Talk:Pro-Pakistan sentiment

Removal of notable people section

Just to inform you that none of the references tagged to the "notable people who love Pakistan" section support this contention, this is just pure original research, and the following bit about rock stars saying "Hi Pakistan, we love playing here" is ridiculous. In the article about the guy from Guns'n'Roses, it mentions the fact that the guy was looking to work on humanitarian projects and had tried Uganda and Haiti before settling on Pakistan. This is stretching things beyond belief. Rock groups always say "Hi Montreal, we love playing this city" and so on, and the rich and famous often seek to do humanitarian work in countries like Pakistan, Uganda or Haiti, not necessarily because they have a particular affinity for the country (which would include the non-government that leads to such situations) but due to their concern for the plight of the people and their rudimentary living conditions. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 11:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• [1] - All of these are not BLPs and the "Displays of sentiment" section was clearly sourced for the statements. The mentioned persons were also cited for their interest in Pakistani culture/language/progress respectively. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Over referencing

Please see the mess on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment related to these terms. The referencing was necessary so that some editor does not come here to edit war the terms out. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but no it's not. One reference per word is enough, please see Wikipedia:Overcitation, I was in the business of removing Darkness Shines overkill using tags, and improving the general look and readability. Pakistan-phobia seems to be an outdated form of Pakistanophobia so I removed the very old refs to this and just left one ref per word (and removed all the cn tags except the last one).

As to BLP violations, please read Wikipedia:BLP, where it clearly states Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. So, just because George was on a reality show in Pakistan, or some General/Major created the ISI, it doesn't mean that they *love* Pakistan. I am not trying to destroy the article; just to be fair and respect WP policies. Apparently, Darkness Shines has an interaction ban on the subject, (don't know anymore at the moment), I am completely uninvolved and have just tried to make the article more "acceptable". CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your edits in principle and tried to explain my part (on my talk page as well). I did not reinstate the information about the people you are mentioning (I'll be looking for specific sources though). I know you're uninvolved and only trying to help. I am also trying to get the article better and keep it stable from edit war as I've seen users contending this term as neologism just because the article currently cited a single source (talking of overkill). Now that you've mentioned it, I'll be citing this discussion if some one objects, I don't have any problem on the referencing my self. Hope that clears it. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Captain Screebo, you removed the failed verification tags from the neologisms Pakophobia and Pakistanophobia, can you please explain were in those sources it says these terms are opposite the of liking or having an interest in Pakistan. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Reply I think you should be very careful as you are under an interaction ban with Top Gun and you have just been unblocked, your behaviour is overtly agressive and tag-bombing articles concerning Pakistan-related subjects could be construed as provocation. The two references used attest to the use of the words, that's why I removed your "verification failed" tags. I left the at the end, so that someone can find a ref for the definition of Pakophobia or Pakistanophobia.
  • Please see this essay You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, you might take heed of the following:

• many editors misunderstand the citation policy, seeing it as a tool to enforce, reinforce, or cast doubt upon a particular point of view in a content dispute, rather than as a means to verify Wikipedia's information;
• there is no need to verify statements that are patently obvious and generally accepted;
• Sometimes editors will go through an article and add dozens of the inline tags, along with several section and article tags, making the article essentially unreadable. As a rule, if there are more than 2 or 3 inline tags they should be removed and replaced with a section tag;
• Verification tags should not be used in a POINTed fashion.
• So, as I pointed out above, the cites are to prove that the words are actually in use, -phobia as a suffix is, by definition, the opposite of liking something so your tags are unnecessary and pointy so I will remove them again. Please see these dictionary definitions of -philia and -phobia. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 13:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)