Talk:Coerced religious conversion in Pakistan

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add this, "Experts from the

 Done: Next time, please specify which section you want it added to. I've added it to the response section. ARandomName123 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was just looking into this. Ideally, it would be nice to find secondary sources commenting on this, but it'll do at a pinch. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Experts"? Why would a weasel word like this be OK to include? ~Anachronist (talk) 08:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has no subject-matter expertise? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying it's a weasel word that demands a ^[who?] tag on it. ~Anachronist (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll amend it to "Experts from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have expressed their alarm..." instead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:51, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump: Please change, "In January 2023, experts from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights have expressed their alarm at the reported rise in kidnappings, coerced religious conversions and wedding of underaged females from among religious minorities in Pakistan" to, "In January 2023, experts from the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights expressed their alarm at the reported rise in kidnappings, coerced religious conversions and wedding of underaged females from among religious minorities in Pakistan" - just remove the "have"-1Firang (talk) 15:55, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, reads much better. Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, almost all (possibly all) the edits made here [4] have been made without consensus. There are clear and unambiguous issues with some of the content, even from a perfunctory examination. Allegations are being presented as fact. Op-ed articles are being cited for factual claims. Sources well over a decade old are being presented as portraying the current situation. And what makes these particular incidents 'notable' anyway? As discussed at length above, we need to achieve consensus regarding article content, and this is clearly not going to be achieved by unilateral mass addition of questionable material. I would strongly advise 1Firang to self-revert, to look again more closely at the material being added (and at relevant Wikipedia policy), and then to discuss each item individually here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

• Reminder: As noted at the top of this page and in the
  CTOP
  restriction, i.e any changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.

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

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

@Abecedare: There was a discussion here and Googleguy007 agreed that it was wrong to remove some of those.-1Firang (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Thank you for providing further evidence of your unwillingness and/or inability to actually address the points being made. We seem to be entering

WP:CIR territory here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sentence about Jürgen Schaflechner has been removed. It violates

WP:LEAD

because it isn't mentioned anywhere in the article body.

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

I have placed the content regarding Schaflechner in the article body, where it properly belongs. This article needs more academic sources: per

WP:SOURCETYPES these are the best we are likely to get. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

NYCLover2016 (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

The grounds given for removal are utterly absurd. Jürgen Schaflechner's comments are the result of following the topic for ten years. He is an assistant professor at the University of Heidelburg, a leading German university. He has had multiple articles published on the topic of forced conversion of Hindus in Pakistan. [5] A book published by the Oxford University Press, of which he is a co-author, has a chapter by him on the topic. [6] Of all the possible sources to reject from the article, people chose the one most closely fitting the description of "most reliable" in

WP:RS: "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs", while the article is instead based largely around mass-media articles of questionable reliability written to feed a pre-existing partisan discourse. We do not reject academic sources because they aren't in accord with tabloid rabble-rousing clickbait. I am going to restore the deleted content, and if it is removed again without better grounds than offered so far, I will consider asking for sanctions against whoever does so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"Forced" Conversion and (Hindu) Women’s Agency in Sindh by Jürgen Schaflechner: [7] AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it before I saw your comment. I disagree. This is

WP:BURDEN for including this has not been met. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

As I explained to you in my reply to you on my talk page, you are in violation of the AE sanctions at the top of this page. Go ahead and ask for sanctions, but beware of

WP:BOOMERANG. Consensus is required to include it, not to remove it. I suggest you revert yourself. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:37, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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

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

• Some Islamic institutions and clerics have been alleged... sourced to three newspapers;
• Some coerced conversions are results of... sourced to a newspaper;
• According to some child protection activists... sourced to a newspaper; and
• Jürgen Schaflechner, ... states ... sourced to an excellent reliable and academic source

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

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

Given the choice, I'd rather work according to the Oxford University Press's assessment of who exactly is an 'expert' on this topic than yours. They don't appoint book editors on a whim. They don't include chapters in academic works on a whim. Though maybe Harvard's opinion of Schaflechner should be taken into consideration too. Presumably they took him on as a Visiting Research Scholar at the Department for the Study of Religion [8] for a reason. As for trying to nit-pick about where exactly Schaflechner did his doctoral fieldwork, it is absurd to rule out his commentary on broader aspects of Pakistan society and culture on that basis. There are only ever a finite number of experts on any subject, and their ability to comment meaningfully on broader topics is what makes their expertise useful. Particularly when their expertise lies within topics so clearly adjacent to the one being discussed. Schaflechner's chapter on forced conversion is almost certainly going to be among the best academic exposition of the topic we are likely to get. And can someone please explain to me what the heck is wrong with what Schaflechner is saying anyway? That Pakistan society is deeply patriarchal cannot surely be contested. That the women supposedly at the centre of these incidents have had their voices silenced is more or less self-evident. That behind the shallow partisan discourse around 'conversion' there are whole layers of complexity relating to power and powerlessness, of wealth and poverty, and of individuals from the lower ranks of a minority community trying to scratch a living in amongst the politiking that reduces them (particularly the women, excluded from politics through social norms) to pawns in other people's games. Schaflechner isn't making any 'fringe' claim at all. He isn't making any assessment a competent social science undergraduate might not arrive at, given the same evidence. He argues his point well, because he has the expertise to do so, but nothing he is saying actually contradicts established academic understanding of the topic. It isn't 'fringe'. It isn't even remotely controversial. It is a mainstream academic analysis, the very thing one should compare the 'fringe' against. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And something else he says, that would be well placed in this causes section:

Upon deeper scrutiny, however, cases of forced conversion reveal many layers of complexity, which thwart simple mono-causal explanations offered by both sides—either the liberal groups or the religious right.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

One aspect that should be mentioned in the article is that the incidence in the press in Pakistan of reports of forced conversion and marriage was much higher in the 2010s than it had been in the 1990s. But it is unclear whether this is because the press mention it more often, or because it occurs more often. As you would expect, this aspect is discussed by Schaflechner.^[9]-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Iskandar323 (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Anachronist Slatersteven CapnJackSp Vanamonde93 Good morning/afternoon/evening. We all know that this is a 100% subjective topic as it is with social sciences. The author being notable and/or the work being RS - I understand - would be prerequisites. I would briefly repeat the points I made in my op which no one commented on. 1) Conversions of only females are accounted for by the so-called scholar in his apology/justification/explanation which thus does not apply to males while the article at the outset mentions "people" (on which the was some edit-warring too). 2) He uses the term "Hindu nationalists" for those supporting the aggrieved side (Not to mention that world over many have accused islamists of desiring world hegemony by spreading their religion. Regardless of race or color or religion Hindis/Sikhs/Jains/Buddhists and Jews/Christians and everyone else) and called the persecutors merely "the religious right" which IS skewed to say the least and smacks of initial bias. 3) And fact remains that he has a h-index of 5 while Cultural Anthropology has an average h-index of 75 [[10]].

His referenced work *"Forced" Conversion and (Hindu) Women’s Agency in Sindh"* has 16 citations of which 5 are self and another 5 by pakistani muslim authors and a grand zero peer reviews (the Google Scholar link has the figures). This piece in turn is supposedly one of the chapters in his magnum opus "Alternative Imag(in)ings of the Nation State" [[11]] from OUP that enjoys an epic total of 3 citations (per Google Scholar). I am seeing zero reviews on Google and Amazon and elsewhere. For purely scholarly reviews HoyaSearch and ProQuest are the two most popular places and this work draws ZERO search results on them both!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• "Stories of forced conversion to Islam in Pakistan". BBC News. 1 September 2014. Archived from the original on 2021-10-27. Retrieved 2021-10-27. This says: "Every year in Pakistan, several hundred young Christian or Hindu girls are forcibly converted to Islam, and sometimes married off."
• Siobhan Heanue (25 July 2019). "Hindu sisters Reena and Raveena become face of forced religious conversion in Pakistan". ABC news. Retrieved 2 November 2023. This says "A Pakistani human rights group says 1,000 girls were forcibly converted to Islam last year" and "It is a practice that human rights groups say has been going on for years, targeting Christian and Hindu girls from poor families and low castes." and "Around 1,000 Christian and Hindu minority women were converted to Islam and then forcibly married off to their abductors or rapists".

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

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

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

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