundreds of sources which cover this for gods sake. NPOV is not an excuse to remove something which makes people look bad, NPOV means everything goes in so long as it is reliably sourced and DUE, it is DUE because academics say it is, if they write about British Pakistanis and the riots are mentioned along with that, then so should we. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPOV: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". You are cherry-picking isolated references to riots from material about other subjects - entirely undue, and unjustifiable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

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

"discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." That you have to resort to cherry-picking from books on genetics and literature to justify your edits looks "disproportionate" to me. This isn't an article about Bradford. This isn't an article about riots. It is an article about British Pakistanis, the overwhelming majority of which took no part whatsoever in rioting in Bradford or anywhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Your constant personal attacks are tedious, so how about stopping. I have not cherry picked anything, you asked for sources, I supplied them. Do not ask a person to get sources and then attack them for getting what you asked for. The article is about British Pakistanis. It has a section for said fellows who live in Bradford, hence that section is DUE a few lines on how the majority of the Asians involved in the riots were, British Pakistanis. This is not rocket science Andy, it is common sense. When academics write books about British Pakistanis they seem to mention the Bradford riots, if it is good enough for them it is most certainly good enoguh for Wikipedia. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The clear consensus here is that inclusion of this material is undue. If you insist on ignoring consensus in order to push your own opinions, you can expect to be held to account. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sure there is a policy or essay about people claiming a consensus where none actually exists, but I really cannot be arsed to go find it. Again, not a vote. Policy decides, and as you are the only one who has tried (and failed) to argue policy I see no consensus at all for the exclusion of this content. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

DS, you say "When academics write about British Pakistanis they seem to mention the Bradford riots." Do you mean all academics writing about British Pakistanis, most, or many? When you say "they seem to mention" do you mean "they mention"? When you say "mention", do you mean that they mention the riots in Bradford in passing or discuss them at length? Overall, do these mentions or discussions form a larger, similar or smaller part of the academic texts on British Pakistanis than the disputed text would in the Wikipedia article British Pakistanis? NebY (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

By "When academics write about British Pakistanis they seem to mention the Bradford riots." I mean the sources already given, and yes they discuss the riots in-depth. Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain has two chapters on it first is on p39 which gives an overview and comparison on three riots. Oldham, Burnley & Bradford. The second chapter also goes into detail and begins on p65. The New British: The Impact of Culture And Community on Young Pakistanis discusses the riots and probable reasons behind them. In fact this is a good find as there it can be used to source the feelings of the community at large over their fears of being tarred with the same brush. Geographies of Muslim Identities: Diaspora Gender and Belonging goes into great detail on both subjects from p65 onwards I quote from the start "Over the last four years British Pakistanis have come under intense public scrutiny in response to events both global and local" It then discusses the riots and the potential fallout from them. Culture Wars in British Literature: Multiculturalism and National Identity Goes into a lot of detail about the riots and British Pakistanis. Culture Wars in British Literature says they were the worst race riots since Brixton. Islamic Radicalism and Multicultural Politics: The British Experience again covers the riots, and the reasons behind them extensively, per the edit I made[19] the book discusses the attacks by extreme right wing groups which culminated in the riot. There are no shortage of sources which discuss this in-depth. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

So would it be more appropriate to say "Some academics discuss the Bradford riots"? NebY (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless you want me to go and ask them all, then I suppose so. Or we can try GBooks and see what we get on the first page (citing just books from academic publishers), Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain already discussed above. The Police And Social Conflict plenty of detail on the riots. Returning (to) Communities: Theory, Culture and Political Practice of the Communal plenty in there. Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century plenty in there. Exactly how many sources do you want me to produce? But we can go with "Some academics". it makes no difference really. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "Some academics discuss the Bradford riots and they can be found in GBooks with an appropriate search term"? That still doesn't help us to determine due weight: was the participation of some of the British Pakistani community in the 2001 riots sufficiently characteristic of the Bradford community to be included in Wikipedia's brief overview of them? NebY (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Other than the majority of those rioting being British Pakistanis you mean? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, other than that, otherwise we fall into a very basic logical fallacy by suggesting that because a majority of A were B, A is typical of B. NebY (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a source that states that "the majority of those rioting [were] British Pakistanis" though? I've seen sources that state that the majority of rioters from ethnic minorities were British Pakistanis, but that is another matter entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually no for two reasons, one we are just pointing out a fact, the other per The New British: The Impact of Culture And Community on Young Pakistanis which I said was a good find, as it gives A's perspective on what happened on and how B's actions impacted on them, which I think is quite important to put across. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Re Andy, so when you reverted me and then started your dramafest you had not even looked at the sources I had used? The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy p275. & Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain p7 Darkness Shines (talk) 22:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

The source you cite does not state that the majority of those rioting in Bradford were British Pakistanis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

"We are just pointing out a fact" is not an adequate justification for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of facts and we must pay attention to due weight. Worse, "I'm just pointing out a fact" is all too familar a defence of the presentation of an isolated incident as typical of whatever grouping is under discussion and risks the appearance of NPOV at best. Second, "which I said was a good find" strongly implies that you did not insert text into the article after reading the sources but instead, after making the insertion, have been using Google Books to seek out sources that might justify it and have not read more than snippets and titles of those sources. Third, the existence of a text on a subject does not indicate that the inclusion of that subject in any given article would comply with WP:UNDUE; the pressure to publish is such that we can find academic texts and extended journalism on an astonishing range of subjects but cannot justify inclusion of those subjects on that basis alone. Perhaps a single example will help: there are many scholarly texts and much extended journalism on the Tate-LaBianca murders that situate the Manson family in the contemporary context of California and consider the effects upon California, yet you will not find any mention of the murders in the California article. NebY (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Incidentally, I note that you added the second source while I was responding to your post timestamped 23:14 - hence my reference to 'source', rather than 'sources'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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

Andy, that is without a doubt the most ridiculous thing I have yet to read from you, to say that "Those involved in the riots were predominantly from a Pakistani background" is out of context is disingenuous as it could not be any clearer. But from the same source on p73 the same thing is said "A crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" We also have Applying theory to policy and practice which says the majority of those arrested and charged were mainly from a Pakistani background. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple question, DarknessShines. Do you have access to the sources you cite, or are you relying on Google snippets? Anyway, judging from what I can see from Google, you have omitted the first part of the quote from Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain in order to make it appear to say something it doesn't - it is part of a longer sentence, for which I don't have the start, but the section reads "...demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police..." There is no way whatsoever that one can ascertain the broader context of this, and read it as a statement regarding the overall proportion of rioters from a British Pakistani background. Please cite sources for what they say, rather than for what you'd like them to say.

Furthermore, on neither of the two pages referring to British Pakistanis (109, 117)of Applying theory to policy and practice I can access via Google books does it say that the majority of Bradford rioters were British Pakistanis. Can you please provide the relevant page number, and quote the relevant paragraph so we can see the context. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, what do you think "the majority of those arrested and charged were mainly from a Pakistani background" means? The context is quite obvious, those fighting were obviously mainly Pakistani in heritage. I have given you the sources, and you are just filibustering. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Filibustering? Nope - asking you to stop misrepresenting sources. The quote in question is "It was mentioned at the outset that a large number of local people, mainly young men of Muslim faith background and Pakistani heritage, were arrested and charged with public order offences in connection with the 2001 riots". 2001 riots. Not specifically Bradford - and note the 'local people'. We know that in the Bradford case there were large numbers of non-locals present for the fascist march and counter-demonstration. Furthermore, you should know better than to equate 'proportion of arrests' with 'proportion of participants'. The source doesn't make that equation, so we can't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The non locals had all fucked off home. Which is in the source provided "What became an ethnically diverse crowd of men and women at the anti Nazi league demonstration in the city centre became a crowd of largely British Pakistani men fighting the police" Riotous Citizens: Ethnic Conflict in Multicultural Britain p73. I see no reason at all for this continued filibustering to continue, I am putting the content back. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatsoever here for the inclusion of material relating to the Bradford riots. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not needed, you have failed to give a single reason within policy to exclude it. I am going to argue with you till the end of time. If consensus depends on you ever agreeing to anything then nothing would ever get done. OrangesRyellow says I have cleared the burden on this content, and to be frank only you have tried to use policy to keep the content out, but you have failed. Per WP:V, NPOV, BURDEN all criteria for inclusion have been met. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So because one person agrees with you, you can go ahead? What about the views of the five people who don't? Anyway, read WP:NPOV again, with specific reference to WP:UNDUE. You have singularly failed to demonstrate that any general discussion of British Pakistanis must necessarily have anything to say regarding the events in a single northern English town over a few days in 2001. Instead, you have resorted to cherry-picking, and self-evident misrepresentation of sources in order to 'justify' this otherwise unmerited inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No, their views do not matter, they gave no reasons in policy to exclude the content. The sources I have provided show that a few lines is more than DUE, the sources I have provided which discuss British Pakistanis all discuss the riots as well, so your third point is moot. The rest is your usual filibustering, you demand sources, when sources are given you make accusations of misrepresentation and cherry picking. The content will go back Andy, stop wasting my time. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I haven't 'accused' you of misrepresenting sources - I have demonstrated that you have done so. If you chose to restore material without consensus, you can expect it to be removed again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here. Put simply, that section violates the neutral point of view of the page and shouldn't be there.--Launchballer 15:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Which proves that you have not even looked at the content being disputed. It is not a section, it is a few lines in a section. To not have it violates NPOV. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"They gave no reasons in policy" is a serious misrepresentation. I have been challenging your claims of due weight, to which you have responded with irrelevant claims of verifiability. Your use of sources has not stood scrutiny and has appeared to be nothing but a prop for blatantly absurd generalisations such as "When academics write about British Pakistanis they seem to mention the Bradford riots." Far from giving "no reason in policy to exclude the content", I have been putting it to you that your insertion and your arguments in its favour are outwith and contrary to policy. I have sought to reason with you about this, but been faced with little but attempts to prove verifiability by using Google Books and ultimately "We are just pointing out a fact". NebY (talk) 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

No you have not, you were asking questions, Not one of your posts mentioned policy at all bar this one[20] posted after I had gone of to bed and had missed. And in response to that, California is a bloody state, it is not an article about people. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• Restore because this information does not look to me WP:FRINGE. I did not check all arguments above (tl;dr, sorry), but simply commenting on the diff in question... Yes, one can reasonably argue that well sourced information about ethnic conflicts belong to articles about the corresponding ethnic groups (although this probably should be a different and separate sub-section of the article). Of course one must look through a large number of publications to make a more qualified judgement... My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
• Based on the comments at ANI in the epic failure to get me topic banned, I note several editors saying that the content which was removed is just fine. So I will be restoring it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Based on the evidence that the consensus here is against adding such material, I shall remove it. If it fails to reflect WP:NPOV, or in any way misrepresents the sources cited, I shall report the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)Nope, it goes back Andy, feel free to start the dramamongering now. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I see a POV tag has been added to the article. Could I ask the person who added it to explain which section(s) of the article are currently seen as violating WP:NPOV, and why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Seriously? Look at the section above the one you hatted. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

So you are now claiming that not including material relating to events in a single northern English town over a few days in 2001 is a violation of WP:NPOV? That is ridiculous. It is also an abuse of a POV tag. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I am claiming that "significant views that have been published by reliable sources" being removed from this article is a violation of NPOV. What with that particular policy saying that. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic". This is an article about British Pakistanis, not about the Bradford riots. Anyway, there is no point going over the same ground again. The weight of opinion on this talk page is that this material should not be included, and you don't get to decide who's opinion counts. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have never said I get to "decide who's opinion counts" Andy, only you have made that spurious claim. Policy decides. And what is with all the random bolding? Are you trying to make what you have made up a little more exciting? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This removed content is well-sourced, connected directly to the subject, thus merits a mention & should be restored immediately (willingly disregarding the unsubstantiated assertions of source misrepresentation). If somebody wants to assert that that does not merit a mention then I think that is his POV. Put up an RFC if you like but that content should go in. It is censorship pure and simple. Mr T<sup>(Talk?) (New thread?)</sup> 11:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Arain321 is changing/updating some stats citing a self published source on Google Docs. I am of the opinion that this does not meet RS and have reverted him, can he please explain why he thinks this source passes WP:SPS? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed DS! He should cite reliable source. Faizan 16:08, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not make this edit.[21] I don't know if somehow someone gained access to my account, but I did not make that edit. I'm just letting everyone know that that was not me. I've changed my password. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

A reputable source has already established that he is a candidate for becoming the U.K Prime Minister. Don't see why this fact should be undone from this article it is totally neutral and relevent because he is a British Pakistani. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/31/tory-party-rising-stars-fading Also, less important a source http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sidekick-sajid-javid-2644035 confirms it too. 92.26.239.178 (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources establish no such thing. There are no "candidates" for becoming the U.K. PM. First he would have to become leader of the Conservative Party. David Cameron currently fills both jobs and has indicated no intention to resign either of them. There is no list of candidates for anything. Javid has been talked about in the Westminster press bubble as a potential future candidate if and when such an election opportunity presents itself. In the same way that dozens of other potential candidates are chattered about, there is absolutely no substance. It is the opinion of a single political correspondent, which carries no more factual weight than my opinion, or yours. It is a classic piece of original research presented in the form of speculation and WP:NOTCRYSTAL (3) clearly precludes it as does (5) "Speculation and rumor [sic], even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic [sic] content.". Leaky Caldron 14:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Leaky caldron - this sort of speculation doesn't belong in an article. Javed isn't currently a 'candidate' for anything, and it is misleading to suggest otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Going to lend further support to LC's view. The nature of the the British premiership means that an individual would only be considered a candidate should they be a leader of a party, which Javid is not.--Half past formerly SUFCboy 17:00, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

It is speculation, it is not as you present it and it is not neutral. The short Guardian piece listed Javid as one of five second-rank (below Johnson, Gove and Hague) possible candidates for leader of the Conservative Party "if a leadership contest takes place after the election". The usual circumstance for a leadership contest taking place after an election is if the party has failed in the election and the contest would not for PM; indeed, after the Conservatives last lost power in 1997, their next three leaders were replaced without becoming PM. Remember also that some politicians are long-term strategists; for example, consider the possibility that those briefing the Guardian and the Mirror may look forward to the Conservative Party losing power and would be able to make veiled and direct accusations of racism if Javid was passed over after they had built him up as a potential candidate. NebY (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The above picture has been deleted despite being factually sound and relevant to the Economics section. Given that we are talking about a current UK Finance Minister and somebody who held top office in JPMorgan Chase, FTSE 100 company it should remain in the British Pakistanis article. 2.31.72.196 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This has been explained already - the article is already populated with unnecessary images and captions that do not further understanding of the subject at hand. Sajid Javid is already mentioned in the text and the picture of Canary Wharf is of little relevance. --Half past formerly SUFCboy 17:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The position of Naguib Kheraj, Vice-Chairman of Barclays Bank PLC http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-16/barclays-to-bring-back-kheraj-to-advise-ceo-diamond-ft-reports.html , gives extra reason as to why a Canary Wharf picture should feature in this economics section. Although a mention of Naguib Kheraj instead of the other British Pakistani might be an alternative idea, if both cannot be mentioned. 143.52.61.109 (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This picture does not show anything distinctively British Pakistani. A picture of Naguib Kheraj would be appropriate; a picture of the buildings that hold local, national, continental or in some cases head offices of a very large number of companies, one of which employs one British Pakistani in a high-ranking position, is even less appropriate than a picture of the workplace of all British Pakistanis. NebY (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's already been agreed that a picture would be appropriate. Firstly it should be a picture of Barclays bank on its own, even if that is not possible then one of GBP money helps to show what is being said about Kheraj.143.52.65.187 (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

There has been no 'agreement' pertaining to that. Consensus is clearly against the addition of irrelevant pictures to the article. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policies on image use and stop making disruptive edits. --Half past formerly SUFCboy 20:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Why describe pashtuns as reticent and insular 66.249.93.233 (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A good question. Since no source was provided for this rather sweeping generalisation, I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@AndyTheGrump: It is sourced. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

In the Contemporary issues section, is it prudent to note the Derby, Oxford, Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford sex gangs? The perpetrators in these cases is said to be predominantly Muslim men of British Pakistani origin. I understand that this is a difficult topic so I wouldn't add it directly. I learned of this «British sex gang» subject first time today on the radio news here in Norway, so my insight is obviously extremely limited, but since the subject is of a shocking and important nature my gut feeling is that one should shed a light on it, in the hope of preventing proliferation.

E.g., the Telegraph ran this column by Allison Pearson:

«It is of the utmost importance that wider society wakes up to the fact that there is what the inquiry found to be a “deep-rooted problem of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators targeting young white girls”. Many of us who have been saying this for a long time have been shouted down as racist. Thanks to Prof Jay, it has been stated publicly for the first time that the fear of appearing racist was more pressing in official minds than enforcing the law of the land or rescuing terrified children. It is one of the great scandals of our lifetime.» http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11059138/Rotherham-In-the-face-of-such-evil-who-is-the-racist-now.html Rotherham: In the face of such evil, who is the racist now?] – The Telegraph

The columnist's Wikipedia entry notes some controversies surrounding her. Nonetheless the subject matter has heated discussion. From The Independent in 2012:

«When it comes to sex, [Muslim imam] Alyas Karmani [of] the British Pakistani community … is addressing the question of whether a disproportionate number of British Asian men are involved in grooming underage girls for sex. He thinks the answer is "Yes"…» Asian grooming: why we need to talk about sex – The Independent

It seems to be a topic that Wikipedia may consider to cover in general, and not just as separate cases.

Bjornte (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This article currently has various stock pictures. Particularly generic are pictures of a cricket ball, the Palace of Westminster and a London taxi, which could equally well be used to illustrate a wide variety of ethnic groups. A picture of Canary Wharf has been added repeatedly on the basis of the Pakistani origins of one of the current or past executives of one of the companies with offices there. There's a picture of King's College, Cambridge included on the basis that Ash Amin, a fellow of Christ's College, is the university's Professor of Geography. There's a picture of a mango, "the national fruit of India and the Philippines and the national tree of Bangladesh". I'm used to seeing such pictures in a low-budget newspaper to draw the eye and break up the text, but not in an encyclopedia. Should we keep such pictures or remove them? NebY (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The pictures do not seem to violate any rules and include information which supports the theme. Furthermore this article is about Pakistani people living in the U.K and the used pictures are an important fabric of this topic, many of which have stayed with this article for years.2.31.72.196 (talk) 17:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How do pictures of a London taxi or King's College "support the theme"? The taxi and college are distinctively British but are no more distinctively British Pakistani than they are British Indian or British West Indian. The "fabric" of the article would not suffer if those pictures were removed; they are mere decoration upon the text, dressing it up with popular symbols of Britishness. As for the longevity of some of these pictures, Wikipedia is a work in progress; nothing is fixed and the process of refinement is continual. NebY (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we can all agree the use of the King's College Chapel at Cambridge to point out that Ash Amin is a Brit of Pakistani origin is....strange. How about using one of the many pictures only of Professor Amin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.91.136 (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think we should include Nobel prize winner Abdus Salam in this article? He did after all spend most of his life living in Britain, and he was born in Punjab of then British India.

I think there's a strong case to be made that he belongs here, even if he never took British citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.91.136 (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite an article.

1) What would someone who was born in Pakistan, whose parents were born in Pakistan, but whose grandparents were from Britain and moved to Pakistan and had families there, and who then moved to Britain, be called?

2) Since it is "ancestrally" determined, does a "British Pakistani" ever become "British"? Or is he or she perpetually not "British" but always "British Pakistani"?

3) I would have thought the adjective to be less important than the noun. Why is someone born in Britain, whose grandparents (say) were from Pakistan, called a variety of "Pakistani"? Why not "Pakistani Brit", a variety of Brit? Is this a particularly British use? In other parts of the English-speaking world he or she would be a Pakistani American, or Pakistani Australian, or Pakistani Canadian.

4) "Pakistanis make up the largest ethnic minority in Scotland, representing nearly one third of the ethnic minority" (in a section called Glasgow, which only talks about Glasgow). What is "the ethnic minority"? Those who don't have ancestral roots in Scotland? If the article has figured out that Pakistanis are 1/3 of the ethnic minority, couldn't it figure out what percentage the ethnic minority is of Scotland? I see the article dropped the "British" at the beginning of this paragraph, to finish with "Scottish Pakistanis".

5) Elsewhere the article mentions how "English Pakistanis tend to identify much more with the United Kingdom than with England, with 63% describing themselves in a Policy Exchange survey as exclusively "British" and not "English" in terms of nationality, and only 15% saying they were solely English." So are there English Pakistanis as well as British and Scottish ones?

6) one last question. In the Religion chart, why are Ahmadiyya separated out from Muslim? The text includes it in Islam, unless "branch" and "sect" are significant in a particular way. The Pakistani government does not consider Ahmadiyya to be real Muslims, but the Ahmadiyya themselves certainly do. etc Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, I have to revert it unfortunately as per MOS:INFOBOX. Infoboxes are meant to be compact, and no Wikipedia article has infoboxes with two dozens of images lined up. It messes up the formatting of the article and makes it look ugly. These are simply article presentation and consistency issues. 12 images are appropriately representative and more than enough for the infobox. If you want to make changes within those 12, that should be fine and you should use the talk page for consensus, but please don't inflate and exaggerate the infobox with dozens of further images as it has an impact on the article quality. You can add other images at List of British Pakistanis or elsewhere. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mar4d. I agree that the edit made the infobox too big. Regardless of that, Ronties should have discussed the proposed additions here rather than editing warring, after the first revert. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The article needs changing now.http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/medialibrary/briefingsupdated/how-are-ethnic-inequalities-in-education-changing.pdf

The initial source talked about the entrie Punjabi ethno-linguastic group, but hindus (Indians) make up the majority of the middle class in the UK.TimothyBaker2 (talk) 11:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, which source is that? Also, the article already notes: "Data from the 2011 census shows that British Pakistanis are one of the least qualified major groups". Cordless Larry (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. You removed it earlier. Seems like a good decision to remove it, and the material was plagiarised from the source anyway. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake, it wasn't plagiarised as there were quote marks. I still agree with the removal though, as including this in the intro obscures the fact that Pakistanis in the UK are, on the whole, not an affluent group, and the source isn't just about Pakistanis. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the statement was talking about British Pakistanis on the whole. It already noted that "certain sections" of the community are successful. As the disadvantaged sections of the community are already mentioned, this piece of information ought to be mentioned too IMO. Mar4d (talk)

Well, for a start, it shouldn't be in the introduction alone, as that is supposed to summarise the content of the article. I realise that the statement isn't about British Pakistanis as a whole, but the source is about Punjabis, which includes Indians too, so how do we know that most of the wealthy people discussed aren't all Indian? The source is also just a statement about a research project, not the results of that project. Perhaps finding the latter might help clarify the outcomes of the research, which we might then be able to report in the article? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d:, give the sources that term "Kashmir" means "Azad Kashmir".--Human3015 talk • 06:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Kashmir conflict includes conflict over Gilgit, Jammu, Kashmir valley, Ladakh and Azad Kashmir. One can't use term Kashmir as replacement of Azad Kashmir, it is a official name of the region. --Human3015 talk • 08:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• No one is explaining what is motive/intention/philosophy behind writing [[Azad Kashmir]] as [[Azad Kashmir|Kashmir]]? That too in lead. Atleast once in lead we have to mention that in this article we are talking about "Pakistan administered Azad Kashmir" and not about whole Kashmir as some people want to show. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 14:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, as I said on my talk page, I think Kashmir is a reasonable term to use here since the identification is with a region rather than a political entity. --regentspark (comment) 15:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

RegentsPark, I will explain you. If you read this matter more deeply. Pakistan's army general Raheel Sharif once said "Kashmir is jugular vein of Pakistan" read here, here term Kashmir means Indian administerd Jammu and Kashmir. Bilawal Bhutto, Patron in Chief of Pakistan Peoples Party once said,"we will take every inch of Kashmir [22]. Pakistan's Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif also said that "Kashmir is Jugular vein of Pakistan" read here. Here they used bare term "Kashmir" to specify Indian administered "Kashmir". Pakistan also celebrates Kashmir Solidarity Day in relation with Indian administered Kashmir. Bare term "Kashmir" always means "Indian administered Kashmir".

Here some editors whose user page says that they are from Pakistan writing in lead [[Azad Kashmir]] as [[Azad Kashmir|Kashmir]]. Why they can't simply write it as [[Azad Kashmir]] which is official name of that Pakistan province. Atleast once in lead they should mention word Azad Kashmir. They want show that all Kashmiris in UK are British Pakistanis even if they are from Indian administered Jammu and Kashmir. As Pakistan claims Jammu and Kashmir as their part.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 15:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

RegentsPark, to justify my point regarding intentions of some editors I will show you one old edit. My main issue is going on with User Mar4d regarding this issue as you can see that in edit history of this page. Read this old edit of Mar4d, where he was writing Kashmiri(Indian side) separatist militants as "freedom fighters". Some of them are desgnated terrorist grups by UN, US and India. And he is calling them "Freedom Fighters" on wikipedia. Because those militants are doing work of separating Kashmir from India and to join it with Pakistan. Here also intentions of editors is to show "all Kashmiris" in UK as "British Pakistanis" even if they can be from Indian Kashmir. Hope you are understanding my point. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 16:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, you had agreed and given your word that you would not stalk me to another article. Yet you still have not refrained from your old habit, turning up here and now at this article. I frankly have had enough of your pestering and your pointless edit wars everywhere and am going to bring your behaviour towards an administrator's attention now. I am one of the top contributors who expanded this article and let me make it clear everything in the article is presented in the context of sources. You clearly have little knowledge and background of this topic to be able to make any constructive edits on this article, and your attempts to push your personal perspective here is highly disruptive for this article. This article is not on the Kashmir dispute. Using full names of entities is redundant and not needed (once is fine, but it does not make sense to use it everywhere). There are over 1 million Kashmiris from Pakistani Kashmir who live in the UK. If you had the audacity to read even one of the 300 sources cited in this article, you would find that scholarly sources, articles, books and publications use the general term Kashmir to refer to the Azad Kashmir region, and the immigrants are simply referred to as Kashmiris (rather than Azad Kashmiriswhich is less common). The term is used in the geographical reference, not political. It's the same as referring to Punjab and Punjabis, instead of Pakistani Punjab or Pakistani Punjabis. You don't need political connotations everywhere. It is simple terminology and for article consistency. You have also made four reverts in a short time, so see you at WP:AN3. Mar4d (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Human3015's objection is valid. Looking at this edit [23], I see a deliberate attempt to mislead. Why should one say "Kashmir" and provide a link to "Azad Kashmir"? Azad after all means free. It is not a bad word by any means! - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, instead of original research, give us reliable sources that Azad Kashmir is called as Kashmir. Why there is need of writing "Kashmir" when there is no region named "Kashmir" in Pakistan. Pakistan have only one region named "Azad Kashmir" not "Kashmir". "Azad Kashmir" is official name, on Wikipedia we go by official names, not anyone's personal favorite names. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 18:02, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you're making too much of this Human3015. British people of subcontinental descent can be simultaneously of Punjabi and Pakistani descent (or Punjabi and Indian or Kashmiri and Indian or Kashmiri and Pakistani). It is sad that these regions are divided but that is the reality. I suggest dropping Azad completely from the link and using Kashmir because that would be the regional and ethnic identification of British people whose ancestors hail from that (very lovely!) mountainous region. --regentspark (comment) 18:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

RegentsPark The problem here is that Human3015 is unwilling to read any of the sources cited. All the academic sources use Kashmir to refer to people who originate from there. This argument is not about political divisions. If that was the case, there would be disambiguation for almost every ethnicity (Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashtun, Baloch etc.). Anyone who has knowledge of the British Kashmiri (and I have written large sections of this article) can vouch that they are widely referred to as Kashmiris in all British references and texts. Hence, while it makes sense to link to Azad Kashmir in the main text for clarity, the article uses the general terminology Kashmir elsewhere. Immigrants from Kashmir in the sources given are just called Kashmiris, rather than Azad Kashmiris. Mar4d (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I am quite happy with RP's compromise solution. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

RegentsPark, "British Kashmiri" can be "British Pakistani" or "British Indian" depending on from which side he/she comes, so we have to specify that. I'm saying why we can't use term Azad Kashmir at least once in lead when it is an official name of the region. and Mar4d I'm again saying you to give reliable source that "Azad Kashmir" more commonlt called as "Kashmir". I have already given sources and I can give more of it that bare term "Kashmir" usually refers to Indian side of Kashmir.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 18:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

All the sources cited in this article commonly use Kashmir to refer to Azad Kashmir. And this article will quote exactly what the sources say. If you want to discuss Kashmir's disputed status, you can go edit Kashmir conflict. Mar4d (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer Kashmir but Kashmir is fine if sources explicitly and (reasonably) consistently refer to Azad Kashmir as Kashmir. Note that a source may make a single reference to Azad Kashmir and then use Kashmir because of simplicity so - mar4d - you'll need to show that that isn't the case. -regentspark (comment) 18:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, no source in article refers Azad Kashmir as Kashmir. Anyway, it will be better if we remove Kashmir's reference from this article, as Kashmir is "disputed" region and we can't call people from Azad Kashmir as Pakistanis as it is not integral part of Pakistan, even Azad Kashmir don't has its representatives in Pakistan Parliament and Azad Kashmir has its Prime Minister and President. Pakistan itself accepts that Azad Kashmir is disputed region. So it will be better to call those people as "British Kashmiris" and NOT "British Pakistanis". We should remove their reference from this article. We can add it to separate article of British Kashmiris and in that we can mention Kashmiris from both administered sides.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 18:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, everyone is asking for source that Azad Kashmir is more commonly called as "Kashmir". You are saying all sources in article are saying same (which not the case). If Azad Kashmir is Kashmir then why all leaders of Pakistan keep on asking for Kashmir in United Nations when they already have Kashmir? Why they demand that India should do plebiscite in Kashmir when Kashmir is in control of Pakistan? Why Pakistan don't do plebiscite in Kashmir itself? Human3015 Say Hey!! • 19:08, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• If you editors google the word "Kashmir" then you will get all results of Jammu and Kashmir. On first page you will not even get result of Wikipedia page of Azad Kashmir. Just google it once. How one can claim that "Azad Kashmir" is commonly called as "Kashmir"?--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 19:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As Mar4d said us to look for some sources in article. I have seen some. Telegraph source in lead refers people from Azad Kashmir as Mirpuris, as most of people are from Mirpur, Azad Kashmir, they are in so large number that there is an article on them British Mirpuri community. Read Telegraph news from lead here. Sources not even saying them "People from Azad Kashmir" rather they saying them "People from Mirpur".--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 20:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A line in lead reads as "The most diverse Pakistani population is in London which consists of Punjabis, Kashmiris, Pashtuns, Sindhis, Muhajirs, Saraikis, Baloch and others" while above Telegraph source attached to it calling them Mirpuris. Word "Kashmir" not even exists in that source.[24] Then why "Kashmiris" mentioned in lead? WP:OR, WP:POV.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 21:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Still I don't have any problem in calling them "Kashmiris" because they are "Kashmiris", thats why I have not even touched word "Kashmiris" in article when I had chance, I just wrote these "Kashmiris" are from Azad Kashmir of Pakistan(which they are), so what's wrong I have done?? It is a simple issue. Earlier version was writing Mirpur as "Mirpur, Kashmir", I just wrote it as "Mirpur, Azad Kashmir" which is a reality and it also has article of same name Mirpur, Azad Kashmir. What wrong I have done? Instead I have improved article to more real version.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 21:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a thread started at: Talk:Ethnic groups in the United Kingdom#Pluralisation of ethnic group titles perhaps as "British people of <x origin> descent" as per Categories.

Contributions welcome. GregKaye 09:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In this article, term "Kashmiris" is used for people living in Britain whose origin is Azad Kashmir of Pakistan. Using term "Kashmris" everytime is misleading. British Kashmirs can be Indian too. The sources given article, for example this source in lead refers them as Mirpuris while text written in article was calling them "Kashmiris". this another book source in body also calling them "Mirpuri villages" but text written in article was saying "Kashmiris". While this another source in body article clearly differentiates "Pakistani heritage" and "Kashmiri heritage". Also I found many dead link and many links attached don't even have mention of these things. If you see recent edit history then already one editor tagged some places saying "Kashmiris" as "source does not says this". Also one new editor changed recently "Kashmiris to Mirpuris" but it is also reverted by editor named Mar4d. When I changed lead to "Mirpuris" then I also got reverted by same editor. Now I again made change in article according to sources. Also when there is an article named British Mirpuris still POV pushers writing it as [[British Mirpuris|Kashmiris]], it shoud have been written [[British Mirpuris|Mirpuris]]. Now there are 2-3 editors who are against POV of Mar4d while Mar4d who claimed in earlier discussions above that he is editing this article since ages and his POV should be counted and should be valued though it is against sources. So it is issue of WP:OWNER. I'm in favour of writing according to sources. --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  07:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This article is not on British Indians, we have already gone over this. Kashmiri in this article means Azad Kashmir, and Punjabi refers to anyone from Punjab, Pakistan. You did a blanket rename and replaced Kashmiri everywhere based on your personal POV, but we have to follow the sources, and not anyone's WP:POV here. I am going to go through all the sources and make changes where necessary. If the source says Kashmiri, then we use Kashmiri, and vice versa. I don't think this article should be hijacked by someone's nationalist POV in any way. Mar4d (talk) 07:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d, you should specify which source, which line, which page number? --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  07:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 What dead link are you talking about? [25] And why did you remove a reference here clearly supporting the text, along with text? Do you realise you are abusing use of twinkle? Mar4d (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Your given link has been archived, archive is opening in this government link. Now say where "Kashmiri" is mentioned? It is a home page of website. --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  07:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Here you go, it is a UK government source and supports use of the term. You better self-revert, as you have not given a valid excuse yet why you reverted my edits and abused Twinkle? Mar4d (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment from uninvolved

My two cents. Since it was decided that British Mirpuri is the appropriate title for that page, it would be preferable to use that term in this article. You can of course make it clear that they are from the Azad Kashmir, and that they are often called "British Kashmiri," but the general reference to them throughout the article should British Mirpuri. Otherwise, you can do another RfC, but it is fairly predictable how it would go. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We should follow the source cited. If a source says Kashmiri, then I do not see why that should be discarded in favour for use of another term. It is not a good idea to discard reliable sources and leave this article to the interpretation of a single Wikipedia user. Mar4d (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Wikipedia is supposed to represent the scholarly consensus. You argument of "follow the source" suggests that you might cherry-pick sources to support your view point. But you have to represent all the scholarly opinions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: But that is exactly what Human3015 is not doing. We have scholarly sources, and both terms are used in abundance, Mirpuri/Kashmiri. What Human3015 is doing is removing all references of the term 'Kashmiri' from the article, which is wrong, as the sources cited do not explicity favour one term over another. Both terms are used commonly, and therefore the article in its original shape is accurate, as it follows the sources and uses both terms where context requires so. As you say, we have to represent all scholarly opinions, and that would necessitate not giving preferential use to one term only. I quoted a source below which says Mirpuris are commonly referred to as Kashmiris, and we have more indeed. Mar4d (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Another problem with blanketing all of them under 'Mirpuris' is that Not all people from Azad Kashmir are neccessarily from Mirpur only. Hence, it is a minor issue when you use a placename demonym to lump all under that designation. Mar4d (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) There is no requirement that we should use every term used in every source. We have to write Wikipedia coherently. If it is clear that the same group of people are being referred to, there is no harm in changing the label in our write-up. Between the two terms, British Mirpuri is preferable, as decided by the RfC on Talk:British Mirpuri. - Kautilya3 (talk) 08:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: WP:VERIFIABILITY says: Content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view. As such, we are bound to represent all sources accurately and should not discard one view for another. The RfC on Talk:British Mirpuri is not relevant, as that was for deciding the accurate title of that article, not for the validity of the term 'Kashmiri' or 'Mirpuri'. Mar4d (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

In that case, I am afraid you have to do another RfC or take it to WP:DRN. - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Questions

• I want to ask some questions to @Mar4d:.

1. Why you want to specifically use word "Kashmiri" here when you also know "Kashmiri" can be "Indian" too while your own given UK government documents using word "Mirpuris" for them. Why you are insisting for confusing word "Kashmiri"?

1. There is an community consensus for word "Mirpuri". see this recent RFC in which you also said word "Mirpuri" is suItable for these people not "Kashmiri", then change in stand?

1. I'm seeing you are alone insisting here for confusing term "Kashmiris" while you also reverted another user saying same. One uninvolved user also supporting my stand. One other user [27], [28] added tags of "failed verification" of sources. So what makes you to insist so much for this term? Isn't there is any nationalist POV? --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  08:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If i may, here is what i have to say. I changed the markups redirecting to the article Kashmiris since that deals with ethnic Kashmiris. In my opinion keeping in view the sources and all the discussion that has gone about this issue, the markup - Kashmiris should be used. Instead of a direct markup to the Kashmiris page. Also with regards to Kashmiri Language, it is quiet misleading since Kashmiri is not the spoken language by anyone in AJK barring a few migrant ethnic Kashmiris. So i am in favour for removal of Kashmiri language from the article and same goes for Kashmiri cuisine. The final output in my opinion should use Kashmiris markup, remove Kashmiri language and Kashmiri cuisine markups from the article, those are totally misleading. @Mar4d:, @Human3015: Regards. Saqiboberoi (talk) 08:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and I agree with that, and I think that is what we settled for. Kashmiris should redirect to the Mirpuri article instead of the ethnic Kashmiri article, as it is already defined that by Kashmiris, we mean those from Mirpur, Azad Kashmir. Mar4d (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Human3015: 1) At the end of this section, you were claiming you don't have a problem with using "Kashmiris". Now you did a complete u-turn and are removing the term everywhere from the article. This is a problem and an example of tendentious editing, because we have sources which use Kashmiri and you remove those terms discarding what the sources say. 2) The consensus you refer to was for the title of the article, and it was agreed that Mirpuri would be better in order to distinguish from other Kashmiris. There was never any sort of community consensus, as you claim, that the term 'Kashmiri' can't be used within that article itself or in British Pakistanis. It was for the title only. This is also illogical, as we have sources which use that term frequently. This article is on British Pakistanis, therefore it is obvious that any reference here to Kashmiris or Punjabis will mean people from the Pakistani parts of Kashmir or Punjab, and that we are not bound to distinguish the Kashmiris or Punjabis here from those in India, and this has been explained in the article. Why don't you understand this? If this article was on British Indians, then Kashmiris would refer to people from [[Jammu and Kashmir] only. 3) After the failed verification tag was added, I added a new source which says that there are Kashmiris in London. You removed that along with the source, and reinstated your favoured term, Mirpuris. Mar4d (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

At the end you said "reinstated your favoured term, Mirpuris". How "Mirpuri" is my "favoured" term? Isn't they belong to "Mirpur"? Isn't British Government call them "Mirpuri"? Isn't people from Indian city Srinagar called as "Kashmiris" and isn't it will confuse readers? (now you will say, this article is about Pakistan so people will automatically understand that here "Kashmiris" means "Mirpuris")... "Mirpuri" is not my "favoured" term, "Mirpuri" is "deserved" term. --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  08:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The UK government source I provided says Kashmiri, so your assertion that the British government exlusively uses Mirpuri is extremely false. Why would 'Kashmiri' be confusing in an article on British Pakistanis? A person from Pakistani Punjab is also called a Punjabi, why would that be confusing? Mar4d (talk) 08:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Your own quotation box says, "British goverment calls them Mirpuris but those people many times calls themself Kashmris". So UK doesn't say them "Kashmiris". Moreover, when we have non-confusing term "Mirpuri" then whats your problem? Do you want to show that "Kashmir is part of Pakistan"? You have failed to provide sufficient reasons for your POV, there is standing consensus for "Mirpuri" plus multiple editors are in favour of term "Mirpuri", we too have sources. I don't think that your alone personal opinion will affect much. --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  09:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And are you claming that UK government exclusively uses word "Kashmiris"? because you are not favour in keeping word "Mirpuri" no-where as if UK calls them exclusively "Kashmiris". --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  09:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say in the quote the "British goverment calls them Mirpuris"? You claim that without providing a source which shows Mirpuri as an official term preferred by the UK government. Your edits don't have consensus. I just gave one UK government source which uses Kashmiri. The fact is, neither term is preferred over another, both have equally dominant usage. That is how the article presents it. And FYI, in Pakistan, a Kashmiri does not only refer to someone from Jammu and Kashmiri, it also refers to a resident of Azad Kashmir. Unlike for the title British Mirpuri, we don't have to distinguish that here as it already clear this article includes people from Pakistani part of Kashmir. And also, Mirpur and Azad Kashmir are not the same thing. Mar4d (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Your own given source is UK gov document, mentioning them as "Mirpuri", while they are also mentioning that these people sometiems call themself as Kashmiris. As you said in Pak you call these people "Kashmiris" that is a minority view or Local, same way British Mirpuris sometimes call themself "Kashmiris". But in universal view we should call them "Mirpuris". --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm going for WP:DRN, because this discussion will not give any output as we know no one will change their stand. I am not in favour of RfC because many times RfCs get infested with socking, like one IP suddenly reverted my edit. (I hope Mar4d will report that IP as he usually do). So WP:DRN is better, we should get third neutral opinion (as we are not neutral). Mar4d/Kautilya3, please start discussion at DRN. --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  09:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Replace word "Kashmiris" → "Mirpuris" in the article. There has been brief edit war over this issue. But you can read this at WP:DRN. You can specially read sub-section "section break" in that DRN. There has been community consensus for using word "Mirpuri". Article name of this community is also British Mirpuris. I have given sources at DRN. Moderator and other editors are in favour of word "Mirpuri". Defending party for word "Kashmiri" has not provided any valid rationale for keeping word "Kashmiri". You can just revert latest edit by IP then word "Mirpuris" will be restored in article which is originally part of the article. Thank you. I have provided many sources at DRN but just to mention one here. Read quotation given in below book published by British Government which clearly differentiates "Mirpuris" from "Kashmiris". Those who are from Pakistan side are called as "Mirpuris", not "Kashmiris". We should use proper terms, it will mis-inform our readers.

• Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee (4 May 2007). South Asia: fourth report of session 2006-07, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. The Stationery Office. pp. 44–. ISBN 978-0-215-03378-9.

Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  08:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  12:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Faizan: Please refrain from doing POV changes for national purpose, we are going by sources, no source establishes that Mirpuris are ethnic Kashmiris, if you continue to do changes against sources then sadly I have to seek for arbitration enforcement on you. Involved party at DRN is not willing to comment, so we can't wait for one person against community consensus and reliable sources. And whatever your opinion is "consensus don't exists" and all that is just to push POV. You know all reality and Wikipedia policies. So please refrain from such things. --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  12:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Mar4d: Kindly self-revert your recent removal of sourced content. One can't do POV edits for national purpose. If you don't self revert then I have to seek for WP:AE. Your past history of POV editing on various Indo-Pak articles and templates can also go against you. Also there is long history of this article itself where you added unsourced POV edits at various occasions. Thank you. --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  13:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you know that you started a WP:DRN on this, and that the DRN hasn't been closed? You are the one making changes to this article. How do you defend your unilateral superimposition of a "consensus" when it hasn't been formed as of yet, while the DRN is proceeding? Your abuse of DRN will be brought to notice. As for your bad faith accusations, I will not respond to them. Your conduct as an editor is under serious scrutiny in light of your recent actions. Mar4d (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Can't you read moderators opinion and other involved editors including an admin plus numerous sources provided, do we keep on requesting you forever that "please accept this version", you have not provided any scholarly source at DRN, you just want to destroy DRN process and making it lengthy. You are only giving plain opinions. Even being online you edited other articles but did not comment on DRN for 2 days to kepp awaited everyone, you really don't own this article. Decisions are not made on the basis of opinions of 1 or 2 people, neither on opinion of 10 people, decisions are based on reliable sources and you have failed to provide multiple scholarly sources. Your 300+ edits to this article shows when you added all this POV material since your first ever edit to this article. I will again request you to self-revert yourself. Me too don't want to waste my time at WP:AE. --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  14:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you acting like the one mediating the dispute? You are just an involved party and that gives you no right to impose your preferred version without there being a clear outcome. You cannot make any disputed edits on this article till that dispute is ongoing and a final decision isn't clear. You have also failed to present a coherent argument and enough reliable sources to prove that the contested terminology is used in the majority of sources. Mar4d (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mar4d: I think you have not read my section of comment there. I can't do anything for that. --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  15:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 It is a good idea to wait until the DRN closes before you touch any of the disputed content. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will stop myself as of now, but if involved party fails to provide multiple reliable scholarly sources for their claim and revert users who are restoring sourced version then I will have no way other than arbitration enforcement. Thank you. --Human3015<sup>Send WikiLove</sup>  15:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Half-white people should not be included in this article. Where would two people from non-white ethnic background go? Should a Black-Oriental mixture go on the British Black article or the British Oriental article?

If needs be, add a sub-section about people who are of partial Pakistani ancestry, or a new article about mixed-ethnic British peoples.

Calling an Indian Hindu billionaire from Mumbai who was born in Pakistan because his parents were stationed there for civic duties under the British Raj "Pakistani" is already quite far-fetched, now imagine if this person was a Australian Black-Oriental?

People here are mixing up nationality with ethnicity. I'm removing half-whites and I hope they will be replaced with something more suitable. Coffeeloverlarge (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

Thanks to Coffeeloverlarge for spotting that there is a problem with the GSCE results table. I've looked into the various sources cited and the figures seem to be a mix of those for England and those for England and Wales, and for 5 A*-C and 5 A*-C including English and maths. When I get time, I will replace the table with one based on this single source. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Mar4d, who is currently working on this section. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

No objections to replacing the table if there is more recent or correct alternative data available. One thing that just needs to be noted in some of the commentary in that section is that British Pakistanis are not a monolithic community, compared to most other groups. There are greater fluctuations based on their location and also their migration backgrounds. The Mirpuris for example, coming from rural backgrounds, may have different figures than the fairly more middle class/urban Punjabis. I'm going to try and reflect this in the findings and also look for more sources if I can. Another interesting finding is that the educational attainment has increased proportionally over the years and that the younger generation is better educated than the older one (The educational disadvantage of Pakistani and Bangladeshi groups compared to the White group declined between 1991 and 2011 but was still present in 2011... The Bangladeshi and Pakistani groups saw the greatest improvement in educational attainment with a 19 and 16 percentage point decrease respectively in those without any qualifications... The largest improvements between 1991 and 2011 were for the Indian and Pakistani groups, which experienced an increase in those with degree level qualifications by 27 and 18 percentage points respectively etc. Source: How are ethnic inequalities in education changing? Mar4d (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Mar4d. I think you might struggle to find data on variations within the British Pakistani community, because of the way that ethnicity statistics are collected in the UK, but there might be some academic research out there on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's my suggested replacement table. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)