Talk:Anti-Indian sentiment

Persecution?

Have South Asians never suffered persecution in Britain ?--Streona (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Asking about discrimination would be a better question, persecution - nope, only in Uganda would you really be able to say that. Why do you ask anyway? You seem to be from London, this maybe of interest. Pahari Sahib 18:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK not official persecution- but discrimination, harassment are forms of hate crime, and I am against it. The article mentions anti-Asian behaviour in Africa and America, but does not cover other areas and perhaps it should, especially as Asian people seem to be the main target of fascist gangs like the BNP. The refernce you give is about how Asians feel about themselves, not how others feel about them. --Streona (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Indophobia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indophobia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Cohen":

• From North America: The Naming of America: Fragments We've Shored Against Ourselves. By Jonathan Cohen
• From Anti-Polish sentiment: Ted Cohen, Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters - Page 21 1999, 112 pages. Page 21.
• From Martial Race: The Idea of Pakistan By Stephen P. Cohen Published by Brookings Institution Press, 2004 ISBN 0815715021 pp 103-104.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

scope

The term isn't well defined and is used differently in different contexts. It is rather weird to define "Indophobia" as "prejudices against South Asian peoples, including Bangladeshis, Nepalese, Pakistanis, and Sri Lankans" and then have a secton on "anti-Indian sentiment" in Bangladesh (where 'India' clearly stands for "Republic of India"). There is also significant overlap with Anti-Hinduism. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Time column

is this article relevant? --CarTick 03:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

That depends. Do reliable sources recognize it as an instance of anti-Indian prejudice?

Hokie Tech (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

During the British Raj

A good summary of anti-India/anti-Hindu prejudice during the British Raj can be found on page 23 of The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture. Hokie Tech (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Indophobia should be termed as phobia against North Indians rather then Indians

Hi All,

You may be aware that South India is culturally and ethnically different from north india. South Indians are Dravidian race whereas north indians are Indo East European race. Most of the triggers of the phobia in US, EU and Aus are mainly attributed to north indians (punjabis, sikhs, gujaratis etc..). South Indians do live in large number across US, EU and Aus but they were never considered as problem as they mix completely with the new country and work for its upliftment. Please see south indian diapora or Tamil Diaspora. The only place where tamils have problem is srilanka and north india. So i would like to change it as phobia agains north indians because indophobia cant constitute elements (south indians) which itself has (north)indophobia.

Also it is not true that ethnic conflict against Tamils in Srilanka is Indophobia. This is because there is a long standing conflict of over 30 years between tamil and sinhalese. Indian army supported sinhalese so there cant be any Indophobia but its a ethnic conflict there. If you think otherwise, please supply links to prove that South Indian / Tamils were also considered as threat to western world. You may not be able to provide this as the present generation Tamils identify themselves as western citizens as many are born or work there. Cherakulam (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

MOS Issue

Wikireader41, your reverts are against:

1. Wikipedia:Mos#Section organization
2. WP:SUMMARY

"Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic."

Beware that warnings that are not valid as they claim are very likely taken as personal attacks. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

no it is not. that textbook article is NOT about Indophobia. I have no problem you adding a link to the textbook controversy article. that article is much more broader in scope and deals controversies beyond what misinformation is taught in Pakistani schools about India. For example views about Christians etc. the info included in this article is specifically about anti India sentiments in Pakistan as present in official textbooks. Just because you do not like it does not mean that this fully sourced info doesn't stay. beware edit summaries like this are very definitely personal attacks [1]--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the alleged information beyond that topic. I only deleted repetitive information copied from that article to this one. A small summary of that should be left here with a link to that article. That is the consensus behind WP:Summary. This is a matter of format and not 'like'. If i had a POV related issue, I'd start from the talk page of that article and not this one. On other hand you seem to be inserting a copy of that content here. I've quoted the exact wording of WP:Summary for you, if you don't follow that, you are the one editwarring. For the summary, its one thing to comment on the comment and another to comment on the editor, and you did the latter. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

i am not only commenting on your summary but expressing a genuine concern that your edits are not NPOV and you are going around deleting info which you dont like. I have read WP:Summary and i see no reason why this infoi cant stay. text can generally be freely copied between article on wikipedia. i guess we can think about starting a detailed article on Indophobia in Pakistan and then introduce the link here. textbook controversy article is a separate but somewhat related issue to Indophobia. how about we work together on this Indophobia in Pakistan. I think we will find sufficient info for a stand alone article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that allegation of yours is what I pointed out as uncivil. Freely copying info is one thing and putting the same exact content from an article into another and against WP:COMMONSENSE as well as WP:Summary. When a detail is present at length in a related article that detail is summarized in a small paragraph and the article link is provided. You can start Indophobia in Pakistan when you have enough notable information to make it long enough, but since that is not the issue here, you should stop blaming and start viewing your own revert critically. You are reverting against the quoted policies. Your very first response was against WP:GOODFAITH & WP:CIVIL. Those allegations right from the start without any thing being said (with infact me giving and linking proper edit summaries) show your mal-intent. And I see that you have misused rollback as well WP:ROLLBACK:

"Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed."

I don't think all this favours your arguments esp. when they are against quoted policy. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you. but I know better than edit warring with a POV pusher. please read WP:EW and take some time to think about why the admin chose to warn only you. Ihave started the separate article on Indophobia in Pakistan and you are welcome to contribute. and get it out of your mind that content cannot be shared between various articles on wikipedia. It6 happens all the time and is permitted per WP:CC-BY-SA--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment on the content and not on the editors. Sharing content is one thing and having exact copies is different. I've given enough reasons with broad consensus for that. The new article you created will be considered separately from this discussion unless the same content repetition against WP:MOS & WP:SUMMARY comes to be the issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Propose to merge Indophobia in Pakistan into this article, since it is not long or developed enough itself. If then it becomes a very long article an the article mentioned should be created. Reason of this being a separate article without this article facing any long article issues becomes an undue weight issue. Consider creating subheadings using heading levels under the same article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

you went around removing sourced stuff from pakistan section ( without adding any links to any other articles). Now you are saying that Indophobia in Pakistan needs to be merged here. what exactly is it that you want. Their is a tonne of stuff in RS on anti India sentiment in Pakistan/ Indophobia. We could even have sub articles on that subject alone. Now that I think more about it having all info on Indophobia in Pakistan in the Main Indophobia article would possibly give Undue weight to Pakistan in the main article. So I would say that we need 2 separate articles to fully cover the topic of Indophobia in Pakistan. I am still working on the article which started today and you need to give it reasonable time to develop before saying it is not long enough or developed enough.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed sourced duplicate stuff, remember that along with the long list of policies that I quoted along with a proper talk page discussion. Don't implicate the action as a random act of vandalism (which you assumed right from the start as per your warning to me). Be free to add the navigation links yourself. I gave you a suggestion, it's on you whether to implement it or not. This merger is a separate discussion on the new article you created. We have tons of stuff on everything on the internet and libraries and so much of it is notable, it doesn't mean it is all admissible in an encyclopedia. The content in wikipedia has to be encyclopedic. The article format has to be as per WP:MOS. A separate article is not created because its own format is 'supposedly' going to be long. It is created when the related content is making the parent article too long. And as I see it the section on Pakistan has hardly developed while here you are creating a separate article. That just seems to be an escalation to the previous discussion.

"Now that I think more about it having all info on Indophobia in Pakistan in the Main Indophobia article would possibly give Undue weight to Pakistan in the main article."

By saying that you just agreed that giving a lot of content about Indophobia in Pakistan in this article will create WP:UNDUE & WP:POV, so I'll tell you as per WP:POV FORK; you cant create another article to WP:LAWYER around that rule. If adding of certain content leads it to be undue weight and/or POV, you simply can't put that into another namespace to avoid that. It would actually still count towards the same. So you just gave a reason for rather nominating it for speedy deletion since it touches Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#Articles#A10. In anycase a WP:POV FORK is subject to merger or deletion (which ever suitable). I will not intervene in any improvements that you make to that article for now (unless I see something obviously contentious) since this discussion is more important. As I said, my reasons for it were not that article being long enough but the fact that they are under developed in this place. And as I see it you have a POV pattern yourself. You insisted on keeping a length piece of writing that already had an exact copy in another article (I won't be surprised if I find it in more and you being the contributor). In one place you say you are in for a neutral POV while on other place you seem to be creating/contributing to anti-Pakistan contentious articles. Lets say for the sake of argument that all the controversy articles you contribute to are giving proper weight to both sides, even in that case, you are still a part to all those in a pattern. So it would be better not to comment on the editors with comments like what do you want and rather continue with commenting on the content or you are not in any better position then me in a worst case scenario. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the merger user wikireader has a history of making useless articles bordering on the line of a pakistaniphobia which is ironic in fact I believe a article on Pakistaniphobia in India is in order 109.149.65.225 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess we have a rough consensus. Also, there are no articles on: Americanophobia in Russia, Pakistanophobia in India, Iranophobia in America, Islamophobia in Europe, Pakistanophobia in America,Antisemitism in Pakistan, Antisemitism in Middle East, and none of the others I guess. This is a completely WP:UNDUE and a WP:POVFORK and is bound to be merged. I'll perform merger in due time. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

nonsense . their is no consensus here. that IPs statement is nohing short of s personal atrtack. pakistan is perhaps the country where the most extreme Indophobia exists and duly desrves an article of its own.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that was a personal attack, rather I too have seen you doing such, anyway, the IP did clearly support the merger. As apparent from your reaction Pakistanophobia is also extremely present in India, but it does not have an article. This article is WP:UNDUE by all means. I've given you enough examples and you are just claiming baselessly without any policy support and without any consensus. The consensus is already against you and there has been enough time Waiting for input. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

well like I said you are a POV pusher who is going around removing info which you perceive as showing Pakistan in a negative light. Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan is another article which exists on a substantially similar issue. you are welcome to start an article on Pakistanophobia which not only exists in India but also in Afghanistan and most other countries in the world. I think it will be an excellent article which I will try to contribute to as time permits. most POV pushers end up getting blocked. please read WP:VOTE before pretending that their exists any kind of consensus here --Wikireader41 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If I am a POV pusher why don't you report me and get blocked your self for the personal attacks? And now you are giving examples of stubs? If that is the standard let me create an article with a single paragraph to bring ten different kinds of support to my side of argument... it doesn't work that way. You're the one who's going to get blocked at the end of this if you don't keep your uncivil remarks to your self. No one is voting here. Did you, at all, read the arguments, policies and examples I gave? The IP user just agreed with my comments which covered almost everything. You should read WP:CONSENSUS. You have created this article in the first place with tit for tat intentions from a previous dispute which you very well know of. You don't have any bases here to argue on. You are out rightly declining the much broader consensus that has already been developed in the policies I cited. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

you are making no sense at all. stubs are how article start. it is clear to me that you do not like the content of this article so initially you went around deleting sourced info from this article. Now you again want to merge the article because you do not like the info.. there is is much broader consensus on wikipedia that nationalistic POV pushers don belong here on WP.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've listed this page in merger requests. Just because it is a stub isn't the reason I tagged it to be merged. The information is a POVFORK and is deliberately being given WP:UNDUE weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

only you think it is a POV fork. the article goes into details of the extent of Indophobia in a manner that it would be impossible to do in the main article. Just because you personally dont like articles that say anything negative about Pakistan ( as is amply evident from your contribution history which mainly focuses on removing content from wikipedia which you dont like) is not a reason to merge or delete sourced stuff from Wikipedia. in due xcourse of time you will learn this basic pillar of Wikipedia which is WP:NPOV--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not only me, an IP user agreed with me. And for that purpose, I'm calling in an RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This article (Indophobia in Pakistan) has been recently created as a "spin-off" from Indophobia but the parent article itself needs proper expansion. Please comment on the merger proposal of this article with Indophobia. Refer to the arguments on talk discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Keep separate the Indophobia in Pakistan article is reasonably well developed, and the Pakistan-India issue is sufficiently large and well documented to ensure that this subject needs an article of its own. However I do agree that the rest of the article needs developing, particularly on those interesting localities where the ex-pat Indian community has been disproportionately successful, resulting in social and political (including legal) repercussions. Rich Farmbrough, 11:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC).
  

  I've argued above that Indophobia in Pakistan was intended to be a WP:POVFORK and has a lot of WP:UNDUE in it without which it would sufficiently fit into the main article as subsections. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep separate, the indophobia in Pakistan is a separate issue from indophobia worldwide for the historical reasons. The article "indophobia in Pakistan" is a well-written article without any signs of WP:POV or WP:UNDUE. Just another try to mute the critique. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Merge This article is really random ,and with out precedence . and really this article confuses ant indian govt policy with anti indians . I thing this should be merged as the main article covers this topic sufficiently --Multan47 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Merge: as nominator and as per arguments given in the main section. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep separate this is a bad faith nomination by user TopGun who is a SPA wanting to get all info which he perceives as portraying Pakistan in negative light deleted from wikipedia. please check his contributions. Their is a Ton of info in RS about the prevalence of anti India sentiment in Pakistan. sufficient material exists that this important and notable topic deserves an independent article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My account is not an WP:SPA and I take that as a personal attack which you have repeatedly made instead of discussing the content on different occasions. You just demonstrated your own mal-intentions here. The closing editor should consider the argument being solely based on the attack. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Keep separate for the same reasons as Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (see above).JCAla (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Quote: (quoting merge support from the IP user from main section): "I agree with the merger user wikireader has a history of making useless articles bordering on the line of a pakistaniphobia which is ironic in fact I believe a article on Pakistaniphobia in India is in order 109.149.65.225 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)" --lTopGunl (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• Merge: looks like the definition of WP:POVFORK. A better article, which I don't think we have, would be about civil disharmony between Indians and Pakistanis-- the kind that can be seen in the appalling display of untrust and incivility between such nationalities directly above. There's equal grounds for the creation of a Pakistanophobia in India article and these would just fuel the relentless and childish edit-war seen between these nationalities across the project. Merging them into a single article will make it easier for the reader to understand the subject. Rennell435 (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

the question here is whether the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article and is their enough information in RS to write an independent article. childish edit wars can be dealt with according to existing policies per WP:EW and are not a reason to not have an article. also the article Anti-Pakistan sentiment exists. I have placed a link to Indophobia in the article for readers who may wish to learn more about especially in other countries.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Pakistan sentiment's existence is similar to Indophobia and does not become a reason for Indophobia in Pakistan to have a separate article. The information can be sufficiently covered in subsections of this article. Having a separate article here would be WP:UNDUE. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Merge. This doesn't look like anything other than a POV fork and the contents can be accommodated within the parent article. I also think both articles should be checked for original research and the amount of contextual information should be reduced. --FormerIP (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep seperate. Historically Indophobia existed and still exists today in a wide range of countries. However it reaches its greatest reification in Pakistan. The material in Indophobia in Pakistan therein amplifies a large number of aspects and needs to be kept seperate as both articles can easily be expanded. As far as POV fork goes, it requires someone to bring out the issues of POV clearly on statement by statement case and then these can be written NPOV. Also it is not a fork as it does not digress away from the line of thought of the main article. As such calling it a POV Fork is incorrect. AshLin (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Merge. The article in current shape needs to be merged as it completely ignores WP:NPOV and per WP:POVFORK & WP:Fringe theories. --SMS ^Talk 23:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong merge There are some fundamental flaws and cherry-picked issues with the article in question (see talk page) that make it fit the exact definition of a WP:POV content fork cooked up in bad taste. As FormerIP said, the article needs to be checked for original research, especially WP:Synthesis ("reaching a conclusion by combining multiple sources") and WP:NPOV in my opinion. Merging whatever content remains there will be better accommodated in the parent article. Mar4d (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
• Keep seperate--Suyog^{talk to me!} 10:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Strong merge Blatant cherry-picked talk page clearly ilustrates the flaws and biased pov pushing that make it fit the exact definition of a WP:POV content fork109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)