Source?
Could you please provide a source for the number of Shias in Pakistan per your edit here? Currently that section refers to the US State Department, which speaks of "a Shi'a minority ranging between 10 to 20 percent". The CIA World Factbook, which is used as a source earlier, says "Muslim 95% (Sunni 75%, Shia 20%)", which would put the Shias at about 21% of all Muslims. The Pew Forum gives a rather low estimate of 10%-15% of all Muslims. In an article based on an interview of Vali Nasr, the Christian Science Monitor gives the number as "only 20 percent of Pakistan's 165 million people", which would again put the Shias at 21% of the Muslim population. I found several similar estimates, but no reliable source for 30%. Where did you get that number from? Huon (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Good question, all the sources stating the fact are based on either 1981 or 1998 census report. Hence these sources are though correct yet old, and need to be updated, according the to current estimates the actual Shia population is more than 30% of Pakistan on this link, since in the last census reports great number of Shia families publicly never exposed their Shia faith by practicing "Taqiyya", due to reason that they feared getting killed since during early 80s till 90s, the last two decades were bloody and the Shia's in Pakistan had to face mass execution by the hands of extremist Deobandi and Salafi organizations[1][2], many Shia groups continue to practice Taqiyya since they fear death by the hands of Anti-Shia forces that use to dominate Pakistan at that time. There was a complete lawless situation, and yes no body talked about the genocide that the Shia had to suffer by the state sponsored extremists.Overwhelming results regarding Shia execution in Pakistan. Last year i attended a "Inter-Faith Religious Harmony Convention" at the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, the convention was presided by the Judges from the Supreme Court Bar council, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Religious affairs and many notable Scholars. In the convention they all laid emphasis on co-existence and facts regarding the total sectarian division in Pakistan and stated this; "Around 65% of Total (To be precise) Pakistani Muslims are Sunni Muslims and there is a minority 30% Shi'a Shia Ithna 'ashariyah Muslims, while remaining 5% of the Muslim population comprises Salafis, Nizari, Sufi and Zikri. Then the secretary of religious affairs (Mr. Agha Sarwar Raza Qazilbash)[1] stated that Muslims are divided into following schools: the Barelvi 39%, Shia Ithna Asharia 25%, Deobandi 21%, Ahle Hadith or Salafi 5%, Ismaili 5%, Bohra 0.25%, and other smaller sects." Now lets talk about this division, The Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahle Hadith, Salafi are sub-sects of Sunni Islam, While Shia Ithna Asharia, Ismaili, Bohra are sub-sects of Shia Islam. Then everyone talked about various problems like religious freedom, sectarian hatred, etc while one of which was Taqiyya in practice, due to which the actual Shia estimates in Pakistan has always been uncertain and is certainly more then the mentioned 25%. I hope you understand Taqqiya then hopefully you'll understand my claim and what this is all about. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've added that source to the Religion in Pakistan article. But I couldn't verify Agha Sarwar Raza Qazilbash's statement; those numbers don't seem to be present on the ministry's website. When and where did he make it? Huon (talk) 14:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- You are welcome brother, yes i have seen your contribution and has slightly edited it, anyways thanks. And yes I'll get back with you on this though i am a witness to it, still i think you wouldn't accept that. And yes i didn't mention the site for the reason of those numbers, i mentioned it so that you realize he is no fictional character. I and think we both need to cooperate regarding all our edits on Wikipedia, specially things related to Pakistan and Shia related stubs or articles. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- I am extremely unhappy with your edit (which I largely reverted); I've detailed my reasons on the talk page. Especially the change of the census number sourced to the US State Department seems outright bizarre. I mean, anybody actually looking at the source will see that the 15% you introduced simply isn't there. Similarly the Madrassah percentages: The numbers may or may not be correct, but they weren't in the source you gave. Where did you get them from? Huon (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well i am sorry, didn't know those citations were edit by you, and yes that Madrassah related info is a rough estimate based on demographic divisions. Any how the article is fairly correct and doesn't require any further edits. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Blocked again for changing cited population statistics
Twice before you have been warned ([2], [3]) not to change population statistics to something other than what the cited source states. Since you have ignored these warnings to again change Sunni/Shia statistics to meet your own POV ([4]), your account has been blocked. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. — Kralizec! (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC){{unblock|This is truly ridiculous, I didn't alter any cited statistics just did minor edits regarding Pakistan specifically, i first reasoned my edit on the Talk:Shia Islam, i gave multiple references in that regard, now this is truly intolerant behavior from your side, why don't your understand my claim regardless of your cited statistics the ground reality is quiet different, i understand that you are an admin and you primarily focus on demographic related article and stubs and only accept sources meeting WP:verifiability, but brother the source this link says its 30%, and fulfills both the WP:NEWSBLOG & WP:verifiability requirement you need to understand my claim instead of blocking me for a month just because you don't agree with my edits. According to "Gall, Timothy L. (ed). Worldmark Encyclopedia of Culture & Daily Life: Vol. 3 - Asia & Oceania. Cleveland, OH: Eastword Publications Development (1998); pg. 612-614", Pakistan's Shia Muslim population was more then 37 million which is actually a statistical figure of the past two decades. And according to the CIA factbook Pakistani Shia Muslims are more then 20% hence PewForum 10% -15% stats are no where near to the respective 20% and 30% figures. And Pewforum states "Readers should bear in mind that the figures given in this report for the Sunni and Shia populations are less precise than the figures for the overall Muslim population. Data on sectarian affiliation have been infrequently collected or, in many countries, not collected at all. Therefore, the Sunni and Shia numbers reported here are expressed as broad ranges and should be treated as approximate estimate", and since Pakistan never really had a census based on sectarian division Pewforum's report is not a Legitimate truth, rather a rough estimate. While Shia Muslims of Pakistan claim to be one third of Pakistan's Muslim Population. You are literally victimizing me, and i think you didn't even pay a look at the Talk page you simply went on reverting my edits and in end blocked me, this has literally jeopardized my wiki status, perhaps both of us can find a solution to it by mentioning both facts. And these aren't really the sorts of issues of which one gets blocked. Now would please re-consider this block and kindly un-block me, since you aren't really willing to accept any edit on my behalf, in future I'll never edit it until i convince you about my claim. Thank you!}}
- I'm not going to unblock yet, but I have read the above, and I do have a suggestion. If you have alternate reliable sources which give different figures than the one in the article, the best solution is not to change the numbers in the article, but to expand the article noting "source XYZ states that the figures are yada yada while source ABC states that the figures are blah blah". The problem isn't necessarily that you have not found sources, its that you are making changes to the text which make the text disagree with the established sources, and the established sources are generally regarded as reliable. If other reliable sources disagree, its best to note that fact, but to not remove reliably sourced figures already in existance. Does this make sense? It seems that this can be worked out, if you just change your methods here. I am not endorsing your sources per se, but perhaps you could propose something like this at the article talk page, and see how it goes over. Working towards a compromise is much better than simply trying to force through your own view over and over, n'est ce pas? --Jayron32 05:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- Well brother i totally agree with your view, i have finally realized that i first need to reach a consensus before editing the text. Or else state it like you said above "source XYZ states that the figures are yada yada while source ABC states that the figures are blah blah". And yes i first mentioned my view on the articles talk page. And hopefully I'll be more responsible in future. But you need to realize this is no reason to block me, i have done considerable contribution to Wikipedia. I would generously request to kindly reconsider my Block. Thank you! SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank You, but this Unblock is still restricting me from doing any Editing on wiki articles and their related Discussion talk page. Would you please reconsider that, since you always have an authority to block or un-block users, i could work under your evaluation. Regards SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
- Apparently BWilkins didn't actually perform the unblock. I'll leave a message at his talk page. Huon (talk) 20:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 00:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)