Talk:Pakistan

Shia Muslims in Pakistan

All the sources stating the fact are based on either 1981 or 1998 census report. Hence these sources are correct though yet old, although rough independent estimates suggest they account for one quarter (15-20%) of the population. However, Shia Muslims claim to make up one-third of Pakistan’s population of 180 million, according the to current estimates the actual Shia population is more than 30% of Pakistan on this link, here and here, since in the last census reports great number of Shia families publicly never exposed their Shia faith by practicing "Taqiyya", due to reason that they feared getting killed since during early 80s till 90s, the last two decades were bloody and the Shia's in Pakistan had to face mass execution by the hands of extremist Deobandi and Salafi organizations, many Shia groups continue to practice Taqiyya since they fear death by the hands of Anti-Shia forces that use to dominate Pakistan at that time. There was a complete lawless situation, and yes no body talked about the genocide that the Shia had to suffer by the state sponsored extremists.Overwhelming results regarding Shia execution in Pakistan. Last year i attended a "Inter-Faith Religious Harmony Convention" at the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, the convention was presided by the Judges from the Supreme Court Bar council, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Religious affairs and many notable Scholars. In the convention they all laid emphasis on co-existence and facts regarding the total sectarian division in Pakistan and stated this; "Around 65% of Total (To be precise) Pakistani Muslims are Sunni Muslims and there is a minority 30% Shi'a Shia Ithna 'ashariyah Muslims, while remaining 5% of the Muslim population comprises Salafis, Nizari, Sufi and Zikri. Then the secretary of religious affairs (Mr. Agha Sarwar Raza Qazilbash)[1] stated that Muslims are divided into following schools: the Barelvi 41%, Shia Ithna Asharia 25%, Deobandi 21%, Ahle Hadith or Salafi 5%, Ismaili 5%, Bohra 0.25%, and other smaller sects." Now lets talk about this division, The Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahle Hadith, Salafi are sub-sects of Sunni Islam, While Shia Ithna Asharia, Ismaili, Bohra are sub-sects of Shia Islam. Then everyone talked about various problems like religious freedom, sectarian hatred, etc while one of which was Taqiyya in practice, due to which the actual Shia estimates in Pakistan has always been uncertain and is certainly more then the mentioned 25%. I hope you understand Taqqiya then hopefully you'll understand my claim and what this is all about. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 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.

History section skips

History between, after Harappa and before Indo-Greek and between 300 BCE to 712 AD is missing. Can someone with the information add the history during these period.

~rAGU (talk)

maybe we should add a section about Vedic era here? Or is it unpatriotic to give even a small credit to Hindus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.129.239 (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unpatriotic, but wikipedia is not a place to show "patriotism". Wayne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.63.252 (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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.

Error in GDP data.. revision needed throughout wikipedia

I wanted to point out that the IMF data cited for the GDP data does not correlate with the data given on the wiki page, the GDP(real) is $166.513Bn and GDP(real) per capita is $1016 as per 2009 estimates provided by them(IMF). These values would also need to be changed in the countries by GDP(real) page. Also the population number is incorrect, going by IMF 2009 data is should be 166.513mil. All this is from the 3rd link in the bibliography of this page. Thanks. Ivan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.208.160 (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to page and the source, the numbers match. None of the country articles that I know of or the rankings page has updated to the 2009 IMF staff estimates (probably because they're "staff estimates" rather than organization estimates). The figures listed are for 2008. Population data is hard for fast growing countries like Pakistan. So we can't really say that it's wrong since there are various estimates from reliable sources like the UN and Statistics department of Pakistan. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

so what? lets do the edits. 76.90.63.252 (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2010 (U In short the creation of pakistan was not an error at all. Muslims have different culture as compare to hinduism, their culture is different and every think they are used to living is different so what. i have different culture than rest of the country. lets make another country out around my house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.129.157 (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Name/Etymology

Reading from the etymology section, it is unclear which came first. Did the name "Pakistan" mean "land of the Pure", and was then refashioned it into a portmanteau, or was the portmanteau invented, which later was incorporated into Urdu and Farsi with the more sublime meaning? MrPMonday (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out the article mentions Islamabad as forming part of the portmanteau, but the Islamabad article says the town was planned in 1960, long after "Pakistan" was conceived of...--Smarkflea (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pakistan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall, this is a very good, well-written article. At the time of first review, it falls short of the good article criteria in several areas. However, with a little bit of work, I think it could be brought up to standards.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Mostly passes on this account. I made a few minor copyedits, but there are no major issues. One thing that I saw a bit of is in the placement of citations -- citations should be placed immediately after punctuation marks, with no space between, and not in the middle of sentences.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There is one 'citation needed' tag that needs to be addressed (see below). Most of the other citations are good, and information is reliable. I don't see any WP:OR issues. Moving towards featured status, I would recommend converting all citations to citation templates, and trying to include as much information as possible (e.g. full author, title, publisher, date of publication, date URL retrieved, etc); though I think most of the citation formatting is at a minimum acceptability for GA.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article still needs sections on Communications and Transportation, per Wikiproject Countries guidelines (see below). Order of sections could be improved (see below).

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Does not appear to have any WP:NPOV violations.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Don't see any recent evidence of edit-wars or WP:3RR violations. The article is currently semi-protected (since 28 May 2009, protected by YellowMonkey, though it's been several months, so whatever reasons the article was semi-protected may no longer apply now. It might be simply due to the violence and situation along the Afghanistan border?

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   See below for image issues.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article does not currently meet all of the GA criteria, but I think the issues are addressable. So I will place the article on hold until 2/27/2010 (two weeks) so that they may be resolved. WTF? (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Lead section: Reasonably good. There's a couple of minor issues. First, does this statement really need a citation: "Pakistan, officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a country in South Asia."? It seems pretty obvious and easily verifiable. As a matter of fact, three of the citations in the lead really are citing rather obvious material. Per WP:LEAD guidelines, the section should be a summary, so citations should largely be unnecessary here.

"It has a 1,046 kilometres (650 mi) coastline..." -- "kilometres" really shouldn't be plural, though I see that a template is being used here for the km/mi conversion, so that is part of that issue.

Third paragraph: Seems to repeat "in the world" three times. The statement on second largest muslim population as well as second largest Shia muslim population is also somewhat repetitive. This makes for some awkward reading.

• History section looks good, after a few minor copyedits. One concern is that there is an image of "The Priest King" at the top of the section, yet there is no mention of that, or of "Sindhi Ajruk", in the article text.

• Government: The statement "Pakistan is a semi-presidential federal democratic republic with Islam as the state religion" seems like it would be a better lead statement for that first paragraph, instead of the last sentence there. e.g. introduce what Pakistan's government is first, and then get into the details of the Constitution.

"During the Soviet-Afghan War in the 1980s Pakistan was a major U.S. ally." -- This statement has a 'citation needed' tag that needs resolving prior to GA.

The separate 'Military' section could probably be included as a subsection of 'Government', since it's related. Although Wikiproject countries has it as its own section, so either is fine.

• Demographics/languages: The languages subsection seems to be pertinent and reasonably well-cited. However, the image to the right of the section outlining the locations of major ethnic groups only fits the section somewhat marginally, since the section doesn't tie in the languages spoken with specific ethnic groups very well.

• The 'Flora and Fauna' section might be better included as a subsection within 'Geography and climate', as opposed to a separate section. The content seems very related.

• The 'Economy' section could be written better. There's some fairly broad, generalized statements like "Pakistan has a semi-industrialized economy" and "Pakistan is a rapidly developing country", yet the presence of multiple citations on statements like this lead me to believe that there's more information in those citations that could be included in the article.

The second sentence, "The growth poles of the Pakistani economy are situated..." seems to be a long, run-on sentence and would be better if broken up.

Would be nice to include some examples of some of the largest corporations and businesses in Pakistan. Both domestic corporations, as well as some of the major foreign-owned companies as well.

• Education: The image of Punjab University's campus is nice, but there is no text in the article discussing it. It might be a good idea to include some information on some of the top and/or more popular schools and colleges in Pakistan.

• Tourism: "naturally decorated cave"? Is this the name of the cave, or do you mean "other naturally-decorated caves"?

• Sports: "although cricket is the most popular game across the country." -- broad, generalized comment with no citation.

• Outline of Pakistan: The section only contains a template containing geographic links to bordering nations. I would recommend moving this template to the bottom of the 'geography and climate' section, instead of including it as a section with no text. Sections without text are discouraged.

• There are no sections on Communications or Transportation, per Wikiproject Countries outline. I would also recommend reordering the sections more in the order found in that guideline -- e.g. Etymology, History, Governance, Geography (flora & fauna, outline template), Economy, Demographics, Culture (include Tourism and Sports here as subsections), Communications, Transportation, Military, Education.

• Images: Is the flag image and the coat of arms image actually public domain and GFDL images? I would think that digital version of those images would be owned by the government of Pakistan? Though I think that Wikipedia can still legitimately use them -- the copyright tags may not be correct.

File:Mainboulevard1cg lahore.jpeg -- This image is currently tagged with a deletion nomination since November 2009. Possibly copyright dispute.

File:Malam Jabba P1010215.jpg -- Not a major issue, but there is a tag on this image that it has been moved to the Wikimedia Commons, so the article should probably use that image instead. WTF? (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

thanks for ur review, ur suggestions were realy helpful, i hv worked on almost half of them and will work on rest of them shortly.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 20:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There were quite a few glaring issues in the Economy section alone. Please note that there cannot be any copy-paste jobs in the article. Also, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, therefore the information should be factual and up-to-date. Also, I believe that given the magnitude and the implications of the War in North-West Pakistan, it should be covered in a bit more detail rather than a brief mention of it. Thanks --Nosedown (talk) 10:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

due to my busy schedule these days (new job, new office etc ..) i am hardly available on wikipedia, on the coming weekend i will try resolving all the issues by following the suggestions given by above Users, if i failed this time, then i will withdraw the GA nomination voluntarily and will nominate it again once i am done improving it as per above given suggestions.

Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 18:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The weekend's past and some work's been done, but doesn't seem like you've made any edits to it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I had updated the Economy section but it seems that the changes made by me and others were reverted. As of now, much of the first para of the Economy section is a copy-paste job from the website of Trade Development Authority of Pakistan. Not only is this a direct copyvio but the information is also outdated (the data on that webpage has not been updated after 2006). I'm sorry but the article is in pathetic condition and looking at the pace of improvement, it is going to take months before the article is any good. So, Strong Oppose. --Nosedown (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you're a contributor you cannot be a reviewer per GA Review guidelines. And WP:GA does not operate on a system of "support" and "oppose" votes, so that comment does not matter. However, it has been well over one month since the review was posted, and editors still have not addressed the concerns raised in this review. I am therefore going to remove the listing of this article from WP:GAN; it can be renominated there once it meets all six good article criteria and the concerns raised here have been addressed. WTF? (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Languages

The article says that "English is the official language of Pakistan and used in official business, government, and legal contracts, while Urdu is the national language." However, the source given (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html) says that Urdu and English are both official languages and makes no reference to any "national language". Other sources also call Urdu the (or an) official language of Pakistan.

It would be good if the "Languages" section gave some idea of percentages of speakers. For example, acording to the same CIA source, Punjabi is by far the most common language in Pakistan, with six times as many speakers as Urdu, yet you would hardly get that idea from the article.

Perhaps someone could take a look at these points. 86.161.43.54 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

NWFP/Pakhtoonkhwa

{{editsemiprotected}} Can the name 'North West Frontier Province' please be changed to the new name of Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa.. there is only one place in the article which calls the province by the new name and everywhere else it still says NWFP which is outdated now

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.154.111.184 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2010

As far as I can tell, the rename has not yet happened; for example, this news article says, "The name is still subject to approval by Parliament". We would need evidence, in the form of a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

http://www.nwfp.gov.pk/nwfpgov/index.php This is the link for the provincial government's official website. they haven't changed the domain name but the home page calls the province Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa pretty clearly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.145.183.4 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Religion

In the religion section, somebody put Ahmedis with Muslims (Sunni and Shia). They also took out Ahmedis from minority section. Please fix it. 83.82.207.195 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. The Pakistani constitution calls Ahmadis non-Muslim and outside the pale of Islam. But Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and therefore does not follow the laws passed down by Pakistan. As long as Ahmadis call themselves Muslims, they will not be removed from Muslims... Yes, it can be stated in Wikipedia that the constitution of Pakistan calls them non-Muslims and that has been done in many places, e.g. Islam in Pakistan. Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree a little with you peaceworld on this , although ahmadis call themselves muslims they are not and as the constitution of pakistan states they are non muslims and seeing that this article is "PAKISTAN" the ahmadis should not be included in muslims ARQ 04:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)maniqadirARQ 04:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniqadir (talk • contribs)

Change of Name of the North-West Frontier Province to Khyber-Pakhtunkha

The change has taken effect as President of Pakistan has sign'ed on the amendment in the 1973's Constitution of Pakistan, after it has passed from the both sections of the Parliament of Pakistan. I, in this context, rather see it necessary that the mention(s) of North-West Frontier Province, also abbreviated as N.W.F.P or simply NWFP, immediately change to Khyber-Pakhtunkha.SAY NO TO RACISM 22:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• We are acutely aware that the name has been officially changed. We can highlight this issue (for example in the list of provinces and territories), but we cannot simply eliminate NWFP until there is a consensus for moving North-West Frontier Province to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. If you look at Talk:North-West Frontier Province, you will see that there have been two proper attempts so far, but there is disagreement as yet. Undoubtedly, the new name will increase in usage across the spectrum of media, literature, politics etc and the article will move. Green Giant (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A good article but a little patchy!

I am new to this so if I am doing something wrong...Im sorry!

This article does a good job at addressing quite a complex topic. The thing I would say about it is this...I just tried to put together a brief history of Pakistan and found some stuff lacking

1. Ayub Khan - Yahya Khan: Doesnt explain why this happened, mentions the Second Kashmir War but doesnt mention that this was in any way important.

2. The article gets very vague after 1988

I do realise that some things are discussed elsewhere but there should be at least a clue as where to go or what is important. I would just like to see this article made a bit more succinct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjones1966 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Perochak

People of Perochak. Here is the list of people of perochak who are doing great job in the progress of the Country, Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perochak (talk • contribs) 11:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Listing of founder

Turkey lists its founder. Should that be removed also? Hcobb (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Further Expansion of Pakistan

The article states considerably most of the things about Pakistan, but either all of them are too precise or lacking further information e.g elaborating Military section, Government and Politics section, Geography and Climate section and Economy section. I am considering to expand them a little more and also add few more pictures. Guess we need suggestions regarding its expansion, please help me out with your ideas/proposals. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have more pictures, then please add those pictures. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 18:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have elaborated the following sections: Military, Geography and climate, Flora and fauna and Transportation. And also added few existing images to the article. Guess its all done the only work left for further elaboration and new images is regarding Economy Section, Education section and Government and politics section. Need suggestions, and some new images regarding their expansion. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Frigate

There's a discussion on the Frigate article which users here might be interested in. 88.106.110.71 (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)