Talk:Anti-Indian sentiment

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anti-Indian sentiment article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2007. The result of the discussion was No concensus (default keep).

This article was nominated for deletion on 22 Feb 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

India High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Ethnic groups High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Politics High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Indophobia in Pakistan was copied or moved into Indophobia with this edit on 8 January 2012. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive using the "move procedure"

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hwilso20. Peer reviewers: Hwilso20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution?

Have South Asians never suffered persecution in Britain ?--Streona (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking about discrimination would be a better question, persecution - nope, only in Uganda would you really be able to say that. Why do you ask anyway? You seem to be from London, this maybe of interest. Pahari Sahib 18:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heard of cases of religious discrimination shown by WION in the news Wicontrib4 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK not official persecution- but discrimination, harassment are forms of hate crime, and I am against it. The article mentions anti-Asian behaviour in Africa and America, but does not cover other areas and perhaps it should, especially as Asian people seem to be the main target of fascist gangs like the BNP. The refernce you give is about how Asians feel about themselves, not how others feel about them. --Streona (talk) 18:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly agree with this. Just looking at the comments in any article on the IAF rejection of the Typhoon will show how much Indophobia exists in Britain (or at least England). Ummonk (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Indophobia

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indophobia's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Cohen":

From North America: The Naming of America: Fragments We've Shored Against Ourselves. By Jonathan Cohen
From Anti-Polish sentiment: Ted Cohen, Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters - Page 21 1999, 112 pages. Page 21.
From Martial Race: The Idea of Pakistan By Stephen P. Cohen Published by Brookings Institution Press, 2004 ISBN 0815715021 pp 103-104.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

scope

The term isn't well defined and is used differently in different contexts. It is rather weird to define "Indophobia" as "prejudices against South Asian peoples, including Bangladeshis, Nepalese, Pakistanis, and Sri Lankans" and then have a secton on "anti-Indian sentiment" in Bangladesh (where 'India' clearly stands for "Republic of India"). There is also significant overlap with Anti-Hinduism. --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time column

is this article relevant? --Car Tick 03:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That depends. Do reliable sources recognize it as an instance of anti-Indian prejudice?

Hokie Tech (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

During the British Raj

A good summary of anti-India/anti-Hindu prejudice during the British Raj can be found on page 23 of The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture. Hokie Tech (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Issue

Wikireader41, your reverts are against:

"Wikipedia articles tend to grow in a way which lends itself to the natural creation of new articles. The text of any article consists of a sequence of related but distinct subtopics. When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text may be summarized within the present article. A link should then be provided to a more detailed article about the subtopic."

Beware that warnings that are not valid as they claim are very likely taken as personal attacks. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no it is not. that textbook article is NOT about Indophobia. I have no problem you adding a link to the textbook controversy article. that article is much more broader in scope and deals controversies beyond what misinformation is taught in Pakistani schools about India. For example views about Christians etc. the info included in this article is specifically about anti India sentiments in Pakistan as present in official textbooks. Just because you do not like it does not mean that this fully sourced info doesn't stay. beware edit summaries like this are very definitely personal attacks [1]--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the alleged information beyond that topic. I only deleted repetitive information copied from that article to this one. A small summary of that should be left here with a link to that article. That is the consensus behind WP:Summary. This is a matter of format and not 'like'. If i had a POV related issue, I'd start from the talk page of that article and not this one. On other hand you seem to be inserting a copy of that content here. I've quoted the exact wording of WP:Summary for you, if you don't follow that, you are the one editwarring. For the summary, its one thing to comment on the comment and another to comment on the editor, and you did the latter. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i am not only commenting on your summary but expressing a genuine concern that your edits are not NPOV and you are going around deleting info which you dont like. I have read WP:Summary and i see no reason why this infoi cant stay. text can generally be freely copied between article on wikipedia. i guess we can think about starting a detailed article on Indophobia in Pakistan and then introduce the link here. textbook controversy article is a separate but somewhat related issue to Indophobia. how about we work together on this Indophobia in Pakistan. I think we will find sufficient info for a stand alone article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that allegation of yours is what I pointed out as uncivil. Freely copying info is one thing and putting the same exact content from an article into another and against WP:COMMONSENSE as well as WP:Summary. When a detail is present at length in a related article that detail is summarized in a small paragraph and the article link is provided. You can start Indophobia in Pakistan when you have enough notable information to make it long enough, but since that is not the issue here, you should stop blaming and start viewing your own revert critically. You are reverting against the quoted policies. Your very first response was against WP:GOODFAITH & WP:CIVIL. Those allegations right from the start without any thing being said (with infact me giving and linking proper edit summaries) show your mal-intent. And I see that you have misused rollback as well WP:ROLLBACK:

"Standard rollback may only be used in certain situations – editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed."

I don't think all this favours your arguments esp. when they are against quoted policy. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with you. but I know better than edit warring with a POV pusher. please read WP:EW and take some time to think about why the admin chose to warn only you. Ihave started the separate article on Indophobia in Pakistan and you are welcome to contribute. and get it out of your mind that content cannot be shared between various articles on wikipedia. It6 happens all the time and is permitted per WP:CC-BY-SA--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the content and not on the editors. Sharing content is one thing and having exact copies is different. I've given enough reasons with broad consensus for that. The new article you created will be considered separately from this discussion unless the same content repetition against WP:MOS & WP:SUMMARY comes to be the issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This was a hard one, but after looking into the core arguments, the the result of this RfC is to merge. The issues of NPOV seem to be weighing against the fact that part of the article is not an issue of NPOV, and it can exist by itself. Someone wish to do the honors? -- DQ (t) (e) 00:56, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to merge Indophobia in Pakistan into this article, since it is not long or developed enough itself. If then it becomes a very long article an the article mentioned should be created. Reason of this being a separate article without this article facing any long article issues becomes an undue weight issue. Consider creating subheadings using heading levels under the same article. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you went around removing sourced stuff from pakistan section ( without adding any links to any other articles). Now you are saying that Indophobia in Pakistan needs to be merged here. what exactly is it that you want. Their is a tonne of stuff in RS on anti India sentiment in Pakistan/ Indophobia. We could even have sub articles on that subject alone. Now that I think more about it having all info on Indophobia in Pakistan in the Main Indophobia article would possibly give Undue weight to Pakistan in the main article. So I would say that we need 2 separate articles to fully cover the topic of Indophobia in Pakistan. I am still working on the article which started today and you need to give it reasonable time to develop before saying it is not long enough or developed enough.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed sourced duplicate stuff, remember that along with the long list of policies that I quoted along with a proper talk page discussion. Don't implicate the action as a random act of vandalism (which you assumed right from the start as per your warning to me). Be free to add the navigation links yourself. I gave you a suggestion, it's on you whether to implement it or not. This merger is a separate discussion on the new article you created. We have tons of stuff on everything on the internet and libraries and so much of it is notable, it doesn't mean it is all admissible in an encyclopedia. The content in wikipedia has to be encyclopedic. The article format has to be as per WP:MOS. A separate article is not created because its own format is 'supposedly' going to be long. It is created when the related content is making the parent article too long. And as I see it the section on Pakistan has hardly developed while here you are creating a separate article. That just seems to be an escalation to the previous discussion.

"Now that I think more about it having all info on Indophobia in Pakistan in the Main Indophobia article would possibly give Undue weight to Pakistan in the main article."

By saying that you just agreed that giving a lot of content about Indophobia in Pakistan in this article will create WP:UNDUE & WP:POV, so I'll tell you as per WP:POV FORK; you cant create another article to WP:LAWYER around that rule. If adding of certain content leads it to be undue weight and/or POV, you simply can't put that into another namespace to avoid that. It would actually still count towards the same. So you just gave a reason for rather nominating it for speedy deletion since it touches Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#Articles#A10. In anycase a WP:POV FORK is subject to merger or deletion (which ever suitable). I will not intervene in any improvements that you make to that article for now (unless I see something obviously contentious) since this discussion is more important. As I said, my reasons for it were not that article being long enough but the fact that they are under developed in this place. And as I see it you have a POV pattern yourself. You insisted on keeping a length piece of writing that already had an exact copy in another article (I won't be surprised if I find it in more and you being the contributor). In one place you say you are in for a neutral POV while on other place you seem to be creating/contributing to anti-Pakistan contentious articles. Lets say for the sake of argument that all the controversy articles you contribute to are giving proper weight to both sides, even in that case, you are still a part to all those in a pattern. So it would be better not to comment on the editors with comments like what do you want and rather continue with commenting on the content or you are not in any better position then me in a worst case scenario. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merger user wikireader has a history of making useless articles bordering on the line of a pakistaniphobia which is ironic in fact I believe a article on Pakistaniphobia in India is in order 109.149.65.225 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we have a rough consensus. Also, there are no articles on: Americanophobia in Russia, Pakistanophobia in India, Iranophobia in America, Islamophobia in Europe, Pakistanophobia in America,Antisemitism in Pakistan, Antisemitism in Middle East, and none of the others I guess. This is a completely WP:UNDUE and a WP:POVFORK and is bound to be merged. I'll perform merger in due time. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense . their is no consensus here. that IPs statement is nohing short of s personal atrtack. pakistan is perhaps the country where the most extreme Indophobia exists and duly desrves an article of its own.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was a personal attack, rather I too have seen you doing such, anyway, the IP did clearly support the merger. As apparent from your reaction Pakistanophobia is also extremely present in India, but it does not have an article. This article is WP:UNDUE by all means. I've given you enough examples and you are just claiming baselessly without any policy support and without any consensus. The consensus is already against you and there has been enough time Waiting for input. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well like I said you are a POV pusher who is going around removing info which you perceive as showing Pakistan in a negative light. Anti-American sentiment in Pakistan is another article which exists on a substantially similar issue. you are welcome to start an article on Pakistanophobia which not only exists in India but also in Afghanistan and most other countries in the world. I think it will be an excellent article which I will try to contribute to as time permits. most POV pushers end up getting blocked. please read WP:VOTE before pretending that their exists any kind of consensus here --Wikireader41 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I am a POV pusher why don't you report me and get blocked your self for the personal attacks? And now you are giving examples of stubs? If that is the standard let me create an article with a single paragraph to bring ten different kinds of support to my side of argument... it doesn't work that way. You're the one who's going to get blocked at the end of this if you don't keep your uncivil remarks to your self. No one is voting here. Did you, at all, read the arguments, policies and examples I gave? The IP user just agreed with my comments which covered almost everything. You should read WP:CONSENSUS. You have created this article in the first place with tit for tat intentions from a previous dispute which you very well know of. You don't have any bases here to argue on. You are out rightly declining the much broader consensus that has already been developed in the policies I cited. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you are making no sense at all. stubs are how article start. it is clear to me that you do not like the content of this article so initially you went around deleting sourced info from this article. Now you again want to merge the article because you do not like the info.. there is is much broader consensus on wikipedia that nationalistic POV pushers don belong here on WP.--Wikireader41 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this page in merger requests. Just because it is a stub isn't the reason I tagged it to be merged. The information is a POVFORK and is deliberately being given WP:UNDUE weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

only you think it is a POV fork. the article goes into details of the extent of Indophobia in a manner that it would be impossible to do in the main article. Just because you personally dont like articles that say anything negative about Pakistan ( as is amply evident from your contribution history which mainly focuses on removing content from wikipedia which you dont like) is not a reason to merge or delete sourced stuff from Wikipedia. in due xcourse of time you will learn this basic pillar of Wikipedia which is WP:NPOV--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not only me, an IP user agreed with me. And for that purpose, I'm calling in an RFC. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

This article (Indophobia in Pakistan) has been recently created as a "spin-off" from Indophobia but the parent article itself needs proper expansion. Please comment on the merger proposal of this article with Indophobia. Refer to the arguments on talk discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Keep separate the Indophobia in Pakistan article is reasonably well developed, and the Pakistan-India issue is sufficiently large and well documented to ensure that this subject needs an article of its own. However I do agree that the rest of the article needs developing, particularly on those interesting localities where the ex-pat Indian community has been disproportionately successful, resulting in social and political (including legal) repercussions. Rich Farmbrough, 11:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I've argued above that Indophobia in Pakistan was intended to be a WP:POVFORK and has a lot of WP:UNDUE in it without which it would sufficiently fit into the main article as subsections. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate, the indophobia in Pakistan is a separate issue from indophobia worldwide for the historical reasons. The article "indophobia in Pakistan" is a well-written article without any signs of WP:POV or WP:UNDUE. Just another try to mute the critique. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This article is really random ,and with out precedence . and really this article confuses ant indian govt policy with anti indians . I thing this should be merged as the main article covers this topic sufficiently --Multan47 (talk) 03:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: as nominator and as per arguments given in the main section. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep separate this is a bad faith nomination by user TopGun who is a SPA wanting to get all info which he perceives as portraying Pakistan in negative light deleted from wikipedia. please check his contributions. Their is a Ton of info in RS about the prevalence of anti India sentiment in Pakistan. sufficient material exists that this important and notable topic deserves an independent article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My account is not an WP:SPA and I take that as a personal attack which you have repeatedly made instead of discussing the content on different occasions. You just demonstrated your own mal-intentions here. The closing editor should consider the argument being solely based on the attack. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikireader41, describing an editor with over 3000 edits to the mainspace as a single-purpose account is a blatant personal attack. You should strike it. Nightw 14:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep separate for the same reasons as Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (see above).JCAla (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: (quoting merge support from the IP user from main section): "I agree with the merger user wikireader has a history of making useless articles bordering on the line of a pakistaniphobia which is ironic in fact I believe a article on Pakistaniphobia in India is in order 109.149.65.225 (talk) 21:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)" --lTopGunl (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: looks like the definition of WP:POVFORK. A better article, which I don't think we have, would be about civil disharmony between Indians and Pakistanis-- the kind that can be seen in the appalling display of untrust and incivility between such nationalities directly above. There's equal grounds for the creation of a Pakistanophobia in India article and these would just fuel the relentless and childish edit-war seen between these nationalities across the project. Merging them into a single article will make it easier for the reader to understand the subject. Rennell435 (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the question here is whether the topic is sufficiently notable to warrant a separate article and is their enough information in RS to write an independent article. childish edit wars can be dealt with according to existing policies per WP:EW and are not a reason to not have an article. also the article Anti-Pakistan sentiment exists. I have placed a link to Indophobia in the article for readers who may wish to learn more about especially in other countries.--Wikireader41 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Pakistan sentiment's existence is similar to Indophobia and does not become a reason for Indophobia in Pakistan to have a separate article. The information can be sufficiently covered in subsections of this article. Having a separate article here would be WP:UNDUE. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This doesn't look like anything other than a POV fork and the contents can be accommodated within the parent article. I also think both articles should be checked for original research and the amount of contextual information should be reduced. --FormerIP (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seperate. Historically Indophobia existed and still exists today in a wide range of countries. However it reaches its greatest reification in Pakistan. The material in Indophobia in Pakistan therein amplifies a large number of aspects and needs to be kept seperate as both articles can easily be expanded. As far as POV fork goes, it requires someone to bring out the issues of POV clearly on statement by statement case and then these can be written NPOV. Also it is not a fork as it does not digress away from the line of thought of the main article. As such calling it a POV Fork is incorrect. AshLin (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The article in current shape needs to be merged as it completely ignores WP:NPOV and per WP:POVFORK & WP:Fringe theories. --SMS ^Talk 23:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong merge There are some fundamental flaws and cherry-picked issues with the article in question (see talk page) that make it fit the exact definition of a WP:POV content fork cooked up in bad taste. As FormerIP said, the article needs to be checked for original research, especially WP:Synthesis ("reaching a conclusion by combining multiple sources") and WP:NPOV in my opinion. Merging whatever content remains there will be better accommodated in the parent article. Mar4d (talk) 04:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seperate--Suyog ^{talk to me!} 10:50, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTVOTE. --lTopGunl (ping) 22:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong merge Blatant cherry-picked talk page clearly ilustrates the flaws and biased pov pushing that make it fit the exact definition of a WP:POV content fork 109.150.60.235 (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it. Abundant POV and attribution issues. The main article is not unwieldy enough that a merge would be a problem. Nightw 13:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to a more neutral title. I do see the need for an independent article, as I think merging would make Indophobia lengthy and structurally unbalanced. However, at its current title, I think there is a systemic problem with attracting only negative content. Compare this article with Indo-Pakistani relations#Social relations, for example. I would prefer a title such as Attitudes to India in Pakistan which would allow for a more neutral treatment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm supporting a merge here, but if consensus comes to be implementation of this, a better idea would be to make it two way to prevent doubling/forking of information if an article for the other side is created... ie. an article covering scope of social relations from both sides ("India-Pakistan social relations" as a dedicated article maybe). --lTopGunl (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merging Indophobia in Pakistan here (Consensus above)

As of now, I respect this decision and will merge the two myself. However, subsequently the topic may have more material and merit an article of its own once again. Unfortunately, as of now Indophobia in Pakistan has NPOV tag etc. Since it is easier to work on it while seperate I intend to remove the indicated faults at its present location and merge it when its tags are removed. Hope this is acceptable to other editors. AshLin (talk) 04:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I separated this from the section as that discussion is closed. I think working on it there will require the fork article to stay as it is unwarranted after the consensus. I have a suggestion (since I've done 5-6 merges till now)... Simply dump everything into this article as it is (except accessories ofcourse) and increase the header levels by one for all. That will be in a single section then. We can then add an underconstruction tag on it and work here. I know you said you're comfortable working on it as it is (and that can be done)... copy the latest version of that to your user sandbox, that will leave you completely undisturbed in that regard. I'll help out with the merger along with any other volunteers. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:32, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. AshLin (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Now there are some post merger clean ups to do to make the article balanced towards all countries and in due weight. I'll review and shorten in free time. The purpose of merger wont be completed till the WP:UNDUE part is fixed (which was one of the issues with the separate article). --lTopGunl (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Post merge clean ups

I suggest we start with post merge clean ups and reduce the content to a proper weight for this article. Currently the whole Indophobia in Pakistan article is simply dumped here. I invite User:AshLin and other interested users to help as it might be likely that they object to simple chopping off. User:Smsarmad has recommended my suggestion to rewrite the sections to reduce content. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about the text which is sourced but presents fabricated theories of Indophobia in Pakistan, which have no background etc.? Like the following:

An Indian strategic thinker Ashok Kapur opines that the Two Nation Theory has served Pakistan well and is a continuing source of Indophobia in Pakistan - it helped it gain an independent nation; it enabled Pakistan to gain one third of Kashmir by force of arms in 1947 and to lay claim to it in entirety; it enabled the displacement of Muslim politicians of Indian origin such as Jinnah and Liaqat Ali Khan and the Mohajir community by the Punjabi elite; and also helped to cement the nation and prevent civil war between the provinces

Now Two Nation Theory was introduced by Syed Ahmed Khan and he was not a Punjabi rather he was Urdu speaking Muslim as was Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah. --SMS ^Talk 16:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is bit is a clear speculation... the article can do better with explaining about Indophobia without this as well. In anycase it would be undue to put a speculative opinion of a single person in the article without any context or need of it. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, do the Indo-Pakistani wars come into this category at all? Isn't the sentiment between warring parties trivial? Even if mentioned the Indophobia related to military should be kept to a mention in context. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Ashok Kapur quote is an analysis and not a prefabricated theory. It rightfully needs to be moved to the Two-nation theory as an Indian interpretation by a prominent Indian strategist.
This statement by Samarsd supports the thesis of Kapur: "Two Nation Theory was introduced by Syed Ahmed Khan and he was not a Punjabi rather he was Urdu speaking Muslim as was Liaqat Ali Khan and Jinnah." Because Indophobia and dislike of all things Indian gave a political lever for Punjabi politicians to displace the leading politicians during Partition, who were of origin of places now in Indian territory.
Mention of the wars can be reduced and kept in context with only those aspects which fuelled Indophobia need to be removed.
As such please discuss the planned excisions here. AshLin (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look and mark or remove the content you think is not required as the section size is too big and it will be good to know which parts can be removed without contention. The purpose of the merge was to fix the WP:WEIGHT & WP:NPOV issues... the above mentioned doesn't look like satisfying any of them. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh... wait a minute...

I have been working on a few articles on Indo-Bangladesh relations. What I read on the subject paints a picture of India treating Bangladesh somewhat as an enemy quite vividly. But, the text here makes it look like a problem with growing intolerance in Bangladesh. Right at this point it isn't looking like much WP:NPOV to me. Shall I try to make it more balanced? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to what you read about India treating Bangladesh as an enemy? AshLin (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You can start with Greater Bangladesh and the articles it leads to, then move on to Border Security Force to read on atrocities and the articles it leads to. Let me run a research to find you more. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Three quick searches using google books, google scholar and google news has shed a completely new light on the subject of "Indophobia." There is hardly any use of the term that relates to any of India's neighbors - Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, or Sri lanka. It is a concept from 19th century, and the only significant 20th century use is pertinent to Eastern Africa. Putting together all instances of anti-indian sentiments across South Asia may be an example of WP:SYNTH (there in more reference to Indophobia associated with Papua New Guinea than Bangladesh). Making the collection of those instances the larger part of the article may be an example of WP:UNDUE. The material on those sentiments and instances are good to be merged into individual foreign relation articles. May be this is another misunderstanding like Indosphere. Will be checking for more details. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are islamic organizations in Bangladesh which have hostility towards India as one of thier primary objectives. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh recently called out Bangladesh on this a few months ago I believe. Also, in Bangladesh a military coup was just recently prevented by military officers who were right wing Islamists who were unhappy with the growing cordial relations between the two nations. 174.1.73.129 (talk) 07:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I believe most of that is true, Wikipedia is not a news channel. An encyclopedia is about information, not value judgement. Please, check the for word Indophobia, and see for yourself that this article almost certainly is not dealing with that. This one probably would better be called Anti-Indian sentiments or something in that line. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see a POV tag on the Bangladesh section dating from September 2013, but this is the only discussion I find on the talk page. What exactly is the neutrality dispute here? - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

No Indophobia in Europe? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lot of Europe hasnt had connection to it, but where there are Indians theres bound to be something. UK has sentiment with the BNP (mostly Islamophobia, but Indian Muslims would count too. "In Popular Culture" could list I Proud to be Indian (the Sohail Khan mvie)). I imagine France and Holland (with Surinamese thnic Indians and the rise of the right) would have sentiment. Portugal undoubtedly does with António de Oliveira Salazar after being thrashed out)Lihaas (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tags,. why

The entire section Killing of Bangladeshis by Indian BSF is sourced to OP-Eds or do not mention any sort of Indophobia. I will give it a week and unless reliable sources are found I will remove it. The entire section Cyber warfare has not one source which says the hacking is due to any sort of anti Indian feelings. I will give it one week for reliable sources which do describe these hacks as being some form of anti Indian sentiment or that to will go. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC) ~~: wrong all the articles mention anti indian sentiment are you even reading them ?Ruffruder0 (talk) 11:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~The Hindu and Rediff are not unreliable sources either Ruffruder0 (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)~~This account has been blocked as a sock of Nangparbat Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not waste time discussing things with sockpuppets. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing may be bad. But, the info is not. Check reports by Deccan Herald, Times of India, The Independent, and The Daily Star - all respectable newspapers. These reports also explicitly mention the reason for the hacking spree. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the sources you cited debunk the notion that this attack is Indophobic in nature ("we have no personal issues with Indians etc. etc.") and is a political ploy by Bangladeshi pan-Islamic terrorists to get attention. This entire section placed in this way in the article is massive Original research.Tailsgreat (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is to Op-Eds and do not mention any form of anti Indian sentiments, please see WP:OR. I will retag these unreliable sources and if reliable sourcing is not found then I will remove the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Tailsgreat, if there's any OR here that would be finding "a political ploy by Bangladeshi pan-Islamic terrorists to get attention". Where are we getting that information, apart from deep-rooted bigotry? Very annoying and very unencyclopedic. If we can't stick to facts and must revert to psychological incapacities, we need to get off Wikipedia fast.

Darkness Shines, please state how the fact that "Bangladeshi hackers said their action was in response to the alleged killings by BSF" (Time of India) and "The incidence of hacking has increased mainly due to some recent developments, including brutal killings by the Indian Border Security Force (BSF) at the Bangladesh-India border and India going ahead with the Tipaimukh dam construction against public opinion in Bangladesh" (The Independent) isn't about anti-Indian sentiments? Besides, what was that "Op-Ed" thing? Where do you see "Op-Ed"? Also, please read WP:OR before you suggest it to someone else. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How does this amount to a "hostility towards Indians and Indian culture." This appears to be a narrow political dispute, predicated on isolated incidents.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had tagged the Op-Eds, you know those tags you removed[2]. And being pissed off at the border police does not = Indophobia or anti Indian sentiments, it means people are pissed of wit hthe police for shooting at them. That is the OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there's context, it is relevant for the article, anti cultural sentiments are not that much of a complicated issue. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is Indophobia then? And, what is anti-Indian sentiment? We can start rebuilding the article from a proper definition that requires no interpretation. Should we? Alternatively, the sources and copy can be fixed in that particular part. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the content per WP:OR and WP:RS, I gave you guys long enough to come up with sources which state these actions are anti Indian in nature. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that there are sourced and cited articles of Deaths along the Bangladesh–India border and 2001 Bangladesh–India border clashes, the hackers can now probably have a couple of words on them. BTW, the original links don't work, so looked them up on the WayBack Machine - Times of India and Deccan Herald. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links and bare URLs

I have replaced the dead links that were identified and repaired some of the bare URLs. Will come back to this if I have a chance.--Soulparadox 20:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Anti-India sentiment in Pakistan

Anti-Indian sentiment in Pakistan has it's origins in Kashmir, not during the British Raj, those topics can go under anti-Hindu sentiment. No mention of Kashmir at all, which is where the problem lies. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 05:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti-Hindu" and "Anti-India" views merge in the case of Pakistan, because it sees India as mainly a Hindu country. As for Kashmir, reliable sources say that Kashmir issue is fired up by Pakistan because of its anti-India sentiment, not the other way around.^[1] If you have a source that says the opposite, please provide it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jaffrelot, Christophe, ed. (2002). Pakistan: Nationalism without a Nation. London: Zed Books. p. 38. ISBN 1842771175.

Remove or Modify "Terrorism" Section

The entire "Terrorism" section currently refers to internal conflicts in India. I don't see how internal conflicts in India can be described as anti-Indian. The three groups mentioned specifically, to whom the anti-state violence is attributed, are: "Islamic, Naxalite and ethnic nationalist radical movements". All of these groups are Indian themselves, as are the Punjabis/Sikhs later mentioned. I don't understand how sub-groups of Indians can be considered anti-Indian. Are they against themselves? They may be against the Indian state, but that doesn't constitute Indophobia in my mind. They might be anti-government, anti-capitalist, or anti-Hindu, for instance, but none of those things strikes me as Indophobic.

I would like to remove this entire "Terrorism" section, because I don't feel it relates well to the topic, as it stands now. Then, if someone wants to write something that describes terrorism in a way that is Indophobic, they could always write a new section later. At the moment, I think it would be easier to remove it entirely, than to try to modify it, as none of the examples currently given in that section (I don't count the "See also" in this) can be rightly considered examples of Indophobia. I thought I would put it in the Talk section first before I remove it. --Kevintreg (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have replaced it with a quick summary of more relevant content. It still needs to be expanded. - Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Indian 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://us.geocities.com/mediawatch_india/how_to_do_hatchet_jobs_on_india.htm

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:31, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka

The section on Sri Lanka (the only one that I read, to be honest) is heavily biased in favor of India. While nothing that's in there is specifically false, some of the stuff on there is outdated- Tamils in Sri Lanka haven't been regarded as Indian spies since the '80s; since the war started, the Tamils were regarded as the LTTE's spies in Sinhala areas- the wording in that former part should be in the past tense. Also, I added a SOURCED statement about RAW's (and, by extension), Delhi's involvement in training and arming the LTTE. Please do not remove this unless you have a very good reason for doing so (and I can't think what such a reason would be).

That entire section needs reworking, to stop the Lankans from looking like paranoid racists, but I have't attempted to address this myself until someone from WikiProject India agrees. I know just how bad subcontinent rivalries and delusions are, and have no intention of getting my IP banned because there's folks that want the article to describe a narrative rather than set out facts.84.92.64.170 (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Please go ahead and edit it as per reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, but even my last sourced edit about Delhi's funding of the LTTE was removed by Filpro a few hours later. It's pretty clear facts aren't welcome here. See, guys, this is why we can't have an open honest discussion about anything. I've undone it, but you guys need to make a proper decision here.84.92.64.170 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Indian 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:

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) 13:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Indian 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/20110515113814/http://www.indianexpress.com/storyOld.php?storyId=42169 to http://www.indianexpress.com/storyOld.php?storyId=42169

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 12:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Anti-Indian 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.acdis.uiuc.edu/Research/OPs/Saikia/SaikiaOP.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://us.geocities.com/mediawatch_india/how_to_do_hatchet_jobs_on_india.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/StoryPage.aspx?sectionName=HomePage&id=13a498e1-7e3a-447d-96f7-bede2011bbc5&MatchID1=4892&TeamID1=1&TeamID2=5&MatchType1=2&SeriesID1=1235&PrimaryID=4892&Headline=I%20don%27t%20make%20films%20for%20awards%3A%20Aamir%20Khan
Corrected formatting/usage for http://movies.ndtv.com/newstory.asp?section=Movies&id=ENTEN20090082084
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101218061358/http://southasiaanalysis.org/papers10/paper987.html to http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers10/paper987.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141222090433/http://archives.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=17877 to http://archives.myrepublica.com/portal/index.php?action=news_details&news_id=17877

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anti-Indian 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:05, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anti-Indian 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/20120420212038/http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/islam-in-the-national-story-of-pakistan to http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/islam-in-the-national-story-of-pakistan

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 07:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the statistics are wrong

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/country-rating-poll.pdf Knightofjustice123 (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely wrong

Anti-Indian sentiment or Persecution of Hindus in Bangladesh written in this article seems to be Anti-Bangladeshi sentiment.

The first sentence written in the content of Bangladesh is "Even though India played key role in the independence of Bangladesh....". This type of statement can play a good role in spreading hatred.😠 Carry on and write more.

If the editors don't want contempts , they should write judiciously. If you search in India, you will also find such people who hates his/her own motherland. It doesn't mean India has Indophobia. It means that some people don't love their country. It's same in Bangladesh. There are many contradictory issues (political and others) between Bangladesh and India.

On the other hand, the term "Indophobia" implies the negative feelings and hatred towards the Indians and Indian culture. I am opposed to some informations of Wikipedia but it doesn't mean I have "Wikiphobia".

The conceptions about India in Bangladesh is unlike Pakistan and other rivalry countries. There are some political complexities between India and Bangladesh but there are immense similarities between two cultures. In the villages, Muslims often perform some funeral deeds taken from their Hinduistic counterparts by mistake. Some people have inimical conceptions about Hindus and they can do harm but these should not be written in this way.আলবি রেজা (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, basically you are saying that Indophobia in Bangladesh is largely related to Hinduphobia (as is the case for most countries with Muslim majority and Hindu minority) - and Indians or their Hindu descendants in Bangladesh are persecuted because of their religion? In this case, we should had a section in the article about Indophobia stemming from religious/cultural persecution of indigenous Indian religions and cultures. User:Toshi2k2 (talk) 05:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justification

Hi,

I think this article does not violate wikipedia policies

Revert

WikiLinuz, can you elaborate why you reverted this? The sources do say that!-Y2edit? (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3, I would appreciate your input here. Thanks!-Y2edit? (talk) 18:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It should be written in an WP:IMPARTIAL tone. Also, the text you added misinterprets what the source actually says.

For some, the outrage was mismatched to what the job posting actually said. With the likes of Zee News and Wion spending hours implying that the job posting demanded a candidate who was anti-Modi and anti-India – even though it did not explicitly say so – the issue got a lot more airtime than it needed.
“I frankly thought this was a storm in a teacup,” said a former editor of a business magazine. “I could not find anything that was anti-Hindu or anti-Modi about the posting.”
“It would normally be very questionable but the advertisement hasn’t overtly suggested that they want a journalist who will write with a particular slant,” she said.
— Sodhi, Tanishka (8 Jul 2021). "Did NYT's job posting for a business correspondent in India deserve the outrage it got?". Newslaundry.

Where in the source does it say NYT advertised for anti-Modi, anti-Hindu candidates like you wrote in this revision? WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 19:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The other source, the Quint also wrote,

American newspaper The New York Times has found itself subjected to backlash over a recent job advertisement it posted seeking a South Asia Business Correspondent based in New Delhi, with various Twitter users and some media outlets saying it reads like an 'op-ed' and that it is inviting 'anti-Hindu, anti-Modi candidates to spread propaganda'.

I did not revert your edit. I am asking you for help and clarification. Can we add this in a, "neutral tone"?-Y2edit? (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLinuz, TrangaBellam, Can we write something like, "Various Twitter users and some media outlets claimed that it is inviting 'anti-Modi, anti-Hindu candidates'......after an ad by the New York Times saying that Mr. Modi is advocating a self-sufficient, muscular nationalism centered on the country’s Hindu majority." I will wait for your suggestions.-Y2edit? (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original ad by the NYT was like,

“India’s future now stands at a crossroads. Mr. Modi is advocating a self-sufficient, muscular nationalism centered on the country’s Hindu majority. That vision puts him at odds with the interfaith, multicultural goals of modern India’s founders. The government's growing efforts to police online speech and media discourse have raised difficult questions about balancing issues of security and privacy with free speech. Technology is both a help and a hindrance.”

-Y2edit? (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is fake news. This is about propaganda/bias but you 2 (or anyone else) must guide me on how to incorporate them into this article.-Y2edit? (talk) 05:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How is that NYT piece disseminating fake news? Do you have any sources from WP:RSN criticizing that NYT piece? WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 05:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That strike never happened!-Y2edit? (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is your claim that Economic Times (1), The Wire (2), CBC News (3), Mint (4) and countless other outlets were disseminating fake news about some imaginary strike? TrangaBellam (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty sure authorities will deride the strike, a no-brainer perhaps. I'm still wondering how- the conversation as to why the NYT controversy edit was reverted- ended up with talking if strike is fake news. You probably are closer to a topic ban than ever — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Removal of Sections

The solitary source (NYT) as to Kenya profiles anti-Asian sentiment.
Uganda expelled Asians - a majority of those Asians being Indians, is secondary and irrelevant. I will argue that Amin was hardly Asia-phobic either; a deranged dictator with no moral compass, he was willing to go to any extents to get his way in global diplomatic circles. The BBC source is quite nuanced; you can consult (Leopold, 2020) for further insights.
Caribbean countries have their peculiar racial dynamics which cannot be boiled down to anti-Indian sentiment. [More on this, later] TrangaBellam (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reviewed the specific sources here, but content has frequently been added to this and other pages related to some incidents in which Indians were victims, but where the sources do not discussion prejudice against Indians. Such prejudice is of course alive and well in many places, and it's doing our readers a disservice to dilute coverage of it with synthesis that doesn't actually discuss such prejudice. As such I would support removal of any content that violates SYNTH in this way. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender, Race and Computing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sas007ucsd (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Racoon dolphin (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of poll?

The BBC World Service poll in the lead purports to ask about people's "views of India's influence." What does this have to do with anti-Indian sentiment? You can believe that the Indian state exerts a negative/positive influence in the world without having inherently negative/positive views of Indians, as individuals or even collectively. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is this page about?

The article as framed in the lead claims to be about prejudice against Indian people, which is, needless to say, a large and complex topic. However, the page contains a lot of material about reactions to foreign policy of the Indian government, which, IMHO, is a different phenomenon that is also worthy of coverage on Wikipedia but is confusingly conflated here. I welcome ideas on how best to deal with this. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jaffrelot, Christophe, ed. (2002). Pakistan: Nationalism without a Nation. London: Zed Books. p. 38. ISBN 1842771175.

[1]