Talk:Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan

Responses by Hindu Organisations in Pakistan

I undid your contribution due to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Merge

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

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

Help

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

Refs 2022

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

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

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

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

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

Reverts

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

You added the words from the source almost verbatim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motivations

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

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

TrangaBellam (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Page protected

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC about restoring sourced content

Should this edit, which removed some sourced content about some incidents, be reversed? 1Firang (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support as it is sourced. In the name of trimming, a whole lot of incidents were removed which does not seem right!-1Firang (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  (Just to let you know in a friendly manner, you can vote “strong support” if you want to let it be known that you feel strongly about this, it won’t “double your vote” but it may lead the closing to consider your reasoning more heavily. (I just wanted to lyk because you’re a newer editor and you seem to feel strongly about this. Feel free to remove this once you’ve seen it) Googleguy007 (talk) 21:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Strong oppose. There is definitely a need for examples of incidents in the article, but I think that just listing off a large number of examples makes the article harder to read, overly cluttered, and most importantly raises serious synth (and potentially BLP) issues. I also think that a small list of notable incidents (ie: a court case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of coerced conversion) more effectively conveys the issues faced by minorities (especially Hindus) in Pakistan. Googleguy007 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment. I admit I was a little hasty in removing what seemed to be non-notable cases, especially at the start, and as such I would be willing to include select reverted paragraphs if they prove to be notable (to be clear, by notable I generally mean demonstrating some wider trend, so (totally imaginary examples) a Hindu family being threatened into conversion and having their concerns dismissed by local officials wouldn’t be notable without other extenuating circumstances, but a Hindu family being threatened into conversion and having their concerns dismissed by the government, or on a very public scale would.) Googleguy007 (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment. As 1Firang should be aware by now, 'being sourced' is never in of itself sufficient grounds for inclusion of content. Each item needs to be looked at individually, with regard to both sourcing and relevance. And given that there seem to be legitimate grounds to suggest that some of the content violated WP:BLP policy, we cannot disregard such considerations, making a simple 'support/oppose' RfC inappropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. Firstly this is a poorly thought out RFC - this is not a yes/no question - some parts of the removal may be appropriate, some parts may not. "The content is sourced" is not a reason for inclusion, in fact WP:ONUS makes it clear that the default position is that contested material should be removed absent a consensus to include it, even if it is verifiable.
  There does appear to be some WP:BLP issues here - WP:AVOIDVICTIM makes it clear that we need to be very careful about including information on victims in a way that may prolong the victimisation. A significant number of the people included in the list were children who are not public figures - most seem to have been mentioned once 10 - 15 years ago, is it really appropriate to maintain a list of children who were victims of forced conversion? I would argue no - these people have a right to privacy and their names should not be plastered across the internet in this context.
  Finally we have to consider whether the material here is actually encyclopaedic. In my opinion the removed section was just WP:EXAMPLECRUFT. It was a massive list of 22 distinct examples that does not, in my opinion, improve the readers understanding of the topic. Pages like Kidnapping do not include massive lists of "examples of victims", because it is not encyclopaedic content. 192.76.8.84 (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - I can't see the removed content. Is it all uncontroversially BLP material? If not, could a summary of the deleted material be posted here? — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Please click on this and read what is in red (which was removed).-1Firang (talk) 09:21, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose reversal. This article has many issues, and a long list of single incidents is one of them. Maybe Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over applies here. A few examples might help the article, but they should be limited to a few of the most prominent and notable. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 17:03, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 May 2023

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

References

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

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

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

Protected edit request on 15 May 2023

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

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

Journalistic sloppiness in source?

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

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

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

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

Seems fine to me. [1][2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Lower Protection to EC.

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