Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:54, 7 February 2012

Pakistan C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Section on Arab World

I edited the section to reflect the ideas mentioned in the source, which referred solely to Saudi Arabia. 92.97.70.215 (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bollywood and Pakistanphobia

I am sure Indian media has played a part in the pakistaniphobia within modern India movies depicting Pakistanis as the enemy are many I think this should be mentioned 109.150.60.235 (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support: that would be notable enough. --lTopGunl (ping) 23:44, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR

This is WP:OR the source does not mention anti Pakistani sentiments. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Will check - too much of your reverts to catch up with since I came back. --lTopGunl (ping) 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"The films chosen to be shown at the festival, being organised by the Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), all relate to Pakistan and, without exception, can be said to be hostile in content to Pakistan and Pakistanis." I think user darkness is going to far with his vandalism and must be stopped the sources clearly indicate what I have stated 109.150.60.235 (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Or you could believe that I checked the source and found it lacking? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

You find anything not agreeing with your patriotic Indian views lacking your not having your way I assure you 109.150.60.235 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Darkness Shines, the article in question does indeed discuss stereotypes in Bollywood percieved as hostile, or as the title aptly says, "anti-Pakistan films". You've got some explaining to do for your case here how the sourced content is otherwise WP:OR or "lacking". The source complies with WP:RS too so I don't see anything contentious as far as reliability is concerned. Mar4d (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the article, it does not mention whatsoever about Anti-Pakistan sentiment. I am not Indian btw IP. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

If you've read the article, it's quite clearly mentioning the term "anti-Pakistan". Thus, the content qualifies and is largely relevant for addition into this article. Mar4d (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No it does not. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mar4d, the removed sentence, as worded, does not comply with the source. The removed material is (very poorly )worded in such a blatantly inflammatory and POV style as to make one cringe before one has even read the source. Here's the removed material: "Indias large film industry has produced several anti-Pakistani films which depict Pakistanis or the Pakistani state as the enemy due to the far reaching impact of Indian cinema on Indian citizens and the box office success of anti-Pakistani films further fan and increase Pakistan-phobic attitudes within the nation at large." The source is a Pakistani newspapaper article from 2004 discussing an Indian film festival to be held in Washington, D.C. The journalist's opinion is stated in this paragraph: "The films chosen to be shown at the festival, being organised by the Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS), all relate to Pakistan and, without exception, can be said to be hostile in content to Pakistan and Pakistanis. The country is depicted as a hotbed of terrorism and intolerant proselytising Islam which has pitted itself against a secular, porogressive and democratic India." Even if we accept what is arguably an opinion from a possibly biased source, it doesn't support the material the IP put in the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

That's why I reworded it precisely according to the source, if you had time to notice. I also find it hard to believe your assertion that a reputable English-language source like Daily Times (Pakistan) is biased. Mar4d (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indian sources have been used by the hundreds on Indophobia article so any Pakistan sources used are neutral and good sources of information if not all Indian sources should be removed that is only fair 109.150.60.235 (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mar4d, I didn't say the paper was biased; I said it was "possibly biased", which in this context isn't a big stretch. In any event, I think between the three of us (including TopGun), we came up with a wording for the article that is reasonable and source-compliant.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it is good now. But it is obvious that there are many more RS out there for the same and those should be added (in a neutral tone). This is one of the major reasons. Every one here should also read WP:NEWSORG. Reports by newspapers are taken as facts and attributed if they attribute it to someone. Further NPOV is managed by comparing the RS with eachother and since there was no refutation.. we should take that into consideration. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:13, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Failed verification

Neither source says the term originated in the UK Darkness Shines (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Now self revert:

The origins of the P-word, as its known in polite society, are far more recent than its black equivalent, which dates back to the 16th Century. Its first recorded use was in 1964, when hostility in Britain to immigration from its former colonies in the Asian sub-continent, was beginning to find a voice.

The dictionary backs up the word's defination and the article very clearly says what you 'failed' to find. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Were there does it say the term originated in the UK? There is a world of difference between first recorded use and origin. And please note, it does not say first recorded use was in the UK. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

How much more clear does it have to be? It is clearly mentioning the origin and giving a reference to the first recorded use. A serious question, are you that naive or purposely trolling? --lTopGunl (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not. Please seek a third opinion or ask at the reliable sources notice board. Note, the dictionary definition does not support the edit either. Assuming you used Merriam Websters. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given you a quotation above. You are out-rightly denying it. And good luck proving BBC non RS at RSN if you want that. You also have a very recent editwar history on this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Were in the quote does it say the term originated in the UK? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

If it is so hard for you to read from even the trimmed quote... Starting with, "The origins of the P-word" and referring to "Its first recorded use was in 1964, when hostility in Britain" and the first recorded use can directly be taken as origin as well per your pet policy of verifiability. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are engaging in WP:OR Two sentences, first says "Paki" is newer than "Nigger" that is all it says. The second says the first recorded use was in the UK. The source does not say the term originated in the UK at all. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's because you just dissected the prose. It is a single sentence in a flow and refers clearly to it and further clearly says that the first recorded use was there. And what ever way you take it, Misplaced Pages does not consider what is true or was the real origin in this case, it will take the first recorded use as the origin. Get it now? There's just evidence building up against you for 3 edit wars yesterday, removing citations at Taliban article after consensus was established and now wasting time here. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding a second opinion, as per language of the BBC article, I think it means what TopGun has added. Is there another interpretation likely of the BBC prose? I think not. BTW a tip - do keep in mind at all times the need to avoid close paraphrasing. Not that it has happened here, but often attempting to avoid close paraphrasing creates a slight change in meaning. AshLin (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That might have been DS's aim which would still be incorrect and POV. This was just not wanting to listen. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

You are wrong, tagged as inaccurate. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

What dispute? The citation is now verified and tag removed by another editor as well... you are not respecting the consensus here. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Lol, two editors do not make a consensus. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The origin of a word and its first recorded use can be two separate issues. For example, read the BBC article this way: "The origins of the F-word, as its known in polite society, are far more recent than its C-word equivalent, which dates back to the ___th Century. Its first recorded use was in ______" Read like this, it would be understood that 'origin' and 'first recorded use' are very different, as we might have data on the first recorded use of the F-word, yet we may not know its precise origins, and the article itself does not say where/when the word originated. This Misplaced Pages article should reflect what the source says, which is that the first recorded use was in the UK. As it stands, the Wiki article says that the term originated in the UK, which the BBC article does not say. The M. Webster definition that I've look at also says 'first recorded use' rather than origin. To clarify how important that is, see: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fuck which includes both an 'origin' and 'first recorded use', both being distinct from each other.65.0.158.161 (talk) 16:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

For further clarification, see how this issue is handled @ http://en.wikipedia.org/Okay and http://en.wikipedia.org/Welsh_rarebit. Origin and first recorded use are treated as separate. 65.0.158.161 (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

As I cannot edit the article myself, someone should be prepared to correct, add an addition reliable source, or remove the statement in question. Reason: Neither current sources say where the term originated; rather, both say that the first recorded use was in Britain. If there is a dispute about what the BBC article actually means, then an additional RS should be included to confirm the meaning. Otherwise, edit the article to reflect what the sources say, because as it stands, it constitutes OR. At the very least, it should be flagged as OR in a timely manner until someone can properly edit it. 65.0.149.160 (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Currently nobody can edit this article, you need to use the {{editprotect}} template to get an admin to do it. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Oh well. The request edit page says the protection expires in 2 days, unless I read it wrong. Will wait until then. 65.0.149.160 (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Please form a consensus here before editing this regardless of the protection. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed to remove OR. If you feel the BBC source does say that the term originated in Britain, then feel free to add an additional source confirming this so there can be no dispute about the meaning. The dictionary source does not say this, as that particular dictionary separates 'origin' and 'first recorded use' generally and specifically with this term. I've went through several dictionaries now, and it varies from origin unknown to plain not listing origin at all. Not a single case of 'Origin: Britain'. However, almost all the dictionaries, with few exceptions, list the first recorded use, and always in Britain. As I mentioned above, if another RS can back up the origin issue, then fine. If not, the OR must be removed. 65.0.149.160 (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What you think is OR is disputed by two editors above, so this does not make it a simple remove the OR question. See the reasons above. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you (or anyone else) are free to add an additional RS to confirm the meaning of the BBC article. I won't willy-nilly edit the page the moment it becomes unprotected, but within a reasonable amount of time the statement should be edited to reflect what both sources currently say, unless an additional RS (as the meaning seems to be in dispute) is added. When what a source says is disputed, it is generally good form to add an additional RS to confirm it. I am certainly open to an opposing view, but I don't see an issue with simply rewording the statement to something along the lines of "Its first recorded use was..." After all, you seem to suggest that 'origin' and 'first recorded use' are interchangeable, while I am saying they are not interchangeable. If you are correct, there is no harm done in editing it. Cheers. EDIT: I forgot to mention, the BBC article is an editorial, and the Wiki manual states that when an editorial is used as a source, and dispute arises about it, it is proper to add an additional source. Cheers. 65.0.149.160 (talk)

Pakistans right to exist and India

I was wondering if this could be a significant cause of Pakistanphobia within India as denial/opposition of Pakistans creation can surely be a cause for some of the Phobias within India there are several sources backing up the fact that India did not want Pakistan's creation.

the sources are a good mix of Indian, Non-South Asian and Pakistani:

^ a b Choudhary Rahmat Ali, (1933), Now or Never; Are We to Live or Perish Forever?, pamphlet, published 28 January ^ a b Jasjit Singh, Kargil 1999: Pakistan's fourth war for Kashmir , Knowledge World, 1999, ISBN 8186019227, 9788186019221, "... India accepted the establishment of Pakistan as a sovereign state, but rejects the two-nation ideology that drives it ..." ^ Lawrence Kaelter Rosinger, The state of Asia: a contemporary survey , Ayer Publishing, 1971, ISBN 0836920694, 9780836920697, "... The Congress welcomed the creation of a politically independent India, and accepted partition as a necessary evil in achieving this main goal ..." ^ Ambedkar, Bhimrao Ramji (1945). Pakistan or the Partition of India . Mumbai: Thackers. ^ Christophe Jaffrelot (2004). A history of Pakistan and its origins . Anthem Press. pp. 114–. ISBN 9781843311492. Retrieved 21 February 2011. ^ "Letters and Bombs by Amitava Kumar" . Politicsandculture.org. 2010-08-10. Retrieved 2012-01-21 86.176.200.54 (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is the primary article for that content. Better add the applicable sources to that article as well when it gets unprotected. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Deadlinks

I have had to remove a great deal of WP:OR from the article, along with highly contentious unsourced claims and claims to dead links. I searched for information on content cited to dead links and was unable to find any. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Do not remove sources from the article simply because you can not find the online source. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Offline content is just as notable as online. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I will remove it per WP:V, I do actually look for new sources you know, I could not find any. Which leads me to think they were fake to begin with. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The content you removed was properly cited. Many instances had properly dated citations with full information. This is in no way a BLP issue. Examples:

• Pakistan is an evil empire and threat to Israel: Israeli FM, Dawn newspaper, 22 Apr, 2009.
• Indian foreign policy: challenges and opportunities by Atish Sinha, Madhup Mohta, Academic Foundation, 2007, p 332.
• The Jewish general who beat Pakistan, Haartz, 06.09.04
• new friends? By Aamer Ahmed Khan, BBC News, 1 September 2005

All this is fully cited content and its removal should be justified. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• In an interview with a Russian daily Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman rendered Pakistan as "Evil empire" Is not sourced. There is a dead link, I have no way to verify this whatsoever, and I have looked on Gnews. It is a BLP violation. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You need to self revert the sourced part. I've reported at WP:BLPN to be checked... We can follow up to the deadlink without date after this. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I will self revert nothing, anything you want put back you can discuss first. As I posted above, I removed WP:OR and unsourced content. Which part do you wish to discuss first? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Look at the sources above. That is sourced content. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me say this slowly and clearly so you understand me. You will not add any content to this article unless you discuss it first. You are quite welcome to discuss here the content I removed one section or one line at a time, when I believe it is no longer WP:OR you may reinsert it. The article still has WP:OR in it, once this discussion is concluded we4 will begin on that. Do you under stand me? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you spent the same amount of time on discussing the content instead of being uncivil towards other editors this could have already been solved. Nothing is going to happen as you like. Look at the sources above and specify if you think there are any issues with them. Other wise there's no point in removing them. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(od)You do not get it do you? This will happen as I like, as it does not matter if the sources are reliable. What matters is that they do not support the content. Now you can begin discussing the content you wish to return to the article or not, your choice. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

And how do you tell the sources do not support the content? Because you don't find other sources for it? This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your refusal to discuss the content is quite telling. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Refusal? I'm repeatedly asking you to specify which you are not and now you blame me with refusal? I'll rather discuss this on WP:BLPN. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

TG I have told you time and again it is all WP:OR. The only way you can reinsert that content is through discussion. You may begin whenever you are ready. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Darknesshines POV

I came across this users edits on the Indo-Pak war of 1971 and have noticed that you seem to think your an authority by making unilateral decisions by blanking sourced information I assure you I will not be bullied by your aggressive reversions and you do not scare me with ANI threats either MarcusMaximus0 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

See my comment above. He's making false BLP claims over sourced content. There's no BLP here hence no BLP exemption. DS is editwarring. MarcusMaximus0, I suggest you do not do the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Anti-Pakistan sentiment. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Please remove the section Saudi Arabia. It is sourced entirely to an opinion piece.Finally tracked down on archive.org Darkness Shines (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. This is a news story. Even if taken as an opinion piece, those of news reporters are taken as reliable and reflect a significant view point. The source has complete bibliographical information. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To further add, this article was protected because of this user's section blanking. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it is an opinion piece by a non notable person, opinions cannot be used to support statements of fact. And the article is protected due to you and a sock reverting in BLP violations. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourced content is not a BLP vio. Neither was the information negative about a living person. That was your pretext for 3RR exemption. As far as the content is concerned.. it is published as a news story. I don't think all news reporters need to prove their own notability to publish in reliable sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No it is an opinion piece, it may not be used for statements of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

BTW the author of the piece is a teacher, not a reporter. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The story is published as news. That makes it a news story. I think we can let the reader decide whether to believe it or not after following the reference. There's no basis for the removal. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you know if it is published as news? It no longer exists on the Arab News site. Only wayback has an archive, and there is no way to see if it is a news story or an op-ed or a letter to the editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That is because the citation has complete information needed for verification. The news source has editorial insight which is needed for a WP:RS and is a main stream media source. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You cite WP:NEWSORG which says Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces are reliable for attributed statements as to the opinion of the author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Your cite WP:RS. That has nothing to do with the fact that an opinion piece from a non notable person can be used to make statements of fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And what an adequate solution you've given for the attribution.... blank the section? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as the persons opinion is not notable. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hong kong

from Pakistanis in Hong Kong might help in adding some information here. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Israel

Rephrase (if required) and add back according to sources. . --lTopGunl (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Difficult as the source either do not exist or are misrepresented. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Afghanistan

I can find no other source which discusses this, it is not on wayback, no hits on Gnews nor on Gbooks. I have removed it as unverifiable content attributed to a BLP. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The source information is complete. Verifiability does not mean the source should be online. Go check from a library or something if you need to verify so bad. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

To add you are now on 3RR. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Erm no. It was sourced to a TV show. Something called geo.tv. I looked on Gnews and Gbooks for verification that this was said, now given it was supposedly said only last year I find it a little suspicious that no other news agency picked up on such a controversial statement. Based on the massive misrepresentation of sources already found in this article I have little option but to believe it is a fake citation. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Geo tv is a reliable and mainstream source. It is a part of Jang news group. You've repeatedly blanked this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter if they are a mainstream source, the content cannot be verified as the article was online only and no longer exists, see my explanation above, I am not being unreasonable here. Explain why you reverted in unsourced content, a probable BLP vio and a lot of WP:OR When someone says probable BLP vio, you go to talk, not revert. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You want me to assume good faith on your judgement about the BLP vio but you do not extend the same good faith to the person who added that reference in the first place. The content was sourced, source's information was complete and this can not be a BLP vio. You like removing content labeling it as BLP vio. You've done it previously as well by fully removing the section about Israel. Sources do not need to be online to be verified. And no, it was not an online only article. There are print versions of that source. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Were? Get one, scan it and prove it. I am still of the opinion it was made up. Something that controversial would have made the news everywhere, yet no other source seems to exist but that one. Pull the other one. There has been massive OR and misrepresentation of sources in this article, so I will not AGF of any editor who added such content. Also, you never replied to my question. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Answer to your question, your blanking is reckless. I've no burden of providing you scanned/pirated copies of sources, and do not ask of such from me. A source needs to be fully titled and that it was along with publisher's name. There's no rule requiring it to be online. What you've done here can only be categorized in vandalism. So don't think I'll be assuming good faith on your part either. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

For a person who always says WP:NPA you seem to make them constantly. Remove your comment calling me a vandal please. I am acting in accordance with policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No, this was unambiguous blanking. You are going exactly opposite of the policy by removing sourced content on the label of it being unsourced. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The only part which was sourced was the probable BLP vio, the rest was not. Misrepresent the situation again and I will be most unhappy. Strike you accusations of vandalism or it will be I who goes running to Magog. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Have fun doing that. I will be the last person to be making personal attacks. All editors in dispute with me or not are aware of that. This is no personal attack, it is what you have done to the article... reckless blanking. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bangladesh

All unsourced and pure WP:OR. Also does pejorative and racist really need to be in the article twice? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• C-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Unassessed Discrimination articles
• Unknown-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates