Talk:Pajeet

Notability

It was recently turned into redirect (I reverted) arguing non-notabillity and vandalism. Both are insufficient reasons for essentially deleting the page. I am questioning non-notability: I see lots of footnotes. Please argue that they are insufficient at an AfD. --Altenmann >talk 21:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe the article should be a redirect and edited to meet wikipedia's standards, it may not meet notability but it is a case of a term that has garnered more scrutinization as a 'slur', and accordingly I find the 'history' section a bit irrelevant because WP:KYM applies

Should the image also be removed as it is not very illustrative and required. I have removed instances of KnowYourMeme as it is not required. If work will be done on this article, please cite more secondary sources rather than ones only covering it's applicability as a slur. My opinion still presides upon it's lack of coverage but it will require work to bring it to a 'notable topic' so it should remain a redirect Anomalous4929429 (talk)

WP:KYM only applies to KnowYourMeme, which has been removed, not to other WP:RS like India Today, The New Indian Express, Hindustan Times, HAF, GPAHE, Rutgers University etc. This article should not be a redirect anymore as it's a quite popular slur now. Hun Narkphanit (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2025 (UTC) — Hun Narkphanit (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of SheryOfficial (talk · contribs). UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

• While I had also suggested AfD in my edit summary when I restored the article, I would seriously recommend against that because the subject is notable. It has been significantly covered by the sources such as CSOH,[1] Institute for Strategic Dialogue,[2] DFRAC,[3] The Daily Pennsylvanian,[4] and more. Koshuri ^(あ!) 14:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  None of those are WP:RS. What you have done is simply restore a disputed primarily sock-made article, for reasons best known to you. UnpetitproleX (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

  If you really believe those sources are not reliable then you are not actually initiating a content dispute but showcasing your competence. I was not convinced that the term needs a standalone article back in the day,[5] but after seeing these sources, there should be zero doubt over its notability. Also, any editor is allowed to restore sock edits as long as they agree to address those edits when necessary. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  Those are a political advocacy group (ISD), self-styled fact checker NGO (DFRAC), little known think tank (CSOH), and one student-run organization (TDP). If you think those are WP:RS then it is you who needs to read WP:SOURCETYPES, not me. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  You must show how any of those sources are not reliable. DFRAC is an IFCN certified fact checker. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

  They are low quality sources. Coverage in them doesn't establish notability for something as contentious and serious as a slur. There are no scholarly sources at all on the subject currently, though this may change. In any case, even these low quality sources are misrepresented in the article. I will edit it to rid of the WP:SOCK misrepresentation that is present throughout the article, only from there can we have any good faith discussion on its notability. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  They are all reliable sources, and have no bias with regards to this topic. There was nothing to remove from the version when you made this comment of yours, though some expansion can be made with the sources provided here. Your version is misleading for the readers. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:51, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The sock which created this article immediately proceeded to purvey racial abuse on enwiki and was then blocked. The copyvio racist image that was added to this page to further purvey the same nonsense has now also been deleted. We should be very stringent in giving any leeway to such socking and bigotry.

I can't find any good faith usage of the sources either. Merely trivial mentions, which show usage but no independent or significant coverage in RS. Remember, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary.

I will be taking this to AfD. Gotitbro (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

• @UnpetitproleX: Your edits are misleading and heavily POV. Almost none of the content you have to lead is in the body, It also references variants such as "Mujeet" drawing a false equivalence between that term and this one, despite the fact that it mostly hindus and sikhs that are called as "pajeet". It also inaccurately states in lead sentence, that it is an invented term when it is more of an ethnic/racial slur. Koshuri ^(あ!) 15:22, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  It is what the sources say; to dispute the sources, you have to refer to the sources and explain how content goes against sources. The body is still in the form as it was written by the sock. It will have to be eventually changed in a fashion similar to the lead. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  You are giving undue weight to irrelevant word "Mujeet" to the extent that you have to bold it. If you don't want to touch the article body, but only the lead then you are confirming the concerns I raised about your edits. Koshuri ^(あ!) 16:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  It is bold per WP:BOLDREDIRECT. It is sourced, with quote, to OHPI which is a source of similar quality as the other sources of this article. I edited parts of the body and I never said I won't edit the remaining body. UnpetitproleX (talk) 20:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  No. It does look POV pushing, and the word has no relevance on this page. Same way, there is no mention of American-born Chinese on the lead of American-born confused desi. Ratnahastin (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Because those are two different articles. Are there any sources that tie the two? If yes, please present them at the talk pages of those articles. As for this one, the OHPI source clearly and unambiguously ties the two, it says, and I quote, "Mujeet" is derived from a combination of "Muslim" and "Pajeet". If you think that using a source of same quality as the other sources of this article (with in-line citation and quote supporting content) is POV pushing, please take to ANI. UnpetitproleX (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Whether it ties them or not is immaterial here. "pajeet" has many sub variants , we don't need to reference a lesser known subvariant of it on the lead to push a fringe POV. Your edits fail WP:LEAD and don't comply with WP:NPOV by claiming that a similar term is also applied to muslims, when all other sources don't mention any of it. The current version of lead is far more neutral. Koshuri ^(あ!) 08:19, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  The current version is based on source misrepresentation. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:02, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  >""pajeet" has many sub variant"

  such as? And please don't refer to any personal experience you may have, give sources on those supposed sub-variants of the same or similar quality as used here (such as OHPI etc.). UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  Your statement is false, the current lead version is neutral and summarises the body , there is no source misrepresentation at all, meanwhile your lead version is highly POV and pushes fringe views. You can read the sources for checking the sub variants. Koshuri ^(あ!) 10:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  Which fringe view? What POV? Speaking in generalities is not appreciated when making accusations such as these. Please be specific when accusing me of POV or fringe-pushing. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  I would gravely suggest you to not use slurs in an offhand manner like that. Wikipedia:Civility applies regardless of the content being discussed. Gotitbro (talk) 15:46, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  Instead of addressing the valid concerns of WP:LEAD, WP:POVPUSHING and WP:ONUS, you are again failing to comply with WP:FOC and making false accusations against me. Koshuri ^(あ!) 16:57, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  The article is under AfD and I have addressed content concerns there and above. If you see no problem in the usage of slurs as casually as you did then perhaps you should not be contributing to such pages in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

  By ignoring WP:FOC and doubling down with your false accusations, you are showcasing your WP:IDHT. You need to stop derailing this thread. Ratnahastin (talk) 00:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  What "false accusations"? Calling for civility when slurs are casually incorporated into discussion is not that, trying to double down on that on behalf on another user is not going to help. Gotitbro (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• "Mujeet" is mostly used by Hindutva proponents, it has no business being here, to include it here would amount to pushing Hindutva ideology. 111.94.24.198 (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

  Online Hate Prevention Institute is an Australia-based organisation. It says: “Mujeet” is derived from a combination of “Muslim” and “Pajeet”. ... Originally referring specifically to Muslims of South Asia, “Mujeet” has almost immediately expanded to include any Muslim regardless of location. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:09, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• PMSmeme.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Edit to history

I provided the required attribution, this content is not being said directly. The content also utilizes quoted remarks meaning it is close to the original meaning: "According to Rohit Chopra, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at Santa Clara University, the archetype "Pajeet" is typically described as an "uncivilized," "violently misogynistic," and "unhygienic" "dark-skinned immigrant" who is obsessed with cows and refuses to assimilate into white society, where he is portrayed as posing "a threat to the white majority" and their women." I hope that is fine enough. Sikhpride38 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

We are not going to selectively cite a source which challenges the very racism that you seemingly want to include here. The writer is clearly describing usage by extremists online, no substance is to be had in directly dumping this. Gotitbro (talk) 07:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I would also recommend a perusal of articles on other ethnic slurs (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4) to see how we cover such topics without actually purveying the intended bigotry of the term. Gotitbro (talk) 07:26, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

The content being included is only to explain the typical description/depiction of the archetype. We all know that the source is not endorsing the use of term, but it doesn't mean it cannot be used. Opposing the inclusion of reliably sourced, attributed and neutral content simply because you think it is "racist" won't work. If we dont explain the usage of the term then the article would look grossly incomplete. All the pages you have listed are also describing the when slur is used. Sikhpride38 (talk) 07:34, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

That these are the only things that you could extract from that article says something. None of the enwiki articles actually condense bigotry the way you want to do here, please go ahead and actually read them. You do realize that "white society, where he is portrayed as posing "a threat to the white majority" and their women." are all references to White genocide conspiracy theory as clearly noted in that very article. If anything these and the rest of the racial epithetery that you seek to include here can be condensed down to a singe line mention of the conspiracy theory which the Chopra article is actually about (also should be noted that the article is an op-ed, hardly RS). Gotitbro (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You are now falsifying everything here for pushing your own POV. For starters, you haven't even read any of those articles or else you couldn't miss Coolie#Modern_use. I only summarised what the source said. You can also propose a wording from the source as well instead of resorting to incivility. Sikhpride38 (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Falsifying what exactly and for what POV. That we should avoid giving credence or voice to extremists and bigots is not POV. I wouldn't have cited the articles here had I not read them. Nowhere in those articles is the usage condensed from the POV of the bigots as your insertion here would lead to.

I have already stated that everything in the quote can be reduced to its linkage to the conspiracy theory which we can list without resorting to/quoting extremists. The incivility here is the carelessness with which you want to treat this highly contentious topic. Gotitbro (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

• The content added by Earthdude is fully backed by the source, is neutral and lists typical tropes this slur is associated with. Sikhpride38 has provided the alternate wording so has Earthdude along with the mention of great replacement theory as Gotitbro however had mentioned. I think the content should be restored, because Gotitbro has not provided any justifiable reasons to oppose its inclusion. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  Let me explicate that there is a way to handle bigotry at enwiki and quoting and condensing the same is the least proper way to do it (look at other slur-related articles). To describe that the neologism apparently is 'archetypical' of something while relying on Chopra who is merely listing its extremist usage is a way to crystalize things which don't really exist in a disparate form beyond fringe extremist online spaces. If the reliance on Chopra it should be to counter extremism not to legitimize it.

  And the 'alternate' proposal by Sikhpride38 did nothing but tried to selectively extract even more of the racial epithetry from the source. Barely a good faith proposal or addition in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  @Gotitbro: As you said, Chopra is only listing the troupes this slur is associated with in extremist spaces. The slur is mostly confined to there, I'm not sure how it will crystallize these by including them on Wikipedia, when the source itself describes them as such. I don't see how the content legitimizes "extremism", if you think that the wording does that why not propose an alternative one. I am also unimpressed with your outright rejection of edits by Sikhpride38 and EarthDude. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  The alternate wording that I propose is to merely mention the conspiracy theory than fixate on how extremists racially disparage people. Again, please go through articles on other slurs. As for crystalization it was a reference to the apparent synth by Sikhpride whereby the wont is that the slur has an independent existence as an imagined charicature rather being what it is – a slur. We as such shouldn't fixate on the plethora of disparaging ways extremists use it and list them here synthesizing disparate instances of usage from sources and without mentioning or countering the extremist messaging. Gotitbro (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

  Not mentioning the stereotypes of the slur hides and covers up its extremism. If we go by the same logic, should we not remove the racist stereotypes of the colonial era of nazi stereotypes of the Jews? Does stating what the Nazi stereotypes of the Jews were on Wikipedia legitimise it? Of course not! The content should be restored. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 11:09, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  The way to cover extremism is to say just that without giving a leeway to the same bigotry that we seek to counter. The academic setting to cover stereotypes are those very articles (e.g. Stereotypes of South Asians) not off-handedly covering them at slur-related articles. Though it should be noted that the stereotypes supposedly given here are SYNTH what Chopra covers is the extremist usage of the slur online and as anyone would know slurs can be attached with anything under the sun that a racist might find, we are simply not going to list a laundry list of those at our articles. I am yet to come across a single slur-related article where racism from the POV of racists is condensed and covered in this way. We are better off without the callous and unlikely to be good faith additions that have lead to this discussion in the first place. Gotitbro (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  Neither is this addition callous nor is it bad faith. Calling it SYNTH on top of that especially is pretty ridiculous. We are talking about an extremist slur which mostly only exists in online circles. It is then very much WP:DUE to mention the stereotypes regarding the slur in this article. Basically every slur emerges from a stereotype. Just read the wikipedia article List of ethnic slurs and you will see so. Stating such stereotypes does, in no way whatsoever, give leeway to said slur. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 17:23, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

  I will wait for anyone to list standalone articles which condense bigotry and racism the way the original POV edits did (and I have pretty clearly listed the reasons for synthesis). To call these due and the objections 'ridiculous' is bizarre, but so is this discussion in the first place. Absolutely the first time in the years since I have been here on enwiki that I have seen such a militant defence to keep racialist nonsense. Gotitbro (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

The inclusion of this content would not make Wiki look bigoted. If we follow your idea then we won't be able to ever write an encyclopedic article, since your opposition to the content is borderline WP:CENSORship now. There is no SYNTH either, we can simply address your concern in the prose without outright removing it all. Ratnahastin (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Not covering WP:EXTREME usage from the POV of racists is not censorship, sorry. This simply has no precedent. Gotitbro (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Some users here may also want to read WP:FRIND. Gotitbro (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Nonsense. The sources used so far the above are reliable. Indirectly calling everyone to be supportive of racism just for censoring the content you don't like is disruptive. Sikhpride38 (talk) 06:24, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

A removal of unacademic, unecyclopedic insertions of extremist fringe is neither censorship nor a case of dislikes (though yes we at enwiki disavow and eschew racism) but perfectly policy based (WP:EXTREME, WP:FRIND, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and what have you) and from precedent for related racial slur articles (already cited above). If you cannot bother with enwiki policies and precedent we should not really bother with your edits and comments either. Gotitbro (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The source was fine and the information it stated was neither unencyclopedic nor fringe nor a theory. It simply stated the stereotypes regarding the Pajeet slur, held by most who have used it online. Again, it is online where the slur is most used. At this point, you are simply WP:STONEWALLING and engaging in battleground behavior by stating things such as "we should not really bother with your edits and comments either". EarthDude (wanna talk?) 06:53, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure it was unecyclopedic and fringe (fringe covers the "white genocide conspiracy theory", read that article and the policies cited above to know how exactly not to cover such stuff). What you and others are proposing is simply unprecedent based on an op-ed (WP:FRIND) and simply not how we go about this. About 'stonewalling', baseless to cite it: rationale has been given, policies have been cited, precedent clearly shown. The onus is on those wanting an inclusion to show otherwise. But what we have here is a hinging on the synthesizing of a single op-ed which goes against all of these. You can visit the FRINGE and other noticeboards (RSN, NPOVN etc.) if you want but I doubt that is going to lead to any favorable decision. Gotitbro (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It is absolutely misleading to say that content is fringe or unacademic. The author is a scholar himself. Similar troupes associated with this slur can be found in almost all sources here. Koshuri ^(あ!) 07:12, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I am still waiting for anyone to show me precedent at enwiki slur articles which condenses extremism from the POV of the purveyors without countering that. I would recommend you and others read WP:FRIND, on why not to give undue weightage to a single op-ed that too in a synthesized way without acknowleding any of the substance of what Chopra wants to say. Gotitbro (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The article you linked, itself lists all the antisemitic troupes in the lead itself "deliberate plot (often blamed on Jews]) to cause the extinction of white people through forced assimilation, mass immigration, or violent genocide."  ::::::What we are doing here is no different, infact we are even providing attribution to the scholar and listing troupes in quotation marks, thereby stating nothing in wikivoice. Your opposition hence is not only unjustified but simply censorship to remove content you don't find palatable. That's why you are citing these policies without even understanding how they apply here. Sikhpride38 (talk) 07:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I know perfectly well how these policies work to know that your edits were a basic violation of all of these. What you are talking about is the article on a conspiracy theory which clearly lists it as such and then goes on to counter its nonsense copiously. This is a slur related article where not only did you happen to condense racialism without countering any of it but also have failed to cite any precdent from similar articles or policies in favor of its inclusion. Gotitbro (talk) 07:35, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

There was no violation in this edit which I will restore given your continued failure to address concerns about your reverts.

If you want to add "countered" content, you can do it. Koshuri ^(あ!) 07:42, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

@Koshuri Sultan: There might be no violation according to you but please show policy and precedence for it. And this is under active discussion, so better not go for repeated inclusion here without addressing any of the substatial concerns raised. That the same content is restored without modification from the initial clearly problematic additions is telling. Gotitbro (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I repeat everything you added can be simply covered with a bare reference to the conspiracy theory without in essence propagating it (or things associated with it). Gotitbro (talk) 07:38, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are you repeating yourself? Your insistence on gaining consensus despite your uncompromising behaviour here shows that you are only stone walling here even if it means non-stop reverting of other's edits. Sikhpride38 (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Then propose better edits that address the issues raised, but what you have done is only pile upon the problematic stuff. As someone who has faced a barrage of recent vile attacks on enwiki with the same slur, I am obviously going to challenge edits which clearly go against our policy and evidenced precedent. Gotitbro (talk) 08:08, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

You are engaging in extreme WP:STONEWALLING and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Simply stating something does not propagate it. You are bringing up policies that have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand and there is no "evident precedent" in your support (such as WP:FRIND which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion). The given source is extremely reliable, by a reputed scholar. Countless articles related to slurs also talk about their stereotypes, such as Guido (slang), or the White replacement conspiracy theory which too states countless stereotypes and archetypes regarding several different ethnic slurs and communities. Your opposition makes no sense. You have also further resorted to edit warring which I will advise you against EarthDude (wanna talk?) 08:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Nothing at the article you link or any of the other related articles would suffice for an inclusion of quoting extensive white nationalist and supremacist rhetoric at enwiki ("dark skinned immigrant" who is "uncivilised", "violently misogynistic", "unhygienic", "fixated on cows" and "unable or unwilling to abide by the norms of his new society". The slur is sometimes also used to attack immigrants of Indian backgrounds for being a "demographic threat" to a "usually white majority population"). You really do not want to call the keeping out of extremist POV edit warring while restoring synth such as this [6]: none of the sources are about the slur itself, DRFAC lists no such etymology. Gotitbro (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It is your uncollaborative and combative behaviour that is becoming a concern. Since first day, you have been asked enough times to propose a wording that you find comfortable, yet you only want to oppose everything proposed and revert. If that is not stonewalling then what is? Sikhpride38 (talk) 08:20, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

I have already said that a mere mention to the conspuracy theory suffices which you have clearly failed to read. Gotitbro (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Yet you have failed to give an adequate reason as to why information aside from the mention of the Great Replacement Theory should be removed. When editors have stated why, you have repeatedly ignored their points and arguments, while constantly rehashing yours with no consideration of what the other side has said. Three separate editors have reverted your changes just this day as you have resorted to edit warring. This discussion, and your efforts, have not been constructive or encyclopedic whatsoever EarthDude (wanna talk?) 08:45, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

And another editor had made a similar removal, the point being there is simply no precedent for POV framing that has repeatedly been restored here. "Yet you have failed to give an adequate reason as to why information aside from the mention of the Great Replacement Theory should be removed.", apparently the cited policies and precedent are not visible to you but go ahead read them. We do not frame racism from the POV purveyors without countering it in effect (counter is exactly what Chopra does), and the way to do it here is by a simple mention of the conspiracy here rather than giving it a leeway for its bigotry. If you think that anything otherwise is in anyway 'constructive' better re-read the WP:5PILLARS. Gotitbro (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

And just to add dehumanizing rhetoric without contextualizing it academically has no place on enwiki. For anyone wanting to salvage something this better propose something than what has already been (only a mention to the conspiracy) otherwise this will simply not go in. The NCRI report itself lists a dozen other associations with the term (based on color, ethnicity, "intelligence" and "subhuman" rhetoric) there is no fit pattern here. Extremists make usage of whatever floats their bigoted rhetoric along with the term, we are not going to list their myriad ways of propagation here, sorry. Gotitbro (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Once again, as I had stated, you continue to ignore what others have said. For instance, you have completely ignored my examples of Guido (slang) or the White replacement conspiracy theory which very explicitly state the stereotypes and archetypes of ethnic slurs and communities. Also, this is an extremely basic fact, simply stating something does not mean a commendation or giving leeway to bigotry. Your responses showcase a fundamental misunderstanding of core Wikipedia policies, or their deliberate misrepresentation, whatsoever it may be.

Furthermore, your point regarding the WP:5PILLARS only stands against you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is WP:NOTADVOCACY, as you repeatedly claim it to be. The content you dispute is written in a WP:NPOV. This article on the slur neither commends nor adopts the rhetoric of the stereotypes surrounding it, it merely tells readers about it, which is very useful information. You are violating a core tenet of Wikipedia which is that Wikipedia is not censored. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 09:07, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

It is simply not NPOV and that is at the heart of the issue here. A mere reading of that article (the slur used against Italian people) and the proposed edits here would tell anyone that there is simply no comparision, more slur related articles have been cited above showing the unprecedented nature of things here. The things that you want to include are part of the dehumanizing rhetoric of an extremist conspiracy theory. For the citation of 'advocacy', yes we are against the POV framing of WP:RACISTBELIEFS. You seek to include these without any counter without any balance, sorry that is not going to happen. Propose better edits but the current proposal is simply not going to stand. None of this is about censorship. Gotitbro (talk) 09:17, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

And to re-emphasize since we are in the domain of conspiratorial nonsense here. Op-eds simply are not going to suffice to give any weight to the rhetoric of its proponents (WP:FRIND). Gotitbro (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

• Started a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Pajeet and a Wikipedia:Third opinion has been sought by another editor (the latter may not apply). Gotitbro (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Revert by User:Ratnahastin

User:Ratnahastin, can you explain this wholesale revert of multiple edits in the article back to the sock-version? You note your reading of POV for the OHPI-sourced content, but you made more (unexplained) changes, many of which are concerning. More specifically, can you explain:

• Removal of this source: Shukman, Harry (8 May 2025), Year of the Rat: An Undercover Investigation Into the British Far Right, Vintage Publishing, ISBN 9781529953220, ... using [Pajeet,] a derogatory term for South Asian men.
• Re-insertion of unreliable source Know Your Meme WP:KYM.

UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

The slur is already defined in the same way by most of the sources here. I don't think there is a need for adding another source just for the sake of it. Koshuri ^(あ!) 11:08, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I have read all of the sources when re-writing to remove sock-added misrepresentation and lower quality sources. The Vintage published book is more reliable than most other sources used here. We prefer the most reliable sources over those of less reliability. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? Harry Shukman is a researcher at HOPE not hate, an anti-fascist organisation. We certainly have better sources here than him. Even if I agree that this source is more reliable, then still the fact does not change that this source is not disputing the information in present lead version. Koshuri ^(あ!) 11:36, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am sure. Vintage is an imprint of Penguin Books, and while it is less reliable than say a monograph published by OUP or CUP, it is definitely more reliable than most sources of this article. To remove a good quality RS from a subject already this lacking in WP:RS requires an explanation. UnpetitproleX (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I will be re-instating content (and source) for the removal of which no explanation was provided in the edit summary or here on talk. UnpetitproleX (talk) 14:03, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Your version of lead is highly POV and fails WP:LEAD, it lists derivatives of the slur such as "Mujeet", only to push a minority view, since all sources state that this term is mostly used against Hindus. As noted already by Koshuri Sultan, Shukman is not a scholar but a journalist, the publisher is not academic, and we do have better sources here. Besides the source itself does not contribute anything new besides the definition (as per the quotes in the citation), and per WP:LEADCITE and WP:CITEOVERKILL, there is no reason to have it. KYM was restored inadvertently and has been removed, therefore there are no issues anymore. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

What better source? Op-eds? UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

> "since all sources state that this term is mostly used against Hindus." Not really, did you read the sources? The targets of the slur are variously defined: most RS use the widest 'South Asian' (Shukman, ISD, CSOH), some say exclusively or mostly 'Hindu' (NCRI), 'Sikh' (TNIE) and 'Indian' (DFRAC). CSOH and ISD specifically note that apart from wider usage against South Asians at large, its usage against specific South Asian groups (such as Hindus or Sikhs) is by specific other South Asians:

• (Chopra, CSOH) Slurs, such as ‘Pajeet’ or ‘Paki,’ a racist term for Pakistanis originating in Britain, are often used by members of South Asian communities against each other, with Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims, or Indians and Pakistanis, or pro-Khalistan Sikhs and Hindus, freely using these words as they trade insults with each other online. The irony, of course, is that white supremacist accounts often use the same slurs and hateful tropes interchangeably for Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians, as, indeed, for anyone from South Asia.
• (ISD) While “pajeet” and variants remain popular among far-right users, they have also been adopted by a range of groups. Muslim and Sikh accounts use the term to refer to Hindu nationalists, and at times to Hindus more broadly or even to Indians as a whole. In the Canadian context, Hindu nationalist accounts also use pajeet in reference to Sikhs (specifically Khalistanis). ... “pajeet” [is] a racial slur against South Asians.

Your argument that the term is mostly aimed at one specific South Asian group is strange. UnpetitproleX (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

As a term which originated in the alt-right sphere of 4chan, its doubtful (and as evidenced) the extremist proponents are generally differentiating between its targets. Though extremists from South Asia who have apparently reappropriated its usage for internalized racist purposes may differ in the selection of their targets. wikt:Talk:pajeet, a perusal of discussions on the same topic at our sister project may also be of further help. While the victimization of one particular nationality/ethnicity is apparent its broader usage is as well. Gotitbro (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

The general consensus among reliable sources is that the term is specifically used against Hindu and Sikh Indians. It would be a damaging oversimplification to simply call it as being against all South Asians. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 10:54, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

What consensus and which sources? I have done a detailed breakdown of sources right above which points to most of them using "South Asian." Unless you can dispute those sources with reference to them or other sources, that supposed consensus does not exist. Claims of consensus not backed by sources. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the sources given most of the sources state Indians are the target, and among them Hindus are targeted especially, so Ratnahastin is not wrong. *NCRI - " The term “pajeet” is an ethnic slur, coined as a derisive imitation of Indian names. Typically, pajeet is used to describe Indians on the Internet20 — and, by default — Hindus" NCRI (2) - " previous NCRI report has determined this is a derogatory slur for Hindus" *ISD - "pajeet, an invented name which sounds ‘Indian’ and which emerged among far-right accounts in spaces such as 4chan. While “pajeet” and variants remain popular among far-right users, they have also been adopted by a range of groups. Muslim and Sikh accounts use the term to refer to Hindu nationalists, and at times to Hindus more broadly or even to Indians as a whole." - Defines the usage of the term broadly, also mentions Hindus as targets. * Harry Shukman "Ryan likes to give off the impression that he has cracked the code to life. He claims to be wealthy, well connected and adept at seducing women, and frequently crafts messages on dating apps for his tongue-tied friends. ‘I just gave him every single response for, like, three days and now she’s saying she’s dreaming of him,’ he says about one friend. He’s turned this into a business, offering real-time chat-up lines to single men, like a digital Cyrano de Bergerac. ‘We mostly got wealthy Pajeets,’ says Ryan, using a derogatory term for South Asian men. ‘And we outsourced the messaging to poor Pajeets online.’" - Here one can clearly see that Harry is mentioning the word in a passing only for defining the context, in any case, he is a journalist and this is far from reliable for this article as you are making it out to be. When we have sources such as NCRI report that extensively covers that this slur is mostly used against Hindus. Another source that states that Pajeet is used to refer to indians: *OHPI - " The term “Pajeet” is a derogatory slur word used to refer to Indians. " If anyone is pushing a minority view here then it is you, for arguing that it applies to South Asians rather than Indians and Hindu specifically, much less the Muslims (which you were earlier pushing for as well). Sikhpride38 (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I think what is being said and has been evidenced is that a broader usage of it can be added as well without changing the current sentence for who the primary victims of this racial abuse are (racial slurs originally intended for one group of people then applied more broadly aren't uncommon, e.g. 1, 2). But this is nothing to loose our sleep over. Gotitbro (talk) 08:40, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

No. You're adding your faulty interpretations to the sources and claiming something that the sources do not themselves say. ISD says, in those exact words, "...“pajeet” [is] a racial slur against South Asians." Shukman (2025) says, "...using [Pajeet,] a derogatory term for South Asian men. and Chopra (2024) says, The irony, of course, is that white supremacist accounts often use the same slurs [Paki and Pajeet] and hateful tropes interchangeably for Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians, as, indeed, for anyone from South Asia." I already stated in the original breakdown above that NCRI claims 'Hindus' exclusively, and also that TNIE says 'Sikh' (which you conveniently ignored, just as you conveniently cherrypicked info from ISD to not include details of usage against Sikhs). You're also misrepresenting what I said, much in the same way you are misrepresenting the sources, to claim that I was "pushing for" something that I did not (unless you are now claiming that 'Mujeet' is also used against Hindus).

That you were trying to add de-contextualized fringe bigotry into the article and are now arguing that the target of the slur be limited to a specific South Asian group without any mention of the wider usage of the slur towards South Asians in general, contrary to what most of our sources here say, is telling. UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Your quotes have already been addressed by me. Most of the sources say that Indians are the target, not South Asians. Shukman is far from a reliable source in comparison with others. A passing mention in another source means nothing. You should stop pushing this PoV in the lead with your unilateral overhauling. Koshuri ^(あ!) 17:06, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

You cannot keep removing WP:RS that go against your preferred POV. Sundaran (2024) is a scholarly source. Shukman, published by Vintage Books, an imprint of Penguin Random House is not less reliable than the WP:SPS used otherwise on this article. You also cannot revert multiple edits in one wholesale revert with a misleading edit summary. UnpetitproleX (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

UnpetitproleX, you cannot make unilateral changes to the article when there is clearly no consensus which supports such change. EarthDude (wanna talk?) 15:08, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

• Pajeet, a derogatory online-term used to refer to Indians. -- Henry Tuck, Jakob Guhl, Julia Smirnova, Lea Gerster and Oliver Marsh, Researching the Evolving Online Ecosystem: Telegram, Discord and Odysee, ISD.

• Online hate analysis shows slurs like ‘pajeet' and ‘dirty Indian' circulating heavily, with a quarter of these mentions coming from North America. -- Ahmed, Syed Zubair (21 August 2025). "'Alien', 'Pajeet', 'Browns Off Cliffs': How Indians Became The Most Hated Diaspora". NDTV. Retrieved 9 September 2025. -- Article talks about anti Indian slurs with no mention of pan south asian slur.

• The slur “pajeet” has become popular; if there is protest or calling out of hate speech, then the silencing tool is “pajeet triggered” – the migrant Indian must be hysterical to object. -- Roy, Suryapratim (22 May 2025). "Surya: A beginner's guide to the trope of the "odorous" Indian". Dublin InQuirer. Retrieved 9 September 2025. -- No mention of pan south asian slur, only referring to indians.

• Harrison uses slurs targeting Indians, like “jeet” and “pajeet” in these videos. -- "White Supremacist Diagolon Movement Now Calling for Deportation of All Indians". Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. 6 June 2024. Retrieved 9 September 2025.

• Report authors came across posts referring to Indian immigrants as an invasion; Indians as unhygienic; calls to clean America; as well as anti-Indian slurs like ‘curry’ and ‘pajeet’. -- Currents, India (12 February 2025). "'Hate Sells': X Sees Surge In Anti-Indian Rhetoric, Says Report". Free Press Journal. Retrieved 9 September 2025.

• For example, utterances may be framed in accordance with perceived identifiers: Anons may be reduced to hyper-characterizations of that identifier (e.g., “Hans” or “Kraut” for German posters, “Pajeet” for Indian posters, or “Cletus” / “Tyrone” for American posters) and reacted to accordingly. -- /pol/itically Incorrect: Ideologies of Race, Anti-Semitism, Gender and Sexuality in the Everyday Linguistic Co-production of Transgression, Wesley Troy Wilson, (2019).

• Identity group ... Indian... ’Keling’, ’Pajeet’, ’Vrindavan" Proebsting, Grace; Anigboro, Oghenefejiro Isaacs; Crawford, Charlie M.; Metaxa, Danaé; Friedler, Sorelle A. (2024), Identity-related Speech Suppression in Generative AI Content Moderation, doi:10.48550/ARXIV.2409.13725, retrieved 9 September 2025

• the term ‘Pajeet’ appears to have originated in 2015 on the notorious site 4Chan, to describe Indian and Sikh men, gaining broader currency in the 2020s. -- Rohit Chopra (2024), The Politics of Anti-Indian Hate and Racism on Elon Musk’s X CSOH.

Now you must stop your edit warring and violating lead to push your POV. Most sources agree that Indians are primary targets, Hindus being the specific demographic under them. You are not quoting the sources that directly go against your views here. Koshuri ^(あ!) 15:34, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

I have quoted every source in use in the article at the time. If you keep making bad faith accusations against me, I will seek administrative intervention. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Chopra (2024) says it 'appears to have originated in 2015 to describe Indian and Sikh men' where he talks about its origin. Chopra clearly states later in the article that the slur is used by South Asians against other South Asians and by white supremacists broadly against all South Asians: Slurs, such as ‘Pajeet’ ... are often used by members of South Asian communities against each other ... as they trade insults with each other online. ... white supremacist accounts often use [Pajeet] interchangeably for ... anyone from South Asia. You are misrepresenting him. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

The Free Press Journal article that you are quoting is about this CSOH report, which says in its introduction: ... a number of South Asia-focused racial slurs are widespread on the platform. Some terms like ‘pajeet’ are relatively recent, while others like ‘Curry’ have been in long use and have undergone some destigmatization. In the report the term is described as anti-South Asian, as anti-Indian and as anti-Sikh on different occasions. Perhaps you should have read the sources instead of only keyword searching on google. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Ahmed's NDTV article which you claimed 'talks about anti Indian slurs with no mention of pan south asian slur' actually has this to say: "while hate speech targeting South Asians online has ballooned - doubling in extremist spaces between 2023 and August 2024, with Indians and South Asians bearing over 60% of the slurs." He is referring to this report, which says "Anti-South Asian slurs accounted for the highest volume of anti-Asian terms in extremist online communities, and anti-South Asian slurs doubled from around 23,000 in January 2023 to over 46,000 in August 2024." You are misrepresenting it as well. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Evidently, you are falsifying sources here. The parts you are quoting talks about use of slurs against South Asians. They are not talking about the use of mere "Pajeet" against "South Asians". Wareon (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

What are you on about? What evidence and what falsification? The only evident falsification is KS claiming that the NDTV article "talks about anti Indian slurs with no mention of pan south asian slur" when the article and the report it is based on both talk about anti-South Asian slurs. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

Proebsting et. al. is a pre-print, which means it is a non-peer-reviewed article currently self-published and not in an academic journal. According to WP:SOURCETYPES, preprints are seldom reliable sources, i.e. rarely if ever reliable. I have said it many times above but you really need to read WP:SOURCETYPES and be able to differentiate between reliable and non-reliable sources. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Suryapratim Roy's opinion piece on Dublin Inquirer is not a WP:RS per WP:NEWSOPED which says that news op-eds are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Your sources are not holding up. UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

White supremacists may use it against anyone from this region but this term is not used solely by them but your version gives undue weight about white supremacist usage over that of any other demographic in lead sentence. Free press journal only gave the definition.

The use of this slur is not limited with the White supremacists. Others have already provided their opinion that why do they disagree with your edits. You must refrain from edit warring. You can start an RfC if you want. Wareon (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

My version is based on 4 sources, one of them WP:SCHOLARLY, which are sources of the highest reliability. As for RfC, I certainly will. Sources cannot simply be ignored or misrepresented through WP:TAGTEAMing a false consensus to promote racist highly problematic POVs. UnpetitproleX (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

By saying that users are tag teaming to push racist POVs, you are calling all editors that disagree with you "racists" and tag teamers. I would ask you to strike this WP:NPA. Koshuri ^(あ!) 07:02, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I have struck the comment about tag teaming. But if editors are arguing that we ignore sources (such as Sundaram 2024, which is a scholarly source, and Shukman 2025, both of which have been removed on flimsy grounds) or misrepresent them (as Chopra 2024 and the NDTV article have been) that specifically highlight usage against South Asians in general and also state that the slur is used to target specific South Asian groups by other South Asians, to promote a POV that the overall usage should be ignored (or summarily removed as has been done) in favour of the more narrow usage applied by South Asians against other South Asians, then that indeed is problematic POV pushing. UnpetitproleX (talk) 07:39, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

• Things have gotten needless heady over a relatively minor issue here. I will restate what I stated above "While the victimization of one particular nationality/ethnicity is apparent its broader usage is as well. ... I think what is being said and has been evidenced is that a broader usage of it can be added as well without changing the current sentence for who the primary victims of this racial abuse are (racial slurs originally intended for one group of people then applied more broadly aren't uncommon ... But this is nothing to loose our sleep over." As such I don't think this edit is apt (though this latter one is fine). From the source mentions given here (which also give mention to other particular-disparticular racist slurs such as the K-word and the other P-word), a mere mention at the end of the lede of "The slur has also been used, more broadly, to target South Asians." (or something similar) which doesn't overhaul the lede, or dislodge the primary victims of this abuse, should not be problematic.

PS: A comment on sources presented above. Sources such as op-eds [NDTV, Dublin Inquirer (is the latter even RS?)]/pre-prints [Proebsting, [Wesley] (also both trivial)] etc. and those with trivial mentions [Shukman/NI Express] should be avoided in a CTOPS article like this. Gotitbro (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Description of the slur and its targets in reliable sources:

'Directed at South Asians' or similar

• Sundaram, Dheepa (2024). "An academic conference, a bomb threat, and the title VI complaint: U.S. Hindu nationalist groups' litigious assault on academic freedom". Drexel Law Review. 16 (4): 837–889.

  ... terms ... such as “pajeet” were ... derogatory towards South Asians in general.

• Shukman, Harry (8 May 2025), Year of the Rat: An Undercover Investigation Into the British Far Right, Vintage Publishing, ISBN 9781529953220

  ... [Pajeet,] a derogatory term for South Asian men.

• "The rise of anti-South Asian hate in Canada". Institute for Strategic Dialogue. 26 June 2025.

  ... “pajeet,” a racial slur against South Asians.

• "Online Racism Targeting South Asians Skyrockets". Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. 9 May 2024.

  ... slurs directed at South Asians more than doubled between January 2023 and 2024 ... Some examples include calling South Asians “pakis” ... “Pajeet” is also used, ... along with several other similar, though sometimes lesser known, racist terms.

  • The report goes on to detail several examples of the slur being used widely against South Asians.

Used against South Asians by white supremacists or other far-right groups

• Chopra, Rohit (24 September 2024). "The Politics of Anti-Indian Hate and Racism on Elon Musk's X". Center for the Study of Organized Hate.

  ... white supremacist accounts often use [Pajeet] interchangeably for ... anyone from South Asia.

• ISD (2025)

  While “pajeet” and variants remain popular among far-right users, they have also been adopted by a range of groups.

Reappropriated for use by South Asians against other South Asians

• Chopra (2024)

  Slurs, such as ‘Pajeet’ ... are often used by members of South Asian communities against each other ... as they trade insults with each other online.

• ISD (2025) details specific perpetrators and targets

  Muslim and Sikh accounts use [Pajeet] to refer to Hindu nationalists, and at times to Hindus more broadly or even to Indians as a whole. In the Canadian context, Hindu nationalist accounts also use pajeet in reference to Sikhs (specifically Khalistanis).

'Used against Hindus' or similar

• Sudhakar, Prasiddha; Farmer, John; Finkelstein, Joel; Jussim, Lee; Parihar, Parth; Riggleman, Denver (November 2022), Quantitative Methods for Investigating Anti-Hindu Disinformation (PDF), NCRI: Network Contagion Research Institute, Rutgers University

  ... pajeet is used in reference to Hindus and Indians interchangeably, with the majority ... targeted towards Hindus.

  • Sundaram (2024) challenges and disputes this characterization by the NCRI report, and instead states that both the slur and the tropes used are targeted widely towards South Asians.
• Rana, Aayushi (13 March 2024). "Cow Worshippers to Pajeets: Analysing the Lexicon of Hate speech". DFRAC.

  The derogatory term “Pajeet” ... an ethno-religious slur predominantly aimed at Indians, particularly Hindus.

'Used against Sikhs' or similar

• "Baltimore bridge collapse: Racist online attacks on Indian crew of MV Dali". The New Indian Express. 27 March 2024.

  Pajeet is a racist slur in the West to mock Sikhs who often have names ending with "jeet".

'Used against Indians' or similar

• The NCRI report by Sudhakar et. al. cited above.

Source analysis per WP:RS and WP:SOURCETYPES

Sundaram (2024) is peer-reviewed journal article by a scholar, and more reliable than the others per WP:SOURCETYPES. Shukman (2025), Chopra (2024), Rana (2024) and Sudhakar et. al. (2022) are not peer-reviewed and the publishers are not scholarly, but the authors are identified researchers or scholars and publishers are of comparable (to each other) reliability. ISD, GPAHE and TNIE do not mention authors but are of similar reliability as publishers as the previous bunch (non-scholarly). Many of these sources, except for Sundaram (2024), are WP:SPS or WP:OPED even if not unreliable. The topic is generally lacking in sources of highest reliability (i.e. academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks). UnpetitproleX (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 October 2025

−

Pajeet is an ethnic slur directed at Indians, particularly Hindus and Sikhs.

+

Pajeet is an ethnic slur directed at South Asians, particularly Indians.

Blow "em" (talk) 08:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/report any mistakes here) 13:50, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2025

The term Pajeet is coined as an ethnically derogatory term to mostly racially abuse brown people of sub continental descent and first originated in 4chan. The use case has often been misused by some sub continental people especially muslims themselves to specifically target hindus or sikhs though the original origin of the term referred as a common deregotary insult to all brown people of the subcontinent regardless of any specific religion or gender and based on ethnicity only. Avikadamantium007 (talk) 08:41, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Not an edit request. Koshuri ^(あ!) 10:28, 11 October 2025 (UTC)