User talk:Mrt3366/Discrimination against minorities in Pakistan

Discussion

I have removed some of the text here. It has been moved to Ethnic groups in Pakistan. Faizan 13:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

But they were there when I first started editing it. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem dude, I just notified you. Sad for your block. Consensus ought to be there too. Faizan 10:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Discuss

Before deleting a well-sourced claim kindly discuss. Although before adding one sourced claim you're not required to discuss since if it is verifiable. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I will do it. Faizan 09:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Besides the lead also needs to be shortened, there is a lot of criticism on the lead. At least shift it to lower sections. Faizan 09:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I ought to opt out. If this goes like that, it would be very difficult to get consensus. Faizan 09:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I ought to opt out -why? You're doing a fine job. I am grateful for the help. I agree the lead also needs to be shortened. But for the time being let's focus on the body and we will then be able to move/delete/prune the contents of the lead more easily. Don't quit on me. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Language

Faizan, could you please take a cursory glance at the article once more and list any issues you see with the language? We ought to tone it down a bit. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 09:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I am busy with the AfDs nowadays, just like you, and DYS, I will have a complete glimpse. Faizan 10:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify [1] The BBC source emphasizes that

″When a Pakistani Muslim applies for a passport or national ID card, they are asked to sign an oath that no Muslim anywhere in the world is asked to sign.″

Then it explains that the oath is "I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad an impostor prophet. And also consider his followers, whether belonging to the Lahori or Qadiani group, to be non-Muslims."[2] It is not me who is saying that Pakistan is the only country where all the citizens, while applying for a passport or a National Identity Card, are required to sign an oath declaring Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to be an impostor prophet and all Ahmadis to be non-Muslims.
Please explain Faizan, dear, why you think it's unnecessary to explain that other Islamic countries don't have any such law against the Ahmadis and Pakistan is uniquely imposing derogatory laws against its minorities. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the line should not be like "Pakistan is the only country". It is no doubt a fact, but the hatred against Ahmadis is present in all over the Muslim world. Therefore singling out Pakistan even from the Muslim countries, is not appropriate, I think. The previous version,. i.e. "All Pakistanis are required" is better I think, as both statements do the same. Ahmadi population is the largest in Pakistan, and is second to no other country, and that maybe the reason of this oath. Faizan 11:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

the hatred against Ahmadis is present in all over the Muslim world - I obviously agree. But the line says Pakistan is the only country to make it a legal obligation. Which is true. It does not say that Pakistan is the only country where the hatred against Ahmadis is present. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

(Ping) Your response will be appreciated. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I will respond to every discussion here. No ping needed. Agreed, but it would be an extra thing. I think that we should not copy paste everything from the source to this article. Faizan 12:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

should not copy paste - yes, should not copy-paste because that would be copy-vio.
However, I guess you know that it's quite different from saying we shouldn't include pertinent assertions in the article. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It is understood

[3] This edit-summary says, it is understood that they "consider themselves as muslims". Well who can really say what a reader is already aware of? To reach completion we must make it clear that Ahmadis, unlike Christians or Sikhs or Hindus, want to be considered as Muslims. That Ahmadis consider themselves to be Muslims may not be so self-evident to the readers who are not au fait with the tenets of Ahmadiyya Islam. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

When we say "Ahmadis are prohibited by the Pakistani law from self-identifying as Muslims", the reader will obviously get it that the Ahmadis claim themselves as Muslims, but Pakistan prohibits them. Faizan 10:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not saying you're obviously wrong. Nope. I just believe it's unduly presumptive to claim it is understood that they "consider themselves as muslims". A reader might not get the crux of the focus on Ahmadis. Well Hindus, Christians, Sikhs are all prohibited by law from self-identifying as Muslims. Why this focus on Ahmadi? And if one explanatory line takes us closer to the clearer version, why not go for it? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 10:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We can go for it. But the grudge which I have is that the case of Ahmadis is different from that of Hindus, Christians, and Sikhs. The latter ones don't claim themselves as Muslims, whereas the Ahmadis do. The Pakistani state prohibits the Ahmadis only, there have been no issue over identification of Hindus, Christians. They even don;t claim themselves as Muslims in Pakistan. So don't take all the minorities together. Faizan 10:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

the grudge which I have is that the case of Ahmadis is different from that of Hindus, Christians, and Sikhs. The latter ones don't claim themselves as Muslims, whereas the Ahmadis do. - Exactly right, you know this from your past experience, education. My point is all of our readers may not be as informed as you. We do not operate on anticipations/presuppositions about the scholarship or erudition of our potential readers. We address a global audience and write by focusing on the subject and verifiability.
E.g. Every editor here knows what Earth is, but still our article starts with an explanation of the same. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Read this essay Wikipedia caters for ignorants as well as the academics. It's better to presume the audience as ignorant than a savant, because the former allows for improving and elucidating the subject further. ″If information is reliable and accurate, but presented in a way that is difficult for the reader to understand, or in a style the reader does not like, then the reader will go to one of the many other online encyclopaedias or other sources of information.″ Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 11:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Restored Faizan 11:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Anchors are not so important?

[4] I have a few questions:

1. Why?
2. Do you mean "authors" of the posts are not important?
3. Why bother about anchors to begin with when these are well-established facts?

That guardian article says[5]:

″In 2008 a prominent preacher on Geo, the country's largest channel, suggested that right-minded Muslims should kill Ahmadis. Within 48 hours two Ahmadis had been lynched. The television presenter has prospered. Last year a banner appeared outside the high court in Lahore, declaring "Jews, Christians and Ahmadis are enemies of Islam". Few complained.″(my emphases)

Then Asian Human Rights Commission reports the same

″PAKISTAN: Two persons murdered after an anchor person proposed the widespread lynching of Ahmadi sect followers

The government of Pakistan has not held the presenter of a popular TV program on Geo TV, accountable for stoking the already-prevalent religious hatred of Pakistan's beleaguered Ahmadi minority, on 7 September, 2008. Anchor person Dr Amir Liaquat Hussain declared, on air, the murder of Ahmadi sect members to be the religious duty of devout Muslims. He made the statement on Alim Online, a religious affairs program on Geo TV, which is a prominent Dubai-based Pakistani television channel. Hussain urged his two co-presenters to agree, and in a show on 9 September, he repeated the suggestion. In the 48 hours after the first broadcast, two Ahmadi community leaders were lynched and murdered, bringing the total number of targeted Ahmadi killings this year to four.″(my emphasis)

BBC says[6]:

″Ahmadis in Pakistan are often mobbed and lynched by extremist elements who critics say are encouraged by favourable laws.″(my emphasis)

Why would anyone want to delete these poignant assertions of fact from the article precisely about "Minorities of Pakistan"? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 08:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your emphases should be more in terms of neutral point of view. Either revisit your emphases, or refer them to "the important anchors". Your emphasis was: "Even lynching of ahmadis has been proposed." But you did not tell the readers that this "proposal" was by "important anchors". You referred to the lynching as it was proposed by "the whole of Pakistan". Faizan 12:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It means then language, as opposed to the sources' reliability, is the problem. Right? Kindly propose a suitable way to assert this because these are verifiable and sourced claims presented in a non-to-so-neutral fashion perhaps. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

For example, you could say that "An anchor in Pakistan proposed lynching of ahmadis". Faizan 13:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

In active voice you mean? BTW what is this [7]?????? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 13:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Just tested the Visual editor, but meta failure. Faizan 14:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)