Jump to content

Talk:Pakistan: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted edits by 216.56.10.51 to last version by Wknight94
Apermal (talk | contribs)
18 edits
Line 480: Line 480:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pak-Afghan_Relations--[[User:Bk2006|Bk2006]] 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pak-Afghan_Relations--[[User:Bk2006|Bk2006]] 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Strayed too far from home? Maybe you're feeling homesick and calling Pakistan your home's name:-P [[User:Apermal|Anthony Permal]] 09:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


== Sari ==
== Sari ==

Revision as of 09:14, 27 February 2007

WikiProject iconPakistan FA‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
FAThis article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:V0.5

"WP:WPC" redirects here. For the WikiProject on WikiProjects, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council. For the editing tool, see Wikipedia:WPCleaner. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject China.
Project Countries main pageTalkParticipantsTemplatesArticlesPicturesTo doArticle assessmentCountries portal

This WikiProject helps develop country-related pages (of all types) and works toward standardizing the formats of sets and types of country-related pages. For example, the sets of Culture of x, Administrative divisions of x, and Demographics of x articles, etc. – (where "x" is a country name) – and the various types of pages, like stubs, categories, etc.

WikiProject Countries articles as of November 2, 2024

What's new?

Did you know

Articles for deletion

  • 10 Nov 2024 – Kingdom of Shukuup (talk · edit · hist) was AfDed by Adabow (t · c); see discussion (3 participants)
  • 02 Nov 2024 – First Sikh State (talk · edit · hist) AfDed by Ratnahastin (t · c) was closed as delete by Liz (t · c) on 09 Nov 2024; see discussion (6 participants)

Categories for discussion

Redirects for discussion

(5 more...)

Good article nominees

Featured article reviews

Requests for comments

Requested moves

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

To do list

Scope

This WikiProject is focused on country coverage (content/gaps) and presentation (navigation, page naming, layout, formatting) on Wikipedia, especially country articles (articles with countries as their titles), country outlines, and articles with a country in their name (such as Demographics of Germany), but also all other country-related articles, stubs, categories, and lists pertaining to countries.

This WikiProject helps Wikipedia's navigation-related WikiProjects (Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge, WikiProject Categories, WikiProject Portals, etc.) develop and maintain the navigation structures (menus, outlines, lists, templates, and categories) pertaining to countries. And since most countries share the same subtopics ("Cities of", "Cuisine of", "Religion in", "Prostitution in", etc.), it is advantageous to standardize their naming, and their order of presentation in Wikipedia's indexes and table-of-contents-like pages.

Categories

Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
Countries
Click on "►" below to display subcategories:
WikiProject Countries

Subpages

Formatting

Many country and country-related articles have been extensively developed, but much systematic or similar information about many countries is not presented in a consistent way. Inconsistencies are rampant in article naming, headings, data presented, types of things covered, order of coverage, etc. This WikiProject works towards standardizing page layouts of country-related articles of the same type ("Geography of", "Government of", "Politics of", "Wildlife of", etc.).

We are also involved with the standardization of country-related stubs, standardizing the structure of country-related lists and categories (the category trees for countries should be identical for the most part, as most countries share the same subcategories – though there will be some differences of course).

Goals

  1. Provide a centralized resource guide of all related topics in Wikipedia, as well as spearhead the effort to improve and develop them.
  2. Create uniform templates that serve to identify all related articles as part of this project, as well as stub templates to englobe all related stubs under specific categories.
  3. Standardize articles about different nations, cultures, holidays, and geography.
  4. Verify historical accuracy and neutrality of all articles within the scope of the project.
  5. Create, expand and cleanup related articles.

Structure and guidelines

Although referenced during FA and GA reviews, this structure guide is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. Articles may be best modeled on the layout of an existing article of appropriate structure and topic (See: Canada, Japan and Australia)

Main polities

Main article: Country

A country is a distinct part of the world, such as a state, nation, or other political entity. When referring to a specific polity, the term "country" may refer to a sovereign state, states with limited recognition, constituent country, or a dependent territory.

Lead section

Shortcut
See also: WP:Lead section
For lead length see, #Size
Opening paragraphs
Further information: MOS:INTRO

The article should start with a good simple introduction, giving name of the country, general location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article). The primary purpose of a Wikipedia lead is not to summarize the topic, but to summarize the content of the article.

First sentence
Further information: MOS:FIRST

The first sentence should introduce the topic, and tell the nonspecialist reader what the subject is, and where. It should be in plain English.

The etymology of a country's name, if worth noting and naming disputes, may be dealt with in the etymology section. Foreign-languages, pronunciations and acronyms may also belong in the etymology section or in a note to avoid WP:LEADCLUTTER.

Example:

checkY Sweden,[a] formally the Kingdom of Sweden,[b] is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.
☒N Sweden,(Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ) formally the Kingdom of Sweden,(Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ) is a Nordic country located on the Scandinavian Peninsula in Northern Europe.

Detail, duplication and tangible information
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:How to create and manage a good lead section

Overly detailed information or infobox data duplication such as listing random examples, excessive numbered statistics or naming individuals should be reserved for the infobox or body of the article. The lead prose should provide clear, relevant information through links to relevant sub-articles about the country an relevant terms, rather than listing random stats and articles with minimal information about the country.

Example:

checkY A developed country, Canada has a high nominal per capita income globally and its advanced economy ranks among the largest in the world, relying chiefly upon its abundant natural resources and well-developed international trade networks. Recognized as a middle power, Canada's strong support for multilateralism and internationalism has been closely related to its foreign relations policies of peacekeeping and aid for developing countries. Canada is part of multiple international organizations and forums.
☒N A highly developed country, Canada has the seventeenth-highest nominal per-capita income globally and the sixteenth-highest ranking in the Human Development Index. Its advanced economy is the tenth-largest in the world and the 14th for military expenditure by country, Canada is part of several major international institutions including the United Nations, NATO, the G7, the Group of Ten, the G20, the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the Commonwealth of Nations, the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the Organization of American States.

Infobox

There is a table with quick facts about the country called an infobox. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.

Although the table can be moved out to the template namespace (to e.g. [[Template:CountryName Infobox]]) and thus easen the look of the edit page, most Wikipedians still disapprove as of now, see the talk page.

The contents are as follows:

  • The official long-form name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all (if reasonably feasible). The conventional long-form name (in English), if it differs from the local long-form name, should follow the local name(s). This is not a parameter to list every recognized language of a country, but rather for listing officially recognize national languages.
  • The conventional short-form name of the country, recognised by the majority of the English-speaking world; ideally, this should also be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country. (rot the place to list every recognized or used language)
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in square kilometres (km²) and square miles (sq mi) with the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it negligible if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
  • HDI: Information pertaining to the UN Human Development Index – the value, year (of value), rank (with ordinal), and category (colourised as per the HDI country list).
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: [[Australian dollar|dollar]].
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Lead map

There is a long-standing practice that areas out of a state's control should be depicted differently on introductory maps, to not give the impression the powers of a state extend somewhere they do not. This is for various types of a lack of control, be it another state (eg. Crimea, bits of Kashmir) or a separatist body (eg. DPR, TRNC).

Sections

Further information: Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Too much detail
Shortcut

A section should be written in summary style, containing just the important facts. Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery. Main article fixation is an observed effect that editors are likely to encounter in county articles. If a section it is too large, information should be transferred to the sub-article. Avoid sections focusing on criticisms or controversies. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections.

Articles may consist of the following sections:

  • Etymology sections are often placed first (sometimes called name depending on the information in the article). Include only if due information is available.
  • History – An outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs, depending on complexity of history), including some detail on current events. Sub-article: "History of X"
  • Politics – Overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Sub-article: "Politics of X"
  • Administrative divisions – Overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (and subsequent levels, if available) (e.g. provinces, states, departments, districts, etc.) and give the English equivalent name, when available. Also include overseas possessions. This section should also include an overview map of the country and subdivisions, if available.
  • Geography – Details of the country's main geographic features and climate. Historical weather boxes should be reserved for sub articles. Sub-article: "Geography of X"
  • Economy – Details on the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Sub-article: "Economy of X"
  • Demographics – Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Uncontextualized data and charts should be avoided. (See WP:NOTSTATS and WP:PROSE) Sub-article: "Demographics of X".
  • Culture – Summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known cultural contributions. Caution should be taken to ensure that the sections are not simply a listing of names or mini biographies of individuals accomplishments. Good example Canada#Sports. Sub-article: "Culture of X".
  • See also – 'See also" sections of country articles normally only contain links to "Index of country" and "Outline of country" articles, alongside the main portal(s).
  • References – Sums up "Notes", "References", and all "Further Reading" or "Bibliography"
  • External links – Links to official websites about the country. See WP:External links
Size
Shortcut
Main pages: Wikipedia:Article size and Wikipedia:Summary style § Article size
Articles that have gone through FA and GA reviews generally consists of approximately 8,000 to 10,000 words as per WP:SIZERULE, with a lead usually four paragraphs as per MOS:LEADLENGTH.
  • Australia = Prose size (text only): 60 kB (9,304 words) "readable prose size"
  • Bulgaria = Prose size (text only): 56 kB (8,847 words) "readable prose size"
  • Canada = Prose size (text only): 67 kB (9,834 words) "readable prose size"
  • Germany = Prose size (text only): 54 kB (8,456 words) "readable prose size"
  • Japan = Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8,104 words) "readable prose size"
  • East Timor = Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8,152 words) "readable prose size"
  • Malaysia = Prose size (text only): 57 kB (9,092 words) "readable prose size"
  • New Zealand = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,761 words) "readable prose size"
  • Philippines = Prose size (text only): 62 kB (9,178 words) "readable prose size"
Hatnote

The link should be shown as below: Avoid link clutter of multiple child articles in a hierarchical setup as hatnotes. Important links/articles shoukd be incorporated into the prose of the section. For example, Canada#Economy is a summary section with a hatnote to Economy of Canada that summarizes the history with a hatnote to Economic history of Canada. See WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE for more recommended hatnote usages.

checkY== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

☒N== Economy ==

Main article: Economy of Canada

See also: Petroleum industry in Canada and Agriculture in Canada

Further information: Economic history of Canada and Early Canadian banking system

Charts

Shortcut

As prose text is preferred, overly detailed statistical charts and diagrams that lack any context or explanation such as; economic trends, weather boxes, historical population charts, and past elections results, etc, should be reserved for main sub articles on the topic as per WP:DETAIL as outlined at WP:NOTSTATS.

Galleries

Shortcut

Galleries or clusters of images are generally discouraged as they may cause undue weight to one particular section of a summary article and may cause accessibility problems, such as sand­wich­ing of text, images that are too small or fragmented image display for some readers as outlined at WP:GALLERY. Articles that have gone through modern FA and GA reviews generally consists of one image for every three or four paragraph summary section, see MOS:ACCESS#FLOAT and MOS:SECTIONLOC for more information.

Footers

As noted at Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes the number of templates at the bottom of any article should be kept to a minimum. Country pages generally have footers that link to pages for countries in their geographic region. Footers for international organizations are not added to country pages, but they rather can go on subpages such as "Economy of..." and "Foreign relations of..." Categories for some of these organizations are also sometimes added. Templates for supranational organizations like the European Union and CARICOM are permitted. A list of the footers that have been created can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates/Navboxes, however note that many of these are not currently in use.

Transclusions

Transclusions are generally discouraged in country articles for reasons outlined below.

This section is transcluded from Help:Transclusion. (edit | history)
Shortcut
Further information: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits

Like many software technologies, transclusion comes with a number of drawbacks. The most obvious one being the cost in terms of increased machine resources needed; to mitigate this to some extent, template limits are imposed by the software to reduce the complexity of pages. Some further drawbacks are listed below.

Lists of countries

To determine which entities should be considered separate "countries" or included on lists, use the entries in ISO 3166-1 plus the list of states with limited recognition, except:

  • Lists based on only a single source should follow that source.
  • Specific lists might need more logical criteria. For example, list of sovereign states omits non-sovereign entities listed by ISO-3166-1. Lists of sports teams list whichever entities that have teams, regardless of sovereignty. Lists of laws might follow jurisdiction boundaries (for example, England and Wales is a single jurisdiction).

For consistency with other Wikipedia articles, the names of entities do not need to follow sources or ISO-3166-1. The names used as the titles of English Wikipedia articles are a safe choice for those that are disputed.

Resources

Notes

  1. ^ Swedish: Sverige [ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ; Finnish: Ruotsi; Meänkieli: Ruotti; Northern Sami: Ruoŧŧa; Lule Sami: Svierik; Pite Sami: Sverji; Ume Sami: Sverje; Southern Sami: Sveerje or Svöörje; Yiddish: שוועדן, romanized: Shvedn; Scandoromani: Svedikko; Kalo Finnish Romani: Sveittiko.
  2. ^ Swedish: Konungariket Sverige [ˈkôːnɵŋaˌriːkɛt ˈsvæ̌rjɛ] ⓘ


Archive Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8


Incomplete data

In the Pakistan entry it is asserted that Muhammad bin Qasim converted peacefully the local buddhist and hindu population to islam (if so, why the need to conquer and bring an army there), but in another entry this time with his name ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_qasim#Controversy ) it is admitted that there a two contradictory views about the way this initial conversion took place, and that these views are politically (religiously) influenced! Anyway, the fact that all what it is written about the conversion of subcontinent population to islam, is this short item of propaganda (supposing we accept that initial conversion took place as indicated by the author/editor of the entry, is of no doubt or contest that there was other instances when there was forced conversion to islam in history of the area, and that the population was subjected to mass murder!!!), is dangerous for the image of wikipedia!. It seems that letting a limited circle of people editing isn't functioning better in terms of objectivity . . .


Mohenjodaro image

Image:Priest King of Indus.jpg has been listed in possibly-unfree images. The image has dubious copyright tags. Can anyone replace it with a properly licensed version? Thanks. --Ragib 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nonstandard

This section added by Subravenkat (talk · contribs) is nonstandard. Pakistan is a featured article, and should be treated as such. No need to introduce POV laden non-standard sections. Thank you. --Ragib 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Religion

I find it astounding that, not only is there no article of religion in Pakistan, but there is not a single mention of it in the article at all! This astounds me because the relegion in Pakistan is such a major theme and element, as such, I would ask that someone kindly add something to this article about relegion in Pakistan.

Yes add religion and then start fight over it. Why do we have to ruin everything by bringing religion into everything? Isn't their enough religious hatred in Pakistan itself? Do you want o bring it here too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Me Again Again (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Pakistani Nationalism

Can someone please add a link to the Pakistani Nationalism article on this page?

I didnt want to make any edits to the page before consulting other members.

Thanks S Seagal 02:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]

[[Category:National symbols of Pakistan]]

Can someone take a look at the category and tell me how many of the articles included there are actually declared as part of National symbols of Pakistan? For example, is there any such thing as the "National reptile"? An anon user from various ips at 82.0.x.x have been adding various animals, flowers, fruits, khyber pass, a mountain, a crocodile, the Pakistani Military, Benazir Bhutto, Begum Liaquat Ali Khan and a host of other things as the "National symbol of Pakistan". The "Crocodile" sounds quite ridiculous, and so are the persons, so I'd like someone from Pakistan to verify the items added to this category. Also, please take a look at the article National symbols of Pakistan and remove the incorrect entries there.

Ideally, this cat, and the article should only contain items that have been declared by the Govt as national symbols (like flower, game, dress, fish, fruit etc.).

Thanks. --Ragib 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several national symbols are listed on the Pakistani information ministry's website. I think it's fair to say that some of the symbols which aren't listed there, like the Minar-e-Pakistan, probably are national symbols but I can't find any official indications. I've removed the amusing but superflous ones by the anon user.
Green Giant 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks a lot for resolving this. The whole thing was quite frustrating ... as the anon was persistently adding one thing after another to the list and the category. Some of the things were obviously fake (like the "National crocodile"), but for other items, it was not possible for me as an outsider to verify the correctness. Thanks again for cleaning up the page. --Ragib 15:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ramifications of a war in the Middle East for Pakistan

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

Coverage expansion - Media, Education and Islamic fundamentalism

Hi to all - I think this article is lacking in three major areas. As a reader I would like to learn more of what kind of media infrastructure Pakistan has - newspapers, publications, tv, radio, satellite, phone, internet, etc. I would also like to see a subsection describing education systems - universities, colleges, madrassas, primary and secondary schools throughout the country. Such sections are "usually" a part of country FAs - not necessary but yet a part. I also think that "Holidays" should be compressed into the "Culture" section.

I see that Islamic fundamentalism is conspiciously absent from both politics and culture. I think its a matter of great importance that this article should tackle candidly. Large segments of Pakistanis are deeply influenced by Islam and fundamentalism - there are large numbers of madrassas everywhere. Organisations like the Tableeghi Jamaat are attracting top Pakistani celebrities like Inzamam ul Haq, Saeed Anwar, Mushtaq Ahmed, Mohammad Yousuf and former president Rafiq Tarar. Islamic fundamentalism is particularly important to describe in reference to Balochistan and NWFP. The "Culture" section paints a glossy picture but fails to describe the various social practices such as honour killings, feudalism and tribalism. Rama's arrow 18:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Tableeghi Jamaat is mostly apolitical, and not at all fundamentalist. It is more of a missionary organization. I do think your other points are valid, and can be added to the article. --Ragib 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Tabhligi Jamaat - many TJ leaders were involved in the Pakistan coup attempt of 1995. Additionally, the US is investigating this group for funding and supporting terrorist outfits. Rama's arrow 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Rama's Arrow, the problem with people like you is that you are extremely fond of generalization and simplification. What do you know, Rama's Arrow, about Tableeg Jamat? Just because some TJ people were involved with Pakistani coup attempt and because the US is investigating into the TJ (Big Deal!) cannot make the TJ as an organization guilty. Please stop meddling with what you have no ideas about, dear Rama's Arrow! User: Kazimostak

Islam and extremist fundamentalism is totally a different thing.. what i dont understand is your reasoning for mentioning the names of Pakistani famous people with that.. If they turned towars religion, that is not extremism, its a belief of faith.. Kindly keep that in mind when addressing these issues again..iquadri 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Pakistans constitution has had an amendment made to it. It states women do not need witnesses for accusations of rape [they actually had that, the Sardars and Nawabs wouldnt let them do anything about it though]. Now if a person is found guilty of rape they are given the death penalty. Harsh but it may decrease the immense levels of rape cases that have never been bothered with before.MOI 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--"Large segments of Pakistanis are deeply influenced by Islam and fundamentalism"- ramas arrow. I would like to say that i beleive this is really truely ridiculous. This is like saying that a Christian or Jewish Religous person is an extremist. I dont think you were trying to suggest that but that is wut it sounds like. And Madrassa means : Arabic= Islamic school of thought, and these are some of teh only forms of education provided to impoverished children. Please take that into consideration before you make any more assumptions.MOI 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History Section Far To Compressed

Ive been looking at this article and found that Pakistans history ie from Independence till 2006 is highly compressed in just two paragraphs.

I think it would be best if we made seperate articles for each decade since Pakistan's indepedence:

1. 1947-1958: The Democratic Era I, Jinnah, L Ali Khan, Bogra, K nazimuddein

2. 1958-1969: The Ayub Khan Era, Robust economic growth etc

3. 1969-1979: Yayha Khan and the Bengali Independence, The return of democracy Z A Bhutto The Democratic Era II.

4. 1979-1989: Zia Ul Haq era, I note that there is an article already titled 'Zia Islamization', Plus the War in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union which had a profound affect in Pakistan which was involved.

5. 1989-1999: The Democratic Era III, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Nuclear Tests

6. 1999-Present: The Musharraf Era, War on Terrorism , Economic growth, etc

Once these six seperate articles detailing each decade of Pakistan since independence is made we can add a link to the relevant articles here in the history section. I think this is good idea since it would provides a more indepth information.

What do you people think?

S Seagal 12:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]


It would be better to link them from History of Pakistan. The history section here is a concise summary of that article, and rightfully so, as per summary style. Adding 6 links would just clutter the page. So, make the links from the History of Pakistan page. Thanks. --Ragib 15:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure if you understand what I mean, Im not talking about adding it to the history of Pakistan page, Im talking about 6 seperate new articles describing each decade of pakistan since independence, as a opposed to a brief paragraph in the history section and two paragraphs for over half a century of history on this article.

Something like:

  • 'Pakistan in 1947-1957', Democracy I
  • 'Pakistan in 1957-1967', Ayub
  • 'Pakistan in 1967-1977', Bengali revolt, Z A Bhutto Democracy II
  • 'Pakistan in 1977-1987', Zia Ul Haq
  • 'Pakistan in 1987-1997', Democracy III
  • 'Pakistan in 1997-2007', Musharraf

Im talking seperate articles, in depth, talking about politics, culture, science, and everything of relevance or significance that took place in that decade.

S Seagal 17:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]

I understood precisely what you meant. My suggestion was to create these articles, and since there is already relevant sections in History of Pakistan article, add links to these articles at the appropriate sections there. For example, under History_of_Pakistan#The_Islamic_Republic_of_Pakistan, there are subsections corresponding to the structure you are proposing. Let's say, we consider "9.1 Military coup and wars (1956-1968)". At the start of that section, add a link to Pakistan in 1957-1967 using {{main}}. This is the conventional way of forking details into new, detailed articles. Hope you understand my point now. Thanks. --Ragib 17:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Pakistan

I have created a proposal for a separate wiki project for Pakistan , so as to enable us to manage Pakistan related articles better . According to Wikipedia we need around 5-6 members atleast to create a new project. Please Join in if you are interested.

Hussain 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys we already have gotten 5 members for the project , just one more ( preferably two) and we can start the project
Hussain 06:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu translations

hi,

I'm in a process of creating a uniform system of creating articles on political parties across wikipedias of different languages. I need help with Urdu translations, please contribute at User:Soman/Lang-Help-ur. --Soman 14:10, 26 اکتوبر 2006 (UTC)

hey, I would like to help, but i cant type in urdu on the keyboard. Is there a way i can program my comp to let me use it? I have urdu script on my computer but.... I wouldnt mind doing Arabic either.MOI 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Page To Be Locked

Hello,

This page is being vandalized by the minute, somone its the same reapeat offenders, One that especially comes to mind keeps changing the countries name to 'Bast**d child of England' and others are adding weasel words.

I'm actually fairly happy with the way the page is at the moment, I think most would agree that we cant really make any more improvements to the article than has already been done.

let me know what you think. S Seagal 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]

Seeing as the page reached featured status some months ago, I can't see the need for drastic changes to the article in the short-term at least. I think a semi-protected status would be useful in the face of this vandalism. 82.12.226.248 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


These are not really sufficient reasons to have any page semi-protected. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be locked down, unless of course there is rampant vandalism. The way people edit this article now is not rampant vandalism in any way. --Ragib 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Area figures

A couple of weeks ago, someone changed the area figure for Pakistan to about 905,000 km2 based on a misunderstanding of what water areas refer to. The same someone immediately reverted this and when questioned on his/her talkpage quoted the CIA factbook, despite the factbook giving a different figure altogether. On pointing this out I was shown a calculation based on area figures for the various provinces and territories taken from relevant Wikipedia articles. Since Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, I have changed the figure to match the CIA factbook exactly. The figure does not include Azad Kashmir or the Northern Areas, simply because these are disputed areas. 82.12.226.248 01:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Yes I already have an account and sometimes I can't be bothered to log in :P )[reply]

Bollywood Movies banned???

I went to Pakistan a few months ago, and Bollywood movies are available literally everywhere you go, and aswell as that, Devdas was aired in Geo Tv. Unless someone has reliable sources to prove this ridiculous claim, please delete it.

Cinema halls across Pakistan are not allowed to screen Bollywood movies. --Incman|वार्ता 20:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True Deepak, Although Bollywood movies are prohibited to be viewed in the cinemas, people still can buy them in stores on DVD's and VHS etc.-Sami Ullah

Please note that all the DVDs and VHS tapes of Bollywood movies in Pakistan are pirated. At no point in time have any Bollywood DVDs ever been released commercially for sale in Pakistan, and carrying such DVDs when entering the country is prohibited.

Help

I would need help with expanding 2006 Pakistan madrassa air strike. Thanks. --Striver 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan's area and other statistics

An ip and now a user insists that Pakistan's area is 880000 sq kms and not 803000 sq kms. The source cited here (CIA handbook) says its 803000. I have already reverted once and I usually try to hold myself to 1RR. And especially here because I am Indian by nationality. I have no bias either way but a mundane statistic like area should be decided for once and for all and not be an issue of a revert war. I leave this to a more neutral person. -- Lost(talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The area of Pakistan proper (excluding Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas) is somewhere between 796,000 km² (according to the information ministry of Pakistan) and 803,000 km² (according to CIA factbook) depending on their definition of dry land area. The area expands to about 880,000 km² if we include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas. Since these are part of a disputed region it is questionable whether they should be included. I would err on the side of not including them for the following reasons. Irrespective of disputes, neither of them elects representatives to the Pakistani federal legislature and Azad Kashmir has a functioning government, which regards itself as a separate "Islamic Republic" from Pakistan (albeit subsidised by Pakistan). The only matters not controlled by Azad Kashmir are foreign affairs, defence and coinage/currency, which some people would argue are essential for separate countries. The counter-argument is that Azad Kashmir had it's own armed forces until they were fully incorporated into the Pakistani Army in 1971. The situation with the Northern Areas is that they are regarded as a federal dependency of Pakistan as a whole in much the same way that the Isle of Man is a Crown dependency but not actually part of the United Kingdom. Again Pakistan is responsible for foreign affairs, defence, coinage and currency. Equally however, the Northern Light Infantry was not incorporated into the Pakistani Army until 1999. Green Giant 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

checking sources

Where did this quote come from: Historian and geographer de Blij Muller characterized the historical embodiment of the land when he said, "If, as is so often said, Egypt is the gift of the Nile, then Pakistan is the gift of the Indus."  ??? There is no citation.

Svetlana Miljkovic 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


checking sources

When English became as an official language of Pakistan besides Urdu? I tried to locate the source about but could not find one. Can someone quote some official documents backing my quesiton. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamspedia (talk • contribs). at 21:25, 13 December 2006

http://www.pak.gov.pk/BasicFacts.aspx is an official source for the above question regarding language. Apermal 09:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trying "too hard"

Indians try so hard to make Pakistani history,identity,heritage,culture etc. look invisible that at times they try "too hard" and end up contradicting themselves. I can provide 2 examples:

1)Indians claim that Pakistan simply "did not exist" prior to 1947.At the same time they claim that Pakistan was always "a part" of India prior to 1947.The contradiction here is that how can something that doesnt exist be "a part" of something that does exist?

2)Indians claim that Urdu(which is more Pakistani than Indian considering the fact that it's roots can be traced to west Punjab,Turkey,Persia,central asia) and Hindi are "the same" or "identical" as if Urdu is not a language of it's own.At the same time they claim that Urdu is "parcially consisted" of Hindi. This is a condratiction of their first claim that Urdu and Hindi are "the same" or "identical" If X=Y how can we say that X is "parcailly consisted" of Y while saying X=Y or saying that they are the same?Claiming that Urdu is Hindi while claiming that Urdu is "parcially consisted" of Hindi doesnt make sense at all.Nadirali 16:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Nadiral[reply]

Nadiral, I dont see anything contradictory in above two points: 1.Of-course there was no Pakistan pre-1947 and the region currently called Pakistan was part of India. 2.Linguistically Urdu is same as Hindi with a different script. Perhaps by 'urdu is partially hindi' one means that majority of Urdu (as a dialect of hindi) words are taken from its mother language while rest are from foreign ones (persian,arabic).
I think the only contradiction here is in your head due to cognitive dissonance between reality and your beliefs. Astavakra 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please carefully read what I have written before answering and see contradictory before using the word.Nadirali 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali[reply]
I don't agree with user:Astavakra. The mother language of Urdu is not Hindi any more than the mother language of Hindi is Urdu. The mother language of both Urdu and Hindi is Hindustani or, more accurately the register of Hindustani that was spoken in the Delhi and Western UP area from 1600 to 1800. I also don't agree with user:Nadirali that Urdu's "...roots can be traced back to west Punjab, Turkey, Persia, etc ..." Yes, it is true that Urdu borrows a lot of words from those languages, but not the grammar. The grammar is the same as Hindustani. Hindi borrows its grammar from Hindustani as well. One proof of this is that if an Urdu speaker doesn't use fancy words, they can be perfectly understood by a Hindi speaker and vice-versa. However, neither of them would be understood by a native Arabic, Turkish, or a central Asian language speaker. I don't know what the big fight is about. Urdu is a beautiful language. It has speakers and fans in both Pakistan and India. There will always be people trying to hijack the language for political ends. Best to ignore them and think of Dagh Dehlavi's lines:

Urdu hai jiska naam, hum hee jaante hain Dagh
Saare jahan main dhoom hamari jaban ki hai.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take away the "fancy words" and most of Urdu is gone.Nadirali 06:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali[reply]

Take away all of urdu. it's better for the region! one language increase unity.--D-Boy 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That D-Boy, is a typical baised phrase, shows ur crap mentality :):) , ciaoiquadri 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nadirali: I have to heartily disagree with you. Off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen examples of the masters' that don't have fancy words. Here are two:

  • Naahak yeh tukray chun chun kar, daaman pay sajaayay baithay ho
Sheeshon ka maseeha koi nahin, kya aas lagaayay baithay ho (Faiz Ahmad Faiz)
  • Hum vahan hain jahan ki humko bhi
Kuch hamari khabar nahin aatee
Aagay aatee thi haale-dil pay hansi
Ab kisi baat pay nahin aatee (Ghalib)

Where are the fancy words?

Here are two more which have some "fancy words" in the first line, but it is the simple second line that gives them the poetic effect:

  • Jaatee hui mahyyat dekh ke bhi, lillah na tum milnay aaye
Do char kadam to dushman bhi taqlif gavaaran kartay hain. (Faraz?)
  • Ab yaaden raftagan ki bhi himmat nahin rahee
Yaaron ne kitnee door basaayin hain bastiyaan (Firaq Gorakhpuri)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Anonymous writes: I don't know why Indians spend so much of their time on Pakistan?!. And it's hilarious to see see some Indians talk about "unity" when in fact the whole world knows that the alien eastern neighbour dreams of hegemony over Pakistan. I simply ignore India and Indians and I wish one day my beloved Pakistan could do the same. Indians whether in India or whether they are "NRI's" (non-resident Indians) living overseas, no matter where in this world do their level best to malign Pakistan and harm its reputation: diplomats, civilians, soldiers, businessmen, athletes, you name it, each Indian will do his/her best to hurt and undermine Pakistan to the best of their capacity. Just read the comments Indians have to make about this article on Pakistan and you'll see how badly they are hurting, how frustrated and insecure they are! I mean they spend their life trying to make comparisons with Pakistan which has 10% of their population and roughly a third in size! It's hilarious and sad, but true. I personally don't care about Indians; I am indifferent to them until I see this side of theirs that perpetually tries to hurt Pakistan, and I see their real intentions masked by all this "cultural affinity" mumbo-jumbo! Hey Indians: NO ONE WANTS TO BE AN INDIAN - even Bangladeshis (its a smaller country than Pakistan) would rather die than to be seen as "Indians". In fact, if you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?s=check">check</a> out the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/search/immigration">immigration</a> statistics of any country today, you can <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/archive/bet">bet</a> top dollar that Indians are on the number 1 spot or in the top 3: largest single nationality consuming H1-B visas in US: Indians, highest number of applicants for UK immigration: Indians, and so on.....so all their claims that "India is great" are untrue because if it were true, then why do millions of Indians VOLUNTARILY abandon India? how come the lower and middle-class Indians dream of leaving India (and trust me that's 95% of the population!); and then go around the world telling the host country how India is this and that! Indians suffer from an inferiority complex: you see Aryans, Iranians, Arabs, Greeks, Afghans throughout history had such an EASY TIME conquering them, they now feel the urge to make noise by blowing their own trumpet and trying to lecture and interfere in neighbours like Bangladesh, Paksitan, etc.! It really is pathetic...they have a burning itch to prove themselves "superior" to the world.

And that point made about Urdu language is very true: Hindi has been corrupted to "Hindustani" language where the vast majority of vocabulary is in fact from Urdu (which is a mixture of Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, and unfortunately for the verbs, hindi/sanskrit). This has been used in the Mollywood (it's Mumbai now, right? named after Mumba devi, the hindu goddess...and name was changed in secular India in the 21st century!) movies; if they were hindi <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?s=movies">movies</a> then it would be incomprehensible to all of Pakistan (a VERY GOOD thing from my perspective) and a large part of India. I personally don't watch "Hindi" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?s=movies">movies</a>, Indian <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/search/tv">TV</a>, etc. by choice - just not interested. The real problem with Pakistan is that its real identity keeps getting hindered due to the gullibility of Pakistanis: once Pakistan can overcome this internal problem, then the real crescent from Central Asia right down the Arabian sea can come to fruition. In the mean time its a ridiculous and unnecessary struggle between the real identity (culture) v/s love for or hangover from an alien eastern culture. To Indians: not all Pakistanis are gullible fools seduced by saris, spicy food and cricket matches! We know what you are all about. Your country started the nuclear arms race and we know why.....we also know that once Pakistan became a nuclear power (in response to yours) how you quickly made a U-turn from "trying to destroy us" to "hey, let's be friends"!! pathetic!

Finally, I would like Pakistanis to be careful of the alien eastern neighbour - acting probably comes naturally to them and here are a few pointers:

1. Indianized Muslims: there are Muslims in India who hate Pakistan and want it destroyed (so all I am saying is next time try to look at a person's deeds instead of names and titles..Khan this or Nawab that just doesn't cut it!). Try to read up on the deeds and speeches of India's Muslim President, try to realize that India is the ONLY country where Muslims voluntarily consummate marriages that are prohibited and then brag and boast about it, and remember Salman Rushdie is an Indian too! - you get the picture right?

2. "Unity": hilarious to see Indians chant this mantra! The India of today that was born in 1947 did not exist in the last 1,200 years: India was held by force by monotheists for 1,200 years: 1,000 years by Muslims and then 200 years by British Christians! So when an Indian says, "we are the same; or we should be united against some "common foes", this is nothing but foolishness. They give examples of "European Community" model ,etc. but the reality is that 80%+ population of the EU is Christian (and Indians should read up on how Europe became christian majority and what they did to non-Christians in the continent) so totally irrelevant example and another excuse that is used to guise their hegemonic designs.

3. History: don't forget history - remember 1971? I am amazed to see so many Pakistanis are "OK" with "secular Congress party in India"....hello? which party dominated in Indian politics during the wars of 1948, 1965 and 1971??? And just a reminder of what Indira Ghandi, an icon among "secular" Indians and the Congress party said when Bangladesh was born: "Today, we have avenged our 1,000 year defeat and sunk the two-nation theory in the Bay of Bengal". Dear Pakistanis: what "1000 year defeat" was she referring to? shows their true feelings towards Pakistan! Anyway, we all know what happened to her in the end.....her own bodyguards assasinated her....no they weren't Muslim bodyguards, but this time Sikhs! You may remember that in "retaliation" THOUSANDS of Sikhs were murdered by secular Hindu mobs as the police watched by! This is India's reality: 88% hindus who regularly lecture Christians, Muslims, Sikhs about "civility" but then once in a while kill thousands of these innocent people in "riots" while the police just <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/search/watches">watches</a> quietly. To the adherents of "united India" and the Congress party: hey, as soon as the 2-nation theory sank in the Bay of Bengal, the 3-nation reality emerged in that very same Bay of Bengal. Try asking a Bangladeshi if he/she wants to be or wants to be considered "Indian"....trust me, you won't like the response you'll get. You know how Indian <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?go=army">army</a> interfered explicitly in 1971; during the 1962 Sino-Indian war, when incidentally China kicked India's can very rapidly and easily, Pakistan did not interfere as it was felt that it wasn't the nice neighbourly thing to do and what did we get in return? Pakistan could have easily opened another front while India was busy getting CRUSHED by China but Pakistan didn't.

So Indians, leave us alone and stop trying to act like the bully on the block; you are NOT what you think you are and you never will be. Leave us alone: go your way and we will go our way. I don't want war with India. But I also don't want my Pakistani identity to be undermined or diluted in the name of an alien culture, cricket matches, vulgar <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?s=movies">movies</a>, spicy foods and saris!

I wish Pakistan foreign policy portfolio is realigned instead of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/search.php?q=present">present</a> pathetic state: 90% engery and resources wasted on one eastern alien country.....! hello, there are over 180 countries in the world!!.

PAKISTAN ZINDA-ABAD! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pakistani Knight (talk • contribs). at 21:25, 9 December 2006.

: I congratulate Pakistani Knight upon his courage and his no-nonsense attitude with the Indians. I, as a Bangladeshi, would also like to tell the Indians: You are not as big as you try to show. I regularly see impoverished Indian people on your TV channels and murmur to myself: my God, still these people think they are a superpower!?! User:Kazimostak


Glad you got that off your chest. BTW, it's not Mollywood, it's Mumblywood.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Urdu is derived from Persian and such languages. For example: persian [apple]: seeb Urdu[apple]: saib. Urdu is not from Hindi although there are similarities. This is just ridiclous, Its like saying that Italian came from French because they have many similarities.MOI 18:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--also, maiz is persian for table and urdu for table, sabzi is urdu for a type of vegetable and the same with persian. Mumkin is Arabic for possible and urdu for possible, the arabic/persian alphabets are much more similar to Urdu than the Hindi alphabet. I think that should wrap it up. So we all agree, Urdu is a language in its own right???MOI 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that from a linguistic viewpoint, it is the grammar and the base vocabulary that make a language, not the larger vocabulary. For example, the English language has almost 80% words of Latin origin (imported mainly from French as a result of the Norman invasion); however, English is considered a Germanic language and not a Romance language, because its grammar and base vocabulary (20%) is Germanic.
Similarly with Hindi and Urdu. For example, let's say, I made a sentence (using your words), "Mumkin hai billi ne maize par sabzi aur saib khaa liyay." If I didn't know the Persian and Arabic-derived words of your example, I could get the gist of my message across with, "Ho sakta hai, billi ne "table" par phal aur khaana khaa liyaa," because the words, "ho, sakta, hai, ne, par, aur, phal, khaa, liyaa" are all shared by Hindi and Urdu and are not of Arabic/Persian origin. They come from Khariboli dialect of Hindustani language, which is the basis for Hindi as well as Urdu. However, if you didn't know the base vocabulary, "ho, hai, ne, par, aur, liyaa," you'd be in deep trouble. Can't do much with "mumkin," "maize," "sabzi," "saib," without the linking grammar. One example of this is the language of children. Four-year olds, for example, speak the base vocabulary and (usually) get the grammar right; however, foreigners speaking a language, at least initially, don't get the grammar right, although sometimes they know a lot of fancy words. That's why four-year olds are more easily understood on the street than a foreigner. By the same token, if you put four-year olds from Pakistan (Urdu speaking), North India (Hindi speaking), Iran (Persian speaking), and Egypt (Arabic speaking) in a room, the first two will have no problems communicating; however the latter two will have to smile a lot and use their hands.
As I said earlier, Urdu doesn't come from Hindi, nor Hindi from Urdu; rather, both are children of Hindustani. Unfortunately, post-partition political imperatives have created rift between the two language, when there should be none. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I see wut u mean. Sorry, I thought we were trying to prove that Urdu comes from different languages.MOI 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism ranking

I am removing line ", as well as the [[Hinduism by country|sixth most populous Hindu]] country" for following reasons

  1. First it creates confusion and to balance this, the paragraph will require rankings for all other religions
  2. The text belongs to Hinduism in Pakistan so I have moved it there
  3. Actually Pakistan is ranked 5th according to Hinduism by country
  4. Article Hinduism by country shows a {{Disputed}} tag on factual acuracy.

--IsleScape 11:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So Pakistan has the fifth largest population of Hindus on the planet, around 4-5 million, surely this deserves mention? I added and you decided to remove it and leave the second most muslim population part. If you look at Islam by country you will see that it also has a tag on factual accuracy, infact India also claims to be the second most muslim populous country.

So if the Hinduism part goes, then so does the Muslim part. S Seagal 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The line was moved in anticipation of an edit war on a page which is already intensely vandalised. Also, continuing from above points, first the ranking was inaccurate, secondly the Hinduism in Pakistan page did not have this information which was duly copied there. And finally, irrespective of tags, there are 3.35 million Hindus (see Hinduism by country) and 3.5 million Christians in Pakistan (see Christianity by country) who would deserve an equal mention for NPOV. I propose to either add a small section on 'Religious minorities in Pakistan' or improve Status of minorities in Pakistan to sort this out. --IsleScape 20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I agree that this page is routinely vandalized so we should discuss this hinduism and other religious rankings here before making changes.

The current text of the opening second paragraph reads as follows:

Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world and is the second most populous Muslim country.

I propose:

Pakistan is home to the worlds sixth largest population,

Source To back Claim: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004391.html

it is the second most populous Muslim country,

Source to Back Claim: http://www.pakistanlink.com/nayyer/02152002.html

Pakistan has been historically the largest Muslim majority nation in the world especially when Bengaldesh was part of the country, It is also on path to over take Indonesia for the first position once again.

Source: http://www.pakistanlink.com/nayyer/02152002.html

Aswell as home to sixth largest Hindu population,

Source: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_hindu.html

and has larger Christian population than some predominately Christian countries.

Source: http://www.pakistanchristiancongress.com/RPTP.php

(The Pakistan christian congress says there are 15 million Xtians in Pakistan, this is a population of Christians larger than Belgium or Austria, or most European countries)

S Seagal 11:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Additionally, would recommend to add such information to other related articles as Religion in Pakistan and Demographics of Pakistan etc. --IsleScape 11:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way that there are 15 million Christians in Pakistan; it is more like one-eighth that number. The Pakistan Christian Congress is a political organization and it is in its interests to inflate the numbers. Please see Christianity in Pakistan, and please don't change the numbers there to justify your proposed edits. Christianity in Pakistan is of recent vintage (late 19th and 20th centuries for the most part). India, with a much longer history of Christianity (see Christianity in India), has only 24 million Christians; so, 15 million in Pakistan is a bit of a stretch. Wikipedia goes by official country census numbers. The latest Census of Pakistan on its Population by Religion Page says that Christians comprise 1.59% of the population and Hindus 1.60% of the population; in addition, there are 0.25% schedule castes in the population. Even if you include all the schedule castes in the Hindus, it makes a total of 1.85%. The latest total population figures from the latest 1998 census are 132,352,000, which gives a Christian population of 2,104,400, a Hindu population ("Jati" Hindus in the census terminology) of 2,117,632 for "Jati" Hindus, and 2,448,512 for Hindus + schedule castes. So, unless you are looking for pointless and enervating edit wars, I suggest you don't go ahead with your proposed edits. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we add the Hinduism ranking ie Sixth largest population of Hindus in the world, and leave the Christian part out for now until we get better sources? The reason I added Hindus in the first place is because Hindus are a large part of the population and deserve mention or we could remove both the Hinduism ranking and the Islamic ranking, but we can not leave just one for NPOV reasons.

I have provided source from http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_hindu.html which clearly shows that Pakistan has the sixth largest population of Hindus in the world, I think the source is credible because unlike the Christian congress it is apolitical.

S Seagal 17:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)S Seagal[reply]

Looking at the contradictory figures, I support Fowler&fowler«Talk» and suggest to refrain from any such edits. If someone is really keen on adding religious data, feel free to contribute to the articles I mentioned earlier as they need more attention. Given the status of this article, no such edits are necessary.--IsleScape 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Hindu ranking is probably OK. In other words, with approximately 2 million (and change) Hindus, Pakistan would be the sixth largest Hindu country. As for the second largest Muslim country, that might be problematic as well, (I'm not sure yet). I will examine the census data from India and Pakistan and write something on this page soon. But I agree with Islescape that the Religion in Pakistan and Demographics in Pakistan pages need more attention. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. IsleScape, by your argument, the line stating that Pakistan contains the world's second largest Muslim population should also be removed. The Islam by country article also contains a disputed tag and many sources claim India to have the second largest Muslim population. S Seagal has provided a reliable source regarding the Hindu population in Pakistan. If one religion is mentioned, the other must be as well or both should be deleted. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand Islescapes aversion to adding the Hinduism ranking? I've provided a reliable source besides I agree that the religion in pakistan articles need alot more work, some of them are very obtuse but to say that we remove the Hinduism part and leave the Islamic part is in flagrant violation of NPOV, We can not allow arbitrariness on the part of one single religion. I can understand why the Christianity figure may be disputable but the Hinduism ranking and for historical reasons it should not be difficult to fathom why there is a large Hindu populace in Pakistan S Seagal 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have been personally addressed here, I should clarify that before jumping into an argument, one should go through the whole discussion, not to sideline the progress on issue. I have actually agreed to the amendment as long as it doesn't contradict other articles on Wikipedia. In this case, it is recommended that instead of trying on FA, the issue be discussed on relevant articles, as in this case Hinduism by country etc. But for NPOV I would agree with Fowler&fowler --IsleScape 12:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sixth largest Hindu population is fine. And you can mention that there are over 2 million Christians, but I wouldn't bother with comparing it with Belgium which has a population of over 10 million. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IsleScape, The citation you have for Pakistan being the "second most populous Muslim country" in the lead, in fact says that India is the second most populous Muslim country. Here is the website (amazon) for searching the book: Search:India-Pakistan War and Peace. Once there, type "second most populous Muslim country" in the search box, and it will take you to page 13, where the text says: "The Muslim homeland was supposed to become the homeland of all Muslims in pre-Partition India. This did not happen. Nearly 50 per cent of the Muslim population remained in the Indian Republic, ultimately leading to an anticlimax where India today has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan and is the second most populous Muslim country in the world. The expectation and assessment of Pakistani and Indian leaders at Partition proved to be completely wrong." Thought I'd let you know. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. No offence intended. Am replacing with a neutral citation. Thanks anyway. --IsleScape 21:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Largest Muslim Population

Since this is an issue that has vexed the Pakistan and India pages for some time, I thought I'd clarify the numbers by examining the census figures put out by the Governments of Pakistan, India, and the CIA fact book (rather than quote a Wikipedia page that has a "disputed" tag on it!). Here is what I found. (I am adding this to the talk pages of both Pakistan and India). Please read the data and analysis carefully before you write angry or impatient rejoinders.

Data:

  • The government of Pakistan did its last census in 1998, but did not include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in the final census numbers, although at least for the Northern Areas, the census was taken (as far as I can tell).
  • The government of India did its last census in 2001 and did include Jammu and Kashmir (i.e. Indian administered Kashmir, but not Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas) in the census.
  • The CIA factbook is made up of projections from these census figures, using the rates of growth of each population and religious group.

Assumptions:

The most pragmatic approach to evaluate the 2006 (end of the year) numbers would be to:

  • Include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in the Pakistan numbers
  • Include Jammu and Kashmir in the India numbers.
  • Use the rates of growth for each religious community in the census to compute the end of year 2006 numbers.

Note: I know that various Wikipedians will dispute the above assumptions, but in light of current day reality, they seem to be the best assumptions. So here are the statistics.

Pakistan:

According to the 1998 census, the population was 132,352,000. (See 1998 numbers here). For normalizing the computation for both countries, let us assume that these numbers did not include the year 1998 itself. Therefore, in order to estimate the numbers of end of 2006, we will count 1998, 1999, ..., 2006, a total of 9 years. The average annual growth rate for population in Pakistan for the period 1981-1998 according to the government census page is 2.69%. The Pakistani government end of the year figure for 2006 of is 158,946,500 (see bottom of this page), or and the Wikipedia Pakistan#Demographics page number is of 165,803,560 (based on the US Government Census estimates, see also: CIA Factbook Pakistan Page). We will use the larger number. Now what about the populations of Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas. According to the Wikipedia Northern Areas#Demographics page the numbers for the 1998 census were 870,347. Let us give the Northern Areas an average population growth rate of 6% (more than double the Pakistani rate of 2.69%, since it is sparsely populated). Then the end of year 2006 population for the Northern Areas is:

What about Azad Kashmir? Well, no census was taken recently, but according to the Wikipedia Azad Kashmir: Demographics page, it has approximately 4 million inhabitants today. So, the total end of 2006 population of Pakistan is:

i.e. 171 million 273 thousand 960. Now, according to the Pakistan Census Organisation: Population by Religion Page, 96.28% of Pakistanis are Muslim (the Wikpedia Pakistan: Demographics page shows 96%), so the total end of 2006 Muslim population of Pakistan is:

i.e. 164 million, 900 thousand at the end of 2006.

India:

According to the Government of India 2001 Data by Religion], the total Muslim population of India at the end of 2000 was 138,188,220 (See here for the numbers) for 13.4% of the population. However, the rates of growth of population for different communities in India are quite different. According to the 2001 India census Growth Rates by Religious Communities Page, the ten-yearly growth rate for Muslims during 1981-1990 was 34.5 and during 1991-2000 was 36.0. (See: here), This gives an average ten-year Muslim community growth rate (for the period 1981-2000) of:

This gives a yearly growth rate of approximately 3.05% since:

Since the 2001 census give the end of 2000 figures, as in the Pakistan case, we will count 2001, i.e. we will have 2001, 2002, ..., 2006, a total of six years. Therefore, the end of 2006 Muslim population of India is:

i.e. 165 million 490 thousand

This also means that although, Muslims comprised 13.4% of India's population at the end of 2000, they now constitute over 15% of the population.

Conclusion:

The numbers for the two countries are more or less equal. These are the projections from the best sources I can get. I know some Pakistanis will say, what about the Afghan refugees in Pakistan that number approximately 3 million, to which I am sure some Indians will say, what about the Bangladeshi undocumented immigrants in India, etc. These seem to be the official numbers. From my point of view the numbers are close enough that neither country can say with absolute confidence that it has the second largest Muslim population in the world and the other doesn't. Maybe we can say they tie for second place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I should add that I am not trying to violate WP:NOR here, but just saying that the credible sources out there, like the Government censuses, don't make a clear cut case for either country (exclusively) being the second most populous Muslim country in 2006. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Is Not in the Middle East

Pakistan is not in the middle east and should not be listed as being in the middle east. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.208.45 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Western Pakistan is Middle Eastern as the people there speak Pashto, Baluchi and Persian. These are Middle Eastern languages and the Greater Middle East is a reflection of geographic continuity and these groups. Obviously, Sind and Punjab are South Asian so there is no reason not to accommodate both sections of the country as it is an overlapping country like Afghanistan which is Central Asian and Middle Eastern. Tombseye 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is Middle Eastern and what isn't is objective. The most common definition of the Middle East has Iran as the most eastern country. Afghanistan is not considered part of the Middle East most of the time. Tajikistan is also a Persian speaking country but it is never listed as Middle Eastern.

That's actually quite arbitrary and the Greater Middle East is a newer reference that is valid as it is used by the State Department, the EU and organizations such as the Middle East Institute. The reasons are obvious as the western portions are culturally, historically and ethnically NOT South Asian, but Middle eastern. Afghanistan is often included in the region as one can see at universities such as Columbia, Harvard, Univ. of Chicago and others. Thus, I will return the reference. Tombseye 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan may belong in the "Greater Middle East" but it does not belong in the Middle East proper. It's historically a separate region that has received some Semitic influence mostly through an Indo-Aryan and Iranian prism. There's no distinction between Iranian languages as being a part of a Middle Eastern or a Central Asian influence/heritage. While Balochistan probably fits the description of "Middle Eastern", as Persian and Balochi are both Middle Eastern languages (both prominent in Iran, at least the former), the rest of the area does not. The North West Frontier is very much more Central Asian. Afghanistan overlaps with Central Asia and the Middle East, with its eastern areas being apart of the Central Asian overlap. Likewise, the NWFP would be part of that Central Asian overlap, rather then the Middle Eastern one. Nevertheless, due to Balochistan and current socio-political trends that tend to foster connections, Pakistan is in the Greater Middle East. But, it does not lie in the Middle East proper, and therefore should not have that category of being a "Middle Eastern" country, as that is used for countries that lie in the proper region. Nations that lie in the Greater Middle East and not the proper region itself, such as the Maghreb states and Somalia, are not included. Why should Pakistan be included? Afghan Historian 17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The regional aspects of Pakistan make it an overlapping state. The Greater Middle East is a continuation of what historian Arnold Toynbee referred to as a Middle East that exists concurrent with historical events of a major importance including: Persian empires, Hellenism, Arab rule, and early Turkic migrations. Pakistan falls under all of these events, BUT eastern Pakistan is definitely South Asian culturally and historically whereas western Pakistan is Middle Eastern/Central Asian (which in some respects is synynymous as only geography and Soviet annexation have altered the connections). Pakistan is like Turkey and even Afghanistan as it is not easily fit into surrounding regions, but is rather a country that phases from South Asia towards the Middle East/Central Asia. As for the whys, many thinktanks and universities list Pakistan as both South Asian and Middle Eastern, most likely b/c Pakistan's two regions show affinities in opposite directions. Also, the Maghrib is very much Middle Eastern despite the addage of being referred to as North African which is just a geographic term. For example, a Saudi can communicate with a Morrocan whereas he/she can't talk to a Turk or Iranian. Most universities link North Africa to the Middle East or just include it. Somalia however is outside geographic continuity and is part of a unique region, the Horn of Africa, which has received substantial middle eastern influences. It has not lived through the main historical events that have shaped the core region though and it lacks geographic continuity so I wouldn't include it for that reason and I would say the Middle East ends at Khartoum in the south and Morocco in the west (or is at least in the Greater Middle East, a term that makes sense in this regard). Tombseye 21:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey has historically been linked to the Middle East. The Maghreb which has stronger links to the Middle East is increasingly being called North Africa. Pakistan's population is overwhelmingly concentrated in its eastern provinces. It should not be included in the Middle East. Like I said before Tajikistan is a country where Persian/Tajik is spoken by the majority of its population and is never included in the Middle East, so why should Pakistan be included. Pakistan is overwhelmingly South Asian. The majority of Pakistan is not Middle Eastern, so my edits should not be changed everytime. Pakistan is in South Asia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.181.71 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have reverted the removal of 'Greater Middle East' from the introduction section. I felt that since the use of the term can be cited, it is appropriate for inclusion. Perhaps the inclusion of the term could be (or already is) elaborated on within the article itself, listing some of the arguments given above? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the external links Pakistan is linked to Middle Eastern countries which it is not. Pakistan may be a part of the Bush Administration's idea of the "the Greater Middle East", but it is not part of the proper Middle East and should not be linked. As for the link to Middle East Institute , it lists countries such as Georgia, Turkmenistan , Azerbeijan and others that are either part of Central Asia or the Caucausus. These countries are almost never considered to be part of the Middle East. Pakistan is South Asian and should not be listed in the Middle East just because some organization says it is or some people want it to be.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.181.71 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Unfortunately for you, this is exactly how wikipedia works. Wikipedia:Verifiability states that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Pakistan's being in the Greater Middle East is verifiable at two different sources and hence is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
May I suggest that you provide a reliable source stating that Pakistan is not in the Greater Middle East to make your own opinion verifiable. Doing so would add considerable weight to your position. Even so, I would still say that it is important to include Pakistan being in the GME somewhere in the article (alongside your own opinion of course), as it is still a verifiable opinion of some significant organisations.
At this stage I have not reverted the edit again, as I do not intend on engaging in an edit war. I would ask that you discuss the issue further here so that Consensus can be reached on the issue. Thanks, →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, besides the fact that most people do not consider Pakistan in the Middle East, textbooks do not either. I have never seen a textbook saying Pakistan is in the Middle East. BBC, CNN and other sources of newssdo not ever include Pakistan in the Middle East either. I guess you could state somewhere in the article that because of the Pashto and Baloch and their ties to recent events dealing with Al Qeada and Afghanistan, Pakistan is becoming more involved in International politics. You can also talk about the ties between Iran, Afghanistan and the Pashto and Baloch in Pakistan. You should not state the Pakistan in the Middle East or have it linked as middle eastern countries. You can have it linked to Indo Iranian speaking countries.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.181.71 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On the whole I agree with you. Having read the Greater Middle East article, my current thinking is that a compromise could be reached by including the sentence Pakistan is also defined by the G8 group of nations as part of the Greater Middle East. This can be cited with the two references used previously. Also, I don't think that the article belongs in the Middle Eastern countries category, as there is a difference between the Middle East and the Greater Middle East. How do you feel about this solution?
Also, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end - this inserts your username (or IP address in your case) and the date and time so that everyone can keep track of who said what and when! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree to the compromise by →Ollie (talk • contribs). Pakistan is overwhelming South Asian yes in that most people, 3/4, speak South Asian languages etc. and largely live in the east, BUT the west is overwhelming NOT South Asian. Some consideration for this large group has to be made which many academic departments and thinktanks do. Having it listed as an overlapping country shouldn't be a problem at all as we list its inclusion in South Asia first and then in the Greater Middle East, which the Bush administration borrowed from Toynbee and others who suggested a larger Middle East based upon what I stated previously. I linked it two different articles so its removal is not acceptable. Tombseye 02:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the compromise. You can include the part about the G8 including Pakistan in the Greater Middle East in the Politics section. It should not be included in the introduction to the country. Like I said also you could also link it to Indo Iranian countries because Pasto and Baloch are Indo Iranian languages.

Pashto and Balochi are Iranian languages, the Indo-Iranian link is more remote in this regard as we could then simply refer to Iran and Afghanistan as Indo-Iranian which is just confusing. The opening should have this as it explains the country's links in various directions. Tombseye 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I LOVE THIS COMPROMISE! It acknowledges Pakistan's status as an overall South Asian country, yet also acknowledges its Mideastern ties via its western areas, without making the mistake of giving it equal prominence as a mainstream "Middle Eastern" country, which it is not. This will settle any dispute. Afghan Historian 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

parts of the "Etymology section" were removed.

Hello. I read this article a while back ago and I noticed that since then some parts of the Etymology section were removed. The current content there is 100% correct, however some of the material from before was erased. The part that was erased mentioned what the letters in Pakistan stand for. So in addition to the current etymology, I think the other part of the etymology should be brought back. After all that was from documents from the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. -- Behnam 05:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:81.99.228.175

Pakistan is also known as land of the pigs! Piggystan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.228.175 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Pakistan - Afgan Relations - What is this non-sense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pak-Afghan_Relations--Bk2006 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

  Strayed too far from home? Maybe you're feeling homesick and calling Pakistan your home's name:-P Anthony Permal 09:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sari

Can someone remove this line "sari is regional dress that is worn by many women in Sindh and parts of Pakistan." This is not true, as it is viewed as an Indian dress, and is rarely worn in Pakistan.


WTF are you talking about? Sindhi women do wear Saris...get your facts right. You indians claim shit, and then don't even bother proving 99% of it. SO typical!

True, saris are worn all over pakistan by many women. There is a large community of Pakistanis of Indian origin (who are quite patriotic, thank you) who wear saris not because they're Indian ancestrally but because it IS regional clothing, just like many people in India wear shalwar kameez - men and women. Of course, the larger number of people wearing saris definitely come from the Christian and Hindu adherents in Pakistan, it is also common to see older Muslim women (aged 50 or above) wearing saris.

Hi

People is the flag of Pakistan inspired by the flag of Turkey? as evident here National flags inspired by the flag of Turkey. Just out of curiosity. Thanks Aristovoul0s 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crescent on the Pakistani flag represents its identity as a homeland for South Asian Muslims. It does not arise from Ottoman influence. It may be of "Turkic" origin, coming with Turkish Muslims from Central Asia (Turkestan) but it does not come from Turkey. Afghan Historian 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wildlife of Pakistan

Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yahya01's edits

Yahya01 (talk · contribs) is adding a whole section regarding "apartheid". While the matter is quite POV by the very name, and the contents, that's not the main problem. The article is a featured one, and has to adhere to specific criteria. New materials should go to sub-articles with a very brief mention in this main country level page. Also, country level pages has specific structures about sections, the new material does not fit into any. Thanks. --Ragib 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan&oldid=111293760"