Talk:Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan#rfctag

@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)

• I have reduced the protection level to ECP and also placed the page under the consensus required restriction, i.e any changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. I advise all editors to proceed with caution because any attempts to game the restrictions to force through one's preferred version, to stonewall or go get others blocked is likely to lead to sanctions. Finally, be mindful of WP:BLP (particularly, the sourcing and privacy sections). Abecedare (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

:: {{U|Googleguy007}}, your "commitment to the BRD" makes no sense. You have ransacked the page in two days, and edit-warred when those edits were reverted. Until you reinstate the reverted version, I am afraid no cooperation with you is possible. You do not have COSENSUS for those edits. So please revert them. Over and out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

:::Kautilya3, you don't have a personal veto on content. If you chose not to engage in discussion, that is your choice. Meanwhile, those prepared to do so can seek consensus without you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

:::I’m sorry you feel that way. I acknowledge that I edit warred (as did you) and that I behaved incivily, but I’m willing to engage in good faith and polite discussion now, enforced by my commitment to BRD. I also object to your characterization of me “ransacking” the article, at the very least I made a lot of (hopefully) uncontroversial edits to grammar and phrasing, and I took the lede from overstuffed to normal size, I did make some editorial decisions you don’t agree with, but I don’t think that is “ransacking”. I won’t beg you to stay, and I will continue editing and discussing in your absence. Googleguy007 (talk) 22:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Googleguy007}} You have to restore whatever you removed and if the lead has to be shortened, please put that matter in another section - only then can consensus be achieved (even if {{u|Kautilya3}} is busy now, I am sure he will return to object again and you will have to start all over again if you don't comply).-1Firang (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::I do not, in fact, “have to restore whatever I removed@”. Especially not the “list of incidents” which currently has three opposes to one support. As AndyTheGrump said to kautilya, you do not have a veto on this articles content. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::I am not talking of any veto. You removed a lot of sentences and passages without consensus and you ought to restore it on your own to avoid any future edit war.-1Firang (talk) 12:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::It has never been a Wikipedia requirement that prior consensus be obtained for edits. If the only argument for restoration of content is that such consensus wasn't obtained before it was removed, it would be most unwise to attempt to edit-war it back into the article. Content needs to be discussed on its merits. Each item separately, if necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

{{od}}

WP:BRD puts the onus for obtaining consensus on those that want to make edits. Reverting is the way other editors reject edits they disagree with. After reverting, a discussion is supposed to follow. Having rejected the process and having bulldozed your edits, claiming to "commit to BRD" is meaningless. Reinstate the original version. Then we can discuss your concerns. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:Your refusal to discuss the disputed content on its own merits is noted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:If you would be willing to discuss what you disagree with about my edits im sure we could find consensus, however I hesitate to revert a series of major positive changes to the article based on reasoning that (at this point) seems to boil down to "I dont like it". Googleguy007 (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::And for clarity, committing to BRD is something im doing as an act of good faith, you seem to believe that it is something I am deeply personally dedicated to, and that you can blackmail me by not engaging in discussion. You cannot, I would shed no tears over engaging in discussion solely with editors like Andy. Googleguy007 (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::People also need to take into consideration what Abecedare wrote above: {{tq|be mindful of WP:BLP (particularly, the sourcing and privacy sections)}}. It is never legitimate to revert to content violating WP:BLP policy. And if there is a dispute over whether the policy is actually violated, we need to arrive at a consensus that it isn't (or get more input from uninvolved contributors to arrive at such consensus) before restoring. Such consensus can only be obtained by discussing specifics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::Further to this, I note that some of the content is directly copy-pasted from the source cited, in violation of copyright. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::Not all of them were copyvios. {{u|Googleguy007}} can start by restoring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1154293504 this passage] which cited reliable sources - it stated, "{{tq|

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.{{Cite news |url=https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153061/state-of-fear |title=State of fear |work=Herald (Pakistan) |first1=Maham |last1=Javaid |date=18 August 2016 |access-date=13 February 2021 |archive-date=8 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308150331/https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153061/state-of-fear |url-status=live }}{{citation |url=https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/ |title=Forced conversions of Pakistani Hindu girls |last1=Quratulain |first1=Fatima |date=19 September 2017 |work=Daily Times (Pakistan) |access-date=13 February 2021 |archive-date=9 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109134711/https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/ |url-status=live }}{{citation |url=https://nayadaur.tv/2019/09/who-is-mian-mithu/ |title=Who Is Mian Mithu? |first1=Naya |last1=Daur |date=16 September 2019 |access-date=12 June 2020 |work=Naya Daur Media (NDM), Pakistan |archive-date=9 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309035320/https://nayadaur.tv/2019/09/who-is-mian-mithu/ |url-status=live }}{{citation |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/08/forced-conversions-torment-pakistan-hindus-201481795524630505.html |title=Forced conversions torment Pakistan's Hindus |last=Javaid |first=Maham |date=18 August 2014 |work=Al Jazeera |access-date=13 February 2021 |archive-date=29 June 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190629081246/https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/08/forced-conversions-torment-pakistan-hindus-201481795524630505.html |url-status=live }}}}. The other sentences/passages can be paraphrased and added back.-1Firang (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::First, Id appreciate you not treating me like some child who needs to make amends {{tq|Googleguy can start by restoring this passage}} is incredibly condescending. And that text is a quite serious BLP issue, to include such serious allegations there should generally be a compelling reason for its inclusion (for example, including said text on its subjects articles would likely be fine, as it seems to be a relatively major part of discussion and coverage surrounding him, but there really isnt any compelling reason to include it here, all it does is restate the claim that "muslims are converting non muslims" and specify a muslim supposedly doing the conversion.) Googleguy007 (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::You can leave out names then.-1Firang (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::It can be "{{tq|

Islamic institutions and clerics like the caretaker of Bharchundi Shareef Dargah and the 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.}}-1Firang (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::I think that still has some BLP issues even without naming names. But aside from that, I don’t see why the content should be included. To me it just looks like restating the fact that forced conversions are taking place. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Omitting names while providing a description which leaves the individual concerned easily identifiable doesn't even remotely address the concerns raised. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Googleguy007}} We are objecting to your removal of sourced content. Did you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT fully?-1Firang (talk) 20:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::{{ping|AndyTheGrump}} It can then be, "{{tq|

Islamic institutions and clerics are allegedly involved in these forced conversions and are known to have support from the ruling political parties of Sindh.}}"-1Firang (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::It seems, and correct me if I’m wrong, that the information you care about in this passage is that the ruling parties of sindh allegedly support forced conversion. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::No, I am saying that those clerics have their support.-1Firang (talk) 20:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::The sources are too old to state what the ruling parties of Sindh currently support. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::It can then be, "Islamic institutions and clerics are allegedly involved in these forced conversions."-1Firang (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::No. We aren't going to cite vague statements to old sources just so you can shoehorn in your preferred content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::Right, but saying that directly after talking about them engaging in forced conversions heavily implies that they support the conversions. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::First, that’s an essay, not a policy, essays are important but you shouldn’t cite them like policies. Content should be notable and relevant/important for the article. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::If you read WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it says:-

::::::::::*Keep. Baz supporters want to delete it because it makes Baz look bad. – 1Firang (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::What point are you trying to make here? Googleguy007 (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::I am trying to say that what you removed should be paraphrased and restored as per the rules (taking care of BLP and other issues).-1Firang (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::There are absolutely no 'rules' that require specific content to be restored. None at all. Not a policy. Not a guideline. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. None. Stop wasting our time with this nonsense. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Wikipedia doesn’t have any “rules” saying that. You are citing a single, unexpanded on, example from an essay. And honestly some of those items in the IDONTLIKEIT list seem like they should be removed. Googleguy007 (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::So now you want to remove some of the rules in WP:IDONTLIKEIT?-1Firang (talk) 12:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Sigh. There are no “rules” in IDONTLIKEIT, IDONTLIKEIT is an essay, that means it’s just the opinions of some editors, not a rule. I want to remove one of the ~examples~ in the essay (particularly the one about necessity, as that isn’t an issue of liking) Googleguy007 (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Next you will object to the rules of WP:CONSENSUS which says, "reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines"!-1Firang (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::{{mention|Kautilya3}} and I want you to restore what you removed, after editing the copyvios and BLPvios.-1Firang (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::I showed you an example above by editing out the names of the clerics.-1Firang (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I talked with you about this already. The content without the names of the clerics is still unnecessary. Im happy to have a discussion with you, but it doesnt seem like you have an interest in that. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::It isn't just 'unnecessary', it would sitll constitute a violation of WP:BLP policy. Canvassing another contributor to violate such policy really isn't a good look, 1Firang. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I pinged Kautilya3 because you two are unwilling to build consensus by restoring the sourced content (taking care of the copyvios and BLPvios).-1Firang (talk) 12:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Do you understand what building consensus is? We come to consensus on changes by discussing them on the talk page, and me and AndyTheGrump dont support those changes. Googleguy007 (talk) 12:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

{{rlt}}

This is how to achieve consensus regarding the disputed content:

(a) Discuss each item individually.

(b) Discuss the sourcing of the item. Is the source appropriate, and reliable?

(c) Discuss the proposed text. Does it fairly represent what the source says?

(d) Discuss whether the item adds anything of significance to what is written elsewhere in the article. Is it informative? Is it balanced? Has it been selected to unduly promote a particular perspective?

These are the discussions we need to be having. Anyone not willing to participate in such a manner should find something else to do. Preferably not on Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

:Yeah. What a mess. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

::{{ping|Abecedare|TrangaBellam|Kautilya3|AndytheGrump||Googleguy007}} Copy editing and restoring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1154293504 this passage] which cited reliable sources seems fine - it stated, "{{tq|

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.}}", which can be copy edited to state, "{{tq|Islamic institutions and clerics are allegedly involved in these forced conversions.{{Cite news |url=https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153061/state-of-fear |title=State of fear |work=Herald (Pakistan) |first1=Maham |last1=Javaid |date=18 August 2016 |access-date=13 February 2021 |archive-date=8 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308150331/https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153061/state-of-fear |url-status=live }}{{citation |url=https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/ |title=Forced conversions of Pakistani Hindu girls |last1=Quratulain |first1=Fatima |date=19 September 2017 |work=Daily Times (Pakistan) |access-date=13 February 2021 |archive-date=9 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109134711/https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/ |url-status=live }}{{citation |url=https://nayadaur.tv/2019/09/who-is-mian-mithu/ |title=Who Is Mian Mithu? |first1=Naya |last1=Daur |date=16 September 2019 |access-date=12 June 2020 |work=Naya Daur Media (NDM), Pakistan |archive-date=9 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309035320/https://nayadaur.tv/2019/09/who-is-mian-mithu/ |url-status=live }}{{citation |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/08/forced-conversions-torment-pakistan-hindus-201481795524630505.html |title=Forced conversions torment Pakistan's Hindus |last=Javaid |first=Maham |date=18 August 2014 |work=Al Jazeera |access-date=13 February 2021 |archive-date=29 June 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190629081246/https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/08/forced-conversions-torment-pakistan-hindus-201481795524630505.html |url-status=live }}"}}.-1Firang (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::I would support adding the edited version. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

{{rlt}}

:::These can also be restored:-

:::"According to the Pakistan Hindu Council religious persecution, especially forced conversions, remains the foremost reason for migration of Hindus from Pakistan. This practice is being reported increasingly in the districts of Tharparkar, Umerkot and Mirpur Khas in Sindh.{{Cite web|url=https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/|title=Forced conversions of Pakistani Hindu girls|date=September 19, 2017|access-date=February 13, 2021|archive-date=November 9, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109134711/https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/|url-status=live}}"

::"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. According to the Child Protection activist Jibran Nasir, these forced conversions are part of a mafia that preys on vulnerable minority girls for older men with pedophilia urges. The Pakistan Muslim League politician Haresh Chopra has stated that abduction and forced conversion of Hindus and Sikhs girls is a business in Pakistan done by organized gangs of mullahs and terrorists.{{Cite news|url=http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Abduction-of-Hindus-Sikhs-have-become-a-business-in-Pak-PML-MP/articleshow/9763515.cms|title=Abduction of Hindus, Sikhs have become a business in Pak: PML MP|newspaper=Times of India|date=28 August 2011|access-date=13 February 2021|archive-date=2 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102202343/http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/Abduction-of-Hindus-Sikhs-have-become-a-business-in-Pak-PML-MP/articleshow/9763515.cms|url-status=live}}"

:::"A survey conducted by the Pakistan Hindu Seva welfare Trust found that majority of the scheduled caste Hindu families doesn't send their girl children to schools due to the fear of forced conversion.{{Cite news|url=https://m.timesofindia.com/city/chandigarh/hindu-parents-dont-send-girl-children-to-schools-in-pakistan-survey/articleshow/20431451.cms|title=Hindu parents don't send girl children to schools in Pakistan: Report|author=Yudhvir Rana|date=4 June 2013|access-date=13 February 2021}} According to the, Ramesh Kumar Vankwani, member of National Assembly of Pakistan, around 5,000 Hindus are migrating from Pakistan to India every year and the forced conversions are one of the major reasons behind this.{{Cite news|url=http://www.dawn.com/news/1105830|title=5,000 Hindus migrating to India every year, NA told|last=Haider|first=Irfan|date=13 May 2014|access-date=13 February 2021|archive-date=29 December 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161229174650/http://www.dawn.com/news/1105830|url-status=live}} According to the Pakistan Hindu Council, forced conversions is the foremost reason for the declining population of Hindus in Pakistan.{{citation |url=https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/ |title=Forced conversions of Pakistani Hindu girls |last1=Quratulain |first1=Fatima |date=19 September 2017 |work=Daily Times (Pakistan) |access-date=13 February 2021 |archive-date=9 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109134711/https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/ |url-status=live }} Hindus in Sindh live in fear, due to forced marriage of Hindu girls to Muslim men.{{cite web |title=Forced conversions torment Pakistan's Hindus |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2014/8/18/forced-conversions-torment-pakistans-hindus |publisher=Al Jazeera English |access-date=2021-10-27 |archive-date=2019-06-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190629081246/https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/08/forced-conversions-torment-pakistan-hindus-201481795524630505.html |url-status=live }} Many Pakistani Hindus migrate to India due to forced conversions.{{cite web|title=Waves of Hindus trade Pakistan for India|website=Deutsche Welle|url=https://www.dw.com/en/waves-of-hindus-trade-pakistan-for-india/a-15799122|access-date=2021-10-27|archive-date=2021-10-27|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027050825/https://www.dw.com/en/waves-of-hindus-trade-pakistan-for-india/a-15799122|url-status=live}}"

:::::Copy edited this, "In July, 2021 over 60 Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam in Mirpur Khas District and Mithi areas of Sindh.{{Cite web|url=https://www.indiatoday.in/world/video/over-60-hindus-forcibly-converted-to-islam-in-pakistan-s-sindh-1826989-2021-07-12|title=Over 60 Hindus forcibly converted to Islam in Pakistan's Sindh|access-date=2022-01-15|archive-date=2021-11-07|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211107012610/https://www.indiatoday.in/world/video/over-60-hindus-forcibly-converted-to-islam-in-pakistan-s-sindh-1826989-2021-07-12|url-status=live}}"

{{od}}

What is wrong with this ?-1Firang (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:This was the latest incident we had and should be restored.-1Firang (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::This should be restored to show that other people are also victims (not just girls)-1Firang (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::I don’t oppose that in concept, but it still feels relatively trivial, I would prefer a more high profile example. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::WP:BRD puts the onus on you to find something more extraordinary, until then you must restore it.-1Firang (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2023 (UTC)ry

:::::BRD does not, in fact, do that. I would appreciate it if you were willing to collaborate on this page, you seem to be engaging with a hostile mindset and with a specific goal, which is very disheartening. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::There seem to be some glitches when using a mobile to post here. It should have been WP:BURDEN (the burden is yours).-1Firang (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Burden applies to sourcing claims, but I do understand the point you are making (If I want a higher profile example I should find one). However I was saying that I wouldnt want to add a small scale example. There is no reason that I have to add the content while I wait to find a more notable example. I believe that an example of non-violently coerced and non-female coercion would be a benefit to the article, but only if they are higher profile. Googleguy007 (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:The problem with that is that it’s putting an irrelevant local issue into a list of notable incidents. The other text you want readded wasn’t removed, only edited. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::Please clarify what text you mean with a diff.-1Firang (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coerced_religious_conversion_in_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=1154456641 This] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coerced_religious_conversion_in_Pakistan&diff=prev&oldid=1154452343 this]. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::This gives an alarming age and ought to be at least in the body.-1Firang (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::This can be in the body if not in the lead - it is important because it gives a huge figure!-1Firang (talk) 13:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::I would support adding the figure to incidents, and even potentially readding it to the lede. My primary issue with it was the gross excessive restatement of the number. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::After your removals, that figure disappeared completely; please restore it.

::::-1Firang (talk) 13:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::Wikipedia is collaborative. You can’t just say “you must restore this”, explain where it should be restored, how, why. Just stating that you want the information to be in the article isn’t enough. I would greatly appreciate it if you could start engaging as a collaborator here. Googleguy007 (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::You can restore and put it anywhere other than the lead since you claim the lead will otherwise become long.-1Firang (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::You have removed a lot of stuff, so I suggest you self revert taking care of copy vios and BLPvios.-1Firang (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::Please refer to the start of the section you are editing in. Discuss the changes you want made, propose text you would prefer, discuss what role the changes serve. Reiterating that you want changes to be made ad infinitum will not result in anything positive. Googleguy007 (talk) 14:34, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::At least, please restore what I have mentioned above in this subsection.-1Firang (talk) 14:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::Stop telling other people what to do. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{ping|Googleguy007}} hasn't started restoring what I have requested above (but he seems to have time to respond to other points) which is why I requested him to restore what I have asked above in this subsection (I can't do it myself because this article is extended confirmed protected).-1Firang (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::.....and 3 hours have passed since I last made that request.-1Firang (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I already explained to you why I havent made those changes. And it is incredibly entitled of you to complain about me not complying with your malformed requested change. EC protection exists so that editors who arent EC cant edit the page, not so that they get to demand without adequate explanation that their edits be made. I do not know how I can make you understand that you do not have a right to have me add your edits, as you seem to firmly believe based on the many times you have demanded I make a change, or complained about me not making a change. I literally told you {{tq|Discuss the changes you want made, propose text you would prefer, discuss what role the changes serve.}} two messages above the one implying I am violating policy for not adding your edits. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I really think you could benefit from reading WP:VOLUNTEER (an explanatory essay). Googleguy007 (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I am not asking you to add my edits, I am asking you to restore what you removed.-1Firang (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::That.Is.The.Same.Thing. It is asking me to make edits that you want made. This entire time I have simply been asking you to follow the process set out in "Achieving Consensus", please do so. Googleguy007 (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::You agreed to restore what was mentioned just above this, this, this and this, so please start.-1Firang (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Please see this essay explaining that wikipedia is a volunteer service. For three of those I was just indicating my support, this is a talk page with a few other frequent editors and I wanted to see their opinions/discussion of the content, and for the other one I expressly stated that I didnt support the content as is, and then you argued with me over that. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Im sorry, im just at a loss for words as to how you construed me supporting changes as agreeing to make them, and then got upset at me for not making them. Googleguy007 (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::{{ping|Abecedare|Anachronist}} This is going nowhere. {{u|Googleguy007}} agreed to restore some sentences and passages that he removed but is not doing it. Please suggest what to do.-1Firang (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Yes, that's right, your relentless attempts to impose your own preferred version of the article are going nowhere. Article content is determined through consensus, after discussion. Discussion involving multiple parties. It isn't determined by negotiation between two individuals. Googleguy007 is in no position to make unilateral 'agreements', and quite properly hasn't given any indication of doing so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::{{ping|Kautilya3}} seems to be busy with something else, so it now needs just {{u|Googleguy007}}, you and me for consensus (until others get involved at least). So what is your view and what should be the consensus?-1Firang (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::::My view is that you should start by making it entirely clear which specific text is being referred to. There seem to be several proposals in this thread, and it isn't at all clear to me what exactly it is we are supposed to be discussing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

{{od}}

Let me repeat, the sentences {{u|Googleguy007}} agreed to restore are, "{{tq|Islamic institutions and clerics are allegedly involved in these forced conversions.{{Cite news |url=https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153061/state-of-fear |title=State of fear |work=Herald (Pakistan) |first1=Maham |last1=Javaid |date=18 August 2016 |access-date=13 February 2021 |archive-date=8 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308150331/https://herald.dawn.com/news/1153061/state-of-fear |url-status=live }}{{citation |url=https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/ |title=Forced conversions of Pakistani Hindu girls |last1=Quratulain |first1=Fatima |date=19 September 2017 |work=Daily Times (Pakistan) |access-date=13 February 2021 |archive-date=9 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201109134711/https://dailytimes.com.pk/116289/forced-conversions-of-pakistani-hindu-girls/ |url-status=live }}{{citation |url=https://nayadaur.tv/2019/09/who-is-mian-mithu/ |title=Who Is Mian Mithu? |first1=Naya |last1=Daur |date=16 September 2019 |access-date=12 June 2020 |work=Naya Daur Media (NDM), Pakistan |archive-date=9 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210309035320/https://nayadaur.tv/2019/09/who-is-mian-mithu/ |url-status=live }}{{citation |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/08/forced-conversions-torment-pakistan-hindus-201481795524630505.html |title=Forced conversions torment Pakistan's Hindus |last=Javaid |first=Maham |date=18 August 2014 |work=Al Jazeera |access-date=13 February 2021 |archive-date=29 June 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190629081246/https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/08/forced-conversions-torment-pakistan-hindus-201481795524630505.html |url-status=live }}}}".

"{{tq|

Forbes reported that the Human rights organizations estimates that every year 1,000 such girls are forcibly converted to Islam. This estimate could be even higher than 1,000 as many cases remain unreported.{{Cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2021/02/05/another-religious-minority-girl-kidnapped-raped-and-chained-up-by-her-abductor-in-pakistan/amp/|title=Girl Kidnapped, Raped And Chained Up By Her Abductor In Pakistan|newspaper=Forbes|author=Ewelina U. Ochab|date=5 February 2021|access-date=13 February 2021|archive-date=24 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224152908/https://www.forbes.com/sites/ewelinaochab/2021/02/05/another-religious-minority-girl-kidnapped-raped-and-chained-up-by-her-abductor-in-pakistan/amp/|url-status=live}} The 2020 US media report also estimates the number of forcibly converted girls to be around 1,000 per year. However the Pakistan government rejected it and termed the report as "rubbish and baseless".{{Cite news|url=https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/pakistan-rejects-us-media-report-on-forced-conversion/2092464#::text=Pakistan%20on%20Tuesday%20rejected%20a,converted%20to%20Islam%20every%20year.&text=Earlier%20this%20month%2C%20the%20US,its%20International%20Religious%20Freedom%20Act|title=Pakistan rejects US media report on forced conversion|newspaper=Anadolu Post|author=Islamuddin Sajid|date=29 January 2020|access-date=13 February 2021|archive-date=4 January 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210104024323/https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/pakistan-rejects-us-media-report-on-forced-conversion/2092464#:~:text=Pakistan%20on%20Tuesday%20rejected%20a,converted%20to%20Islam%20every%20year.&text=Earlier%20this%20month%2C%20the%20US,its%20International%20Religious%20Freedom%20Act|url-status=live}}}}"

"{{tq|A total of 57 Hindus converted in Pasrur during May 14–19. On May 14, 35 Hindus of the same family were forced to convert by their employer because his sales dropped after Muslims started boycotting his eatable items as they were prepared by Hindus as well as their persecution by the Muslim employees of neighbouring shops according to their relatives. Since the impoverished Hindus had no other way to earn and needed to keep the job to survive, they converted. 14 members of another family converted on May 17 since no one was employing them, later another Hindu man and his family of eight converted under pressure from Muslims to avoid their land from being grabbed.{{cite web|url=https://tribune.com.pk/story/15970/57-hindus-convert-to-islam-in-10-days/|title=57 Hindus convert to Islam in 10 days|first=Abdul|last=Manan|date=25 May 2010|website=The Express Tribune|access-date=9 April 2019|archive-date=23 April 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190423025030/https://tribune.com.pk/story/15970/57-hindus-convert-to-islam-in-10-days/|url-status=live}}}}"

We can discuss the others later (what I feel can be restored).-1Firang (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

:Comment: I did not agree to make this changes, I supported the first two and supported the concept but not the text of the third. Googleguy007 (talk) 00:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

::For the third one, you said you are looking for something more extraordinary and the burden for that lies on you as per WP:BURDEN. Now, the first two ought to be restored.-1Firang (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

:::Again, I did not say I was looking for something more high profile, I said I would only want to include something more high profile. Googleguy007 (talk) 01:28, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

:For the first proposal, it is too vague, as I believe I suggested earlier. "Islamic institutions and clerics in some areas are alleged to have been involved in these forced conversions" would be preferable: note that the first source states that not all areas are even seeing forced conversions. And I see no reason to cite the third source, concerning allegations about one specific individual. We are describing a systemic issue, and picking out a specific case using a source that seems to be making some sort of political point regarding internal Pakistani politics is unwise.

:The wording of the second proposal could probably be improved somewhat, but it seems ok otherwise.

:The third proposal is reporting events from 2010, without stating this. Clearly conversions due to economic pressure need discussion in the article, if properly sourced but not using a source like this, which is essentially anecdotal. Is the headline "57 Hindus convert to Islam in 10 days" intended to suggest this is unusual? We can't tell. What we need are sources discussing the extent of the problem, not instances that may or may not be typical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

::So please restore whatever is agreeable (by the consensus of Googleguy007, you and me). I want to bring up the other points that were removed.-1Firang (talk) 02:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

:::Consider this a final warning: I am getting utterly sick of your relentless demands that discussion be cut short, before people have had adequate time to respond. The next such demand is very likely to result in a request at WP:ANI that you be topic banned for bludgeoning discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

::::{{ping|Googleguy007}} More than 72 hours have passed since you agreed to restore some of the text you removed. Why haven't you restored what you agreed to restore yet? What are you waiting for?-1Firang (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::I didn’t agree (explicitly or implicitly) to make any edits, and I would caution you to read WP:VOLUNTEER I am on a bit of a wiki break as my school is letting out for summer Googleguy007 (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::Now, suddenly, you have time to make edits?-1Firang (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

:::::::You have already been EC’ed so I don’t get your complaint (unless you somehow believe that me making the edits will make them more likely to stick), and yes, I do have time to make a few minor edits that I want to. If you continue whinging about me not being your personal Wikipedia butler I’m taking this to AN/I to request an interaction ban. Googleguy007 (talk) 00:06, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

::::::::I requested you to restore those edits as this article was extended confirmed protected and I did not have extended confirmed protected rights then. I now have those rights and won't bother you about the same again.-1Firang (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

{{rlt}}

As far as I can tell, almost all (possibly all) the edits made here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coerced_religious_conversion_in_Pakistan&diff=1158328374&oldid=1157750670] have been made without consensus. There are clear and unambiguous issues with some of the content, even from a perfunctory examination. Allegations are being presented as fact. Op-ed articles are being cited for factual claims. Sources well over a decade old are being presented as portraying the current situation. And what makes these particular incidents 'notable' anyway? As discussed at length above, we need to achieve consensus regarding article content, and this is clearly not going to be achieved by unilateral mass addition of questionable material. I would strongly advise {{u|1Firang}} to self-revert, to look again more closely at the material being added (and at relevant Wikipedia policy), and then to discuss each item individually here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

:I have copy edited (to avoid BLP and copyvio issues) and restored what {{u|Googleguy007}} removed without consensus from 8 May onwards. You may discuss each of my edits individually if you want.-1Firang (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

::Given your entirely inadequate response above, I have reverted all your edits. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

:::At least, please explain the reversions (what was wrong with each). I merely copy edited (to avoid BLP and copyvio issues) and restored what {{u|Googleguy007}} removed without consensus from 8 May onwards.-1Firang (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

::::No, you 'merely' added/restored a whole lot of material which has been described as problematic by multiple contributors, without prior consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

• Reminder: As noted at the top of this page and in the article's edit-notice, the article is under a consensus required CTOP restriction, i.e any changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.

: {{mention|1Firang}}, your recent edits that reinserted content that had been so challenged violated the restriction unless you can point to existing talk-page agreement to restore the content. {{mention|AndyTheGrump}} instead of reverting content that violates the restriction yourself, it would be advisable to ask an admin to do it just so that the reason for reversion is clear and it doesn't spark an edit-war. Abecedare (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

::Ok, fair enough - my edit summary could probably have been clearer, though possibly I've misunderstood the finer points of contentious topics editing, and would do better to leave such edits to an admin, as you suggest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

:::{{re|Abecedare}} There was a discussion here and {{u|Googleguy007}} agreed that it was wrong to remove some of those.-1Firang (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

::::Given the gross misrepresentation in that claim (there was absolutely no discussion of most, if not all, of the material added today), a topic ban for 1Firang would seem entirely appropriate at this point. Consensus cannot be demonstrated through blatant falsehood, and I don't consider it at all reasonable to expect contributors to continue to work alongside someone so willing to engage in such behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Googleguy007}} agreed to restore what was mentioned just above this, this, this and this but didn't do so which is why I started restoring the same (he refused to do so by stating that Wikipedia editing is voluntary).-1Firang (talk) 13:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::Thank you for providing further evidence of your unwillingness and/or inability to actually address the points being made. We seem to be entering WP:CIR territory here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::1Firang, your [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coerced_religious_conversion_in_Pakistan&diff=1158332767&oldid=1157750670 edits] went well beyond the (often "in principal") agreement with one editor that your diffs indicate. Please propose and establish explicit consensus for the specific content you wish to reinstate. I don't intend to impose any editor-sanctions at the moment but will do so if the restrictions are violated again or the conduct falls below the high standards expected at contentious topics. That said, please use this page to discuss article content, and bring issues of editor conduct to AN/AE/admin talkpage as appropriate. Abecedare (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

:::::::{{re|AndyTheGrump}} I may, as you say, be incompetent to edit the text you removed with this reversion appropriately, so I will leave it to you to go through each edit and restore (or not restore) those edits.-1Firang (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

::::::::Not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

How many sources use the term coerced and how many use the term forced?

And who made Jürgen Schaflechner as the sole voice of Pakistan Hindus. Why his statement is at the lead? Many paid political editors have taken control of this article.

If there is no religious hate then why are they converted.

Jürgen Schaflechner, a cultural anthropologist specializing on Hindus in Pakistan, states that these conversions are rarely motivated by religious zeal, and are instead a consequence of the commodification of and denial of agency to women in a deeply patriarchal society

The above statement is like this---Charlock Jones who specializes on rape victims said, The rapes done by the serial rapist is not done due to sexual frustration and misogyny but due to loss in football match. Nsar Siraj Khan (talk) 02:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

:The sentence about Jürgen Schaflechner has been removed. It violates WP:LEAD because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article body.

:Your point, however, is a false equivalence. The difference is that Jürgen Schaflechner got his view published in a reliable source, and your fictional Charlock Jones did not. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

::I have placed the content regarding Schaflechner in the article body, where it properly belongs. This article needs more academic sources: per WP:SOURCETYPES these are the best we are likely to get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Does this man getting his article published in The Conversation alone merit his being cited here?

A few points to be noted -

1) Article says that members across both genders of pakistan's minorities - I assume meaning Hindus Sikhs and Christians - endure this. Again the cultural anthropologist's reference mentions that its not religious hate/fanaticism/hegemonism but "patriarchy" that is the cause behind this phenomenon. Does that then not cover only the female half of such instances? How are the male members of the minorities facing the same ordeal then accounted for?

2) In his article he uses the term "religious right" to mean indicate the religious persuasion of the perpetrators whereas for the other side he uses the term "Hindu nationalists". Who are the nationalists here then? The aggrieved victims' families? Or entities verily outside the country itself? And why not use a term like "muslim nationalist" or "islamist" or "islamo-fascist" etc? After all this is occurring in a country with some 96% being of that religious ilk. This country also leads the world in terms of internationally proscribed terror organizations and individuals. Does that not at the outset reek of inherent bias?

3) He does not have a page on Wikipedia. Very few Google matches too. That too mostly from academic uploads sites. The h-index of cultural anthropology is 75. While his is 5. At 42 he should be around 15 years past his PhD and to be considered "good" one needs to ideally have a h-index of around 15 or more. Even higher so for "excellent" and "great".

Finally India is often hyphenated with this country. Listed below are nearly 30 incidents across the North Zone and East Zone and West Zone of the country. From Bidar District (one of the Northernmost border districts of Karnataka State (and of South India) in the South till Punjab in the North and from Gujarat in the West till West Bengal in the East.

There are a dozen others but MSM rescinded them quickly for whatever reason.

Wonder if these were also instances of the murderers trying to "save" the eventual victims (who are no more) from "patriarchy"

I would kindly request the attention of some editors who I have seen editing on related articles.

@Doug Weller @Aman.kumar.goel @Kautilya3 @331dot @CapnJackSp @Toddy1 @RegentsPark @Sandstein @Anachronist @IvanVector @Favonian @Sitush @Vanamonde93 @Tayi Arajakate @Slatersteven @AndyTheGrump

{{collapse top|title=WP:NOTFORUM}}

Mumbai (Maharashtra) -

Victim – Ms Mansi Dixit – killed with a hammer

Murderer - Mujammil Sayed

Reason – Victim refused to have sex with Murderer

https://www.hindustantimes.com/mumbai-news/mansi-dixit-murder-in-mumbai-19-year-old-killed-model-for-saying-no-to-sex/story-VFuqkmH4hkSMMv0aTTRvUK.html

Delhi -

Victim – Ms Riya Gautam - stabbed to death

Murderers - Adil Banne Khan and Juned Salim Ansari and Fazil Raju Ansari

Reason – Victim rejected one of the Murderers’ advances

https://www.deccanherald.com/content/621608/three-arrested-riya-gautam-murder.html

Ahmedabad (Gujarat) -

Victim – Ms Payal Patel (married to a Mr Sagar Patel) - beaten to death

Murderer - Majid Khan Pathan

Reason – Victim refused to divorce Husband and marry Murderer

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ahmedabad/bopal-police-arrest-jilted-lover-for-murder-of-20-year-old-woman/articleshow/65693462.cms

Bidar (Karnataka) -

Victim – Ms Puja Hadapad - raped and killed

Murderer – Shamsuddin

Reason – Victim rejected Murderer’s proposal

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/spurned-man-rapes-kills-girl-in-bidar/articleshow/62693040.cms

Gurgaon (Haryana) -

Victim – Ms Nandini – decapitated

Murderer - Gulam Rabbani (who posed as a HINDU man “Mr Neeraj Jha”)

Reason – Victim rejected Murderer’s advances

https://www.ndtv.com/delhi-news/police-solve-gurgaon-murder-while-probing-another-womans-death-in-shanti-van-1857794

Krishnanagar (West Bengal) -

Victim – Ms Mou Rajak – killed by acid attack

Murderer - Iman Ali Mondal

Reason – Victim refused to marry Murderer

https://www.business-standard.com/amp/article/pti-stories/man-given-life-term-for-killing-girl-in-acid-attack-117051101187_1.html

Delhi -

Victims – Ms Poonam and younger sister Ms Swati – killed by strangulation

Murderer – Tahir (an auto rickshaw driver and married)

Reason – (First) Victim rejected Murderer’s advances

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/East-Delhi-sisters-murder-Auto-driver-in-net-confesses/articleshow/50701107.cms?from=mdr

Nagpur (Maharashtra) -

Victim – Mr Yogesh Dakhore – shot to death

Murderer - Anwar Khan

Reason – Victim’s daughter refused to marry Murderer

https://www.deccanherald.com/amp/content/323598/womans-stalker-guns-down-her.html

Udaipur (Rajasthan) -

Victim – Ms Tina Rajawat – stabbed to death

Murderer - Naeem Khan (her Car driver)

Reason – Victim refused to marry Murderer

https://udaipurtimes.com/crime/former-driver-kills-lady-of-the-house/c74416-w2859-cid132989-s10711.htm

Delhi -

Victim - Ms Preeti Mathur – stabbed to death

Murderer – Munasir

Reason – Victim rejected Murderer’s advances

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/girl-stabbed-to-death-in-south-delhi-accused-arrested-1574338-2019-07-27

Ludhiana (Punjab) -

Victim – Ms Ekta Jaswal – decapitated

Murderer – Saqib

Reason – Victim discovered Murderer, who was courting her with a Hindu name, was an impostor and then refused to marry him

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/meerut/yr-after-ludhiana-girl-went-missing-arrest-of-lover-from-up-unravels-tale-of-deception-brutal-murder/articleshow/76164996.cms

Meerut (Uttar Pradesh) -

Victims – Ms Priya Chaudhary and daughter Kashish – killed by strangulation

Murderer – Shamshad (a married “bookbinder”)

Reason – Former Victim discovered Murderer, who was courting her as a Hindu, was an impostor and rejected his advances

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/meerut/meerut-man-changes-identity-to-trap-ghaziabad-woman-cops-find-body/articleshow/77119552.cms

Sonipat (Haryana) -

Victim – Ms Shivani Khubiyan – stabbed to death

Murderer – Arif Khan

Reason – Victim refused to marry Murderer

https://www.theweek.in/news/india/2020/06/29/jilted-lover-kills-haryana-tiktok-star-but-keeps-her-virtually-alive.html

Vallabgarh (Haryana) -

Victim – Ms Nikita Tomar – shot to death

Murderer – Tausif

Reason – Victim refused to marry Murderer and thereafter convert to islam (this is on Wiki)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Nikita_Tomar

Delhi -

Victim – Ms Neetu – killed with a hammer

Murderer - Laik Khan

Reason – Victim refused to marry Murderer

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/man-who-killed-teen-for-refusing-marriage-nabbed/articleshow/81160384.cms

Roorkee (Uttarakhand) -

Victim – Ms Nidhi Paswan – decapitated

Murderer – Haider

Reason – Victim rejected Murderer’s advances

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/stalker-aides-kill-19-year-old-girl-in-roorkee/articleshow/82235004.cms

Rohtak (Haryana) -

Victim – Ms Tanishka Sharma – shot to death (hours after her wedding to a Hindu man)

Murderer - Mohammad Sahil

Reason – Victim refused to marry Murderer

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/gurgaon/stalker-shoots-rohtak-girl-hours-after-her-wedding/articleshow/88113470.cms

Hooghly (West Bengal) -

Victim – Ms Subhologna Chakraborty – killed

Murderer - Sheikh Sultan

Reason – Victim rejected Murderer’s advances after discovering he was courting her posing as a Hindu

http://www.ndtv.com/cities/bengal-woman-shot-dead-her-parents-beaten-up-by-jilted-lover-police-1882443

Delhi -

Victim – Ms Naina Mishra - shot to death (by muslim shooters hired by Murderer)

Murderer - Amanat Ali

Reason – Victim rejected Murderer’s advances

https://www.india.com/news/delhi/delhi-police-arrests-accused-amanat-ali-who-fired-bullets-at-16-year-old-girl-for-not-talking-to-him-in-sangam-vihar-5605192/

Dumka (Jharkhand) -

Victim – Ankita Kumari Singh – burnt to death

Murderer – Shahrukh Hussein

Reason – Victim rejected Murderer’s advances

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/who-was-ankita-singh-17-year-old-burnt-alive-by-stalker-in-jharkhand-1994104-2022-08-29

Ranchi (Jharkhand) -

Victim - Chaiyanika Kumari - killed

Murderer - Mirza Rafiqul Haq

http://www.telegraphindia.com/jharkhand/life-term-in-hotel-murder/cid/1732722

Noida (Uttar Pradesh) -

Victim - Diksha Mishra - killed

Murderer - Emraan

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/noida-news/mother-of-11-month-old-girl-from-noida-found-dead-in-hotel-room-in-nainital-101629208798368.html

Nagpur (Maharashtra) -

Victim - Khushi Parihar – hacked to death

Murderer - Ashraf Sheikh

https://www.news18.com/photogallery/india/aspiring-model-khushi-parihar-brutally-killed-by-boyfriend-ashraf-sheikh-2232375.html

Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh) -

Victim - Naina Kaur – stabbed to death

Murderers - Sher Khan and Imran Rizwan

https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/ghaziabad-21-year-old-tik-tok-star-arrested-for-killing-woman-days-before-her-marriage/story-WunTwuQCviIjWSgRuhOQJJ.html

Balia (Madhya Pradesh) -

Victim – Ms Ritika Sahni - killed

Murderer - Saiyed Ali

Reason – Murderer thought Victim was cheating on him

https://www.devdiscourse.com/article/law-order/1333582-teen-killed-by-youth-on-suspicion-she-was-cheating-on-him

Ajmer (Rajasthan) -

Victim – Ms Swati Rajput – hacked to death

Murderer - Arshad Khan

Reason – Victim rejected Murderer’s advances

https://rashtrajyoti.in/protests-against-love-jihad-in-rajasthan-after-minor-girl-is-killed-by-stalker-she-met-through-instagram/

{{collapse bottom}}

NYCLover2016 (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

:{{ping|NYCLover2016}} As far as I can see your post is not relevant to the topic of :Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan. I looked at the citation you gave for the murder of Mansi Dixit, but it does not seem relevant because (a) she was murdered in India, and (b) her murder was nothing to do with forced religious conversion.-- Toddy1 (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

:Edit request is mostly garbage, but is correct as to the fact that the "expert" opinion is undue. The person was doing research on a temple in Pakistan, and bases his "belief" on anecdotal incidents. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

::I have collapsed the list of incidents as irrelevant to the discussion. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

::I agree, this seems undue. Slatersteven (talk) 17:23, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

:::The grounds given for removal are utterly absurd. Jürgen Schaflechner's comments are the result of following the topic for ten years. He is an assistant professor at the University of Heidelburg, a leading German university. He has had multiple articles published on the topic of forced conversion of Hindus in Pakistan. [https://www.sai.uni-heidelberg.de/nsp/mitarbeiter/schaflechner.php?PU=%3C?%20echo%20$PU;%20?%3E] A book published by the Oxford University Press, of which he is a co-author, has a chapter by him on the topic. [https://global.oup.com/academic/product/pakistan-9780190701314?cc=de&lang=en#] Of all the possible sources to reject from the article, people chose the one most closely fitting the description of "most reliable" in WP:RS: "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs", while the article is instead based largely around mass-media articles of questionable reliability written to feed a pre-existing partisan discourse. We do not reject academic sources because they aren't in accord with tabloid rabble-rousing clickbait. I am going to restore the deleted content, and if it is removed again without better grounds than offered so far, I will consider asking for sanctions against whoever does so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

:::"Forced" Conversion and (Hindu) Women’s Agency in Sindh by Jürgen Schaflechner: [https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/19498/12%20-%20Forum%20-%20Schaflechner%20-%20Forced%20Conversion%20and%20(Hindu)%20Women%E2%80%99s%20Agency%20in%20Sindh.pdf?sequence=1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

::::I removed it before I saw your comment. I disagree. This is WP:UNDUE emphasis on a non-peer-reviewed primary-source opinion piece by a non-notable professor. The WP:BURDEN for including this has not been met. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::What the heck is a 'non-notable professor'? 'Notability' as Wikipedia defines it has absolutely nothing to do with the reliability of a source. I have linked a whole damned chapter in a book by Schaflechner above discussing the topic of this article, published by the Oxford University Press. This is the very model of an academic source - the exact type of source we are supposed to be using when available. The excuses given for the removal of content regarding Schaflechner's perspective are entirely inadequate. Having taken the time to check with the source I linked above (the OUP book), I am going to restore the content, citing the book chapter. If it is removed again without proper discussion, I will report whoever does so per Wikipedia:Contentious topics procedures, asking for sanctions. We do not reject academic works because they don't agree with partisan tabloid rabble rousing mass-media sources. That is grossly improper, and a violation of core Wikipedia policies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::As I explained to you in my reply to you on my talk page, you are in violation of the AE sanctions at the top of this page. Go ahead and ask for sanctions, but beware of WP:BOOMERANG. Consensus is required to include it, not to remove it. I suggest you revert yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::::And as I have explained to you on your talk page, unless I get an apology from you for your gross misinterpretation of policy, I shall be taking your behaviour to ArbCom. You are so clearly and utterly wrong in multiple ways, to the extent that I find it almost unfathomable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::::I hope that some sleep will have allowed for some cooling off here, but I do find that AndyTheGrump makes a good point. The causes section has four paragraphs:

::::::::*Some Islamic institutions and clerics have been alleged... sourced to three newspapers;

::::::::*Some coerced conversions are results of... sourced to a newspaper;

::::::::*According to some child protection activists... sourced to a newspaper; and

::::::::* Jürgen Schaflechner, ... states ... sourced to an excellent reliable and academic source

::::::::Why keep the first three if quibbling about the inclusion of the fourth? Would it help if we replaced his name with some? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

::::I have taken the pain to go through this section (which ideally you should have bothered to point to the relevant portions of) and I find it undue still. First, he doesnt focus on the topic of our article, which are forced conversions. Instead, he focuses on a small subset, forced conversions and marriage (referred to as FCM in the paper), which is forced conversion of women followed immediately by marriage. There also, his only claim is that religious zeal is not the only factor, and that it is more complicated than media/hindu victims' families/liberal activists/conservative muslims portray. He also focuses on countering the love jihad angle (already well opposed by many, better scholars), and then concludes by analysing a few anecdotal incidents to justify his findings.
I find this to be undue weight given to a scholar whose primary work revolves around a temple in Balochistan, with this part of commentary focussing on Sindh. Doubtless he would have travelled there time to time, but I would not consider that to make him an expert on the matter. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:24, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::Given the choice, I'd rather work according to the Oxford University Press's assessment of who exactly is an 'expert' on this topic than yours. They don't appoint book editors on a whim. They don't include chapters in academic works on a whim. Though maybe Harvard's opinion of Schaflechner should be taken into consideration too. Presumably they took him on as a Visiting Research Scholar at the Department for the Study of Religion [https://www.sai.uni-heidelberg.de/nsp/pdf/cv-schaflechner.pdf] for a reason. As for trying to nit-pick about where exactly Schaflechner did his doctoral fieldwork, it is absurd to rule out his commentary on broader aspects of Pakistan society and culture on that basis. There are only ever a finite number of experts on any subject, and their ability to comment meaningfully on broader topics is what makes their expertise useful. Particularly when their expertise lies within topics so clearly adjacent to the one being discussed. Schaflechner's chapter on forced conversion is almost certainly going to be among the best academic exposition of the topic we are likely to get. And can someone please explain to me what the heck is wrong with what Schaflechner is saying anyway? That Pakistan society is deeply patriarchal cannot surely be contested. That the women supposedly at the centre of these incidents have had their voices silenced is more or less self-evident. That behind the shallow partisan discourse around 'conversion' there are whole layers of complexity relating to power and powerlessness, of wealth and poverty, and of individuals from the lower ranks of a minority community trying to scratch a living in amongst the politiking that reduces them (particularly the women, excluded from politics through social norms) to pawns in other people's games. Schaflechner isn't making any 'fringe' claim at all. He isn't making any assessment a competent social science undergraduate might not arrive at, given the same evidence. He argues his point well, because he has the expertise to do so, but nothing he is saying actually contradicts established academic understanding of the topic. It isn't 'fringe'. It isn't even remotely controversial. It is a mainstream academic analysis, the very thing one should compare the 'fringe' against. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::And something else he says, that would be well placed in this causes section: {{tqb|Upon deeper scrutiny, however, cases of forced conversion reveal many layers of complexity, which thwart simple mono-causal explanations offered by both sides—either the liberal groups or the religious right.}} Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:::::::Indeed. If there is a legitimate critique of our use of Schaflechner's work in out article, it is that we've reduced his commentary on complexities to a level that hides them from view. Rather than excluding him, we should probably be saying more. The section needs expansion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::::I do not know whether forced conversion and marriage is a small subset of forced conversion in Pakistan, or the main way forced conversion happens. If there is evidence one way or the other, the article should talk about it, and cite reliable sources such as work by academics.

::::::::One aspect that should be mentioned in the article is that the incidence in the press in Pakistan of reports of forced conversion and marriage was much higher in the 2010s than it had been in the 1990s. But it is unclear whether this is because the press mention it more often, or because it occurs more often. As you would expect, this aspect is discussed by Schaflechner.^{[https://edoc.hu-berlin.de/bitstream/handle/18452/19498/12%20-%20Forum%20-%20Schaflechner%20-%20Forced%20Conversion%20and%20(Hindu)%20Women’s%20Agency%20in%20Sindh.pdf?sequence=1]}-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

::::::From what I can see, Andy entirely has the clear right of it. The quibbles over context can be addressed by means of the way in which material from the source is paraphrased and used on the page. The complaints about the scholar's credentials are scraping at the barrel. As mentioned further up this thread, the page is largely newspaper material, and people are complaining about a WP:CHOPSY source? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

{{u|Anachronist}} {{u|Slatersteven}} {{u|CapnJackSp}} {{u|Vanamonde93}} Good morning/afternoon/evening. We all know that this is a 100% subjective topic as it is with social sciences. The author being notable and/or the work being RS - I understand - would be prerequisites. I would briefly repeat the points I made in my op which no one commented on. 1) Conversions of only females are accounted for by the so-called scholar in his apology/justification/explanation which thus does not apply to males while the article at the outset mentions "people" (on which the was some edit-warring too). 2) He uses the term "Hindu nationalists" for those supporting the aggrieved side (Not to mention that world over many have accused islamists of desiring world hegemony by spreading their religion. Regardless of race or color or religion Hindis/Sikhs/Jains/Buddhists and Jews/Christians and everyone else) and called the persecutors merely "the religious right" which IS skewed to say the least and smacks of initial bias. 3) And fact remains that he has a h-index of 5 while Cultural Anthropology has an average h-index of 75 https://scholar.google.com/citations?view_op=list_works&hl=en&hl=en&user=SDr4HgIAAAAJ.

His referenced work *"Forced" Conversion and (Hindu) Women’s Agency in Sindh"* has 16 citations of which 5 are self and another 5 by pakistani muslim authors and a grand zero peer reviews (the Google Scholar link has the figures). This piece in turn is supposedly one of the chapters in his magnum opus "Alternative Imag(in)ings of the Nation State" https://global.oup.com/academic/product/pakistan-9780190701314?cc=de&lang=en# from OUP that enjoys an epic total of 3 citations (per Google Scholar). I am seeing zero reviews on Google and Amazon and elsewhere. For purely scholarly reviews HoyaSearch and ProQuest are the two most popular places and this work draws ZERO search results on them both!

The OUP page describes the book as "This edited volume combines academic and journalistic writings on Pakistans literature, non-Muslim life-worlds, and popular culture. The book brings together national and international authors from fields of literary studies, anthropology, and cultural studies to critique solidified imaginings of the nation state." Does "journalistic writings" pass muster? And "literary studies"??? Please note that he has put the word *Forced* in quotes again implying that he thinks that they are not so. And the word *Imag(in)gs in the title?. The only thing that seems in favor of such a pathetic reference is that it is from OUP but university presses do not publish 100% academic works every time. OUP had also published Salamn Rushdie's controversial work which was not an academic publication.

Lastly I may digress a bit but I have to say this - as an Indian Hindu - for this "culture" we see in the two countries torn out of India in the 1940s does bother us as it rightly should. It was to facilitate such victims of religious hate (the younger women suffer this while their religious places are targeted on a regular basis as are their festivals etc) that India passed the CAA which opened the country's doors to all of the minorities of that country. Not just Hindus/Jains/Buddhists/Sikhs who are Indic by faith, also Christians and all other minorities there can get Indian citizenship. The mentality of the majority in those countries to this day remains the same. Now they concoct cock-and-bull stories to try and get in muslims. ahmadis - back in the 40s there was an ahmadi zafarullah who led the pakistan movement and made the entire stretch from pakistan to North India to bangladesh a mass killing field of non-muslims - and there was a fuqan force - formed by pakistani ahmadis - that played a pivotal role to take away half of Kashmir from India. The last Army chief there (whatever bajwa) is also an ahmadi. Then the shias - their very founder jinnah was a shia - as are even their most prominent political family the bhuttos.

The latter (maybe 80% in volume) of my first post listed incidents where, across Northern and Western and Eastern India, muslim men chased non-muslim women and upon rejection killed them. All of those incidents are from May 2014 after the supposedly Hindu Nationalist Modi came to power. Whether this is more generic of islam or its adherents or only a phenomenon (regardless of its dimensions) particular to South Asia I do not know. I just wanted to point out that these instances where the girls rejected their advances would have had likely had an entirely different ending if in pakistan imo. In India they do not have the numbers and the system in their favor. And also the larger picture. This flies in the face of alleged persecution of this ilk in India. I cannot see the Native Americans or Aboriginals or the more recent non-White migrants behave remotely this way with the older White migrants - who today are in majority - in America or Australia (and they do not to the best of my knowledge). The Asian/African migrants in Europe also do not behave this way (there are stray incidents but with significantly less frequency). None of the msm - NONE - in India has ever talked about this trend. AIA for this getting a bit long.

NYCLover2016 (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:Ah, yes, the "{{tq|100% subjective ... social sciences}}". Nothing subjective what so ever in natural sciences like biology. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:What a thoroughly disgusting display of clueless bigotry. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I am rather concerned that the current wording of the lead is not supported by the citations cited for it. It says: {{tq|q=y|1=In Pakistan, it is estimated that several hundred people belonging to the minority Hindu, Christian, and Sikh communities are kidnapped and forcefully converted or coerced through societal pressures to convert to Islam each year.}} There are two citations:

• {{cite news |title=Stories of forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-29008267 |date=1 September 2014 |access-date=2021-10-27 |archive-date=2021-10-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211027042707/https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-29008267 |url-status=live }} This says: "Every year in Pakistan, several hundred young Christian or Hindu girls are forcibly converted to Islam, and sometimes married off."
• {{Cite news|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-26/pakistan-forced-marriage-islam-conversion-teenagers-kidnapped/11338314# |title=Hindu sisters Reena and Raveena become face of forced religious conversion in Pakistan|newspaper=ABC news|author=Siobhan Heanue|date=25 July 2019|access-date=2 November 2023}} This says "A Pakistani human rights group says 1,000 girls were forcibly converted to Islam last year" and "It is a practice that human rights groups say has been going on for years, targeting Christian and Hindu girls from poor families and low castes." and "Around 1,000 Christian and Hindu minority women were converted to Islam and then forcibly married off to their abductors or rapists".

Notice that the sources mention Christian and Hindu girls. The citations given for the statement do not mention Sikhs and do not suggest that male people or older women get forced into converting.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Note also that the 2014 source said that the problem affected "several hundred" girls, whereas the 2019 source said that the problem affected about a thousand girls in 2018. This may be evidence that the problem is growing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

:It is certainly possible that the problem is growing. However, as Jürgen Schaflechner notes in his analysis (cited in the article), the issue has attracted increasing media attention in recent years, and the increased numbers may instead reflect higher levels of reporting. And one needs to take care not to place too high an emphasis on the reported numbers where (again per Schaflechner) the discourse around the issue misses out much of the subtleties of individual events, and where it simply isn't possible to objectively sort the 'forced' from the 'unforced' - more so when those undergoing conversion are least best placed to express their own views on events.

:It should also be made clear in the lede that both sources cited make it clear that they are specifically discussing forced conversion and (very often) marriage of young Hindu women, rather than just 'people' in the abstract as the lede currently suggests. The majority of sources cited in the article body are discussing the same thing, and we need to take care not to conflate the broader social and economic pressures being placed on the Hindu minority to convert with the more extreme factors affecting a specific subset of that population. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)