British Pakistanis was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 17, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed November 20, 2010 Peer review Reviewed January 28, 2011 Good article nominee Listed March 9, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Pakistan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Ethnic groups Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-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: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 12 July 2021.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

Archives

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

The complete Pakistani community in Britain is the subject of this article. Since the crimes of one individual cannot be used to denigrate the entire community, start a new section by engaging in discussion on the talk page so that this content can be added with everyone's approval.  𝘚𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘮𝘈𝘺𝘩𝘢𝘯07   04:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It says Home Secretary said that, and it is true that she said that, if defamation is your worry file a case against her. Moreover she doesn't said all british pakistani are involved in grooming gangs. She just said that all those involved in gooming gangs are "almost all british pakistani". AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 08:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a violation of WP:NPOV to include Braverman's claims without including sources that have established that she's wrong on the statistics, e.g. this. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry Add her statement as well as information from the sources you mentioned. Add everyone's point of view, we are not sitting here to decide who is correct or who is wrong. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a volunteer project, AbhishekSaini1910; please don't tell me what to do. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't ordering you to do it, i was just giving opinion what should be done. I forgot to write "we should" in starting pf my comment. AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why this page doesn't contain anything regarding Grooming Gangs, while those at the top of british government, themselves saying that grooming gangs are made up of "almost all british Pakistani"

Home Secretary Suella Braverman said that the perpetrators of such crimes are “groups of men, almost all British Pakistani”. To the BBC she said the gangs were "overwhelmingly" made up of British-Pakistani males. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has vowed to do whatever it takes to root out grooming gangs and put more perpetrators behind bars. The UK PM announced a new Grooming Gangs Taskforce to tackle the menace.

[1] [2] [3] AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The remarks were described as a "dog whistle" by the Labour Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, and Ms Braverman was separately accused of pushing "discredited stereotypes". and cmon india today? 2600:480A:4A51:9300:64AD:7A09:8DCF:7C8E (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your attempt to re-add this material, Colormaxxing, after it was previously reverted by another editor. You now need to follow WP:BRD and make the case for the addition here on the talk page. I also asked for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Medical claim at British Pakistanis. One of the major problems seems to be that you're extrapolating from a small study limited to Southern Derbyshire to the whole British Pakistani population. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NB: Colormaxxing has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is neccessary to mention Imran Khan's happiness of British Airways returning. It had nothing to do with the rest of the paragraphs. 2A04:4A43:54DF:CC11:0:0:12A7:EF81 (talk) 13:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: There is obvious WP:UNDUE going on here by new accounts and IP addresses (likely linked to each other) mentioning grooming gangs, which are not reflective of the British Pakistani community. Edits by @Nuts5070:, alone (not taking into account the previous discussions), have been reverted by three separate users – by myself, @MSLQr: and an IP address. There is no consensus for their edits or the inclusion of this topic in the article, and are simply engaging in edit warring.

They were advised on two separate occasions to take it to the talk page, yet did not. So why is their edit being reinstated, when evidently there is no consensus for it? Notice what they have had to say regarding this _{on my talk page}:

– but the people who engage in such inhumane acts should be exposed. But by reverting my edit, you are only covering up their criminal acts.[4] – I'm not going to entertain trolls. نعم البدل (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually restored that material, which was in the article prior to Nuts5070's involvement, in an attempt to salvage properly sourced content after reverting their addition of claims such as "British Pakistanis have been largely involved in honor killings", which at the very least is ambiguously worded. The material on grooming gangs wasn't initially written by a new account but by me and was an attempt at a reliably sourced, NPOV summary of an issue that's received significant coverage in the press - i.e. whether or not British Pakistanis are over-represented in these sorts of cases. I'm happy to have a discussion here about that material, but I don't think we can exclude it given the significance of the coverage that exists. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: The significance of coverage can mean that it can be appended to Child sexual abuse in the United Kingdom (and from a quick look, it seems that it has been mentioned), or an article about grooming gangs in the UK. It's not appropriate to mention that on a general article about British Pakistanis, because it is WP:UNDUE. The article isn't about crimes committed by a certain ethnic group in the UK, and can be basis for misrepresentation.

If I'm being honest, the entire 'Health and social issues' section is bizarre – I haven't seen such as section outlining issues with ethnic groups in other diaspora group articles, like the part about sexual partners or STIs – while it's stats, I'm not sure how it's really relevant. نعم البدل (talk) 00:03, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's coverage focused on whether British Pakistanis are disproportionately likely to be members of these groups or not, so I believe brief mention of this to be due. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry: By how much? The FT figures, 1. Doesn't really cite any stats or reports, 2. Isn't extremely 'disproportionate' that it should carry a mention on this article – like I said feel free to add it to the other articles.

There aren't any strict figures, but a figure by the Child Sexual Abuse Centre [5] stated that 2% accounted for the defendants against child sexual abuse offences. That seems proportionate to the population. نعم البدل (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC) نعم البدل (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The FT article does cite statistics, but I think you've misunderstood my point. I'm not arguing that British Pakistanis are necessarily disproportionately represented in these cases, but rather than there are reliable sources covering whether they are disproportionately represented or not. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The FT article cited a person, not a report, I believe. In any case, if it's not about stats then the whole point was there's not really a consensus to include the edits, if they've been reverted by several users, on different occasions/discussions. نعم البدل (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jjavascabby, as you can see, there's discussion taking place here about the material on grooming gangs. Can I suggest that you propose changes here and gain consensus for them? It's unclear to me why you would remove the statistics sourced to the FT article, for a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate for this article to include the material about grooming gangs currently included here, either in its present form or modified? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes (invited by the bot) I just took a quick look. IMO it depends on whether there is good sourcing that supports the over-representation statement. I wouldn't put in it just because somebody raised the question, nor just because a source said it. North8000 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes provided it is covered in reliable sources, preferably beyond just breaking headlines, and aligns with the parent article. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 21:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa: The question isn't whether it's covered in reliable sources or not (although that can be subject to a debate as well) the question is whether it should be included in this broad article about British Pakistanis.

_{Note: This user has not contributed to this article or any Pakistani-related articles previously, other than broad South-Asian and Indian-related articles.} نعم البدل (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your note, RfCs are designed to attract input from a broad range of editors. It's a good thing that people who haven't edited the article before are commenting. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, yes I think it merits inclusion in the article so long as it is covered in reliable sources, preferably beyond just breaking headlines, and aligns with the parent article. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 21:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]