Talk:History of Pakistan

Peer review

The article has been listed for a peer review by the History Wikiproject. Green Giant (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Menander

I see that the article is locked, but the following meaning does not make sense.

The Indo-Greek Menander I (reigned 155-130 BCE) drove the Greco-Bactrians out of Gandhara and beyond the Hindu Kush, becoming a king shortly after his victory

Menander was a Greco-Bactrian himself, though ruling in the Indian provinces of their short-lived empire. He surely did not drive out any Greco-Bactrians; what he did was to take control of some territories that were previously ruled from Bactria. And these territories were most likely mainly in south-eastern Afghanistan, not Pakistan. And this is supposed to have happened at the end of his reign. The paragraph about Heliocles I is also outdated; since 50 years, scholars agree that a separate king named Heliocles II ruled in Pakistan.

I request a temporary unlocking so I can re-write the Indo-Greek sequence in accordance with the main article. (To which I am one of the main contributors). Kindly, Sponsianus (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected, which means that established users like yourself can edit. However, at the present time I am considering removing most of the pre-20th century history because it is not really as relevant to the history of Pakistan itself as the 20th and 21st century history is. Green Giant (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

scope, length

This article is too long. About half of its content is also offtopic and rehashes material treated elsewhere (WP:CFORK). All the material pertaining to periods pre-dating the Pakistan movement should be exported, and at best be summarized very briefly. "History of Pakistan" parallels History of the Republic of India, it is fallacious to compare it to History of India. dab (𒁳) 14:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been argued by many contributors as can be read in the archives. I think contents should be merged to Balochistan, History of Balochistan, Sindh, History_of_Sindh, Punjab, History_of_Punjab, and Indus_Valley_Civilization. Andries (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had similar concerns about the content for some time, so I have removed about 25 KB of ancient history. Green Giant (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns are unfounded. Every country article on Wikipedia has a prehistory section which goes into detail. By Omitting information, you are showing a distinct bias. This IS the history of Pakistan. The fact that Pakistani people were involved and this took place in Pakistan is not being questioned. You are simply questioning the relevance of this because you dont agree with the partition of British India, hence consider this as part of Indian history? Dont make this into a "Political history" article. This is as relevant as it gets. Omitting relevant information is clearly a biased stance, and hence vandalism. Xinjao (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Xinjao, first of all, I would like to politely ask you to refrain from making accusations of vandalism against established, hardworking editors who have worked constructively for several days to copyedit and improve this article to a great extent. Vandalism is something entirely different and maybe you can read this to know more about it. Secondly, to reiterate what dab said, "History of Pakistan" should be more about the modern republic, since the name "Pakistan" came into existence in 1947, and the article content can justifiably be on the lines of History of the Republic of India. Nevertheless, there is a "Prehistory" section in this article highlighting significant details with relevant links to various other related articles, which the reader will click on if she wants to know more. I request you to go through this talk page and its archives to understand the rationale of well-meaning editors before making significant unilateral changes to their work. Thanks for your time. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 04:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In defence of Xinjao, perhaps it is seeing edits like this edit to the Xuanzang article gave rise to the idea that some are trying to Indianise (so to speak) the history of the subcontinent :-) Pahari Sahib 05:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Pahari Sahib, you are again falling prey to the same fallacy as your defendant. "India" refers to a much larger region in a historical context; it most certainly is not meant to refer to the Republic of India which, like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan came into existence in 1947. Are you honestly saying that this part of the world was known as "South Asia" at the time of Xuanzang? Every book, every reliable source, every historian, every shred of evidence attests to the fact that the subcontinent was called "India" or "Hindostan" or a variant of the same since the time of ancient Persians and Greeks. That this is a matter of discomfort to certain editors, even after knowing the fact that ancient India and Republic of India mean different things, should not be of any consequence to Wikipedia, should it? The carving out of separate nations was a very recent event in the scheme of things. I would urge you to not put a nationalistic spin on this by applying the modern phenomenon of partition with retrospective effect as an excuse to "de-Indianize" articles. Thank you. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 08:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Max, I am certainly not saying that this area was known as "South Asia" at the time of Xuanzang, and I am certainly not trying to put any such nationalistic spin on things (my comment on Indianising was meant in good humour) - but South Asia is certainly a more accurate title in this context. South Asia, does not exclude Indians - whereas "India" is open to ambiguity. And in fact is of consequence to Wikipedia as it would be to any encyclopaedic work. Pahari Sahib 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pahari Sahib, thanks for the clarification. While it is true that a reference to "India" can be ambiguous, my point is that we can't keep changing all references to historical "India" with "South Asia" or seemingly PC, inclusive terms. If earlier historians, writers and travellers knew this region as "India", we should report it as such. It is not an attempt at Indianisation but, like you said, at encyclopaedicity. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pahari Sahib, so now that you've moved the History of India article to History of India and Pakistan (which was moved by Ragib to the more sensible History of the Indian Subcontinent), I presume you would not be averse to shifting the "Prehistory" section from this article to the article about the history of the subcontinent. Then we can let History of the Republic of India and History of Pakistan talk about independence era events and the history of the subcontinent article can take care of the ancient ones. Will wait for your views on this. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 10:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean. "History of Pakistan" is not only the political history of Pakistan. I am not here to argue what has been included in the History of India article, but why do you insist on removing relevant information from the history of Pakistan article?
Imo, "The rise of the Muslim League" doesnt belong in this article in the first place. This is all political. And as for using the term "India" for the whole subcontinent, it is obviously very misleading, but its not what this argument is about.
I ask you to expand the pre history content. A lot of people worked very hard for this relevant information to appear on the right page. Its very disheartening that people who know very little about the region can remove huge chunks of information because they dont like it. I assume good faith and want you to realise that "History of Pakistan" involves pre 1947 events too. Thank you for reading and regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinjao (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xinjao here that pre-1947 events including pre-history should be in this article (without bloating it) - I think it should be something like the History of the United States - which detail events well before the uprising against the British began. Also Max by the way my Initial move of the history of India was a little hasty (being bold you see), I was primarily thinking of 1947 - forgot all about Robert Clive and Bangladesh. And when I did realise, I found out that Ragib had already taken corrective action. Pahari Sahib 04:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no issues about the hasty move, but it is still not clear to me why you would want "Pre-history" in this article. Would it not be better if we dump "Prehistory" in the History of the Indian Subcontinent article since we've all agreed that it's a shared history, and let this article focus on Pakistan during the British rule/partition/independence/post-independence, just like the Republic of India article does? Well anyway, I've been bold and tried something like that. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not about shared History Max. The point is that this information is relevant and belongs on this page. In the past nobody had a problem with an extensively detailed pre history Section. And even now, the pre history section is included, but a tiny amount is said about it. This simply doesnt add up. If you go to any Pakistani Government site, they acknowledge the Indus valley and Ghandara as Pakistans ancient history. There is no question about whether this information is relevant, but some users are just not happy adding this information here because they want it to be a strictly political article. The correction here is that this is a History article. This article suits the description of Political History of Pakistan. When readers search for History of Pakistan, that is simply not what they are looking for. I am assuming good faith in you, and please help me make this article more relevant. Xinjao (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Comment: I'm not sure what you guys are argueing about. However, I do support including a pre-history section that includes information starting with the Indus valley. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Unknown. I am just trying to point out that countless of people worked very hard to include relevant information to this article, but along come some other people who remove the information and insist on it only being included in the History of India article even though all this took place in Pakistan. We are not arguing the content of History of India article, but the fact that the modern nation of Pakistan has obviously been affected by its 5000 year old past. Is there any reason not to include it besides Politics and Nationalism? Unless someone comes up with an amazing reason not to include the Indus Valley and Ghandara stuff in this article soon, I will go ahead and expand this article. Thank you. Xinjao (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Max today responded by further removing EVERY reference to the Pre history and making this purely a Political article. This is a first, and I will personally report this vandalism if you remove information from this page again. Please see above, people are agreeing to expand the Pre History section, not remove it entirely. Xinjao (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

pakistan

Pakistan got the first..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.148.129 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

copy edits

Because the article is locked, I couldn't figure out how to make copyedits, but I noticed a few things that should be changed in the last few paragraphs. maybe someone else can can make them? Thanks!

"A General Election was held in Pakistan" . . . should be "general election" uncapitalized.

"On August 7 The deadlock between ruling parties ended when the coalition government of Pakistan decided to move for the impeachment of the President and then head for the restoration of the deposed judiciary. moreover they have decided that the President of Pakistan now faces charges of weakening the federation, creating economic impasse and violating the constitution.[101]"

"The" is capitalized unnecessarily, and the first sentence is too long and should be broken up. "Moreover" should be capitalized.

"Also He had been required to seek the vote of confidence from the senate and parliament"

"He" shouldn't be capitalized, and there should be a period at the end.

--72.93.0.112 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)