Talk:Pakistan

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.[[1]],[[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]] 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)

Correction needed in demographics/religion section

I checked out the reference sources for the religion/demographics section and what has been written in this article is erroneous. The reference article does not make any reference to the number figured in the article. I tried to make the change but was unable to do so. Christians make up the largest minority group in Pakistan. The article states otherwise, listing hindus as the largest minority. Can someone please correct this as the large minority of Christians in Pakistan often pride themselves on being such a large community while living in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The LoC source gives a number of 1.6% for both Hindus and Christians; I've changed the absolute number of Hindus accordingly. The census says that Hindus slightly outnumber Christians with 1.6% to 1.59%, so the ranking seems to be correct. Huon (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the CIA World factbook, Pakistan is indeed the sixth most populous country, but the 5th and 7th are Brazil and BANGLADESH [6], respectively. The article states that the country behind Pakistan by population rank is Russia, which is, in fact, the 9th most populous country. I changed the main article (Demographics in Pakistan) but I am unable to edit the section of this article to match it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.96.147 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I made the change. Huon (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2011 (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)

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: [7]. 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)

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:Rehmat.jpg	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[8]--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.[9] 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)