Talk:Pro-Pakistan sentiment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Removal of notable people section[edit]

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[edit]

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 [citation needed] 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 Pakistan-phobia seems to be an outdated form of Pakistanophobia so I removed the very old refs to this and just left one ref per word (and removed all the cn tags except the last one).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 [citation needed] 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 (talkcontribs)
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 Face-smile.svg) 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[edit]

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

Request for Comment II[edit]

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[edit]

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