Talk:Pakistan

Geography and Climate

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

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

very biased article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree

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

Pakistan Critical

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

Bangldesh & Civil War

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

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

India

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

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

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

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

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

Confusion on the status of Pakistan's Government

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

Pakistani English

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

Propaganda vs Encyclopedic tone

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

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

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

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

So the three types to note are:

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

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

and

C> Rogue terrorist groups just hanging out inside Pakistan.

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

@ user Hcobb

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

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

first of all the Newsweek reference cannot be called non NPOV and removed. It looks like a case of WP:JDLI. In any case the fact that most people consider Pakistan a major supporter of extremist groups both in Kashmir and elsewhere and virtually every major terrorist plot in recent years has had a 'Pakistani connection' is info that needs to be prominent part of any encyclopedic article on Pakistan. A few references which go into Pakistani state support for terror groups from RS are here and can be worked in into the article.[1], [2], [3]--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Pakistan governments statements are not even believed in Pakistan. Just giving a statement does not mean that thats the only thing that matters. whether we like what these sources say or not what they say needs to be included. Multiple independant RS have said the same thing that Pakistan covertly has supported terrorism while the Pakistan government denies this in a routine fashion. It needs to be given its due weight. And what about Pakistan consistently being ranked in top 10 failed states in the world. this accomplishment is widely reported in RS including prominent Pakistani newspapers.[4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mangoes

I reverted the mango production from "a third of the world's mangoes" to "third largest mango producer". Unfortunately I don't have a source for that claim either, but going by the statistics cited in the mango article it's plausible: The FAO unfortunately groups mangoes, guavas and mangosteens, with Pakistan the fifth largest producer for the combination behind India, China, Mexico and Thailand.[5] But Mexico probably mainly produces guavas, not mangoes, and Thailand's produce may contain a greater percentage of mangosteens. A slightly older article gives the 2004 world production of mangoes (without guavas or mangosteens) at 23,455,000 tonnes, and the FAO gives Pakistan's 2004 total production of mangoes, mangosteens and guavas as 1,055,990 tonnes. That's far short of a third of the total mango production. Huon (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Motto

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

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

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

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

Pakistani Government Faces Growing Criticism Over Flood Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area

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

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

Culture and pornography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There are several problems with your proposed text:

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

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

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

Edit request from Suvansh.lal, 1 September 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mahatma Gandhi

I've strong reservations on the following statement:

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

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

Regards,...

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

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

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

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

Pakistan army

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

1) The reference leads to some blog!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

plus

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

Actually this is the hatred of yours against Pakistan.

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

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

@Taha .. nicely played ;) !

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

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

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

Featured article

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

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

I appreciate that... will call you

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

Pakistan's flood (2010)

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

Edit request from Sameer.kerkar, 7 October 2010

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

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

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

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

Pakistan Military Conscription

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

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

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

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

regarding kashmir

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

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

Edit request from 92.4.112.133, 14 October 2010

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

Gilgit-Baltistan

Azad Kashmir

FATA

Balochistan

Punjab

Sindh

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa

ICT

Afghanistan

Iran

China

India

Arabian Sea

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

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

In reply to your message:

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

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

I appreciate your thoughts, and am open to ideas.

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

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

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

—schajee 19:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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