Talk:Sindhi diaspora

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

Low

This article has been rated as Low-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.

Pakistan: Sindh Low‑importance

	Pakistan portal 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Sindh.

India Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sindhi Hindus Migration Statistics

In this article, it states "most Sindhi Hindus" migrated. This is incorrect.

According to the census of India 1951, nearly 776,000 Sindhi Hindus migrated to India from Pakistan.^[1]

The last 1941 census for Sindh is as follows:^[2] Sindh had a total population of 4.5 million of which Muslims made up 71%, Hindus 28% and others 1%. Hence

Sindhi Hindus = 1,260,000 (1941 census) We can assume (since the 1931 census Hindus made up 26%) that in 1947, the Sindhi Hindu population was more than 1.26 million.

The 776,000 I cannot find in that link, however lets just assume it's correct. Half of 1.26 million is around 630,000. Of 776,000 (dubious claim) left, then 484,000 remained. That's not the majority, that's just barely half and 1.26 million was the 1941 census. We can safely assume the Hindu population was higher in 1947.

--PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PAKHIGHWAY What you are engaging is pure WP:SYNTHESIS. You are throwing a lot of assumptions and data interpolation which is not allowed here. Please read the source you have provided "The Global World of Indian Merchants, 1750–1947: Traders of Sind from Bukhara to Panama". It clearly states this, quoting from the book, "In India, where bulk of the Sindhi Hindu population emigrated after partition", "The partition of British India brought in its wake a large scale exodus of non-Muslims from Sindh to independent India". The reference even refers it to as a mass exodus. I think the usage of the wording should possibly changed to reflect the reference and be said as an exodus. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well math doesn't lie. Half of the Sindhi Hindu population left, not most. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your math has no references. The reference is pretty clear on what it states. Unless you find a source which states otherwise, I recommend to stop disruptively editing this article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Such a "math" is also contrary to [1][2][3][4] Anmolbhat (talk) 06:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diaspora

Before reverting edits to display a version of the page which insinuates that all of Sindh’s diaspora left Sindh only in British times, consider the illogic of this. Not only did large numbers of Hindus stay in what became Pakistan until January 1948 (when British rule ended), but also Sindhis migrated from Sindh even after independence. How is this even controversial? Does someone have a reliable source that states Sindhi migration occurred only during British rule? Because that is, frankly, complete nonsense.Willard84 (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:OR. You are using your personal opinion here. Also read above discussion and avoid doing unconstructive tagging per WP:TAGGING. If you really have sources for what you are saying, you can provide them here. Anmolbhat (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OR? Do you realize that 1) the page as you reverted it implies Sindhi migration only occurred in the British era? 2) are you aware there is no source for that? And that you yourself just reinserted OR? 3) The assertion that Sindhis migrated even after 1947 is obvious. Do you think Sindhi immigrants in the US arrived during the British era? 4) do you realize I tagged a claim that most Hindus left by 1947 with a citation needed tag? What was your justification for removing that? Are you aware large numbers of Hindus stayed in Karachi until 1948? Which means they migrated AFTER Pakistan’s independence, and still are migrating to India to this day. Those facts are the reason why it’s plainly obvious that Sindhi migration didn’t simply stop on August 14, 1947. The reversion you made states that Sindhis left during only British times. This paper ^[3] discusses migration after 1947. So do you not yet see why it’s ridiculous to claim Sindhi migration occurred only during the British era?Willard84 (talk) 07:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten to lede to reflect the fact that the Sindhi diaspora includes people from both the historical British Indian province of Sind, as well as the modern Pakistani province of Sindh. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 14:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with Anupam's edits. It should reflect the topic correctly. There is a strong POV pushing here stating that the Sindhi diaspora is only from Sindh, Pakistan when in fact it is from Sindh the historic province. The editor making these changes was first canvassed here and is now making changes without proper consensus. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anupams edit, except that I feel mentioning the British province should come second to the modern province though. To me it appears the opposite - that the page was framed in a way to deny that Sindhis also come from Pakistan. Also, my edits werent POV because I clearly mentioned the historic British province in addition to the modern one, yet my edit was reverted by a third party. I know you’re talking about Pakhigways, but I just want to make clear that my edits were reverted on the basis of POV pushing, despite the fact that what I wrote was remarkably similar to what is now written on the page.Willard84 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Markovits, Claude (2000). The Global World of Indian Merchants, 1750–1947. Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 0-521-62285-9.
^ http://sardarpatel.nvli.in/media/839
^ www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00856401.2016.1244752

Sindh not historic?

Willard84, I don't understand this removal. Sindh is known from 6th century BC onwards from the Achaemenid inscriptions etc., is it not?

My take is that Sindhi diaspora should cover any and all people anywhere in the world, who self-identify as Sindhis. I suggest we just call the place of origin as Sindh, without twiddling with this province or that province. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like the mention of just Sindh alone rather than separate links to the British province and modern province. But the link to Sindh does link to the Pakistani province . As long as that is ok with you, I have no qualm whatsoever to the mention of “historical region of Sindh,” which I think might be superior to the present wording. Upon review, I also don’t think I should have reverted my edit that you pointed out.Willard84 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. Anmolbhat, Anupam, Adamgerber80 (the "A-class"?), what do you say? I think it is the Sindhis that matter here not any particular province. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I like that, but I think it’s necessary at least to mention that they are from migrants from Sindh. I like the wording “... from the historic region of Sindh, now a province of modern Pakistan.” This would be in line with what is written on the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gujarati_people in which it is explicitly stated that Gujaratis are from India. It’s incosistent to mention Gujaratis are from Western India, but not to make any mention of Pakistan on the Sindhi page. Especially since that Western India page is referring specifically to the modern states of the Republic of India, not “India” as an historic region. Also on the Gujarati people page is a section on diaspora in which it’s mentioned that they make up 33% of India’s diaspora. Similarly, an honest page on Sindhi diaspora needs to at least mention Pakistan, because that’s where Sindh now is. Such realities are reflected on the Sindhis page too. What do you guys say?Willard84 (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The wording appears fine to me since it clearly states that the people are from the historic region (based on the fact that people migrated from there when Pakistan did not exist) and then mentions current day Pakistan. If you want comparisons with other pages then you can compare it with the page of Punjabis as well where it mentions it as the Punjab Province(historic) and the same for Bengalis which makes reference to the Begall province (historic). The new wording is well balanced where it makes mention of the historic province and then also makes mention of Pakistan. I don't see where the issue is. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what I see is, that the reliable sources mention Sindhi diaspora largely when it was Sind province that's why it is more important to mention the British Empire's Sind before the present day Sindh. Lead is just fine as it should be. Avoid doing WP:OR.Anmolbhat (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that both of you, User:Adamgerber80 and User:Anmolbhat, have endorsed the version of the article I instated. I felt that this was a good WP:COMPROMISE to the dispute that was occurring as it mentions both the historical province of British India and the modern Pakistani province. I'm glad it helped. With regards, Anupam^Talk 12:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Markovits, Claude (2000). The Global World of Indian Merchants, 1750–1947. Cambridge University Press. p. 278. ISBN 0-521-62285-9.

[2] ttp://sardarpatel.nvli.in/media/839

[3] www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00856401.2016.1244752

[1]

[2]

[3]