Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.156.208.231 (talk) at 18:20, 17 March 2009 (→‎Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis

Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Firstly the article seems to be of original research. Seven of the sources are used to list known terrorists but none of the sources point that this is a trend to a rise in extremism. It also seems like the user is trying to make the article look credible by listing these known terrorists. The user that wrote this article seems be trying to link this by pointing out it points to a rise in extremism, thus using original research. The user that created this article admits he has "specific interest and expertise" in this article.

The author also refuses to explain why he using only Pakistanis as the subject of this article even though several of his sources also point to other Muslim groups of different nations. Also see the debate on the talk page here → Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ths article is NOT original research. it is an encylopedic article on a critical issue which is a clear and present danger to the world community and USA in particular. it is an established fact CIA and MI5 are putting substantial resources into monitoring British Pakistanis in particular. specifically this article is about people who can fly to USA without a visa. This is referenced from credible sources. Yes I have specific interest and expertise in that area and I believe most if not all wiki editors contribute articles in their area of interest. please point me to a policy which states that you cannot contribute in the areas of interest and expertise. the above user has been very incivil and repeatedly violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks. like all articles this article is open to constructive edits from wikipedia community is not perfect and if any contents need to be modified anybody can do so to improve the article. i will also contribute more articles on islamic terrorism in britain and elsewhere as time permits--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you repeatedly accuse me of using personal attacks even though I have done nothing and an admin has cleared me of it. And for the last time, stop trying to change the subject. "which is a clear and present danger to the world community and USA in particular", isn't this orginal research? Your letting your bias get influence you into writing this article.--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how it defines both sides of the argument? I only see once source citing the cause of "an increase in extremism". Yes, it is notable, but why not allow it to be merged with other specific topics as in with other notable Muslim committees? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the notability of the topic is indicated, we wouldn't delete the article for advancing one WP:POV moreso than another as that can be corrected. I considered merging but I do see evidence that British Pakistanis are under specific discussion in the manner indicated to an extent that would make merger impractical. The amount of text, and the amount of text there will be when the article is improved, seems to make merger with British Pakistanis problematic. --Boston (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting...first time I've seen a user whose being questioned tries to vote on his own article. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editors don't own articles, so it's not his, mine or yours. This isn't a vote, it's an opinion poll, and I believe it is appropriate for a creating editor to opine in bold face as Wikireader41 has done. --Boston (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologizes on the owning issue. But yes I know there isn't a rule against allowing the creating editor vote on the article, just never seen it done before. Now if you don't mind, back to the topic please. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Improve because this doesn't seem to be a case of original research, as the British Pakistani community, rightly or wrongly, is often identified in media and government sources as having more extremists, relative to other British Muslim communities, so it does seem to be a legitimate topic to cover, independent of whether the perception is actually a false one or not. It's notable. Rather than being deleted, the article should ideally feature any opposing viewpoints on the matter, where these can be reliably sourced. That would seem to be a more constructive approach, in the true spirit of the encyclopaedia. Lachrie (talk) 13:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is composed of a synthesis of sources to advance the view that British Pakistanis are increasingly extremist. Additionally, the article has a fundamental problem in that it uses the word "extremist"; it inherently takes an anti-Pakistani slant by calling them extremist. These points considered, I don't think the article can ever be fixed to be compliant with our policies, and thusly should be deleted. Sceptre (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Radicalism might be a more neutral term, but there's already an article on extremism as a political term, and I'm afraid the reasoning that because the article is discussing extremism among British Pakistanis, it must be inherently anti-Pakistani, just seems fallacious. Lachrie (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Extremism is a term used to describe the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived political center of a society; or otherwise claimed to violate common moral standards". Doesn't look neutral to me... Sceptre (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some individuals and groups do adhere to non-normative values, so the phenomenon is real, and being real, probably ought to receive coverage. As I say, the term 'radicalism' has less of a pejorative sense than 'extremism', and might be preferred, however. The radicalisation of British Pakistanis in particular has been the subject of media discussion, and an opposing view is presented in the article, so it looks salvageable. The focus certainly isn't the invention of the article's creator. Lachrie (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but under whose standards are they extremist, or radical? It's too murky to use it as an unidentified qualifier. Sceptre (talk) 15:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Islamic radicals would be radical by the standards of the great majority of Muslims, and the wider British community. To say that such a term is relative is not to say that it's arbitrary. It isn't. One of the purposes of the article would obviously be to move towards such a relative definition. The objection to such a relative definition is merely philosophical, and doesn't remotely seem to justify deletion of the article. Lachrie (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
pardon my ignorance but what exactly is the correct term for people who carry bombs into trains and kill innocent men women and children or who fly planes into prominent office buildings ??? I had already avoided the term 'Terrorism'. looks like some people have issues with 'Extremism' also. what term do people suggest we use ?? I hope it is not 'Martyrs' to describe these people.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Idiots. Think about it: what would we call Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness? Sceptre (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Labelling such people 'militants' or 'radicals' may be euphemistic but it cuts down on sterile POV arguments. If the nature of any associated violence is fully explained the meaning is still clear enough. I'd support moving the article to 'Islamic radicalism among Pakistani Britons/British Pakistanis', or suchlike. Lachrie (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment:The term "extremism" carries an implicit viewpoint, WP:EXTREMIST. I think this is a sign this article has a hidden bias. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article's bias is not-so-hidden, and that's why it needs improvement. "Extremism" doesn't necessarily seem like a more severe term than "radicalism", but if that is people's sense then certain we should Move it to "Islamic Radicalism among British Pakistanis". --Boston (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the community thinks that 'Radicalism' is more acceptable dont see a problem with the move. however plenty of precedent on wikipedia of articles using the taboo word 'Terrorism'. Islamic terrorism, State terrorism, United States and state terrorism, Pakistan and state terrorism, Iran and state terrorism, Religious terrorism, Christian terrorism, Jewish religious terrorism, War on Terrorism are just a few examples. dont think all those names violate wikipedia policy of NPOV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleged Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis" might be better. I wouldn't argue against a NPOV article (i.e., not this article, but a more balanced one) with that title.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and what info do you think we include to make it more balanced. I have been unable to find any sources that say that their is no problem with extremism among British Pakistanis and this is all somebodies imagination. Also would like to remind everyone of WP:DUE that requires we give 'Proportional weight' to all viewpoints and not 'Equal' weight. If ten sources feel this is a problem and two feel it is not then they certainly dont deserve equal coverage in the article. Any specific suggestions regarding making this 'neutral' would be sincerely appreciated.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As I have had to remove personal attack filled votes from a sock of a blocked IP and the user has already used 5 IPs in the last 24 hours. Please wait the duration of your original 48 hour block before attempting to vote again here. When you do make sure that you stick to the facts and leave the personal attacks and soapboxing out of it. This AfD is about this article only and whether the topic merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. It is not a forum for accusations and attacks. Mfield (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Right Wing Concerns about Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis, because the title of the article should reflect the content. Then transwiki to Conservapedia where it belongs, delete it, and salt.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:COATRACK, WP:WTA, WP:NPOV and WP:TERRORIST. This pure fear mongering and original research. Beware: In the opinion of so called "experts" a significant number radicalized British Pakistanis will come to U.S to bomb the crap out of us, because they have ancestral ties to Kashmir and resentment, did we mention they are Islamic? Common, the CIA also believed that Saddam had weapon of mass destruction. The fact is that the majority of British Pakistanis are law abiding citizens that rejects terrorism. If the government and other interest groups wants to use racial profiling, fine. But Wikipedia should be a neutral place free of bias. Yes, there is a problem of terrorism and extremism between us (the world) not only the British Pakistanis and the topic of terrorism is already covered on Wikipedia. --J.Mundo (talk) 06:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think opposing rhetoric amounts to an argument for deletion. Nor does the article qualify as synthesis. A quick Factiva search brings up 58 newspaper articles on the British Pakistani community and terrorism/extremism. It may be a coatrack, but the proper way to deal with that isn't to delete it but to trim excessive bias and add more content to balance it. Lachrie (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
again please if you can make 'specific' suggestions about 'balancing' please do not hesitate to do so. The article does NOT imply ALL British pakistanis have extreme views. according to the info the estimates are about 4000 people ( some of them probably of non pakistani descent) are roaming around Britain with training in AFPAK. total community of british pakistanis is a million strong. CIA is answerable to Barack Obama who not too long ago won a landslide victory in USA and if he did not shut down CIA after hearing this we have to keep that in mind. and BTW he had well defined views about whom to Bomb before he got elected and convinced people that fighting in Iraq was a mistake because the central front in terror war is in Pakistan/Afghanistan. using past errors of judgement of CIA to negate their current concerns doesnt sound fair and balanced and NPOV. again what exactly would be the proverbial 'opposite side of the coin' here. should we include info about British pakistani philanthropists in here ?? somehow I dont think it belongs.--Wikireader41 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, let me get this straight according to your "info' there are 4,000 people training but "some of them probably of non pakistani descent." But the article says that "there is a significant number who are radicalized" out of a million. It seems that this article only carries the point of view of some called experts like Factiva that don't even have a straight answer. This article is synthesis. For example, there is a problem of gangs and crime in the US (more than 4,000 individuals). I'm sure we can get sources that says that the majority are Latino and have a Christian background, yet we don't have an article about Christian extremist among Latinos. Why? Because is POV pushing, because Christianity is not a cause of gang crime and the majority of people of Islamic faith doesn't have to do anything with terrorism. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
majority of No major religion are terrorists or extremists. The fact is CIA an MI5 are focusing on British Pakistanis in specific and consider them likely source of next major attack on USA. This is an undisputed fact from multiple credible sources. are you telling me CIA and MI5 dont know what they are doing or what they are doing is wrong ??? I see boatload of POV issues right there. Why are they not focusing on French Muslims or Christian extremists among Latinos ?? I dont think we should let our personal bias come into this event which is otherwise notable and verifiable. I am sure as the article 'matures' on wikipedia different editors from different backgrounds will contribute to it and make it more 'Neutral'. see WP:DEMOLISH and WP:ATD. the article not being NPOV in its present state is NOT a reason to delete per wikipedia policies--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Islamic_Extremism_among_British_Pakistanis&oldid=277917028"