Talk:Pakistan/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

its "Unity, Faith and Discipline" NOT "Unity, Discipline and Faith"

Hi.

I have in various places that the Motto Given by Quaid-e-Azam was actually "Unity, Faith and Discipline" NOT the "Unity, Discipline and Faith". Although its the sequence of word, but its very important that it MUST be written in the proper sequence as given by Father of the Nation Quaid-e-Azam.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cancerea (talk • contribs) 10:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Karachi Meetup

—Preceding unsigned comment added by S Q (talk • contribs) 12:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Junagadh & Manavadar Claim

Officially, the Government of Pakistan claims Junagadh and Manavadar and show them on maps since both princely states acceded to Pakistan on the basis of maritime border- however, there is no mention of that here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.250.4 (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 209.3.198.20, 6 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} This article needs one of those bars saying "In need of significant revision". There are prolific grammatical and typographical errors, in addition to the use of weasel words and frequent politicization of the article. These elements frequently combine to make the article unreadable. For such a major country, this state of affairs is unacceptable, and a note should be placed so that readers do not perceive this to be up to Wikipedia's standards.

Representative Examples of Problems:

Under "Rupee": "...until 1982. When the government of General Zia-ul-Haq, changed it to managed float. This has been regarded as the worst decision by Zia. As a result, the rupee devalued by 38.5% between 1982/83 and 1987/88 and many of the industries built by his Predecessor suffered with a huge surge in Import Costs." Ignoring the frequent misuse of capital letters, it is unclear if the devaluation occurred twice between the 1982-83 period and again between 1987-88. I assume they are actually referring to statistics based on the Pakistani financial reporting years, but this is uninformative to readers without that knowledge and unclear to those with it. Furthermore, who said it was Zia' s worst decision?

Under "The economy today": "Due to inflation and economic crisis worldwide, Pakistan's economy reached a state of Balance of Payment crisis. 'The international Monetary Fund bailed out Pakistan in November 2008[...]By October 2007, Pakistan raised back its Foreign Reserves to a handsome $16.4 billion. Exceptional policies kept Pakistan's trade deficit controlled at $13 billion, exports boomed to $18 billion, revenue generation increased to become $13 billion and attracted foreign investment of $8.4 billion. Since the beginning of 2008, Pakistan's economic outlook has taken stagnation."

Stylistically this paragraph is rife with misused phrases, but structurally it makes it seem as if Pakistan recovered from the 2008 crisis in the year 2007 (IE "Raised back" to what? Back from what?). Furthermore, no citations are used, and even if they were, no neutral citation could justify the phrase "Exceptional Policies" as the cause of success. "Handsome" is also stylistically inappropriate.

In conclusion, this article appears to have been frequently edited by those without a focus on copy-editing and by those using English as a second language. In many places errors exist to the degree that the original author's intended meaning is not clear, and with limited citations the original meaning is lost (IE copy-revisions cannot successfully repair the passages). Furthermore, the use of language seeming to express political views (including the use of weasel words) both undermines the article's neutrality and obscures the objective facts of the article.

209.3.198.20 (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tagged. Feel free to use the edit request template again for specific edits. SpigotMap 16:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan Critical

The Overview is very CriTICAL OF pAKISATN NO NEED TO TALK OF CIVIL WAR, AND THERE SHOULD BE TALK THAT PAKISTAN WAS CREATED BECAUSE INDIA REJECTED THE 14 POINTS OF JINNAH WHICH WOULD GARENTEE MUSLIM RIGHTS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Pakistani English

I've been working on cleaning up this article. As I am not a Pakistani(and neither do I live in Pakistan), I do not know Pakistani English. Therefore, if I make any mistakes relating to the language, please feel free to correct it. TQ, BejinhanTalk 12:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Mangoes

I reverted the mango production from "a third of the world's mangoes" to "third largest mango producer". Unfortunately I don't have a source for that claim either, but going by the statistics cited in the mango article it's plausible: The FAO unfortunately groups mangoes, guavas and mangosteens, with Pakistan the fifth largest producer for the combination behind India, China, Mexico and Thailand.[1] But Mexico probably mainly produces guavas, not mangoes, and Thailand's produce may contain a greater percentage of mangosteens. A slightly older article gives the 2004 world production of mangoes (without guavas or mangosteens) at 23,455,000 tonnes, and the FAO gives Pakistan's 2004 total production of mangoes, mangosteens and guavas as 1,055,990 tonnes. That's far short of a third of the total mango production. Huon (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't OR it, quote the actual figure please. Hcobb (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, I should have been more thorough. By now the mangoes are gone, but if we deem them notable enough for this article, here are two relevant sources: Taipei Times from July 26, 2010, mentioning that Pakistan is the 5th largest producer, and PakTribune from 2006, also giving Pakistan as 5th largest producer. Huon (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree

India has had 3 Chief Executives Assassinated , Gandi, Indra and Rajiv , its had 10 year of Emergency laws when the entire country could not leave its house after 9pm, a Military Coup is just a constitutional procedure it would only be unstable if the Military did it outside the Constitution but in Pakistan the Military has the power do so Legally , you should also include in the Over View Pakistan was Major Western Ally in the Cold War and now Major Non Nato ally —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Motto

I am no Urdu expert(Bollywood is my teacher) but I feel that the translation of "Yaqeen-e-Muhkam" as "Faith" was too short. Firstly "faith" can have two meanings 1) conviction/belief; or, 2) religion (I dont think Yaqueen is used to mean "religion"), or does it. Also "Mukham" to my knowldge loosly translates to "destination". So a figurative translation of "Yaqeen-e-Muhkam" is "belief in destiny" or something like that? I tried online sources but could only find Wikipedia mirrors. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 05:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Muhkam" means strong, so "Yaqeen-e-Muhkam" means Strong Determination or Faith. Quaid-e-Azam also mentioned three words in his various speeches "Unity, Discipline and Faith", So i think its fine. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 18:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome :) --Talha^{Discuss ©} 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Geography and Climate

"All the Rivers of Pakistan, i.e., Sindhu, Jhelum, Ravi, Chenab and Sutlej originate from India"

First of all, the river name is Indus or Sindh, not Sindhu. Secondly, they originate from Indian administered Kashmir, not India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.240.96.222 (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Bangldesh & Civil War

There is no need to talk about the Civil War or creation of Bangladesh , as other countries pages do not discuss there Civil Wars, This page is not up to Wiki standards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 15:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Civil wars are important parts of any country's history. I'm not sure what countries you are referring to that don't have their civil wars listed in their history sections. The US certainly does, as does France and other countries with significant civil wars. This is a significant event in Pakistan's history. To leave it out would be POV.Jbower47 (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Area

The sq km and sq mi figures don't match, probably a typo somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.20.64 (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed according to the newest CIA factbook data. Huon (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Culture and pornography

I added this to the culture section. User:Huon erased it, and commented, "rather irrelevant and dubious data."

What do other editors think about including or not including this in the article?

Maharincess of Franistan (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not relevant in the top country article. Perhaps slightly relevant in Culture of Pakistan, but most likely, even there this is not encyclopedic. After all, this is an encyclopedia and WP:NOTNEWS. --Ragib (talk) 07:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Then why does the article have a culture section in the first place? Maharincess of Franistan (talk) 07:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

To provide a summary of the most important and high level facts about the culture of the country. And it needs to be written in summary style, with relevant, encyclopedic information from reliable sources. --Ragib (talk) 07:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, this is a bad idea. Pornography is definely not a part of a country's cultural heritage. It is personal issue. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 07:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

• There are several problems with your proposed text:

• Wikipedia is all about reliability, neutrality and verifiability - if Huon has questioned your proposed edit, then it is important to note WP:BURDEN which states that the "burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material", so we need to see some reasoning from you to show why we should include this particular text. In addition, I would point to WP:REDFLAG, particularly the point about "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources", so we need to see this claim being supported by additional sources and not just a Fox News summer intern.
• There is a subtle difference between making pornography and viewing pornography; for example it is appropriate to highlight the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles as a significant centre of adult films but it would be inappropriate to suggest that everyone in San Fernando is involved.
• Although it would be perfectly reasonable to use Fox News as a source of news, the actual article you cite is weak because it begins with sensationalism and only further down the article is the reader made aware of the limitations:

• The essence of the article is that "Pakistan ranks top for searches per person for certain sex-related content", i.e. not all sex terms. There are numerous similar terms that might have been searched for, but the impression is that the author cherrypicked certain terms where searches from Pakistan were most numerous.
• The article fails to mention how searching for a term in Google equates with a country becoming a "Pornistan" - I would have thought a better indication would be viewing figures for actual pornographic sites, sorted by country.
• Note also the crucial words "per person" - i.e. this is not about total searches, just a crude figure obtained by dividing total searches by the total population. Its like comparing the economies of countries solely by GDP per capita and ignoring total GDP.
• The article implies that the whole population is involved in searching for pornography but fails to mention that not everybody in Pakistan has internet access - the CIA Factbook suggests "18.5 million internet users",("Factboook".) i.e. approximately 11% of the estimated population of 166 million in 2008.("World Bank".) Compare this to the author's home country - the United States had some "231 million internet users",("Factboook".) i.e. approximately 75% of an estimated population of 300 million in 2008.("World Bank".)
• The two sources given by the article are Google Trends and Google Insight - neither of which provides numbers alongside their search diagrams so we have no context - is it in the tens, hundreds, thousands or millions?
• The two sources actually show lists of countries, cities and languages when the terms are searched for, but the Fox article makes no mention of the latter two categories.
• Further down the article it is admitted that "the results for a given query may contain inaccuracies due to data sampling issues, approximations, or incomplete data for the terms entered". Why isn't this mentioned near the top of the article?

• Overall, the Fox article is a classic case of "original research" dressed up as incontrovertible fact. Definitely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Green Giant (talk) 13:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
• For the record - the Maharincess can't come out to play anymore, because s/he has been grounded indefinitely. I have also blanked out the actual text because we shouldn't keep it visible when diffs will allow comparison. Green Giant (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda vs Encyclopedic tone

I have removed a paragraph under "Government and politics" and change log can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan&action=historysubmit&diff=374465147&oldid=374307886

The paragraph was obviously bad propaganda against Pakistan with non-NPOV references. Even if the reference were NPOV the content does not align with the Encyclopedic tone required. If someone insists on adding that paragraph, then kindly discuss it here before.TouseefliaqatTalk 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan's support for terrorism historically and to the present day is well documented. How would you like that said? Hcobb (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The paragraph Touseefliaqat removed was very problematic. It gave the impression that the Pakistan-supported terror groups were directly responsible for the terror plots uncovered by the British government, a claim not supported by the source. And that source was an op-ed piece, not quite reliable. We can certainly write something on the relations of official Pakistan, its military and its secret service to terrorist groups, but we should do so with better sources and with greater precision. Huon (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So the three types to note are:

A> Official support (camps or whatnot) by the Pakistan government and called a terrorist group by others.

B> Plausible deniability support by elements of the Pakistan government.

and

C> Rogue terrorist groups just hanging out inside Pakistan.

Right? Hcobb (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@ user Hcobb

I agree with your point C, and I need a bit more clarification on point B, that in which exactly context you are saying this ... as for point A, "Officially" Pakistan government supports no terrorist group, (may be u r referring to anti-indian groups active in kashmir with their base in pakistan.) All the groups were declared unlawful in 2004 by musharraf's government. So i think point A, as it exist in its current wording, should be discarded and should be rephrased, in fact i don't think we would need to rephrase it as point B might cover it if we simply enhance that point with proper neutral wording and unbiased context and obviously reliable sources.

Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 19:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

first of all the Newsweek reference cannot be called non NPOV and removed. It looks like a case of WP:JDLI. In any case the fact that most people consider Pakistan a major supporter of extremist groups both in Kashmir and elsewhere and virtually every major terrorist plot in recent years has had a 'Pakistani connection' is info that needs to be prominent part of any encyclopedic article on Pakistan. A few references which go into Pakistani state support for terror groups from RS are here and can be worked in into the article.[2], [3], [4]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to say but actually it is the case of WP:I just like it for indian users. Pakistani Govt always give a official statement that we are victim of terrorism and we are against terrorism and fighting against terrorism, then why someone writes here that Pakistan support terrorism(as stated in removed paragraph). It is a propaganda against Pakistan. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 11:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand, the Newsweek piece failed WP:RS, specifically: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact without attribution. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers." On the other hand, Pakistan has long supported or at least tolerated Kashmiri groups which are now deemed terrorist by the Pakistani government itself, and Wikireader41 gave some sources which claim that (parts of) the Pakistani government and the ISI support terrorist groups to a much greater extent, at times undermining Pakistan's own anti-terrorism efforts. I found those sources a little hypocritical (by some of those standards, the US could also be called a state supporter of terrorism; one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter), but I see no reason to consider them unreliable. Huon (talk) 12:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan governments statements are not even believed in Pakistan. Just giving a statement does not mean that thats the only thing that matters. whether we like what these sources say or not what they say needs to be included. Multiple independant RS have said the same thing that Pakistan covertly has supported terrorism while the Pakistan government denies this in a routine fashion. It needs to be given its due weight. And what about Pakistan consistently being ranked in top 10 failed states in the world. this accomplishment is widely reported in RS including prominent Pakistani newspapers.[5]

--Wikireader41 (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wht do you expect a propaganda to sound like ? they will say pakistan is failed state.... they will say pakistan is terror hub and stuff like that ....

First of all, when pakistani government officially declares no connections with terrorist groups this means "no connection with terrorist groups" and all the theories and claims regarding its connections to terror groups thus falls in conspiracy theory. You can not CLAIM that pakistan have connections with terrorist groups, because logically this will be allegation on pakistan. No matter how many sources you provide, they will fall in conspiracy theory's category and can not be used as a source for general statement mentioning connection with terror groups.

As for failed state propaganda, there are several factors behind this, with different interest groups, basically its because of strong grip on media by anti pakistani elements. Lets discuss it here and lets prove pakistan is a failed state.... what is a failed state ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 15:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you just claiming that official declarations by governments are always to be taken at face value, no matter what other sources say? That seems a bizarre position. I would be surprised if any state sponsor of terrorism officially acknowledged such a policy, or more generally, if any government admitted any wrongdoing on its behalf that isn't independently proven (and sometimes not even then). More to the point, I see no reason why our guidelines on reliable sources and a neutral point of view should suddenly cease to apply. Since three different reports by academics and think tanks and a Pakistani newspaper (the same newspaper you were happy to accept when it said something supporting your point of view) seem insufficient to you, what kind of sources would you accept? Huon (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a propaganda when people are discussing terrorism support and someone suddenly says "what about Pakistan consistently being ranked in top 10 failed states in the world". If someone say My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist then why should i say that no, i know you, you are a terrorist. Someone's self identification is more RS or someone else identifying him is more RS.

As for NPOV, paragraph removed was according to non-NPOV also, actually it is india plus some other countries which claim that Pakistan support terrorism, it is there POV, while Pakistan has different POV. this one also. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 19:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Are you now saying someone cannot be a terrorist unless that's what he calls himself? I don't think anybody calls himself a terrorist, not even those who obviously use terror tactics. It's actions and not self-identification that makes someone a terrorist. Of course we should be careful with attributing allegations of terrorism support to the respective sources, but I still see no reason to ignore reliable sources supporting a connection of Pakistan to terrorist groups. By the way, I just found this article, where Asif Ali Zardari himself admits that Pakistan has "created and nurtured", as a matter of policy, the "terrorists of today" (though of course they weren't terrorists when they were nurtured - at that time they were heroes).

To me, repeatedly scoring high on the magazine Foreign Policy's list of failed states seems notable (Dawn agrees) and should be added to the article, with due attribution. It suggests that Pakistan doesn't manage to properly control all its territory, allowing terrorists to fill the power vacuum without the government's support. That the Pakistani army is waging full-blown campaigns against militants in north-west Pakistan seems to support that interpretation, while the British government's "70% of terror plots linked to Pakistan" quote probably refers to people who were trained in camps within the lawless regions of Pakistan (I know of several cases where the suspects admitted such training, so I don't think there's any doubt about that). Being a failed state alone doesn't say anything about terroristm - some failed states (such as Haiti, no. 11, or Zimbabwe, no. 4) have, to my knowledge, never been linked to terrorism, while other states who have been accused of supporting terrorism, such as Syria, aren't high on the list of failed states. Huon (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea no one call himself a terrorist. India don't call himself a terrorist for what indian army is doin in Kashmir. US don't call himself a terrorist for what is done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel don't call himself a terrorist for what he is doing in Palestine. Only fact is that Islamic media is not as powerful as western and indian media. Otherwise who defines terrorism, same people were heroes when they were with US against Russia and now they are terrorist?? Man there are lot documentaries made on 9/11 including Loose Change and many more. These movies clearly indicate that this was a planned and self made attack.

Now it is believed in Pakistan that all these terrorist activities in Pakistan are supported by India and US from Afghanistan. But US+western+indian media will not say this to make RS for wikipedia. And Pakistani reliable media will also no say this because of its less penetration in the world.

Pakistan supported them at the time when they were heroes of world, whole world supported them at that time, and now when they are danger for world, Pakistan is fighting against them. So using your logic whole world especially US is also a terrorism supporter. So why it not mentioned in US article. Why double standard is used always. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 12:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting off-topic. Feel free to argue for inclusion of US misconduct on the United States article; that's unrelated to this article. I still maintain: Repeatedly being called a failed state seems notable and should be mentioned in the article. We can use the Dawn article as a source if you prefer to avoid "western media". Secondly, Pakistan has a history of supporting militants, some of which ultimately turned against Pakistan itself. Zardari said so himself. That also seems notable as background for Pakistan's current security problems. We should add it either in the Government section, probably expanding the paragraph that already deals with Pakistani support for the Taliban, or in the Military section in connection with the war against the Pakistani Taliban. Finally, Pakistan harbored (and probably still harbors), without supporting them but also without effectively hindering them, training camps which graduated quite a lot of would-be terrorists, for example those mentioned by the British government. That too can be sourced to reliable sources, but I'm not sure what part of the article would be best suited to include such information. Huon (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

We don't need a bunch of talk about it in the main article, just link off to Terrorism in Pakistan, which seems to cover the main issues already. Hcobb (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

are you kidding me? the Terrorism in Pakistan-article is not properly sourced and the content is highly disputed. in fact, it seems as if a retarded five-year-old wrote it.--mustihussain 18:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustihussain (talk • contribs)

Then please help fix it (though to me it didn't look that bad, and pretty stale for a highly disputed article). Anyway, Hcobb's point is valid; this article doesn't need an in-depth discussion of terrorism but should probably contain a very short summary and a link to the relevant article. Huon (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea it is right to link the subject of Terrorism in Pakistan in this article, but it is not right to say that Pakistan supported terrorism. Because it was the whole US alliance who supported this for there common interest, it was not Pakistan alone. Pakistan only nurtured then at the will of whole US alliance. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 22:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan could have stopped its support for Taliban and other militant groups like LeT after Soviets quit afghanistan but it willfully did not. This article is a bunch of pure hagiography. The recent article from Economist Land of the impure gives a good idea of reality of the current situation in Pakistan. The whole world thinks of Pakistan as a disaster zone ( and not just because of recent floods). what a few Pakistani editors feel about their country should not be allowed to dictate what is written in this article.--Wikireader41 (talk) 11:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This act of stubborn desire of putting every one else's views to a side and strongly and inflexibly trying to impose once own views is called propaganda !

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Really. all RS are replete with negative information about the great country of Pakistan. Even prominent Pakistani newspapers like Dawn seem to be indulging in Propaganda now Sixty-three and down on our knees "We must all of us bear some responsibility for the death and destruction now visited upon us. We have cast our ballots, we have brought in and acquiesced with corrupt and inept governments, we have welcomed in military ‘great redeemers’ with flowers and ladoos and then seen them off with scorn, as we have the politicians. We, all of us, are not worthy of being citizens of Pakistan — because Pakistan was never meant to be what it now is." The reality of Pakistan is clear to all of the world. Only a few Pakistanis still think that their country is a great nation. the article needs to be rewritten accordingly.--Wikireader41 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Suvansh.lal, 1 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Pakistan's Map shows Indian Kashmir as a prospective area of hold for the country. Which is incorrect and early to predict without a UN declaration. Therefore this is a request to correct it.

Suvansh.lal (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to the orthographic projection map, somewhere in the talk archives you will find endless debates about this issue. My personal opinion is that this map and the orthographic map of India are a compromise. Personally I would prefer to see two new maps of India and Pakistan, that show the whole of Kashmir as a disputed area irrespective of the actual areas controlled, but there will always be someone that is not happy and then we are back at square one. So I think the best way of dealing with the matter is to leave them as they are. Green Giant (talk) 17:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The current compromise seems reasonable to me. Both the currently controlled area and the claims beyond current control seem relevant to the country. Huon (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the both of you have a perfect way of putting things into words. It's been a discussion we've been having over and over again. The compromise is a decent one and the contributors [to Wikipedia] are far from being the regulatorary body the UN is supposed to be. Qwrk (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 19:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

very biased article

Its history has been characterized by periods of military rule, political instability and conflicts with neighboring India.' and civil War

Theese are all subjective , does Americas and Englands page talk about the Civil war, Instability is subjective , India has had emergency rule for 10 years long conflicts with CHina, Khalistan etc

very very Biased —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the United States article mentions the American Civil War in the lead. And I'd say that an event which led to the division of the country and the loss of almost half its population is notable. Concerning the instability, I believe Pakistan had more presidents and prime ministers who were forced to resign or putsched out of office than chief executives who saw the regular end of their term of office. And I believe Pakistan was more affected by the wars with India than India was (even if we add India's war against China). What changes to that statement do you propose, or do you just want to remove it altogether? The latter seems inappropriate. Huon (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

you dont mention the Kashmir and Maoist and Assam insurgency in India, I suggest removing the entire entry , Pakistan has had 3 Military Coups that is not really instability thats just the way it is, they were dismissed on grounds of corruption now if you want to speculate the reason behind the coup that has no place on wikipedia and should be reserved for gossip forums, I dont think Indias page should talk about war with Pakistan and China and Pakistan page should not talk about war with India, the page is very biased against Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.1.250.215 (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Fist of all, I'm of the strong opinion that even the talk pages of such articles should be semi-protected. While editing such articles one needs to keep in mind that the information available to populations of certain countries are heavily state censored and thus their knowledge biased. It becomes very difficult for them to agree with statements of unbiased facts! We need to find a work around to this. Being inclusive is good but I don't see the point in unnecessary debates!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

India

There is no need to mention ' Its history has been characterized by periods of military rule, political instability and conflicts with neighboring India'

as indias page does not talk about war with Pakistan and political instability is subjective the sentence is of poor standard and other countries are not described in this way , there is also no need to discuss the Pakistan Civil War as the American page does not discuss the American civil war —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manyobbo456 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Swaroop (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention those aspects, but not present them as if they were the sum and substance of Pakistan's history. This should be clarified/reworded. But to not mention them at all is not NPOV.Jbower47 (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The point here is, while the American Civil War and insurgencies in India have effected/have been effecting those countries insignificantly, especially in terms of economic growth, the conflicts, insurgencies, coups and wars associated with Pakistan have crippled the country and doing so even as we debate of this. Like I mentioned before, we must seriously consider making such pages semi-protected at all times. Amartya ray2001 (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Confusion on the status of Pakistan's Government

Is there any evidence that supports the idea of Pakistan as the semi-presidential republic? Because, recently, the parliamentay committee of Parliament of Pakistan has introduced a consitutional amendment package which has been passed by the Pakistan's lower house through a unanimous votes. The Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan has reduced the powers of the President of Pakistan also turning Pakistan from a semi-presidential to a parliamentary republic and renaming of North-West Frontier Province to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. It also has increased the power of Prime minister as well as the Parliament. To this account, I believe it would be appropriate to put Pakistan's government as Federal Parliamentary republic instead that of Semi-presidential republic.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironboy11 (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Pakistani Government Faces Growing Criticism Over Flood Response

• Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is urging authorities to speed aid to the more than three million people affected by floods that have devastated entire communities in the northwest.

Mr. Gilani met with his Cabinet Wednesday to discuss the floods that have killed 1,500 people and now threaten the provinces of Sindh and Punjab.

The session comes as Pakistani leaders face growing anger over what residents say is a slow government response. Many have also questioned President Asif Ali Zardari's decision to continue a trip to Europe.

Forecasters are predicting still more monsoon rains as international aid groups struggle to reach affected areas where roads, bridges and other infrastructure have been washed away.

The World Food Program says nearly two million people are in need of food assistance, with rising water levels destroying crops in the northwest and threatening farmland in Punjab. U.N. officials have also warned that hundreds of thousands of people are at risk of diseases from contaminated water.

The U.N., United States, Britain and Canada have all pledged millions of dollars in aid to Pakistan. The U.S. is also sending military helicopters from Afghanistan to assist in relief efforts.

The Pakistani army has rescued more than 30,000 people from flood-hit areas over the past three days.

The U.N. refugee agency said it has delivered 10,000 tents with other relief supplies and is stepping up its assistance to provide shelter for hundreds of thousands of homeless people.

Islamist charities, some with suspected ties to militant groups, also have stepped in to provide aid to flood victims. Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read news articles to the same effect, but it's probably a little early to add such information to the main Pakistan article. Huon (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it's not appropriate to add such information in this page at all! Pakistan is a country and countries face MANY challenges. Detailed inclusion of every such challenge in an article of this nature will be inappropriate. At most we can add a line about the flood like they did in the article on United States of America where they mentioned "Hurricane Katrina caused severe destruction along much of the Gulf Coast, devastating New Orleans.". That's the only line about Katrina in the entire article (I could find)!

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Mahatma Gandhi

I've strong reservations on the following statement:

In the 1920s and 1930s, a movement led by the Hindu politician Mahatma Gandhi, and displaying commitment to long enshrined Hindu tenet of ahimsa, or non-violence, engaged millions of protesters in mass campaigns of civil disobedience.

Gandhi is regarded the world over to have been a secular man. I think it will only be fair, not to use such controversial adjectives with his name! Requesting a Mod/Admin/Editor to look into this, please!

Regards,...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC) PS: Hopefully, someone will answer soon.

Everyone here is an editor. There is no authority to appeal to in content disputes until one follows the dispute resolution process through to the arbitration committee. My opinion, as a disinterested editor, is that the current wording is technically correct, but other adjectives might better express the secular nature of his involvement. Celestra (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, lemme think of a better adjective... Amartya ray2001 (talk) 14:57, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

On second thought, why do we need an adjective at all? Amartya ray2001 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan army

"The armed forces of Pakistan are the sixth-largest in the world.[66]" ...

1) The reference leads to some blog!

2) Please read List of countries by military expenditures ... A country which does not/cannot spend nearly as much the top 10 countries in the list can obviously not have a top 10 military!

3) Placing Pakistan at #6 will mean placing some of the following other nuclear powers below it, which is absurd to even comprehend! (USA, China, UK, France, Germany, Russia, India, Israel, <N. Korea>) Especially considering the economic status of the country!

4) Though I'm not going to base by judgement on the ratings given here, it is nevertheless a MUCH better citation to base an article on!

5) As long as we don't have a credible source like a CIA report or something, we need to base our conclusions on Military spending.

• Even according to List of countries by number of troops, it's 7th largest! So, it's either 7th largest or the citation is wrong or both... But the two can't be accurate at the same time....

Now, we need not care about what a country or it's citizen thinks! I'm of the view that Pakistan deserves to be #1 considering the disproportionate passion of it's people. But unfortunately that is not the case and what is not true "cannot" show up on wikipedia as long as I'm not blocked! Based on these arguments I'm going to comment that statement because that's much better than terming the whole section/article disputed! Please escalate the matter to an admin or find a better citation and undo/uncomment the statement.

Regards,

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible solution "They are the seventh largest in the world in terms of active troops." ... Pakistan Military says so now... some admin changed it... can we put that here?

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

""Sixth-largest" doesn't mean "sixth-best" (which would be extremely hard to judge) or "sixth-most expensive". I'd say that the number of active troops is a more appropriate measure of size, and by that measure Pakistan would easily outrank the UK, France, Germany and Israel. And that's also what "sixth-largest" linked to. Explicitly stating that it's by number of active troops seems redundant to me. That it's actually the seventh-largest according to our list and not sixth-largest as the blog post claims may be due to outdated information; I'll change the article accordingly. Huon (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Your tone showed a clear hatred against Pakistan and its citizens. if you find a vandalism just correct it like a true neutral wikipedian. There is no need to show up your personal feelings here. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 02:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@User:Amartya ray2001, dude grow up its an encyclopedia, not a indo-pak blog where you have been bitten by pakistanies, here people can understand a neutral thing if stated in a plane manner no need to spill out your venom in here.... and watch out for your tone buddy.

Regards.. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 04:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Huon thanks mate... :) ... Talha, I'll have to confess that your interpretation of my tone was way off target ;) ! Anyway, that's not what I'm here to discuss... Adil, I know it's an encyclopedia and that is why we need it to be extra accurate! ... Kids look up to these information and we cannot and should not misguide them...

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 08:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I was exactly on target. There was simply a statement "The armed forces of Pakistan are the sixth-largest in the world.[66]" You found that it is 7th on List of countries by number of troops then just change "6th" to "7th" and make it clear in edit summary. What is the purpose of these statements:

A country which does not/cannot spend nearly as much the top 10 countries in the list can obviously not have a top 10 military!

plus

Now, we need not care about what a country or it's citizen thinks! I'm of the view that Pakistan deserves to be #1 considering the disproportionate passion of it's people.

Actually this is the hatred of yours against Pakistan.

This statement was according to the number of troops, not according to total expenditures nor according to strength as you said. I agree with Huon that "Sixth-largest" doesn't mean "sixth-best" or "sixth-most expensive" and it is very hard to judge the strength. You, me or any one else can not judge it.

By the way source you removed was not unreliable because Newspapers are not unreliable according to point 1 of this section of article. And if you open Pakistan section from source you provided you will find the same figures as mentioned in List of countries by number of troops. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 09:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

@Taha .. nicely played ;) !

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 10:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

For the record, it was me who ultimately removed that source. It doesn't look like a classical newspaper with editorial oversight, but like an aggregation of user-submitted content. Its self-description calls it a global, open-media news site where anyone can report from anywhere - that's not quite a reliable source unless there's some fact-checking hidden which I didn't find. Huon (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is over and the issue, resolved. Tyvm for participating... Have an excellent time, everyone :) ... Amartya ray2001 (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured article

We need to make this a featured article again. What is preventing us? If you need my help, you know where to find me.

Regards,... Amartya ray2001 (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that... will call you

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan's flood (2010)

Bold text well i would like to say that the government of Canada said that they would not help Pakistan out anymore during it's flood but they have changed their minds and now are helping. and so is stratford elementary/junior high school in Edmonton, Alberta by giving the proceeds (doubled by government)of a bake sale this friday september, 29, 2010 at their school —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.38.123 (talk) 00:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Sameer.kerkar, 7 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In this specific article about pakistan, the mention of the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 (which is available in wikipedia as a seperate article is absent in the "military" section. please include a short gist of this war at the appropriate place in the military section.

Sameer.kerkar (talk) 13:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The "military" section already contains a (very brief) mention of the 1971 war. What precisely do you want to see added? Huon (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: This system is not for requesting other editors to write a section for you. It is for editors to make a change you have already written. If you write the section you are referring to, it will be inserted into the article. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan Military Conscription

Can someone point to where it is written in the constitution regarding conscription. I will remove that bit of text if no reference can be found. — sch@jee 11:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

From here: "The 1952 Pakistan Army Act allowed compulsory military service to be introduced in times of emergency, but this provision had not been used." I'll change the article accordingly. Huon (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's my problem. I respect UNHCR and it might be that their statement is accurate, but whatever I can find of the Pakistan Army Act of 1952 [6]—which is an incomplete document—there is no mention of forced induction. The 1952 Act is about JAG and not generally related to military induction. For that one would have to refer to the Indian Army Act of 1911. So until I see the lineage of documents relating to conscription, or find a complete copy of the 1952 Act, I'll reserve the right to be doubtful. sch@jee 14:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree; the parts of the Act you linked to definitely don't include conscription provisions, and the list of persons subject to the act doesn't seem to include "civilians who can be drafted". Unfortunately major parts are missing. For now I'd keep the statement sourced to the UNHCR and wait for better sources. Huon (talk) 15:10, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 92.4.112.133, 14 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please replace the map File:PAK AU T1.svg with the below one:

Gilgit-Baltistan

Azad Kashmir

FATA

Balochistan

Punjab

Sindh

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

ICT

Afghanistan

Iran

China

India

Arabian Sea

This is since this map is clickable, and provides further subdivisions than the one currently used. 92.4.112.133 (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I would rationalize the use of PAK_AU_T1 for the reasons that a) it is in a scalable format b) districts are up to date c) colors are in accordance with Wikipedia map guidelines. Also for a main article there really is no need to show district or even tehsil level details. There might also be arguments on inclusion of the whole of Kashmir and an image-map is redundant due to the mention of provinces and territories in the table next to the image. —schajee 08:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your message:

• Scalable format is an advantage. But not necessary in this case..
• Districts from my knowledge are up to date. But we can check this with Nauman.
• To my belief, there are no specific forbidden colours in maps
• Including Indian controlled Kashmir is a dodgy job, especially since certain regions of it (such as Aksai Chin etc..) would be misinformation as Pakistan acknowledges Chinese sovereignty in this area; and for the most part, the border between the two has not been discussed any therefore undemarcated.

To conclude, it seems much better to include a clickable map for user use.

I appreciate your thoughts, and am open to ideas.

--92.4.112.133 (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't help but edit your reply :) Back to the discussion; my counter-counter-arguments...

• SVG is not just scalable but editable by just about anyone who has the knowledge. E.g. the map on the right is Districts of Pakistan simplified and accounted for to the best of my knowledge. File-size is small, easily editable in a text editor, or GIMP/Illustrator and any changes can be made relatively easily.
• Districts are out of date, most obvious left outs being Washuk, Frontier Regions and all of AJK and Gilgit-Baltistan among others.
• Colors are not forbidden but probably incorrectly used. I struggled with it myself when deciding on colors; but in my opinion the main map is not an area map but rather a location map and by guidelines would prohibit four colors. I'm still not sure and would probably ignore this issue.
• Kashmir is an obvious problem and the reason I included ALL of Kashmir including Chinese controlled areas is because under treaty they would be handed over when a settlement is achieved.
• Clickibility is something I have in one version of the map but I haven't linked it for the reason I stated earlier.

—schajee 19:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How about the image you have posted below (Pakistan districts.svg)? It includes full districts and could be made clickable easily. I suggest we implement that image. --92.4.112.133 (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Economy Review

Pakistan, an impoverished and underdeveloped country, has suffered from decades of internal political disputes and low levels of foreign investment. Between 2001-07, however, poverty levels decreased by 10%, as Islamabad steadily raised development spending. Between 2004-07, GDP growth in the 5-8% range was spurred by gains in the industrial and service sectors - despite severe electricity shortfalls - but growth slowed in 2008-09 and unemployment rose. Inflation remains the top concern among the public, jumping from 7.7% in 2007 to 20.3% in 2008, and 14.2% in 2009. In addition, the Pakistani rupee has depreciated since 2007 as a result of political and economic instability. The government agreed to an International Monetary Fund Standby Arrangement in November 2008 in response to a balance of payments crisis, but during 2009 its current account strengthened and foreign exchange reserves stabilized - largely because of lower oil prices and record remittances from workers abroad. Textiles account for most of Pakistan's export earnings, but Pakistan's failure to expand a viable export base for other manufactures have left the country vulnerable to shifts in world demand. Other long term challenges include expanding investment in education, healthcare, and electricity production, and reducing dependence on foreign donors. Debt Relief Order (Yancyponting (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC))

Revert Ortho. Projection

It is biased!

Could you be a little more precise? What image are you talking about, how is it biased, and do you know a better alternative? Huon (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Arrangement of lead

User:Pakistan Zindabad 2010 and I disagree about how the lead text should be arranged. For comparison: His preferred arrangement, mine, diff. I'd say Pakistan Zindabad 2010's version is no improvement because it rips the text out of context. For example, the army size and nuclear weapons information before was part of a larger paragraph on Pakistan's military situation, including its status as a major ally of the US and membership in other alliances. Similarly, in my preferred version, the "with 170 million people" text is part of a wider description of modern Pakistan at the end of a historical sketch; with Pakistan Zindabad 2010's version it is squeezed between Pakistan's geographic position and the region's ancient history without being related to either. Huon (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 74.202.255.6, 24 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Pakistan's HDI should be .490, not .572 because that is wrong information.

74.202.255.6 (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The source we have, the 2009 UN report, says .572. Do you have a newer source? Huon (talk) 23:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done per the 2010 UN report. Huon (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

regarding kashmir

the kashmir is an integral part of india ,it is shown that pakistan has its influence their in its map, there by i ask wikipedia to correct the map n limit the pakistan with in its boundry,with an immediate effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.195.125.216 (talk) 00:45, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan would probably disagree with that "integral part" claim. The map shows the area actually controlled by Pakistan in dark green and Pakistan's claims in light green. For comparison, the map in the India article shows the area actually controlled by India in dark green and India's claims in light green. Huon (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Kashmir is an integral part of Pakistan but in territorial dispute with india. therefor, the Pakistan-administered Kashmir should be in dark green and the indian-occupied Kashmir should be in light green as the map of india shows indian-occupied Kashmir in dark green and Pakistani-administered Kashmir in light green. I request this change to be made immediately. Pakistan Zindabad 2010 (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree; the image was modified on Jan. 4, and in my opinion that was not an improvement - neither the changes to the Kashmir situation (where claims that Kashmir is an "integral part of X" are debatable, but the India and Pakistan maps should show equivalent information as pointed out by Pakistan Zindabad 2010) nor the change to the projection itself, which moves Pakistan out of the center of the map. I have notified the editor who made the changes and asked him for comment. Huon (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mar4d reverted the image change over at Commons; we're back with the pre-Jan. 4 version. I'm no expert at Commons, but probably such a sweeping change to the image shouldn't have replaced the pre-Jan 4. (and current) version, but rather be uploaded on its own. Then we would have had both versions to choose from without reverting at the Commons. Huon (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

china regards Kashmir as Part of Pakistan, china being a major power its view has to be recognized , also the US and EU regard kashmir as disputed and not an integral part of India therefore the bollywood films claiming kashmir is an 'integral' part of india do not mean anything —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.151.0.13 (talk) 01:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your definition of "Super Power". India in itself is considered a superpower in many reliable sources.[[7]],[[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]] By that argument the whole of Kashmir including Pakistan occupied Kashmir should be considered a part of India. Boolyme ^Talk!! 20:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

EAST AND WEST PAKISTAN

This is such a waste of space on the article. East and West Pakistan are already mentioned on the "Pakistan (disambiguation)" article. Also, East and West Pakistan are also mentioned in the article itself. This incident occurred 40 years ago and it's not like current affairs for the region. --- (NapoleonARS (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC))

Proposal of deletion of Pakistan in WPCentralAsia Project

There is currently a debate underway to see whether Pakistan should be excluded from WikiProject Central Asia. Unfortunately, not many people have contributed so far. I would ask all editors with a background knowledge of this region to participate in the debate here. Boolyme ^Talk!! 20:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

For convenience: The discussion can be found at WT:WikiProject Central Asia#Removal of Pakistan from WikiProject Central Asia. Huon (talk) 21:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

South versus Southwest Asia

I've reinstated the description of Pakistan as in South Asia; in my experience, Southwest Asia is much more commonly used to describe the Turkey-Iraq-Iran region rather than as far east as Pakistan. Our own article on Southwest Asia directs to Western Asia, which doesn't include Pakistan (and notes that the definition is fluid on whether or not even to include Iran). I'm not aware of a commonly used definition of "South Asia" that omits Pakistan. Shimgray | talk | 00:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Southwest Asia" is more accurate and clear, therefore "more appropriate", and reverting a good-faith and accurate edit is against WP policy....so why such a problem with it, why not talk it out FIRST on this talk, BEFORE rudely undoing the edit? Instead of disrespecting my edit, that is A) accurate (there's no getting around that logically and even according to WP definition of "Southwest Asia"), and B) good-faith... And not vandalism. In other words, there was NO NEED to revert that so uptightly. "Consensus" or not. "Southwest" is simply more clear and accurate (many people look at Pakistan is being part of the Middle East!) "South Asia" alone (though technically accurate too) is simply not as clear, as Pakistan is NOT JUST in "the southern part of Asia"... I mean Pakistan is farther west than say "Sri Lanka". Also, just what is wrong with "Southwest Asia"? Why the hang-up against that, especially when it's only clearer?

By the way, even though WP does not (for whatever reason, most likely editors who just don't want it there...so take that with a grain of salt) include "Pakistan" in the designation "Southwest Asia", one site that includes "Pakistan" in the term "Southwest Asia" (or says that others do too) is right here Archiver of Records (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Shimgray that Southwest Asia, especially as the link actually redirects to Western Asia, is misleading. We all agree that South Asia is "technicaly accurate", and for the purpose of dividing up Asia, it's by far the most common classification of Pakistan. Even Archiver of Records' own source gives a map of "Southwest Asia" that does not include Pakistan. And while Pakistan clearly is farther west than other parts of South Asia, it's much farther northeast of other parts of Asia as well; I don't see how being in the western part of South Asia puts it into Southwest Asia. Finally, I would advise Archiver of Records to have a look at WP:BRD regarding reverts and discussing matters on the talk page. Huon (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the link I gave DOES have Pakistan as part of "Southwest Asia", if you look a bit farther down the page. (Maybe not in the map, but in the general listing.) Check that link page a little more carefully, down further. Cheers. (P.S. I will NOT continue arguing this matter as it is minor...and I do not engage in edit wars.) Archiver of Records (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it was no doubt a good-faith edit, it's perfectly reasonable to remove a change when the accuracy of that change is disputed, as this one clearly has been.

Whilst you personally may feel it to be more accurate, the problem is that when most people use "Southwest Asia", they use it to mean a region that doesn't encompass Pakistan. We can't define our own terminology here, regardless of what we feel about the precision of the current term; we have to reflect what already exists in the language. The United Nations geoscheme classifies Pakistan in South Asia; is there any other standard geographical classification which disagrees? Does the Pakistani government consider itself part of Southwest Asia and explicitly reject the South Asia label? This is the sort of thing that would clearly indicate the existing classification is in error. There is an interpretation which considers Pakistan part of a "Greater Middle East", but that doesn't seem to be synonymous with south-west Asia.

As to the source you provide, that article is, as it notes at the bottom, taken from an old version of the Wikipedia article Southwest Asia, and no sources are cited... Shimgray | talk | 01:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan being part of South Asia is simply much more atestable, sourceable, and both technically and factually correct. Anyone familiar with history would know that before 1947, India and Pakistan were one country, with one cultural identity, located in the Indian subcontinent, i.e. South Asia. Even today, Pakistan has stopped trying to identify itself geographically with some "great Middle East" but with South Asia. This article is an interesting read, although certainly not citable: [12]. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 02:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

That may all be true, but "Pakistan" is also considered in a very real way part of the "MIDDLE EAST" too, believe it or not. (And understandably so.) But India and Sri Lanka etc, are NOT. And that was really my only point. Pakistan is a WEE bit different. I mean, Iran and Afghanistan are DEFINITELY considered part of the "Middle East." And Pakistan at least in some sense too. Whilst India and other nations are just "Asia" basically. But no biggie. It's all good. Archiver of Records (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You're right, some people do consider Pakistan to be "Middle East", but only because of it has Muslim majority and it's proximity with Iran, which is often considered part of the greater Middle East. Afghanistan is actually included in many definition of South Asia. However, culturally, historically, politically, Pakistan shares virtually nothing with the Middle East and is much much more similar to India. I do believe that these categorizations are too cookie-cutter though; if you really think about it, there's generally a cultural, religious, musical, etc. continuum ranging from North India to Pakistan to Afghanistan up to Persia. The geographic split is largely arbitrary, although not completely so. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 03:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Well a case can be made that Pakistan is part of the Greater Middle East more than just the general term of "Asia" (with no qualifications) since A) it has a lot of Arab influence from Islam (and Pakistan's national flag has the crescent moon on it, which is PURELY CULTURALLY MIDDLE EASTERN AND ISLAMIC)...and also, B) you notice that Arab Osama Bin Ladin felt very comfortable hiding in Pakistan. (As well as Afghanistan)...uh, and NOT in India. Why is that? Could it be that Pakistan (and of course Afghanistan) are very Muslim, very Middle Eastern, and though not technically "Arab", have many "Arabisms" and Arab INFLUENCE all over them? Bin Ladin would not be mixing with people who were not at least somewhat culturally and socially kinda like him. Pakistan has MADE itself very different from India now. Also, Pakistan is geographically CLOSER (as you know) to the "Middle East" and is also considered at least kinda PART of it. Whereas India, sorry to say, just aint. Peace out. Archiver of Records (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I and most who have studied South Asia to any extent would certainly say that there is very little Arab influence in Pakistan, especially since Pakistan and many parts of India are culturally indistinct. Would you say that just because a country is Islamic-majority, say Indonesia or Albania, means they're culturally Arab? And I'll disregard your statement about Bin Laden; I hope you're not trying to say that because an Arab terrorist chose to hide in a particular country or region, then his country and that region has to be categorized the same way. The Middle East and South Asia aren't places which should be categorized so generally; For example, the crescent star is actually of Ottoman Turkish origin; and then is Turkey part of Europe or the Middle East? Instead of broadly categorizing these countries and using rhetoric about places terrorists choose to hide, it would be better to highlight legitimate facts and statements about political, social, or cultural currents rather than blanketly applying labels-- labels are only useful as labels and nothing more. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ ^{spik ʌp!} 05:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you have it all wrong, my friend. The Crescent Moon symbol had to do with the Arabian Moon God of the Kabah, and happens to also be the MUSLIM symbol (culturally religiously etc) on top of almost every MOSQUE on the planet. (So relegating it on JUST the Ottoman Turks is rather silly and dishonest...The historical fact is that Arabs worshipped the moon and the crescent moon symbol before Mohammad was even born. And Islam adopted it, and retained some of that stuff.)

Also, why "disregard" the fact and the point that Bin Ladin has hidden and felt comfortable in Pakistan, rather than say India or Japan? Proximity yes, but also the fact that Pakistan is ISLAMIC big time, and also how (if you remember the news footage) many Pakistanis in the streets there were cheering Bin Ladin, holding and admiring pictures of him. Hmmmmmm The fact that you're sensitive to the notion or implication of "categorizing the same way" tells me that you're biased and IN THE TANK for Pakistan...and will close your eyes to hard facts. Sorry to be that blunt, but it seems obvious what's up. Ironically though, I actually was NOT thinking necessarily of the "terrorist" aspect, but just the general Islamic Arab INFLUENCE aspect. It's weird how you would say there's so "very little" Arab influence, and also compare it to "Indonesia or Albania" simply cuz they have nominal Islam there. Pakistanis look more close to "Arab" (loosely speaking) than do "Indonesians". And have lots of Muslim Arab influence on it and a liking of that stuff. (Many have admired Bin Ladin in the streets too. BUT how many in India have cheered bin Ladin or carried big pictures of him? They don't do that in India. See my point?)

And Indonesia and Albania are NOT considered part of the "Greater Middle East"...while Pakistan IS. But again, I was simply making the point that "Pakistan", because of proximity, religion, and making themselves different than neighboring India (which it used to be a part of, as anyone who watched the movie "Ghandi" knows), very different in attitude and society, is NOT in the same category as India or Sri Lanka etc. That's ALL. As I said, it's no big deal...actually. I don't want to get in some big debate about "crescent moon symbols" or this or that. But just to set some records straight. I already told you though that I'm NOT pursuing this matter anymore. About "Southwest Asia" versus "South Asia." It's not that big a deal....bye. Archiver of Records (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

less mention of cold climate

The article only mentions the country's southern climate when discussing seasons. in reality the country has cold snowy winters in the north99.227.90.213 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Indian inventions

A discussion is currently underway here to decide whether the title of the article List of Indian inventions and discoveries is accurate, and if its name should be changed to List of South Asian inventions and discoveries. All users interested in Pakistan and South Asia-related topics are welcome to participate and express their thoughts. Mar4d (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

List of Pakistani Inventions and discoveries

There is a new page now specifically for Pakistan, List of Pakistani inventions and discoveries, Please help me update this page as its very time consuming best regards S Seagal (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

sure I will help clean up all the junk you have placed there.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would help remove the Pakistani inventions that are dubbed falsely as "indian" in the list of indian inventions and discoveries since the inventions on the pakistan page took place within the territory of pakistan. S Seagal (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Demand for literature of Pakistan box

Syed Ahmed Khan (1817–1898)	Muhammad Iqbal (1877-1938)	Chaudhry Rehmat Ali (1897–1951)	Faiz Ahmed Faiz (1911–1984)	Habib Jalib (1928–1993)
			File:FaizAFaiz.jpg	120px

Since this thread is locked by people are are blatantly out to undermine the article, can this please be added as this is also done with other featured articles?

Hopefully it wont take 3 years to have it added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.197.6 (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Do you have a source(s) to point out that these individuals are particularly notable? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

They are all notable, Syed ahmad khan is known as the father of urdu in pakistan, muhmmad iqbal is the one that came up with concept of the nation and wrote many works, rehmat ali coined the name of pakistan in his works, fiaz ahmed fiaz is a famous contempory as is habib jalib. if you go into the main articles of each you will find hundreds of sources.

This may very well be true, but since Wikipedia is based on external sources, can you point to a reliable source that says so? /Julle (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RS for a description of what makes a reliable source, they don't have to be in English, or on the internet. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

http://www.currentsocial.com/pakistan/sir-syed-ahmad-khans-ideology-of-pakistan-2.html http://www.allamaiqbal.com/person/movement/move_main.htm http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_rahmatali_1933.html http://www.dawn.com/2011/02/17/faiz-ahmed-faiz-life-and-poetry.html http://www.bepakistan.com/habib-jalib-pakistan-ka-matlab-kya/

There are millions of sources if you look on google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.197.6 (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure these images will improve the article. Two of the five authors are already mentioned with enough context to explain their significance to the reader. Besides, Syed Ahmed Khan was born in Delhi and died in Uttar Pradesh half a century before Pakistan was even founded. How is he an example of Pakistani literature? Huon (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

likewise Iqbal was born and died before Pakistan was ever created. Though he was a supporter of Idea of Pakistan I am not sure that would make him a Pakistani. His poem Saare Jahan Se Achcha is very popular till this day in India and roughly translates into "Hindustan ( aka Land of the Hindus) is the best country in the world"--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Theodor Herzl died before Israel was created as a state but he is still revered as one of the founders of the idea of the state of Israel, Even Indians themselves are quoting Pakistani poets, http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/indian-judges-use-urdu-poem-to-reason-with-pak-91613 Perhaps then we should remove all mention of [[Theodor Herzl] from the Israel page. As for Iqbal he was a staunch supporter for the establishment of Pakistan and his tomb is located in what is now Pakistan. As for

Sir Syed again you should read the links provided. I dont see why you both are so averse to adding a literature box since its done for other FA ie Germany perhaps you find it threatening that pakistan has literature? Next there will be a dispute that Jinnah is a Pakistani because he was born before Pakistan was established, Not sure if Wikireader is claiming that Iqbal wasnt a Pakistani or if he was instead Indian, But baring in mind that India was ruled by the British perhaps he was British?S Seagal (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

maybe. nobody is threatened by Pakistan having literature. we are just trying to see who to include. please read WP:OSE before making arguments about Theodor Herzl. many Pakistanis do not support the idea of pakistan as subscribed by Jinnah. does that mean we call them non Pakistani. the fact is that having your grave in Pakistan does NOT make you a citizen of pakistan by a long shot. Iqbal was an Urdu poet who (clearly at one time) was very patriotic and loved the "Land of Hindus". the literature of Pakistan needs to include people who are bona fide citizens of Pakistan. If I may remind people the obvious. There was nothing called Pakistan before 1947. even the term did not exist till a few years prior to that. the creator of term pakistan was kicked out of the country shortly after its creation Choudhary Rahmat Ali#After the creation of Pakistan The Vedas were also composed in the Land now called pakistan. would you like that included in the literature of pakistan also ???--Wikireader41 (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Many Indians do not support the ideal of India as envisioned by Gandhi, However they are still Indian, The history of Pakistan is every event that ever took place in the area that is now Pakistan, The area that was Pakistan, Or areas that

will become Pakistan geographically speaking. Iqbal may have loved the land of the Hindus but he supported the establishment of the land of Pakistan more, Further India did not exist until 1947 period, There was the British Raj and before that the Moghul empire, PLease stick to topic and stop trolling, if its the authors you dont like then please suggest what changes should be made and we can agree on them. S Seagal (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Theodor Herzl is actually a good example: He's mentioned only in the history section of the Israel article, not in the section on Israeli culture. Similarly, Chaudhry Rehmat Ali is mentioned in the section on Pakistan's history, but I couldn't even verify that he's famous as a writer; he rather seems to be known for his political activism. Regarding Germany, when that article was elevated to Featured status, it did not yet have a literature box. In general, I don't see how a collection of context-free images improves the article. Huon (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said if you dont like the writers then suggest others? Im open to suggestions and this is a suggestion.S Seagal (talk) 20:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I see no issue with a literature box, in fact I think its a good idea, but the writers do need to be well chosen. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I think of the people mentioned above Jalib and Faiz were the only 2 who actually lived in Pakistan and can be included. I am sure there are others. S seagal you are the one trolling and need to check your facts. India has existed for many millenia whether you like it or not and the forefathers of most Pakistanis are Indians. Indian is not a term just used for citizens of Republic of India. It is like saying that there was no Chinese before People's Republic of China came into being. time to do some reading. you might want to start by look at this map of "India" in 1760[13]--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain why you feel Alama Iqbal who is to Pakistan what Herzl is to Israel and a well known poet in Asia should not be included or Syed Ahmed? Perhaps you wish to claim them as being Indian? As for India, There has never been an "India"

prior to 1947, what was the currency and old national flag of this India, who was its leader? and its founder? No such people exist, In reality love it or hate it India like Pakistan is a political neologism to describe the forceful amalgamation ::::: of south asian people who share nothing in common, That being said with the topic at hand can you tell us why Ahmed and Iqbal should not be included? S Seagal (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also Rehmat ALi? He founded the name of the country and he deserves mention, If you could name the person who came up the term "Bharat" or "India" he would me mentioned all over the India articles, Its not Pakistan's fault India doesnt know who :::::: invented the name of India, Pakistan knows it political father and he produced a document that was the first mention of the name of Pakistan, His name is Rehmat ALi.S Seagal (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

because they were never Pakistani. Ahmed and Iqbal lived and died long before Pakistan was ever created. Rehmat ali was actually booted out of the country and lies buried in UK. regarding your view that their was no India prior to 1947, did you even care to look at the map that I provided ?? stop pushing your non sensical POV that there was no India before 1947. Allama Iqbal, Rehmat ali and Syed ahmed were fully Indian not Pakistani. Traitorous and a villainous Indians maybe, but Indians nonetheless. Being sympathetic to a cause does not make you a citizen of that country. A significant number of Pakistani minorities don't really like the idea of Pakistan and want to migrate to India but that does not make them Indian.[14] The people of the subcontinent were referred to as Indians for a long time prior to 1947. a List of Pakistani poets exists and we can draw from that being careful who we call pakistani. a distorted History is taught in Pakistan and you might find the work and views of leading Pakistani historian Mubarak Ali enlightening.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Could we all please tone down the nationalism a bit? First of all, I still do not see why a collection of images without context is supposed to be an improvement for the article. Only two of the five people suggested by the IP editor are actually mentioned in the section on Pakistani culture. Wouldn't it be more useful to write a few sentences explaining the importance of these people than to just add an image?

If consensus favors the addition of the literature box, I see no reason why Iqbal should not be included. He died before Pakistan was founded, but he is considered the national poet, and that makes him important to Pakistani literature.

About Syed Ahmed I'm not so sure. He didn't live in what is nowadays Pakistan, he died long before Pakistan was ever founded, and for all I can tell he was a staunch supporter of the British Raj. Even worse, according to our article on him, he was an "educator and politician, and an Islamic reformer and modernist" - but not a writer (except of scholarly works, which probably do not count as literature). Why would he be included in a literature box? He belongs there as little as in a collection of famous cricketers.

And while Rehmat Ali is duly mentioned in the article as inventor of the name Pakistan, that invention does not make him notable as a writer either, and I don't see why he is considered a useful addition to a literature box. Huon (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

those are good points Huon except calling Iqbal pakistani is not accurate for reasons I mention above. other suitable candidates exist who are clearly Pakistani. Josh Malihabadi is a very well known one. he officially migrated from India to Pakistan and lived and died there as a Pakistani citizen.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Saadat Hasan Manto would be another good one to include.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Whilst Sir Syed and Iqbal may not have had passports that said "Pakistani" on them, They did not have passports that said "Indian" on them either perhaps "British India" but the keyword there is British, If anything Iqbal and Syed Ahmed

were more British than "Indian" given they were knighted, That being said Im happy for Josh Malihabadi to be included even though he was not born in Pakistan or Saadat Hasan Manto. Doing what the Israel article did with Herzl, Iqbal

should be moved to the history of Pakistan section and not the culture of Pakistan section. To call Iqbal "Indian" given that he died before India was established as a nation state in 1947 and pushed for a Pakistani state is a travesty of history

that being said lets agree on a middle ground. S Seagal (talk) 18:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

well the residents of British India were called Indians and hence Jinnah, Syed , Iqbal were all Indians as were their Hindu forefathers. The word Indian is used by english speakers NOT just to describe citizens of Republic of India but also was used to describe the residents of British India and much of the subcontinent for a long time prior to 1947. They were never Pakistani just like Muhammad was never Pakistani even though his views had profound effects on people who created Pakistan. get it out of your head that the people of the subcontinent were not referred to as Indians prior to 1947. And none of them were referred to as Pakistani till 1947. The Indian National Congress was formed in 1800s and Indian National Army fought for independence from the British--Wikireader41 (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

from 1896 to about 1913 Jinnah was a card carrying member of Indian National Congress. please read Muhammad Ali Jinnah#Early political career.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think your mistaken you are basically saying Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are "Indian" this is not backed up by any evidence, Pakistanis are people from the state of Pakistan and Bangladeshi are from Bangladesh, Before 1947 it was British India and before that Moghul Empire this "India" that existed before 1947 existed not in reality but in your mind, Who was the founder of the pre-1947 India? Who were its leaders? What was its flag? what was its currency and what was its relations with other states? There was no India prior to 1947. Can you give me any sources to prove that a country called India existed before 1947 that was not colonised by the British? S Seagal (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think Wikireader41 is arguing that India was a country before 1947. Neither was Italy a country before 1860, but we would still accept that, say, the Dukes of Milan and the Kings of Naples were both Italians despite ruling different independent countries. Similarly, India is the common name of the region that nowadays includes the Republic of India but also Bangladesh and Pakistan. One example for the widespread use of that name is the designation "Indians" given the Native Americans - because Columbus originally believed he had reached India.

Back on topic, I'd say the relevant question for inclusion is, "Is this person important to Pakistani literature?" By that criterion, Iqbal as Pakistan's national poet should definitely be included even though he was a subject of Empress Victoria (Empress of India, by the way). Huon (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

right the basic POV push by SSeagal is that people of the subcontinent were not called Indians prior to 1947 when Republic of India came into being. The subjects of Queen Victoria who had brown skin and lived in that subcontinent were called "Indian" and certainly not "Englishmen". Thats OK even though I believe Iqbal really was as Indian as Gandhi we can mention him.Josh Malihabadi is a pretty well respected man of letters who is very well regarded in India also.--Wikireader41 (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have said we can add Josh Malihaba, I have no problems coming to a conpromise, It just seems you are against the idea of a literature box all together. S Seagal (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I am against the idea of a literature box, but I believe I'm alone with that position. We had agreed on Iqbal (whose image is already in the article), Faiz Ahmed Faiz and Josh Malihabadi. Wikireader41 also mentioned Saadat Hasan Manto who might be a good representative of the short story genre, but we don't seem to have an image of him. The image of Habib Jalib has copyright issues, and I don't think we can claim fair use for this article (though I'm not a copyright expert). I would oppose both Syed Ahmed Khan and Chaudhry Rehmat Ali for a lack of importance to literature. Any other ideas, or should we just add a three-image box?