Talk:British Pakistanis

Grooming Gangs[

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.

AbhishekSaini1910 (talk) 08:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

Since your reply, the Casey Report has been released entirely vindicating Baverman's remarks, and PM Starmer has announced a national inquiry. This article absolutely needs at least a paragraph about the scandal, given that it is likely the largest organised sexual abuse scandal in the history of the UK. 2001:798:4:10:8000:0:0:8 (talk) 17:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

British Airways image

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)

Grooming gangs

@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. – I'm not going to entertain trolls. نعم البدل (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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 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)

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)

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)

This guy has been reverting my edits of stating about one ringleader of the Rochdale Grooming Gang. And then I also put reference of the same event. This guy reported me without even discussion. And stated that he warned me a few times. What a loser he is. Nuts5070 (talk) 03:21, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Best not to make personal attacks FYI even if you did nothing wrong. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 10:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

RFC

Is it appropriate for this article to include the material about grooming gangs currently included here, either in its present form or modified? Reopened by Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC), originally opened by Cordless Larry (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC re-opened to encourage greater participation. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Tentative yes;

The child rape scandal dominating UK politics after Musk criticism | Reuters

Reuters call it an issue that's "dominating British politics" - that alone to me establishes its relevance, its says explicitly in the reuters article "mostly Pakistani men had groomed, trafficked...".

Reuters I tend to be well regarded as a fact based RS. I do not think the claims this is WP:UNDUE are that strong given this is a "dominating issue".

On the question if this is or is not deeply prejudicial, perhaps the text or way this information is included could be improved, balanced, including for example contrary views or arguments provided they are RS. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• The specific issue that is being covered in the Reuters article is the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal in which mainly perpetrators of Pakistani-origin were involved, which is a well covered article. One or a few scandals doesn't mean it becomes representative of the 1.7 million British Pakistanis. This the main point I'm trying to tackle – this subject does not need to be included in the article. Same with other parts of the 'Health and social issues'. That's not even touching the point of how many users with a suspicious history are desperate and haste in adding more and more bits about it, well past WP:DUE. نعم البدل (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  "The specific issue that is being covered in the Reuters article is the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal"

  Oldham is mentioned an equal amount of times in the article. The article makes sweeping statements about both UK politics eg that its a dominating issue and commentary on it from further afield. I'm not sure your characterisation is particularly fair.

  If you would like some other articles more specific to British Pakistanis - Pakistanis up to four times more likely to be behind grooming, data reveals, and How Pakistan’s rape culture led to the UK grooming gangs | The Spectator

  And outside of British media Britain's 'grooming gangs' under renewed scrutiny and investigations (Pakistani mentioned 5 times in quite a short article, and includes the POV of Wahid an independent councillor.) LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  The article has also called it a political agenda in Britain following criticism from Elon Musk which, as I've said repeatedly, makes it WP:UNDUE. Elon Musk and his gang of right-wingers, is what has made it gain traction.

  • Oldham is mentioned an equal amount of times in the article – I don't see what relevance that has here. Oldham is 37% Asian, (where only 2.5% of the UK population is Pakistani). It is possible that Pakistanis are more likely to be the criminals of crimes in an area where there are more Pakistanis, than lets say the Shetlands where there are barely any Pakistanis. This is not groundbreaking stuff. نعم البدل (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  Its a fairly mainstream political agenda; I can provide many WP notable people who in Hansard are raising this.

  Tackling Child Sexual Abuse - Hansard - UK Parliament

  > It is possible that Pakistanis are more likely to be the criminals of crimes in an area where there are more Pakistanis

  The state of the article makes it very clear Pakistanis are statistically more likely to be charged for these offenses than the general population, the RS cited are to news reports that discuss recently published government statistics. This would have been clear to you had you bothered to read them or the telegraph article I cited above. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No. I don’t believe this to be a question of whether Pakistani involvement in “grooming gangs” is notable, because it clearly is (seen from the sources displayed in other comments). Instead, the question is whether it is due for an article about an ethnic group; I believe the answer to be no. 296cherry (talk) 00:55, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Also, the current section on "grooming gangs" is just terrible. Weasel wording ("British-Pakistani men may be over-represented...", "It has been estimated..."), cherrypicking (why focus on only on the town of Rotherdam?), poor sourcing (we absolutely need academic sources for a controversial topic, a few mainstream news reports are not enough)... even if we were to for some reason keep this section, it would have to be restarted from scratch, but it isn't even worth salvaging in my opinion. 296cherry (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Not sure, at least based on the sources used here. Even if British Pakistanis are overrepresented amongst grooming gang members (and I think the evidence is pretty strong that they are), it doesn't automatically mean that this topic has due weight for the main article about them. Alaexis_¿question? 21:50, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I can find dozens of news articles or references in Hansard to this topic.

Certainly I think it approaches the same level of due weight or even exceeds that other inclusions in the article have for example a similar google search returned less results from news outlets or hansard when I looked for forced marriages and the Pakistani community, or STI rates and the Pakistani community. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 01:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• I think it approaches the same level of due weight or even exceeds that other inclusions in the article have for example .. when I looked for forced marriages and the Pakistani community, or STI rates and the Pakistani community

Which is something I've also disputed, but for the sake of not spiralling into different topics, I've mentioned them briefly. نعم البدل (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Certainly not: It's WP:UNDUE and deeply prejudicial. I also can't think of any other ethnic groups article that makes mention of specific instances of crime within a community like that. There is no reason to believe that British Pakistanis are uniquely capable of child grooming or organized crime, but bringing up this set of cases could certainly give an impression that they are. EllieDellie (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: I'm going to push for result, seen as the amount of vandalism that is occurring. I don't see a consensus to keep that section, and two separate users (with history) have reverted that section. Myself and EllieDellie, and if we take Alaexis as a no, would indicate there isn't a consensus to keep that section. I know this is only a RFC, but there's vandalism going on. نعم البدل (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

I think its highly dubious of you to take someone who said unsure to agree with you, nevertheless you have an additional vote (mine) that you might consider.

LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@LeChatiliers Pupper: Hence why I phrased it and if we take Alaexis as a no. It wasn't definitive. Just as there were some ayes who weren't definitive ayes either. It balances out. نعم البدل (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

What vandalism are you referring to, and how does it relate to the RfC? Actually, since there wasn't a huge amount of participation, I'm going to re-open the RfC. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Content dispute or whatever. Every single edit since February has been regarding this section including edit warring. نعم البدل (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• No. Research has found that group-based child sexual exploitation offenders are most commonly white. Some studies suggest an overrepresentation of black and Asian offenders relative to the demographics of national populations. However, it is not possible to conclude that this is representative of all group-based CSE offending. (Link). Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• Yes. This is obviously an issue of WP:CENSOR. If British Pakistanis were overrepresented in football successes, say, there would never be an RFC about it. It would just be mentioned, even proudly highlighted. When it is negative information, political correctness kicks in. As to whether the mention is WP:DUE, going by the coverage in WP:RS, it definitely is. "British Asian" and "Pakistani heritage" repeatedly crop up in the coverage in what we normally regard as WP:RS. The current description is as factual and neutral as could be. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3: Saying this is an issue of WP:CENSOR would imply that this somehow offends by beliefs, or perhaps I stand to gain something from its removal such as being in a position of power. This is obviously not the case. نعم البدل (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  WP:DUE is based on coverage in reliable sources, not on our independent judgement on whether something should be included or whether it is appropriate to include it or whether it would be prejudicial to do so etc We need to be a bit more like channels of information rather than judges. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  You will find precisely zero reliable sources offering an opinion on whether this particular topic merits inclusion in a Wikipedia article. Accordingly, WP:DUE exists, and accordingly, we have to decide for ourselves whether to include it. And given that per WP:DUE (amongst other policies) Wikipedia isn't a platform for the regurgitation of far-right obsessions over the very small proportion of child abuse which involved this particular subset of the British population, we don't take the mere existence of sources (whether reliable or otherwise) as sufficient grounds to include it. What we would require would be evidence that sources covering the topic in general (i.e. British Pakistanis) consider this specific issue (which neither involves the vast majority of British Pakistanis, nor is even remotely confined to that community) to be worthy of discussion within that broader context. Which as far as I'm aware, they don't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  I accept the point that we don't have SECONDARY or TERTIARY sources on British Pakistanis that discuss the matter. But if someone to write a book on them today, it is quite conceivable that there would be discussion on the topic given that it has been consistently in the news, enquiries have been held, and ministers have issued statements (including a British Asian PM). It cannot be brushed under the carpet. Moreover, the coverage that has been included gives precise statistics and even dispels the myth that the British Pakistanis have been at the forefront of this menace. I stand by my !vote. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:29, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

• No. See my comment immediately above. Undue, as sources discussing British Pakistanis in general appear not to consider it of significance. Which it clearly isn't, given the statistical evidence, which in no way indicates that this community is disproportionately involved in child abuse. Articles on ethnic minorities are not dumping-grounds for material clearly intended to case the entire community in a negative light. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  I initially voted yes, contingent on what the sources had to say. Wp:CENSOR is clear that content should only be removed if it does not align with policy, such as undue weight under NPOV. The 'Grooming gangs' section is a summary of a broader article a, which offers more nuance regarding the limitations of the data.

  @AndyTheGrump notes that "sources discussing British Pakistanis in general appear not to consider it of significance", but there have been several studies that do highlight this as a finding albeit with their own methodological flaws.

  Per @Kautilya3, I agree that we need to dispassionately summarise the material. That is precisely what is lacking in the current summary on this page. It presents one side without acknowledging the limitations of the information. Doing so, I believe, would mitigate any inadvertent bias or prejudice by highlighting data and its flaws. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 04:32, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  @LeónGonsalvesofGoa, which studies are you referring to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  Well, it does acknowledge some of the limitations of the data in the sentence "A lack of historical data on the ethnicity of perpetrators makes it difficult to judge...". Cordless Larry (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

  If you have RS that offer a balanced perspective against what is currently on the page the solution to me would be for you to add it and not CENSOR the POV that is represented by the current text Cordless Larry I assume wrote. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, the current version was my attempt at a more NPOV replacement for what Nuts5070 had previously added (which started "Since the 1980s, several Pakistani Muslim men have been involved to be a part of grooming gangs, who have been responsible for rape, sexual assault and serious crimes against women and young girls..."), taking into account some statistics and an acknowledgment of some of their limitations. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  Let's keep it a neutral way then. As per Wiki Standards. Nuts5070 (talk) 13:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  How is "...several Pakistani Muslim men involved to be a part of grooming gangs..." relevant or due on an article discussing an entire ethnic group? 296cherry (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• No, per AndyTheGrump and EllieDellie, just plainly WP:UNDUE and never due a section. Potential WP:SOAPBOX issues. Kowal2701 (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

No. It constantly attracts trolls and bad actors. Other diaspora pages also do not have these types of segments on their pages regardless of media coverage. "However research regarding offender ethnicity is scarce and often relies upon poor quality data. Therefore its challenging to draw conclusions about the ethnicity of offenders, but it is likely that no single community or culture is uniquely prone to offending." Knowledgemandem123 (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't be hopeful that removing the section will prevent people from adding problematic, POV material on the topic, as happened here well before the current section existed. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

yeah true however this entire segment is just WP:UNDUE. Also the pages of other ethnic communities have no mention of the specific crimes committed by those communities regardless of reporting like with the African American page regarding gang violence, European American page regarding school shootings and a whole host of others so I do believe it should be removed. Knowledgemandem123 (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

European Americans covers a much larger and more diverse group of people, so I'm not sure it's a very good comparison. There is some coverage of social issues, stereotyping, etc. in more specific articles such as Irish Americans and Italian Americans. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

In fact, that comparison makes me wonder whether we should note that some scholars have described some of the coverage of British Pakistanis' involvement in child sexual exploitation as a moral panic, e.g. this, this and this. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The moral panic aspect is definitely interesting Knowledgemandem123 (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

true but Tbf british pakistanis are also a diverse peoples which include punjabis sindhis mirpuris etc. But my overall point is still valid that this specific segment has some unique discriminatory undertones to it that i cannot find when i browse the wikipedia pages of other ethnic groups. Knowledgemandem123 (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• No. per Black Kite and for being atrociously WP:UNDUE. Such content doesn't exist in other diaspora/ethnicity articles, this article shouldn't be an exception. Axedd (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  To be fair, similar content does exist in other diaspora/ethnicity articles. For instance, see Albanians in the UK and Somalis in the United Kingdom. Even the British Bangladeshi article touches on gang problems and the Black British article touches on certain social issues too.

  As long as it's done sensitively, i don't see why a brief mention of the grooming gang issue can't be included in the article. So, i would say a tentative Yes. Koppite1 (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Koppite1: – Several points to be mentioned here, firstly unlike Pakistanis and grooming gangs, Albanians have been overrepresented in various crimes committed in the UK, by a fair margin.. However, in addition to that, the heading in which these stats are covered (on Albanians in the United Kingdom) is a fairly neutral title, which doesn't attribute a specific crime with Albanians unlike here^{that's not to say the Albanian article section is entirely neutral and can't be improved}. Other diaspora articles, don't even have a separate heading, and only mention the stats in a few words, while others don't at all. Lastly, another key point to remember is that "Pakistani grooming gangs" is a topic that has been recently boosted by right-wingers to cause moral panic. There's just too much UNDUE weight. نعم البدل (talk) 21:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  it's not "moral panic" when thousands upon thousands of white girls were abused by British Pakistanis in organised rings and trafficked out of the country. 4% of Rotherham's population (Pakistanis) were responsible for 64% of the child sexual abuse in Rotherham Thewizardofmoggs (talk) 11:30, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  There's some nice numbers you've pulled from absolutely nowhere. Here's another figure for you. There have been around 60 convictions arising from the Rotherham child abuse case. That, assuming your 4% figure is correct (it seems about right, and assuming that all 60 were British Pakistanis, which I don't think is correct, but whatever) would amount to 0.027% of Rotherham's British Pakistani population (around 10,000 of a total population of 266,000). Now, no doubt there is further undetected child abuse in Rotherham in all communities, but I've seen no evidence whatsoever that it is higher than amongst the population in general, where statistics also show that only 1% of those charged with child sexual abuse are female: if you are looking for generalisations about who is 'responsible', how about starting with this: men, regardless of ethnicity (Though I've seen statistical data for the US, which suggests that there is a correlation between child sexual abuse and political orientation, where guess what, those with the highest conviction rates were from the right, and the further to the right, the higher the conviction rate.). As for girls being 'trafficked out of the country', there have been no charges resulting from any such allegations, and I've not seen this taken seriously anywhere but the usual make-shit-up far-right websites. Child sexual abuse is a serious problem, but it won't be solved by scapegoating one community, when the vast majority (generally carried out by close family members and 'friends', in any community) goes largely undetected, and right-wing rabble-rousers distract attention with their distortions, selectivity, and outright bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

• No per Black Kite. Not wholly accurate. GenuineArt (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

References

suggestion to remove the health and social issues section

in my opinion i request that we remove the health and social issues section of the British Pakistani page. The majority of pages regarding diaspora communities do not have this type of section regardless of the amount of media coverage that those communities receive, the page regarding Islam in the united kingdom does not have a page dedicated to the "social issues" despite there being vast media coverage. It has attracted trolls and bad actors who continuously vandalise the page. Knowledgemandem123 (talk) 14:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

health and social issues faced by diaspora communities are well covered in RS - removing them because some people might vandalise the page isnt a valid reason it amounts to WP:CENSOR, and I dont even see how it stops vandalism people add inappropriate things to pages all the time

Cousin marriage: The new evidence about children's ill health - BBC News

Frankly specific issues faced by diaspora communities seems to be relevant to the article's topic LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Fewer cousins marrying in Bradford's Pakistani community - BBC News

British Pakistanis increasingly reject cousin marriage – DW – 10/17/2024

MP speaks out against proposal to ban first cousin marriages | Politics News | Sky News

‘I treat children with life-limiting conditions from cousin marriages but we can’t talk about it’

--

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-23183102

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Newsnight | The risks of cousin marriage

I post the 3 bbc links to show there is interest in this topic (every single article is in part about British Pakistanis) over the last 20 years so it isnt just a recent sprout of coverage because of the recent bill in parliament LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There is no health and social issues section for arabs in Germany, Algerians in France, there is no segment for health and social issues on the wikipedia page for muslims. It is quite clear that there are undertones of discrimination when it comes to the wikipedia page for British pakistanis. There is a lot of coverage regarding controversial topics of ethnicities across the world yet there segments on social and health issues are simply not present so this entire section is just bizarre. Knowledgemandem123 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Bizarre in what POV your own? Surely inclusion in wiki should be based on RS discussion the topic of articles and not personal desire LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 13:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

its bizarre due to the fact that the vast majority (if not all) Wikipedia articles regarding diaspora/ethnic communities do not have an entire segment dedicated to a specific crime individuals of that ethnic group committed, please do not throw baseless accusations of me being motivated by "personal desire". Knowledgemandem123 (talk) 01:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I never accused anyone merely asked you what POV you were articulating;

Having had a quick browse around

Amish - Wikipedia

British Chinese - Wikipedia

Both discuss health issues and in the British Chinese case challenges faced by the diaspora community is treated

I'm presuming because its discussed in RS and editors added it, very much the same as this article. LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Economics Section

I have replaced the Economics section with an updated version based primarily on:

Office for National Statistics (ONS) Census 2021 outputs House of Commons Library briefings DWP Family Resources Survey English Housing Survey ONS Wealth & Assets Survey Joseph Rowntree Foundation poverty statistics Migration Observatory briefings British Council / Pakistan Centre for Philanthropy report Relevant regulator datasets (GMC, SIA, DfT, GPhC) Peer-reviewed and academic qualitative housing/finance studies

Key improvements vs previous version:

Updates outdated employment and unemployment figures with newer HoC Library + Census data Adds gender employment splits (male/female rates) and economic activity totals Clarifies differences between Census and survey estimates per ONS guidance Retains and correctly cites the ONS Wealth & Assets Survey ethnicity wealth table Updates housing tenure wording to reflect survey clustering around ~60% owner-occupation rather than single-year figures Adds properly sourced material on:

self-employment rates sectoral representation (taxi/private hire, security licensing) major Pakistani-founded business groups (Bestway/Well Pharmacy) diaspora philanthropy (~£1.25bn estimate — British Council/PCP) remittances (Migration Observatory synthesis of World Bank estimates) informal saving / rotating savings (kameti) — academic sources overseas property & Mirpur links — mainstream media + migration research

Contentious or potentially stereotyping claims were not included unless supported by high-quality secondary sources. Tax under-reporting is referenced only in general self-employment measurement context (IFS/TARC), not attributed to any ethnic group, in line with WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

The goal was to improve:

accuracy recency sourcing quality neutrality explanatory context

Happy to discuss refinements, but request that any removals or reversions cite specific policy or source concerns per WP:V and WP:RS. ~2026-84268-5 (talk) 10:10, 8 February 2026 (UTC)