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 Pakistan-phobia seems to be an outdated form of Pakistanophobia so I removed the very old refs to this and just left one ref per word (and removed all the cn tags except the last one).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)

Good insight, I guess the RFC about the same term at Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment can do with such a response too (though I can simply make reference to your comment here, but I guess direct comments get more weight?). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)So your are happy with Wikipedia being used to define terms which have no definition it literature? It does not matter if the words exist, to use them as they are currently in the article is WP:OR. As there are no reference for the definition(and I have searched) then they have no place here, the sources fail verification not because they do not have the terms in them, they fail because they do not define them. Do not accuse me of being pointy, do not point to essays to support your argument, do not ask me to look up definitions unless you are proposing to engage in WP:SYNTH by combining both? I will give it a week, if no definitions are presented I will be removing them. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are being incredibly confrontational, rude and bloody-minded. The rules of the English language imply that by adding a known prefix or suffix to a word, we can then understand the meaning of that word by combining the meaning of the prefix or suffix with that of the word. This is not WP:SYNTH it's Lexicology, for example "marine", having to do with the sea, from Latin marus, and the prefix "sub-", meaning "under" in Latin, give us "submarine", which one understands as having something to do with being underwater. Your argument is ridiculous "It does not matter if the words exist", of course it does, and also if you were more open to discussion and to considering that you might actually be wrong, then you would click on the links and see that by taking an adjective of nationality and adding -philia or -phobia, I can indicate a love or dislike of all things German, for example, Germanophilia, Germanophobia.

Oh and do not tell me what I should or should not do, thanks, I was just trying to help and engage in discussion, which appears to be beyond your ability concerning these subjects. And I said that your tagging overkill was pointy and unnecessary, which I stand by, maybe you'd like to read this again:

• 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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain Screebo (talk • contribs)

No, you misunderstand me, there are a definition for submarine, there are none for these terms. You yourself wrote you added a CN tag as a source is needed. If no source is forthcoming then do the terms stay or do they go? I apologize if I appear rude and confrontational. I will try to restrain my frustrations in future. 14:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Darkness, stop being silly and don't twist my words. I didn't add the cn tag, I left it as you think it requires a definition (which it doesn't, your tag is pointy, the word is self-explanatory, as per the examples I gave you above). If we follow your reasoning then Wikipedia can only contain words which are already in the dictionary, sorry but language doesn't work like that. Words come into use and then eventually make their way into the dictionary. According to your logic, we couldn't have written the word "blog" (from "weblog"), or "webcam" or any other new term until Merriam-Webster or the OED decided to include them. You are being frankly ridiculous. Here, how about this, Wikipedia has an article on QR code, yes a whole article, yet it's not in the dictionary[2], so should we AfD the article? I would recommend reading the definition of pedantic. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not trying to twist anything, and I am not a pedant (who is being rude now ) Fine, I will leave it for now. BTW [3] Try the OED. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not rude to point out that this type of behaviour/attitude *is* pedantic, I didn't say you *were* a pedant, thank you. Also, you are trying to wriggle out of understanding the points I am trying to convey concerning new words and concepts, okay so I didn't check the OED, big deal, the point is words are in use long before they acquire dictionary status, that's the way it works. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 15:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the term Pakophilia be removed from this article.

• Support as nom. There has been an article with this name, during the AFD discussion it was proven to be just a made up word and therefore not possible to source and thus the article was deleted. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: per CaptainScreebo's indepth analysis. The AFD was a separate case where general notability was required, here the article is based on the general sentiment and the term does not require general notability. It is a simple language word per above discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Remove: Sentiment aside, I don't care for the word; it sounds flippant, and is too similar to other English words with negative connotations ("Paki"—an ethnic slur—and "pedophilia" come readily to mind). I like "pro-Pakistan sentiment" best. Miniapolis (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• Undecided: as to the previous comment, "I don't like it" has no bearing in content discussions.CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Then remove, per Darkness Shines; I thought this was a request for comment so I expressed an opinion. Miniapolis (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Remove. I couldn't find "pakophilia" at OneLook, and we generally shouldn't use neologisms in Wikipedia per WP:NEO. I quote, "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." (Emphasis added). We should describe the concept using well-established terms instead. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Remove too. Although the word is perfectly understandable, there is no attested use and it's not Wikipedia's job to be Urban Dictionary. This *is* not the case for "Pakophobia" and "Pakistanophobia" whose use is attested in the two references, as noted in a previous tp section. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 17:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• Remove, agree it's meaning is plain but it is a neoligsm. Our language should reflect the kind of language used in scholarly discussions on this subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

• Well the consensus is clear, we remove it. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Remove per AFD mentioned in the link above and per Mr. Stradivarius-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 08:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment II

I forgot this on the previous RFC, should the term "Pakistanophilia" remain in this article?

• Remove Per WP:NEO there are not one single hit on GBooks for the term[4] The only hits on Google appear to be Wikipedia mirrors of this very article[5] Darkness Shines (talk) 15:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Remove, for the same reasons as I quoted for "Pakophilia" above. (OneLook link for "Pakistanophilia".) We can express this concept with standard English, so there's no reason to use a neologism. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Remove Terms not remotely in common usage do not benefit readers. Collect (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Boldly removing to avoid any further debate, this is a no-brainer, the negative terms *are* attested in sources (see previous tp discusssions), but the positive alternatives are nowhere to be found. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 21:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Turkey and China should be added

Turkey and China are amongst the pro-Pakistan states in the world. They should be added. 192.0.173.58 (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

August 2021

Echo1Charlie You've removed not one, but several sources in this edit with a questionable edit summary. You claimed:
"The crowed cheered for the pakistani cricket team as stated in the source,which is quite natural on both side as this https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-55646454 which can't be considered as love for a country but love for a player or a team or a game in general; hence can't be counted as love for the country"

But that is not what this article in the Times of India titled Fautline in Kashmir makes people root for Afridi and vote in polls really says. As per the text in the source:
Kashmiris are provincial in their actions, but Kashmiri nationalists in their mindset. This faultline makes them turn out and vote for bijli, sadak, pani in elections, scrutinise the increase in Central grants in the state budget, makes thousands vie for posts in the police. It also makes them throw stones and spray "Go Back India" on the walls. It makes them kit out in Pakistani colours and also makes them compliment the administration for imposing section 144 to prevent violence that would hurt business.

Neither have you provided a reason for removing the other references that were not specifically about cricket. Due to this unexplained edit, I am reinstating the longstanding sourced text. Please note that Wikipedia is not censored and we must adhere to the neutral point of view when dealing with any subject. Removing sourced content without explanation is expressly against Wikipedia policies. You can refer to the relevant noticeboard if you think your reasons are compelling. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

My points

• "in villages and small mohallas, Kashmir was rooting for Shahid Afridi and his team." —Not Pakistan
• "On the day of the semifinal, children took a day off from school...When Pakistan started batting, every run was cheered. What does this tell us? Widespread support for Pakistan in the Valley? Not quite"
• " "Kashmir banega Pakistan" vanish from all protests. All that the Kashmiris have done is separate the reality of Pakistan from the idea of Pakistan" - implies Kashmiris in fact are not supporting pakistan's idea of "Kashmir banega Pakista (Kashmir will become Pakistan)"
• "A young man spoke about how a television remote was hurled at him for cheering India in a match. And it was his grandfather who did so. The generation today is older. They have become politicians and businessmen firm in their knowledge that India is the way forward for Kashmir." - their love for pakistan?
• "This faultline makes them turn out and vote for bijli, sadak, pani in elections, scrutinise the increase in Central grants in the state budget, makes thousands vie for posts in the police. It also makes them throw stones and spray "Go Back India" on the walls. It makes them kit out in Pakistani colours and also makes them compliment the administration for imposing section 144 to prevent violence that would hurt business...It makes them admire India, its plurality, its progress and its strength; and resent it for these very reasons." - their love for pakistan??

Source (same)- https://web.archive.org/web/20131212115634/http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-01/india/29369955_1_pakistan-today-kashmiris-srinagar Context : Cricket

This is the very reason why I said in my edit summary 'love for a game or a team or a player can't be counted as love for a country' especially in this circumstance, where parties involved are India and Pakistan, and it's well known fact that insurgency in Kashmir is funded by Pakistan via its proxy terrorist organisations like Jaishe, Hizbul etc, so it can't be counted as peoples' opinion —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Lets dissect second source

• "India lost the match as also there were slogans of Pakistan zindabad" - context Cricket
• "The days events that unfolded showed that the throng of spectators was tuitored to shout anti-Indian slogans even when there were occasion to applaud them"
• The spectators' behaviour was obnoxious that the game was repeatedly disturbed by trouble makers...stones were hurled at some Indian players" - reason highlighted in the previous line

second source - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=wJf6NuadRWEC&pg=PA332&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (Indian Cricket Controversies By K.R. Wadhwaney) —12:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Echo1Charlie (talk)

Let's look at third source which also discuss incident happened with the cricket match held at Srinagar

• Earlier during the cricket match between India and West Indies, played at Srinagar on 19 October 1983, the countries image was badly tarnished, In full view of millions television viewers and in the presence of chief minister Dr Farooq Abdullah, anti-India pro-Pakistan slogans were raised... people shouted slogans such as Pakistan zindabad and khalistan zindabad" -

Source -https://books.google.co.in/books?id=CWjLtfi-ssIC&pg=PA2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (My FrozenTturbulence in Kashmir (7th Ed.) By Jagmohan)

In second source author observes that it was paid and tuitored (by pakistan of cource), slogan such as "Khalistan also proves the point as it has othing to do with Kashmir or Kashmiris but related to Pakistan's acknowledged plan "to cut India into 1000 pieces as a revenge for liberation of Bangladesh" —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Dear Echo1Charlie, please read the opening paras of the ToI article again. It says that during the India vs. Pakistan match, the spectators cheered for Pakistan against India. Why would this be the case if, as you allege, it is not attributable to pro-Pakistan sentiments? The article, perhaps tellingly so, further states: All that the Kashmiris have done is separate the reality of Pakistan from the idea of Pakistan... It is the best example of the mix of history, emotion, resentment and pragmatism that Kashmir is today. The generation applauding Pakistan today grew up fixated on the idea of Pakistan before the spiral of insurgency in the 90s. There is a connectedness, in the emotional sense, in the hearts of Kashmiris. We don't bleed blue, we bleed green," said Abid Hussein, a young professional.

In other words, the political circumstances in Pakistan had little correlation with their support for Pakistan. This is actually the opposite of what you are claiming. Your somewhat confusing "dissection" of the other source doesn't support what you are trying to show; again, why were there pro-Pakistani and anti-India slogans raised in a match that India was playing with another team? Please note that on Wikipedia, the sources should be allowed to speak for themselves and have to be directly attributable. When you start coming up with your own interpretation of the source material, it becomes original research which isn't allowed. Mar4d (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

In second source author observes that it was paid and tuitored (by pakistan of cource), slogan such as "Khalistan also proves the point as it has nothing to do with Kashmir or Kashmiris but related to Pakistan's acknowledged plan "to cut India into 1000 pieces as a revenge for liberation of Bangladesh" —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

— 4th source also mention about slogans, as the second author observes these cannot be counted as peoples' voice as Pakistan funded Pakistan backed terrorism and separatism is a widely acknowledged fact. Elections in Jammu and Kashmir also stands as a testimony for peoples' trust in India and democratic process. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC) @Mar4d: I've highlighted sentences from the source you attached and it turned out to help my point. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 12:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mar4d:

• Kashmir was rooting for Shahid Afridi and his team.- ToI
• Kashmir banega Pakistan" vanish from all protests -ToI
• The generation today is older. They have become politicians and businessmen firm in their knowledge that India is the way forward for Kashmir -ToI
• It makes them admire India, its plurality, its progress and its strength; and resent it for these very reasons -ToI
  

These are not my interpretations but written points in the cited source —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie: Please read WP:SYNTH, which states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. This discussion is going off-topic. Again, could you please answer the original question posed above: where does the source/s nullify the presence of pro-Pakistan sentiments in Kashmir? I haven't asked your interpretation of the Kashmiris' involvement in India's political system. I have instead asked about the presence of "pro-Pakistan" sentiment there, which is what this page is about. From the sources we have so far, the overarching consensus points to the presence of such a sentiment. Mar4d (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mar4d: LOL On what ground you assume there are my interpretations or synthesis? these are clearly stated in the cited source, that's why I took points from each source you've attached—Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mar4d:

• Kashmir banega Pakistan" vanish from all protests -ToI
• The generation today is older. They have become politicians and businessmen firm in their knowledge that India is the way forward for Kashmir -ToI
• It makes them admire India, its plurality, its progress and its strength; and resent it for these very reasons -ToI

You're right there's a sentiment but not in favour of Pakistan lol —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Echo1Charlie, you're repeating and rehashing the same from above. Please refer to my question again: where does the source nullify the said pro-Pakistan sentiment? The ToI, being an Indian source, tellingly states that in spite and irrespective of the political situation, a large segment of Kashmiris supported Pakistan against India in cricket. This is what the source is saying, not me. If you refer to the green quote in my response at 12:46, it then attributes the reason for such support. The same is corroborated by the source on pro-Pakistan slogans. Will you please answer that question? Mar4d (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mar4d: Can I add some details from the sources attached? :p —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Mar4d: And about your question at 12;46 (green highlight) - "There is a connectedness, in the emotional sense, in the hearts of Kashmiris. We don't bleed blue, we bleed green," said Abid Hussein, a young professional — You gave paramount importance to one person's opinion and generalizing whole Kashmiris based on it, when the source provides general trends in Kashmir which is opposite to what you're trying to prove here?? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any more arguments or objection with removing the content @Mar4d:? —Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay that's fine @Mar4d:

The discussion here is on the question of pro-Pakistan sentiment. I have just discovered an excellent source attributed to Gowhar Geelani, which reflects views from a diverse spectrum of Kashmir's intelligentsia. It includes views presented both in favour of and against what we have discussed above. It also translates the support for the cricket team to the wider pro-Pakistani sentiments found among the population. I've just made an expansion explaining those various nuances as part of introducing further balance. Good to know we're on the same side. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad that it ended well, Happy Independence Day @Mar4d: ———Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Echo1Charlie. I take it from your userpage that you identify as an Indian Wikipedian. A happy Independence Day in advance to you as well. Kind regards, Mar4d (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you.—Echo1Charlie (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)