Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Please discuss this here before removing. This is sourced and mentioned in both books. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear User TopGun, do I have to copy+paste for you what is written in your own sources now? Your first book says Punjabis are referred to as dal khor in PAKISTAN (no mention of Afghanistan) and your second one doesn't even show a result if you search for dal khor. Kindly rv. JCAla (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Refer to this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dal Khor. It is been presented in detail. Although the term couldn't get consensus for general notability for a separate article, it surely is mentioned in reliable sources and verifiable. I think there's some weight in issues with listing it under Afghanistan, but as far as the term is concerned... it is an old term. You can suggest if you would like to list it some where else? The source says it is used by Pathans. I've listed it under a better section header which actually has more scope in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• "including by fellow Pakistanis themselves" is not in the source. Consider replacing it with "specifically Pathans" as the source says (which can then imply to all Pathans regardless of being Afghans or Pakistanis). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, it is in the source, as the source explicitly talks about nicknames in Pakistan proper. Pakistani Pathans are Pakistanis, aren't they? I mean, Karzai would disagree, but would be quite surprised to find you disagreeing. JCAla (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I personally believe that ethnic group overlaps both nations. So it is not just Pakistan. According to the source, Pathans use this term for Punjabis... this is clearly ethnic. Saying that it is used by fellow Pakistanis is textbook WP:SYNTH. We don't need to say that. It can be true (or even implies to be true) but that is clear from the usage of ethnic groups. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The first source doesn't talk about Pathans. It explicitly talks about eating habits and local names inside Pakistan without mentioning by whom they are called that way, just that inside Pakistan they have that nickname. JCAla (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

One source specifically cites a Pathan calling the Punjabi dal khor. I've read the given pages of both sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• @JCAla: Don't know what Karzai has to do with this, but last time I checked, about a quarter of all Pathans live in Afghanistan. The term itself is in usage among Pashtuns which can be used to imply Afghans. On a side note, why are we even spending otherwise productive time pointlessly bickering over this? I'm sure there must be other sources explaining the usage of the term 'Dal Khor' among Afghans. Mar4d (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

That's why the simplest solution is just to say what the source is saying... no need to improvise over it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Last time that I repeat it, the first source speaks about the term being used in Pakistan by Pakistanis. The second source shows no results for dal khor. So, no Pashtuns and even less Afghanistan. Currently the article states what the source featuring "dal khor" says. JCAla (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The source does mention Pushtun, and that is why I titled it Ethnic. Now that you've changed it to a simple term for just anti-Pakistani feeling, it is out of line. The term is used as an ethnic taunt, not as a political one. Better to rephrase it on that. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It says and I quote "No results found in this book for dal khor". Anyone, feel free and check this source by TopGun for the term dal khor. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Try "dalkhor" BTW that is from the short story The Train Has Reached Amritsar and cannot ne used as a definition, nor does the story say it is a pejorative Darkness Shines (talk) 11:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Ah, ok. But, that is a short story not a factual source. Also, the fictional Pakistani Pathan in that book is referring as "dalkhor" to a "frail-looking Babu" from Peshawar speaking the Pashto language. So, in no way is this a source for Punjabis or Pakistanis being called dal khor in Afghanistan. JCAla (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is not listed under Afghanistan now, is it? Both books list it as a term used against Pakistani Punjabis. There's no context given for them being named as such only inside Pakistan, rather by Pathans or in general. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly hence it needs to go as it is pure OR, care to do the honors? I would but am worried about the IBAN thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please, TopGun, once answer in chronological order. The first source is about the authors' experience inside Pakistan and as such refers to Pakistan. The author makes no mention of Pathans. The second source, a work of fiction, also takes place in Pakistan/India not Afghanistan and it has a Pathan in Pakistan/India refer to a "frail-looking Babu" from Peshawar as "dalkhor" in a rather humoristic way. No mention of Punjabi there. These are the relevant questions: 1) Can a fictional short story be used as a source? I think only when you explicity say, A in his fictional short story B made character C refer to D as dalkhor. But for this, it needs to be a truly notable short story. But then, 2) does Pakistanis being called dalkhor by other Pakistanis constitute an anti-Pakistan sentiment? I dunno, I don't think so. Look, the thing is, I have seen people use that term with regards to Pakistanis. But TopGun has presented no reliable sources in that regard. His sources only show that term is widely used even inside Pakistan among Pakistanis. So, the sources presented do not warrant to keep the content under "anti-Pakistan sentiment". JCAla (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

My replies were in the order you asked the questions. I'll rephrase them for the questions you asked now. First source says it is used for Punjabis, the second one says it is being by a Pathan (for a Punjabi in the context - it's been some time I read those pages, you might want to read those instead of just using search terms). 1) Like you say it has to be a truely notable short story, fair enough... it is both notable and in context (we eveb have a Wikipedia article on it now: The Train Has Reached Amritsar - I've not checked the article out though). 2) These references make no mention of Pakistanis using this word rather it is being referred to as in general in first source and by Pathans in second source. So I agreed that this should not be listed specifically under Afghanistan just by these sources. I moved it to a separate section. You renamed that section to 'terms', but it is rather emphasizing on the ethnic taunt. So it should be renamed to that. I'm sure that is not the only racist word being used for ethnic groups in Pakistan (regardless of who uses it), we can expand on such a section. This article is currently politically charged and we are missing racism, which is a major topic to come under this. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand. Both books are describing events inside Pakistan. The first author says, in Pakistan he found Punjabis referred to as dal khors. That is not an anti-Pakistan sentiment. The second source, a work of fiction, does not describe any anti-Pakistan sentiment either, rather a Pakistani Pathan calling a Pakistani Babu (who may or may not be Punjabi) dal khor. Also, to clarify, a work of fiction can be cited as one source among several if notbable enough but never as an only source as it needs factual sources for back-up. Do you understand now? So, until now I left the content because of what I wrote earlier, but DS is right in so far that the sources you provided do not show any anti-Pakistan sentiment. As for your last point. If this article is purely about racism, a whole lot of content has to go - nearly everything is solely about political sentiments not racial. JCAla (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the events are inside Pakistan. The author does not say either only Pakistanis referred to Punjabis as that or only the foreigners did, this was in general and can be stated as such. The second source is not the only source to back it up. There are two. The second one only adds a detail about Pathans using the source. It doesn't say either that only Pathans in Pakistan use this term (actually the story is about the whole subcontinent). Both these sources say this source is about the ethnic word. There's no original research here. For the last point, no the article is not purely about racism or purely about political hatred/discrimination. You are taking the source's interpretation in black and white in the same way as you took my argument. This article is about content related to both these topics. I said it is currently bent on the political side and not covering racism much. Hope that is clear now. If you still think this is not sourced content, I can start an RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Neither source supports the content, unless a source is presented which actually does I will be removing this from the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

First source says Punjabis are nicknamed dal khor in Pakistan. However, you are right in so far as the source does not say it's being used "pejoratively". JCAla (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It also does not say it is a symptom of anti Pakistani feeling. Neither source does, is it pure WP:OR Darkness Shines (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Removed, for now. Please find other sources which explicitly show the term being used as an anti-Pakistan sentiment. It being used in Pakistan to refer to a group of Pakistanis does not constitute anti-Pakistan sentiment. I am out of this unnecessary discussion now. JCAla (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The following content was removed from the article. I'm proposing to re-add it to a section titled "Hatred against ethnic groups" or another similar suggestion as the article covers mostly political part of the topic and lags on the racist discrimination. There are two reliable book sources present in the proposed content; one is a written by an author who took a tour of Pakistan, which clearly mentions this term being used for people living in Punjab while the second one is a notable story related to the real incidents of the partition of India and refers to a Pathan using this term for a Punjabi. This is being represented as an ethnic/racist taunt in both sources and should be covered in this article.

Pakistanis, especially Punjabis, are also often pejoratively called dal khor notably by Pathans.^[1][2]Dal khor means "dal eater". Dal refers to dried lentils, beans or peas.

--lTopGunl (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support as proposer and per reasons given in RFC summary and debate in the main section. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons given in section above and at the AFD for the article of the term, it is WP:OR to infer from a short story and a single usage of the word to say it is a pejorative. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] - TopGunl: could you please provide direct quotations from those two sources that discuss the term " Dal Khor"? It is hard to respond to the RfC without seeing exactly what the sources say. Also, are there any sources in addition to those two? --Noleander (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are the quotes (you can review further context online?):

From the book Across the Wagah: An Indian's Sojourn in Pakistan By Maneesha Tikekar: "Rural Punjabis mostly consumed dal-roti, dal-chawal and got named as dal khor." (with context around the phrase... had to type it, cant copy-paste from the book).

From the book Literature & Nation: Britain and India 1800-1990 By Rick Allen, Richard Allen, Harish Trivedi: "Here Babu, eat. You will become strong like us. Your wife will be pleased. Eat it, dalkhor, you're week because you only eat dal." (with context around - used as a taunt... a real life story related to partition of India, notable enough to have its own article: The Train Has Reached Amritsar.)

Don't know about more sources... probably offline... there's systematic bias in the area's coverage. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Talking about food I must say I found the Pakistanis overwhelmingly carnivorous. But Pakistanis told me this is essentially an urban trait. Till very recently Pakistanis in the countryside were primarily vegetarians as vegetarianism was more affordable. Rural Punjabis mostly consumed dal-roti, dal-chawal and got named as dal khor. Across the Wagah: an Indian's sojourn in Pakistan

As can be seen it does not say the term is a pejorative. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - Those two sources don't seem very strong. This article is about Anti-pakistan sentiments/prejudice. I think, given the contentious nature of the material, at a minimum a secondary source is needed that says something like "In situation X, the term "dal khor" is used to insult Pakistanis, because ...". The two sources above are more or less primary sources, and don't really analyze the phrase (indeed the phrase is not central to the quotes at all). Unless there are more sources that focus on the term itself, it probably doesnt belong in the article. --Noleander (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Although they don't analyze the phrase it self, but they do give full context with regards to Pakistanis and Punjabis as well as that it is used by Pathans. Btw, the sources are third party independent sources (which are secondary sources). It will be better that we do have details and descriptions about the pejorative, but they definitely can be included as a taunt in the context given till more sources are found. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support Both sources look good, which can easily be referenced and doesn't appear to be original research. There sources indicate clearly those terms are used to address Pakistani, however the source doesn't indicate that it is a pejorative term. I'm going to support adding those two terms in, excluding that it is pejorative. Distributor108 (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support not related user comment from request board [1]. 2 sources are good it is used in racist style. keep this term. Thnx I learn some thing new. --Highstakes00 (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support We have sources already explaining to us about the usage of this term in reference to an ethnic group. It should be included in the article in a summary sentence. Mar4d (talk) 12:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So both Highstakes00 & Mar4d are of the opinion that a fictional short story and a primary source of one man narrating a journey across Pakistan neither of which state the term is a pejorative are good enough sources? Sure. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] The sources are very, very weak. To justify inclusion, there really needs to be one or two reliable sources that are talking about racism or discrimination. I expect to see a scholar or notable politician saying something like: "The term dal khor has been used by group A to denigrate group B for too long ..." or similar. But the two source provided are trivial: one is fiction; and one is a travelogue. Look at it this way: If the proponents for inclusion cannot find sources that substantially describe the term (in the context of discrimination/racism), then it is not encyclopedic to include it in this article. --Noleander (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, exactly per reasons given by Noleander: "the two source provided are trivial: one is fiction; and one is a travelogue. Look at it this way: If the proponents for inclusion cannot find sources that substantially describe the term (in the context of discrimination/racism), then it is not encyclopedic to include it in this article." We need to work with reliable sources and then reflect those sources properly. JCAla (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, as Noleander has explained the problem with the sources. I would like to see an editor dive into secondary sources published by academic presses. I would not be surprised to find out that this term has been discussed in scholarly literature. So once the research is done and the proper sources of located, this article can explain the use of the term dal khor. Until then, Wikipedia policy excludes the term. Other editors have to follow the same policy and sometimes we have to exclude references to things we know are true for the same reason: policy. Factseducado (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose According to the first source, the term is used for rural Punjabis in Pakistan and it is implied that this is by urban Pakistanis. Hardly an anti-Pakistani sentiment! Perhaps it could go in an article titled "Anti-Rural-Punjabis-in-Pakistan sentiment", but not here. --regentspark (comment) 14:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I am highly sympathetic to the proposer's intent (try a google search of terms such as "dal khor" or "dhal khor" or "daal khor," and see all the hatred there), the two sources selected are insufficient to support the proposed usage. A fictional short story cannot be regarded as an authoritative source on anything; using it as such violates WP:OR. The other source, Across the Wagah: An Indian's Sojourn in Pakistan, appears to have been misquoted by Darkness Shines above. The verbatim text I see through google books search is: "Rural Punjabis mostly consumed dal-roti, dal-chawal and got nicknamed as dal khor." (bold emphasis added) The term nickname is rarely used to mean a pejorative, and much more often refers to a term of endearment. From the context of the passage, it is not clear that the author intended the pejorative meaning. So it is hard to justify the argument that dal khor is a pejorative term solely on the basis of this latter source, or on this source plus the one other very weak (fictional) source. Dezastru (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Opposeas per Noleander strong sources are needed to show that the term was actually shown as pejorative or else called wp:OR or synthesis-- ÐℬigXЯaɣ 19:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Have to agree with the previous commentators, the two sources do not justify inclusion in this article. As others have noted the term is described as a "nickname" which does not signify "hatred" to my mind. Dlv999 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
• Opposeas per Noleander and Dezastru [from uninvolved editor invited by RfC bot] Strong sources needed. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

[2] This content was discussed and kept. Please self revert, do not remove sourced information because you don't like it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The content was discussed and removed because it is not about anti-Pakistan sentiment. JCAla (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here's a refresher [3]. This content was discussed and kept (obviously why it was there). It is funny that you think terrorism against a group isn't hatred for them. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Content was removed when the discussion ended in order not to go in circles. You somehow managed to put it back there. This is the content we are talking about:

"Afghanistan security agencies supported Al zulfiqar, a terrorist organization, since 1970's-1990's. This group was responsible for the hijacking in March 1981 of a Pakistan International Airlines plane."

Al zulfiqar is a Pakistani organization, notably one of "royality" with contacts to the Bhutto family which wanted to put the civil administration back in power versus the military dictatorship. Do you think these people are anti-Pakistan? Being against a military regime, doesn't mean being against a country. Saudis supporting groups against Assad, doesn't mean they are anti-Syria. I am not going to repeat any further what I already wrote in the preceding discussion. JCAla (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You should strike "You somehow managed to put it back there" because I told you I'll revert and did so after 3 comments with interval of days. No editor will give you as much space or good faith. Even the ones not in casual disputes with you will warn and revert you. About the content, I disagree by above and my reasoning before and it is tedious to repeat arguments (which you thankfully acknowledge), so BRD would be to self revert. Because your current edit doesn't have consensus. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about who last repeated their arguments. There is no consensus for the content. Consult a noticeboard if you think supporting a Pakistani organization constitutes anti-Pakistan sentiment. JCAla (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

And where did I say it should be kept because I last repeated my arguments (which is ridiculous)? Stop wasting time if you can not stick to content discussion. I left those comments so that you could explain object or do what ever... you didn't and I added it back. Now after a month you are back reverting it out.. BRD applies to you now. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Afghanistan security agencies supported Al zulfiqar, a terrorist organization, since 1970's-1990's. This group was responsible for the hijacking in March 1981 of a Pakistan International Airlines plane." is unsourced as the ref does not work. Find a working ref, otherwise unsourced controversial content will be removed. Then we can discuss whether alleged support to a Pakistani organization against a Pakistani military leader constitutes an anti-Pakistan sentiment. JCAla (talk) 17:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not remove the content again as you just did now. You were previously reverted. Knowingly reverting again is editwar. For the claim of unsourced content, read WP:DEADLINK and WP:SOURCEACCESS. Source can technically not "work" or "not work", it is the link that is "not working". Source is still there. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You introduced the content and were reverted per WP:BRD. We had a discussion and the content was left out. Then you reintroduced the content and I reverted again per BRD. You are the one failing to build a consensus for that content but repeatedly reinserting it into the article. The content is controversial and as such needs to be verifiable. "At times, all attempts to repair the link will be unsuccessful. In that event, consider finding an alternate source so that the loss of the original does not harm the verifiability of the article." So, please find a verifiable source for that content. JCAla (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I will not go diff hunting over this now again after a detailed discussion with you about that above and one that was archived. You just reverted it knowing that you will get reverted. Anyway, forget it. I gave you the content related reply... that was all which was required of me. Clear your concept. Read the links I gave, really. Sources don't need to be online to be verifiable. The fact that they were first added means they were verified and added. But you can try the methods given at those links to verify offline sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I did the homework for you, now we can discuss whether the following paragraph has anything to do with "anti-Pakistan sentiment" or whether it can be described as terrible geopolitics.

"The US also accused Afghanistan's communist security agencies of financing the Pakistani organization Al-Zulfiqar. The organization was "formed in 1977 by Mir Murtaza Bhutto, the eldest son of former Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was deposed by a military coup in July ... Al-Zulfikar's goal was to overthrow the military regime that ousted Bhutto".^[1] Al-Zulfiqar was responsible for the hijacking in March 1981 of a Pakistan International Airlines plane and afterwards did not claim any attacks.2^[2]

Maybe we need to call a RFC. JCAla (talk) 18:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Don't term it as a "homework for me" when you verify the sources you challenge. But you can start with self reverting the 1RR vio (not counting the mere correction of links). --lTopGunl (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You were the proposer of the content, you were the one who needed to verify it. Anyways, excuse me?! What 1RR vio? JCAla (talk) 18:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I proposed it now, you challenged and verified.. but that does not mean that you amend the text too without discussion. That's a vio. Even if it was completely unsourced OR, it would still be a violation because original research is not an editwar exemption.. so your amend is not justified even on a claim of correcting it. You need to discuss once reverted. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no more patience nor time to keep discussing with someone who is not able to stay on content. Issue can be resolved through RFC later on. JCAla (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I lost that quite some time ago. After the 1RR vio is resolved, you can discuss here what's to be put in the RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Here is a working link to the source[4] However the source says "Al-Zulfikar was funded by the security agencies of both Afghanistan and India, both of whom were opposed to the Zia regime." Being opposed to a regime does not = Anti-Pakistan sentiment and I would disagree with it being in this article. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it an act of Anti-Pakistan sentiment that the Pakistani paramilitary group Al-Zulfiqar lead by the sons of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and manned by Pakistani nationals hijacked a Pakistan International Airlines flight? Does it belong it this article as an Afghan display of Anti-Pakistan sentiment? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:44, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• Strong keep: per my support above and per previous discussion linked in the discussion. Afghanistan is clearly being accused and that is mentioned as such. A plane hijack and acts of terrorism are definitely such sentiment regardless of nationals being perpetrators or foreign agencies. Here, the detail is specifically mentioned. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
• Remove: Al-Zulfiqar was itself a Pakistani organization, not a fringe one but created by the Bhutto family which had ruled Pakistan and was now opposed to its successor, the Pakistani Zia military dictatorship, which had overthrown and killed the Bhutto patriarch. The Afghan communist's grievance with the Zia dicatorship was that it supported attacks against the Afghan communists in Afghanistan. Therefore the communist's alleged support for the Pakistani Al-Zulfiqar was a geostrategic issue not an issue of anti-Pakistan sentiment (best shown by the fact that Al-Zulfiqar was Pakistani itself). This is compareable to Saudi Arabia supporting the Syrian demonstrators against the Assad regime for geostrategic reasons. None would call it "anti-Syria sentiment" by Saudi Arabia. The content is best to be placed under an article about history not about racism and related sentiments. JCAla (talk) 09:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is not only covering racist sentiments but also the political ones. This is well in context with one country supporting terrorism in another for political motives (in this case differences with a regime). Use of such tactics is a clear indication of sentiment against the country. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

A dispute with another regime does not equal a sentiment against a nation or a people, especially not when the allegedly supported are Pakistani themselves. Otherwise the American intervention in Iraq 2003 would be called "anti-Iraqi sentiment", Saudi Arabian intervention in Syria would be called "anti-Syrian sentiment", NATO involvement in Libya would be called "anti-Libyan sentiment", etc. JCAla (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Your statement is a fallacy, just like some one committing treason does not imply that there was no war at all as nationals from both states were on a single side. This is not a case like the ones you presented. This is an act against the state. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Assad is the state in Syria. So, is Saudi support to the Syrian demonstrators "anti-Syrian sentiment"? JCAla (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If they start hijacking planes and harming civilians in the process, yes - the motive was to act against the state. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If who starts hijacking planes? It is not an act of AFGHAN anti-Pakistan sentiment when a Pakistani paramilitary group led by the Pakistani Bhutto family (which would come to power again later) and manned by Pakistani nationals hijacks a Pakistan International Airlines flight. Not even when the group is alleged to have been supported financially by Afghan communists as a geostrategic policy against a dictatorship supporting Afghans against the Afghan communists. This is geostrategic politics not a sentiment against a people. BTW, the article intro is missing a clear definition of what exactly anti-Pakistan sentiment is. JCAla (talk) 13:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It mentions who is behind the activities, Indian and Afghan agencies. Let's not loose the context that is given and see my previous comment for the rest. Yeah, the lede got scraped some time ago.. it was good when I started editing here. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Pakistani Bhutto family was behind the activities. If you define it as anti-Pakistan sentiment we can open a section called "Pakistan" and start writing about the "anti-Pakistan sentiment" of the Bhutto family. JCAla (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Read my comment above again. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This is about how one defines anti-Pakistan sentiment or Pakistan-phobia. JCAla (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

• Remove I have failed in understanding how this statement is related to "discrimination". We are talking about treatment of Pakistani people outside Pakistan, and other's viewpoint about them. All such stuff should go to Afghanistan-Pakistan relations. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The if you see from the RFCs above and the article content, the article doesn't only cover racism and discrimination... it also covers political hatred and the likes as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Militarily funding a group of another country (viewed as an enemy by that state) to carry out a terrorist-like attack certainly comes under the scope of an anti-national sentiment article and shows the ill-intent of the funding government towards the other country. This is my opinion. Mar4d (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

What "militarily funding"? The group had no military. The hijacking by the Pakistani organization was to force the release of 50 "political prisoners" - Pakistani leftists, Bhutto loyalists and others. One Pakistani army officer was killed on board the plane by Bhutto's men because they though he was in line with Zia. How does this show an "ill-intent" against a people. It shows hostility against the Zia military dictatorship. As pointed out by Vibhijain, this belongs under country relations articles or history articles not under discrimination articles. JCAla (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but you haven't changed my opinion. It would be a fallacy to think that the Afghan communist government did not harbour anti-Pakistan sentiments. This incident is really one chapter/part of it. The political hostility in general that Afghan communists had in regards to Pakistan is quite well known. Mar4d (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this article seems to be missing fundamental information on anti-Pakistan sentiments among Afghan people in general, especially Tajik nationalists/groups. There should also be a section on anti-Pakistan sentiments among Afghan refugees living inside Pakistan, that is noteworthy of inclusion and relevant to the topic. Mar4d (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The relevance for this RFC being ... ? JCAla (talk) 15:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It was just an off-the-record comment/observation. This shall be worked upon soon. Mar4d (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, it is relevant to start a section on Northern Afghan Pushtoons as this sentiment is largely noted there and deserves atleast a subsection. Much relevant to Afghanistan as a whole too. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a correction; northern Afghans are not Pashtuns but rather Persian-speaking Tajiks :) Anti-Pakistan sentiments have been comparatively higher in those regions (Ahmad Shah Massoud being one prominent figure that comes to mind), hence the reason I mentioned it. Although Afghan Pashtuns also have anti-Pakistan sentiments. I think this can be better discussed in the article, with sources in hand. Mar4d (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• keep because of anti national sentiment. other government support terrorist can be say anti national sentiment. Afghanistan support hijacking to influence other nation they do not like --Highstakes00 (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC) confirmed sock account

Which is not anti Pakistani sentiment, it is being pissed off with a regime which sponsors insurgents on your own soil. It is OR to say being against a particular regime = being against the people or culture if a nation, or was regime change in Iraq an American display of anti Iraqi sentiment? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

see TopGun comment. why hijack & kill civilian. --Highstakes00 (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Highstakes is a confirmed sock account. JCAla (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• Remove unless sources provided - The few sources I see state that AZ is a Pakistani organization, engaged in a political dispute with the Pakistani government. This is an internal, civil matter. The topic of this article is dislike of Pakistan by non-Pakistanis. The only way this material should be in the article is if the Afghanis supported the AZ organization. Indeed the article states "Afghanistan security agencies supported Al zulfiqar, a terrorist organization, since 1970's-1990's" ... but I see no sources that support that statement. Even if a source were found, it is not sufficient to state "Afghanis supported AZ with funds and weaponry" because that could simply be a manifestation of friendship, or a desire for political change in Pakistan. The source must state something like "Afghanistan organization ABC supported AZ, and the support was based on their hatred of Pakistan". Until a source is provided, the material should be removed. --Noleander (talk) 12:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case, the alleged support to Taliban could also be described as a desire for political change or "manifestation of friendship". No sources say it was because of "hatred". I believe the entire section on the Taliban in Afghanistan needs to be removed as it is not relevant. Mar4d (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Alleged, ya right. Pakistan support for the taliban lead directly to anti Pakistan sentiment, so it is relevant to the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The WP:SYNTHESIS policy prohibits authors from drawing conclusions (no matter how obvious they may seem). Material about the Taliban should not be in the article unless sources state that it is related to "anti Pakistan sentiment". For example, if one source says "Pakistan supported the Taliban in Afg"; and a second source states "Some Afghanis hold anti-Pakistan sentiments", then those sources are not sufficient to include Taliban material in this article. Editors cannot make the connection between those two sources. See WP:Original Research. Instead, a source must be provided which states something like "Anti-Pakistan sentiment in Afg can be traced to funding supplied to the Taliban by Paksitan" or similar. Per WP:BURDEN and WP:CHALLENGED, the material should be removed until sources are provided. --Noleander (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I had done, no idea if it is still in the article, see here for what I added. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The entire "Afghanistan" section appears to be a mess, containing some prohibited WP:SYNTHESIS. I recommend that the section be blanked-out; and then quotes from sources be provided in the article's Talk page. Editors that want to add material should not supply just the name of the source, but should also supply a quote from the source (see WP:BURDEN and WP:Verifiability). After there is consensus on the Talk page that the sources are properly discussing "anti P sentiment" by Afghanistan, then the material can be re-added to the section. --Noleander (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

( out)Sure, remove the lot if you want. Best to restore that section to the diff I provided above I suppose, at least that is verifiable and accurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, I believe the consensus here is for removal of the content, as well as the rest of the section on Afghanistan. I shall restore the content I had added before and we can start from there. Darkness Shines (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Determining consensus is the job of an uninvolved editor (and an administrator when contentious). I've uncommented. When closed and if consensus for removal determined, only those parts in discussion should be removed. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What I commented out was based on the comments by Noleander. As nobody objected here to what he has said I see no reason for your revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The militant organization though comprised of Pakistanis but was supported by two countries (.i.e. India and Afghanistan), and that is a true reflection of Anti-Pakistani sentiment. Certainly it should not be added like asked in this RFC but it deserves a mention in the article. --SMS ^Talk 21:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This is what the source article says [5]:

"Armed police patrolled the streets of Balfour in Mpumalanga province, but said they did not fear a repeat of the previous day`s unrest in which 22 people were arrested for torching municipal buildings and attacking shops owned by foreigners.

Local media reported that the Ethiopian, Pakistani and Indian shopkeepers whose premises were looted had taken refuge in apartments near Balfour`s police station.

More than 60 people were killed in a wave of anti-foreigner riots that swept across the country in 2008.

Balfour, 80kms southeast of Johannesburg, became a flashpoint last year during widespread demonstrations against poor public services in Africa`s biggest economy.

Many poor black South Africans complain that their lives have not improved since Mr Mandela`s African National Congress (ANC) swept to power in 1994, promising to provide jobs, housing and medical care for all. "

Where does it say it was twenty years ago? The mentioned incident is the one being referred to here as a wave of this type of riot. It does not say that it was twenty years ago. It says that the problems persist 20 years after the release of Nelson Mandela. Don't revert for the sake of reverts and read the sources before you editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• He does not read, and he is fond of reverting?. Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 18:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I got the years wrong, you cite the actual date in your post for the anti foreigner riots, 2008 "More than 60 people were killed in a wave of anti-foreigner riots that swept across the country in 2008." The story being cited as an example of anti Pakistani sentiment though (Pakistanis hit by rioting in South Africa) occurred February 10, 2010. So yes, you have made an error, as has Justice007, or should I call you Highstakes00? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• What you are going to explain that is purely nonsense concept of your conclusion that does not support any violation. Do not conceive things which are not existing. I undid your illegitimate revertion with good faith, not looking at the clock, that how quickly I am or slow. I am just doing here what I think is legitimate as the wiki rules that I know. Justice007 (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

How does the fact that I added a zero after the two make my edit "illegitimate"? As is obvious from my previous comment both you and TG are unsurprisingly wrong, so why nit save everybody some time and self revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

First you revert with a ridiculously wrong edit summary and reason in favour of a passing IP just after I revert you somewhere else and then instead of self reverting, you come here and allege Justice of being a sock. If you don't stop that, you'll end up getting a block soon. Justice, I recommend that you take this up to an appropriate notice board (say ANI) if the socking allegation is repeated without filing an SPI. As for the statement in article, there is no error. 2008 was one wave of the riot being addressed, and the current one being reported is dated as current in the article. I think the content issue is settled, so better to be done with this discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

DS, allegations of socking without providing diffs is a no no. I suggest you strike out that part of the text. --regentspark (comment) 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Struck, but perhaps you should read[6] first. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Highstakes is not mentioned anywhere on that SPI. Do not use it to harass him and stop editwarring. Read the article... it is not about the two year old riot, that only gets a coverage in this. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

TG you are conflating the mention in the source of the anti foreigner riots from 2008 wit ha riot in 2010 which the source is actually reporting on. The source does not support the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the report is on another wave of riot: 22 people were arrested for torching municipal buildings and attacking shops owned by foreigners. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It does seem that the source is saying that there were Pakistani, Indian and Ethopian shopkeepers whose shops were looted in the same riots. --regentspark (comment) 18:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

So not anti pakistani sentiment then, just anti foreigner sentiments :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was going to label it as well, assuming I would want to delve into this mess. But, I assume, these people are not foreigners but 3rd or 4th generation SA citizens. What do South African newspapers label it? And what term do they apply to Indians and Pakistanis in general? --regentspark (comment) 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Well other newspapers call it as it is, xenophobic violence.[7][8][9] Darkness Shines (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Anti-immigrant probably fits better (based on your links) and anti-Pakistani is a bit of a stretch. Also, shouldn't there be more on the UK? That's the place where anti-Pakistani sentiment is genuinely anti ethnic Pakistanis. --regentspark (comment) 19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

And it accounts to specified foreigners. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Which just proves you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink. Again, they were attacking foreigners, and not because they were Pakistani, or Indian, or whatever. It is not a display of anti Pakistani sentiment. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This is yet another example of WP:SYNTHESIS, the content that has been added back need to be removed. Getting caught in a riot by angry locals is not Anti-Pakistani sentiments.--DBigXray 19:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Sindhis, Pashtun(Afghans),Balochi/Brahuis have their own nation and they don't get to be called Pakis! --108.173.174.134 (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone please explain how some recently added sources about Two Nation Theory fails verification? and other issues as well. --SMS ^Talk 15:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

They fail verification in the usual way. Two sources are unreliable for statements of fact as they are not academic publishers but penguin books India. Any further questions? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Penguin Books India unreliable? May I also see the decree declaring this as such? And about other sources, here are the relevant quotes and my comments:

Citation 5 tagged as "not in citation given":"...For India, the state--now divided by a "line of control"--is fully a part of the Indian union; with its 65-percent Muslim population, it stands as a symbolic rebuttal to the "two nation" theory that underlay the founding of Pakistan. Moreover, India asserts that Kashmir's inclusion in India serves as a guarantor of the secular state...."

Citation 7 tagged as "not in citation given":"...I stated categorically that Indians accepted the right of Pakistan to be a sovereign, independent state; what we did not, nor ever would accept, was the two-nation theory of Muslims being a nation apart from Hindus and Sikhs .... Pakistani delegates began to heckle me. 'If you don't accept the two-nation theory, you don't accept Pakistan'..." by a journalist/former member India's upper house Khushwant Singh.

Citation 8 tagged as "unreliable source?": It is a reliable source published jointly by Promilla (an academic publisher) and IDSA.

Citation 9 tagged as "not in citation given":"...With the emergence of Pakistan, the ideological issues should have come to an end. But that was not so. The Congress accepted the partition because this was unavoidable, but it did not accept the 'two-nation theory'...."

Citation 10 tagged as "not in citation given":"...India's stand may be summed up with the words of Nehru, "...we have never accepted, even when partition came to India, the two-nation theory, that is that the Hindus are one nation and the Muslims are another.... I say we cannot accept that..."..."

Citation 11 tagged as "not in citation given":"...Due to India's reticence to accept the two-nation theory, Pakistan has always perceived India as a threat to its very existence as an independent nation state..."

Kindly provide reasoning for individual source separately that how they are unreliable and/or fails verification. --SMS ^Talk 19:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"Two Nation Theory" is the thesis that Hindus and Muslims form separate nations. Indians, by and large, don't believe that. That doesn't automatically make them anti-Pakistan. The Congress party did accept the formation of the Pakistan, quite independently of their ideological opposition to the Two Nation Theory. So, this is a non-sequitur.

This article is quite a joke. If US is the country with the maximum "anti-Pakistan sentiment," how come it is not discussed? Why is India, with a mid-range "anti-Pakistan sentiment," at the top? Frankly, I believe the editors of this article are just displaying their own anti-India sentiment. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Its obvious some indian pov pusher has synthesised information from the article on Pakistan and state terrorism I have read all the Indian articles which themselves do not mention any anti-pakistan sentiment. Excipient0 (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Excipient0, it is not propaganda, it is based on sources.--Human3015 talk • 18:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously based on synthesis without any proper mention of any sentiment must be deleted soon I will contact other neutral users so they can remove it. Excipient0 (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You cannot prove anything in those articles I have read them none of them mention anti-Pakistan sentiment just some random comments by Indian politicians. Excipient0 (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We are neutral users, How you can claim that there is no "anti-Pakistan sentiments" in India? We can get numerous sources on it. --Human3015 talk • 18:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well do me a favour and get them these sources are garbage and I find it hard to believe any Indian could ever have an ounce of neutrality when it comes to Pakistan...Excipient0 (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I never said there are no Anti-Pakistan sentiment in India its bursting at the seams with Pakistan phobia but provide me a source which makes the link between Indian allegations of terrorism and anti-pakistan sentiment instead of this synthesis/original sources. Excipient0 (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

read this where foreign nations accused Pakistan.^{[1][2][2][3][4][5]} --Human3015 talk • 18:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic I understand allot of Indians wish to involved others but this is about Indias phobic tendancy of Pakistan not other countries try and stay focused and read properly the section title. Excipient0 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

None of the above is anti-pakistan sentiment and none of these articles even mention it its a bunch of allegations against the Pakistani government and does not merit inclusion it makes no sense what so ever. Excipient0 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Excipient0, don't do same things again, this has been reverted by many editors till now. Don't keep on deleting that matter. We are writing anti-Pakistan sentiment in India, so we have to write what India thinks about Pakistan. It doesn't mean that Pakistan have done those things in reality.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 22:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree I have added the appropriate information on Pakistans view of India :) Excipient0 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a huge difference between prejudice against Pakistan, and making allegations about the Pakistani government. This is WP:SYNTH of the highest order (which is why I have removed the corresponding section from the Indian article, too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, the foremost reason why there is anti-Pakistan sentiment in India is terrorist attacks. If we don't mention it then what is the use of this article? It is allegations or realities, but still there is a anti-Pakistan sentiment because of that. We can provide more sources instead of deleting it. You can add any relevant tag to improve it. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 23:00, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Human3015, you are completely missing the point. If you find reliable sources talking about "anti-Pakistan sentiment" and making the link to terrorism, go ahead and add it. Currently, you have added a whole bunch of original research, which is against policy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, you may not find word "Anti-Paksitan sentiments" in any literature, I question if other matter mentioned in article have sourced matter mentioning "anti-Pakistan sentiments". Western nations blame Pakistan for for terrorism have bunch of sources. I just got reverted. Currently maybe late night in India, when other involved editors will wake up tomorrow this war may get worst. So better we should find solution now. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 23:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Human3015, if there is other content without proper sourcing, then remove (or find sources for) that as well. Like I told Excipient a few minutes ago, having some crap in the article is no reason to put more in. This can be quite a useful article, if the POV pushing is removed and real sources are found. Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The other sections like France actually mention PakistanPhobia so its fine I dont think any other western country as you claim mentions anti-Pakistan sentiment as a result of terrorism that is just your pov. 86.145.74.129 (talk) 23:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

This Excipient0 is not taking part in discussion but active in reverting things. See history of page, he has been always involved in edit war on this page and he has been blocked once for that, still he is reverting people without giving any srong justification on talk. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 23:25, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for three days in order that a consensus can form over how much of the "Terrorism" section should appear in the article. However, I will say this - if I see any more personal attacks from any editors on any side of the dispute, I will consider blocking them indefinitely until I can get a guarantee such disruption will no longer occur. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is clear, thus I am restoring the last version that had consensus. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

User:OccultZone, if you restore the so-called consensus, the least you can do is to weigh in on why the content is appropriate or otherwise. Regardless of what previous consensus might be, there is no indication in any of those sources that anti-Pakistan bias is involved. On what basis was the previous consensus formed? Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why you didn't discussed it in all those protected days Vanamonde93? Number of editors restoring OccultZone's version are much higher than those who are removing it. It is clear consensus and obvious fact that in India there is anti-Pakistan sentiment is mainly because of terrorist attacks. This maybe just allegations but still there is such sentiment. You can tag article for "better source" but is obviously not case of deletion. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 05:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: I doubt if this can ever be a useful article. All "anti-X" articles are essentially POV pages for people of X to throw dirt at others, while deflecting any criticism of X itself. Just look at the disparity between the data in the table and the article text, a problem I pointed out several months ago. Anyway, given that the article exists, I think the current mention of terrorism is quite understated and appropriate for the context. I would just move it down to the bottom of the section instead of the top. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, top reason should be on top.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 13:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If there is a source that says that it is the "top reason," then you can have it at the top. Otherwise, the section should follow the logical sequence. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:40, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source that says that actions by Kashmiri insurgents on civilians causes anti-Pakistan sentiment.^[6]

Kautilya3, I'd be fine with this source; I am not fine with the content as it stands (nor with analogous content on the "anti-India" page. I think it could be useful just because prejudice against Pakistan is real, even if the page does not currently cover such. But accusations about the government are not an example of prejudice, and should not be treated as such. Politicians in the opposition make similar accusations, for goodness sake, are they then also "anti-Pakistan?" Vanamonde93 (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3}, you should self revert your recent edit. He is the only one who has problem with this edit and he is not even taking active part in discussion. We most of agree with this edit. If you see history you will see everyone else is agree with this edit. Moreover it is improved by yourself. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 15:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, Vanamonde93 has also disagreed with the edit. So it is two "for" and two "against". I am the tie-breaker. I choose to maintain the status quo ante, while the discussion is going on. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Yes, the numbers show that Indians and Pakistanis have roughly equal amounts of negativity towards each other. But I don't know of any studies that have tried to isolate the "prejudices" from all the other factors such as the wars, insurgencies, terrorist strikes etc etc. So, how to do you propose to document the prejudices? - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

This book by Steve Cohen^[7] has some quite useful information. Unfortunately, I don't have access to a copy. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, not a single antagonist is replying to you, they just know how to revert sourced matter, its better you self-revert your work, you have given plenty of sources. Now its time to close this matter. You give source written by "God" regarding terrorist activities of Pakistan and anti-Pakistan sentiment in India regarding that, you will still get reverted by Excipiant0. Such users are usually very rigid and they will never accept anything against their POV. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 16:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• @OccultZone, Amaury, and Rsrikanth05:, you were some of editors who were involved in this matter. We have to solve this issue. Just because of one annoying user this matter is becoming worst. It is obvious that there is anti-Pakistan sentiment in India mainly because terrorism. We also have sources for that. I recently requested page protection to resolve this issue but no one discussed it when page was protected.--Human3015 Say Hey!! • 15:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• • Human3015, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Maybe there is prejudice in India because some terrorist groups are based in Pakistan. This is an entirely reasonable possibility; but that is not what these sources say. These sources are just saying "Indian government officials accuse the Pakistani government of supporting terrorists." This is not support for prejudice of any kind. Even with a very broad reading, the sources make no link to prejudice. That is the problem. Find a source that makes the link, and I will have no issues with it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, what exactly you want from sources? if you want some proof that Pakistan supports terrorist attacks in India then I can give you many sources, but among already available you can read sources I provided about FBI's statement in US court for "western" claim. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 18:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Cohen's book that I cited above gives stats for the Indian public perception of Pak-sponsored terrorism and militancy. Whether this is supposed to be "prejudice" or not doesn't matter. The article is about "sentiment," not necessarily prejudice. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, you better read Pakistan and state sponsored terrorism. That article do have some very reliable sources regarding Pakistan's track 2 policy. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 19:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Human3015, no, that's not what I'm looking for, I'm looking for evidence that such support created anti-Pakistani sentiment. If Pakistan is, in fact, supporting terrorists (which it has done several times), pointing this out is not "anti-Pakistan sentiment." Kautilya, that book seems like a good start to me, but I have no access either. In any case, that section would need to be re-created from scratch, because there was nothing useful in the old one. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There is clearly no consensus on this addition as its pure POV furthermore Occultzone is a banned sock so his views do not count I also have a feeling Human3015 is someone who has edited before....Excipient0 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

[10]. We could add this a notable anti-Pakistan individual under the Afghanistan section.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anti-Pakistan sentiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050112074355/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk:80/default.asp?page=story_3-4-2004_pg9_1 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-4-2004_pg9_1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120616055822/http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=13&section=0&article=79830&d=27&m=3&y=2006 to http://archive.arabnews.com/?page=13&section=0&article=79830&d=27&m=3&y=2006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Can’t even find one element there which can be regarded as relevant. Seems as if someone was trying really hard getting an Israel anecdote included in this “Anti something” article. Pakistan is probably one of the nations that is most removed from Israeli’s knowledge. Pakistani subjects cannot visit Israel and hardly more then a few Israelis ever met a Pakistani and it would be very difficult to get Israeli’s express any idea about Pakistan or Pakistani people. This may come as a surprise to some (Pakistan being a Muslim nation and the whole Arab-Jewish conflict etc.) but its one of a few facts you cannot ignore if you know Israel even a little. The mentioning of Israel’s annual “tributes paid to the Indian Armed Forces” also completely removed from the facts. No Israeli ever heard of these “celebrations”. Unless an exchange of addresses between some Indian military attaché and an Israeli officer in a ceremonial way is somehow “Anti Pakistan sentiment”. Israel had very little influence on American foreign policy in 1965… If it could not make the US sell arms to Israel then, how could Israel prevent the US from selling arms to other countries?. If to cut long things short – large parts of this sections are bogus. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.28.80 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, all "anti-X sentiment" articles suffer from similar WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS from cherry-picked quotes. If you are able to back up what you have said above with reliable sourcing, feel free to add text to counterbalance what has been written. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)