Talk:Pakistan

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

Progress on the peer-review

I've sifted through the recommendations made by the reviewers and tried to organise it into some coherent format so that there is a clearer idea of what has been done and what still needs doing. Apologies if I have made any mistakes in this list:

1. The introductory line "Pakistan is a country located in South Asia that overlaps onto Central Asia and the Greater Middle East" – needs sensible debating
2. Discuss both positive and negative aspects - communal/ethnic tensions, economic and political issues - to do or possibly covered below
3. Cut page size to about 35-40 KB - down to 43 KB so far
4. Sub headings should be removed – mostly done
5. Fair use images should be removed - mostly done
6. Section titles like roots are not encyclopaedic - removed
7. Membership in various organisations in introduction - removed
8. Border with China not internationally recognised – footnote - done
9. Pakistan's position on Kashmir in a footnote - done
10. History section is too long -> four to five paragraphs - done
    1. In-line citations in History - appropriate citations added
    2. History - 1947-71 period when Bengalis were the majority (problems and onset of the civil war) – to do
    3. "Basic Democracy" plan of Ayub Khan? – debatable value in main article
    4. Badly worded section on freedom struggle suggested the League took over from the Congress - rewritten
11. History of Pakistan post-1971 – mostly done
    1. 2005 Kashmir earthquake - done
    2. Balochistan strife - to do
    3. War on terrorism – now mentioned
    4. Taliban - now mentioned
    5. Lahore Declaration 1998 - to do
    6. Kargil War - now mentioned
12. Expand forms of Government – remove Political History subsection - to do
    1. Political history can be covered under History - to do
    2. No need for separate political parties section - to do
    3. Provinces and Territories - prose form – mostly done
13. Condense Demographics to 3-4 paragraph prose form - no subsections - done
14. Tourism can be covered as a paragraph under the economy section - done
15. "Sport" section should have more prose - to do
16. Expand Geography section – to do
17. Rename wildlife section to flora and fauna and expand accordingly - to do
18. Discuss infrastructural, government/political, economic problems and challenges - to do
19. Islamic fundamentalism in religion, society, culture, politics are scant - to do
20. Military services - police, paramilitary and military – debatable value
21. Maps need to be NPOV – which ones specifically? - to do

I would estimate that the recommendations are about halfway implemented if you exclude the debatable ones. If you feel you can contribute to one of these recommendations sensibly, please do so. Green Giant 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, I was doing the exact same thing on my sandbox, but this makes more sense to have it on the talk page here. Just to comment on several items. I'm fairly certain all the pictures now are free use, and there are no restrictions on any of them. From some assistance I got in the #wikipedia chat earlier today, I tagged the Jinnah picture as PD-India and that should be the end of that. Despite all the pictures being liscensed under GFDL or similar circumstances, there are probably too many pictures. Not counting the infobox, there are 16 images, and three sections have three images. I agree that the Basic Democracy plan does not deserve mention in this article and should be mentioned in full in the History of Pakistan page or elsewhere. The military section I don't think belongs. The military and the nuclear weapon status is mentioned, which I think is sufficent. Other countries do have a military section (see Nepal or Bhutan) while others don't (see India). If anything, it should be merged into the foreign affairs section. I think the geography section is sufficent and in my opinion does not need expanding. Similarly, your (Green Giant) addition to the provinces section seems to be enough. And finally, let me just ackowledge the amount of work Green Giant is putting in to this article, both with adding new content, and removing superflous details. Pepsidrinka 03:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There is only a few things we can address in a little as space as this. Fundamentalism, for example is not discussed in the India article either. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, removing the Notes and the References section brings the article size down from 42KB to 37KB. That is quite a substantial amount. Pepsidrinka 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is almost unrecognizable from when it was rejected as an FAC. Congratulations to all the editors on a fantastic job! A couple of comments — I would narrate history chronologically. Specifically, wars are a part of Pakistan's history. They all seem to be grouped together in one sentence. These must be formatted such that each war/conflict appears in the decade that the history section describes. Good job so far though, and if the recent edits are any indication of the quality of the article when all suggestions/concerns havew been addressed, you're looking at a very strong FA candidate. AreJay 01:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad, this article was never rejected during FAC. I was thinking of another article. I still feel that there has been tremendous progress since the PR was initiated for this article AreJay 16:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What in God's Good Name is a united South Asia???? Enough of POV and revisionist history, please! It was a united India. Rama's Arrow 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that its an attempt to re-write history, let me warn all concerned that if this is not changed to "India," you will be including Bhutan, , Maldives, Sri Lanka and Nepal into the definition. Rama's Arrow 20:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note on history, politics

I strongly advocate that almost every fact must be directly cited here, to avoid a controversy during FAC - almost every detail is controversial. It is my feeling that the history and politics sections are not properly cited or written. Is there a need to expend 2 paras on ancient history of the region, when you can't explain the 1950s-60s, Pakistani civil war adequately? The latter series of events are more "Pakistani" than the ancient history. Rama's Arrow 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

On politics, it is hardly a clear-cut case as you present it. I had to mention the Constitutional history just now. Musharaff maintains a lot of power on foreign affairs and security, and he is the chief of army staff. There is a debate going on about the future role of the Army in Pakistan. You're not making this lucid. Rama's Arrow 21:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the points about citations and the need to concentrate on the modern history, but I have to disagree with overemphasis on any one aspect (e.g. the military) because this article has only a limited space and there are daughter articles for this purpose. Over the past month or so, the article had gone from 59 KB to 42 KB - i.e. 17 KB of useless bumpf and whilst the edits today were useful, it doesn't help that they added about 1 KB to the article.

However I'm not entirely convinced by the suggestion that there aren't enough citations when the recommended featured article on India has no citations at all. A careful examination shows several deficiencies including no mention of the communal riots of 1947, the more recent Gujarat riots, the Gujarat Earthquake, the Bhopal disaster, the fact that several prominent Indian leaders have been assassinated, or the several ethnic insurgencies. The four-paragraph history section summarises modern Indian history in one paragraph and apart from two notes about the disputed border, there is not one specific citation in the entire article. Instead there's a list of websites which can be viewed in edit mode and an emphasis on the date they were accessed but nothing to say which part of the main text each website relates to. Overall the entire article puts a very positive spin but doesn't go into any negative aspects. Green Giant 03:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to (1) reduce ancient history to one para, and focus on "Pakistani" history. And (2) India became an FA a long time ago, and in-line citations are not a stipulated requirement. But its my experience that when you deal with controversial issues, you need to directly link your sources. I think that in ideal situation, India and almost all FAs should have a reasonable number of citations. It would be ok to begin an effort to add citations to the India article - but we're talking Pakistan, and this article, IMO, cannot be a good FAC without citations for history, politics - case in point is that you're dealing with Civil war/genocide, Islamic terrorism, military coups, nuclear power all in a matter of paras. Do you think its reasonable to expect people to believe what you're writing without every controversial fact backed up with an explicitly credible source? Rama's Arrow 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the ancient history into one paragraph and "Pakistani history" now forms 2½ paragraphs. I've also added a couple of references for the 1971 war and the 1999 coup, but I don't think the section can be reduced much more without losing important elements. India only became a FA in December 2004, which is not that long ago, however, by highlighting the differences, I was pointing out that at least one FA didn't have all the features that have been suggested by the peer-review. If you look at the list above, you'll notice that many of the suggestions have been acted on but there are some suggestions that need debating first. Could you clarify what you understand by in-line citations and whether the current method of linking to the notes at the bottom is unacceptable? Green Giant 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Its looks ok now. By in-line citations, I meant exactly what you describe - only that almost every fact must be cited, becoz of its controversial nature. Again, its not a requirement, but credibility on controversial matter is certified by citations. Many FACs prior to 2005 did not pass through an FAC like today - standards have arisen. Rama's Arrow 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan is a republic?

Everyone knows that Musharaff seized power in a 1999 coup.Doesn't that make him more of a dictator than a President?202.177.246.3 11:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not as clear cut as that, because Musharraf didn't hatch a secret plan with other generals to overthrow Nawaz Sharif in 1999. If you read any outside media source, for example the UK Daily Telegraph, Sharif tried to dismissed him as Army chief whilst Musharraf was on a plane coming back from Sri Lanka. The plane was refused permission to land at Karachi and with limited fuel and a minor political crisis taking place, something had to give. Quoting the Telegraph article - The army's action, though prompted by Mr Sharif's move against the general, came amid rising dissatisfaction with Mr Sharif's government, which is accused of large scale corruption and maladministration. Mr Sharif has moved Pakistan closer to Islamic fundamentalism, entrenching sharia - or Islamic law - in the legal system, arresting journalists, harassing his opponents and dismissing judges, presidents and generals.

Sharif was trying to remove any powerbases outside his own because his Muslim League had a huge majority in the National Assembly and there was very little political opposition from the other main party (Pakistan People's Party). For example, in 1997 his supporters forced Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah out of office, simply because he had ruled against Sharif on several occasions and in particular in a contempt of court case.

Anyway Musharraf gained a sort of legitimacy when he gained a majority of votes in the Electoral College of Pakistan which according to the Constitution makes him elected president. See Dawn.com and CBS News.com for details. Green Giant 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Population estimate

I noticed that the population estimate for Pakistan is taken from http://www.world-gazetteer.com. How accurate is this website? Personally, I dont trust websites that try to install spyware and adware on my computer, but I dont know in this case......... --Jibran1 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns are understandable but the World Gazetteer website was used because it has a recommendation from the GE Source website which is part of the Resource Discovery Network. Both of these latter websites are UK national websites based on collaboration by numerous academic organisations. However, if you can find an estimate from a more reliable source, feel free to change the figures but do remember to list the source. Green Giant 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I know the Statpak website has a current population clock but this excludes Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas which are de facto parts of Pakistan even if de jure it is disputed. Green Giant 02:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

citation location

Anyone object to moving all the citations to follow punctuation,^[1] like this?^[2] That is way it's done in print sources, most FAs, and according to the Chicago Manual of Style. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 07:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making a small but important point. Please feel free to change to the standard format. Green Giant 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's new citation tool, using <ref name="abc">reference/ ext link</ref> automatically does so, and putting a notes/refs section in the end with <references /> tag automatically creates a nice looking reference section. Thanks. --Ragib 07:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going to do so a few days ago, but with 30+ references, I dreaded the task and decided to leave well enough alone. Now that someone suggested doing so, I guess it probably should be done. I'll try to do so later if no one does so before I get around to it. The only advantage I see with the current system is that it looks more aesthetically pleasing in the text when looking at the source code. Pepsidrinka 07:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The citation tool is better, because it adds the automatic numbering, reuse of citations in different places, and many other functions. Also, you don't have to make the source code difficult to edit ... look at how the citations are done in Rabindranath Tagore. That's a great, compact way of achieving the same thing. --Ragib 08:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The conversion is now complete. Incidently, the conversion removed 1 KB from the article size. I also acted upon the recommendation by Spangineer and moved the citations to follow the punctuation. Pepsidrinka 20:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, quick work! Good work on this article, by the way. I'll look over it some more and see if I can't support its FAC... —Spangineer^[es]&nbsp;<small>(háblame) 22:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Military dictatorship

The article Military dictatorship mentions Pakistan to be the country currently under military rule.Should not therefore the article be categorised to Category :Military dictatorship.The serving army Chief is top excecutive of the government.Shyamsunder 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

-- well it was a military dictator ship and now it's not, thus it cant be placed under military dictatorship tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalsurgeon (talk • contribs)

I am not so sure .As I understand immediately after coup in '99 all Supreme Court Judges had to take the oath again to confirm faith in new rulers..I remember that time one judget refused and he was sacked .So recognition of President Musharraf by the Supreme Court does not carry much conviction.About referendum many dictators get themselves "elected" .One recent example is of dictator of Belarus.

In military dictatorship there are two words .Militray -Yes Mussharaf is uniformed chief of army staff .Dictatoship - we need to find what poewrs does he have .We know he himself has made the law as who can contest elections and who can not( denied n Shariff and Bhutto to contest elections) ,who are eligible to vote and many more laws .He has power to dismiss the prime minister , he has all executive powers in practice , he receives and talks to all important foreign dignataries ( recently when President Bush visited Pakistan Pakisitani PM was nowehere to be seen ) and President has a constituted body which has military people in majority and that body can overule any decision of cabinet .So all in all it is dictatorship .I though welcome any other opinion.Shyamsunder 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to point upwards to the comments I made under the "Pakistan is a Republic" heading above. Musharraf didn't plan a coup, it was kinda forced on him by the actions of Nawaz Sharif. Before the judges swore that oath, I am sure they ruled that his administration had three years (more or less) to restore civilian rule. In 2004, he gained a kind of legitimacy when the Electoral College of Pakistan voted him into office, which is what the Constitution requires to make him elected president. See Dawn.com and CBS News.com for details of that. Obviously your argument of him still being Army chief is the strongest indicator of a military dictatorship but I think Musharraf's regime doesn't bear all the hallmarks of other dictators. By the way I think Nawaz Sharif and Benzair Bhutto are banned because of their prior records. Doesn't Mrs Bhutto have some outstanding court cases against her about her secret Swiss bank accounts which might have had a lot of public funds diverted to them. Nawaz Sharif was a little unsavoury even as a democratically elected PM, with all that fuss about the Chief Justice ruling against him in a court case and then the court being invaded by Sharif supporters and the judge having to flee. It's difficult to decide whether Pakistan actually emerged from General Zia's dictatorship at all considering the kind of democrats that succeeded him? :P Green Giant 06:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Musharraf might be extra-powerful these days due to both Army and President positions, however the laws he has passed have been by Parliament. He has not made any decrees himself. His style of governance is also not of a dictator and the country is run by elected federal, local and provincial governments. The only anomaly is Musharraf's uniform. I think this does not make him a dictator or his government a dictatorship.

Prominent Personalities

I dont think it is good idea to have list of Prominent Personalities in main Pakistan page. Please look into it. --Spasage 09:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

-- I think it's better to have a seperate article for this, it should only be linked from the main article or should be placed in the pakistan info box --digitalSurgeon 07:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Spasage, you must found this article within the 37 minutes the personalities section was around. It was added and subsequently removed by 9:51 UTC on the date in question. Pepsidrinka 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

EDITED PAKISTAN PAGE (New Sections Needed Science/Religion)

I have edited Pakistan page by adding the 'history of pakistan' article directly into the main page, The reasons for this is simple because there was almost no mention of Pakistan's pre-history which i believe some indian members have been editing to assert thier hegemonic agenda.

I was utterlly appalled by the lack of information and depth given on the main page, I believe two new sections should be added to pakistan page "science in pakistan" and "religion in Pakistan" i mention science because Pakistan has made several contributions in physics, namely abdus salam who won the nobel prize for physics in 1979, and Mahbub ul Haq who invented the HDI which is used throughout modern economics, also Pakistans nuclear power status is a great scientific achivement.

another section named "religion in pakistan" should be added to show the religious significance of Pakistan to groups such as sikhs, Pakistan is birth place of sikhism and guru nanak dev, this deserves mention as does the fact that thousands of hindus and sikhs make pilgrimages to religious sites across pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

You just undid a lot of work by a great many authors over the last few weeks, who are going for Featured article status. The edits you are incorporating would just make that nomination fail spectacularly. I'm reverting your edits. Please take a look at the peer review and the featured article candidacy page before making such sweeping, unilateral changes. Thanks. --Ragib 05:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The only "indian members" involved with this page have been the extremely helpful guys who not only suggested improvements during a peer review but also helped in the editing. Perhaps you are referring to some of the obvious anti-Pakistan vandalism but it's a lame to blame this on "indian members". Anyway you may not be aware but this article is mean't to be a summary and is not the place for extensive histories. Did you notice there was a link to the History of Pakistan daughter article? That's what an uninformed reader would click on if they were interested in reading about more of the history. Religions already get a good mention in the Holidays section with even a hint of Nankana Sahib.

Abdus Salam and Mahbub ul Haq are good suggestions but they would be better in a list of notable Pakistanis. If you had read the introduction and the government and politics section you might have noticed that Pakistan's nuclear status is mentioned. However, Pakistan didn't invent nuclear power or nuclear weapons so it's a little hazy to claim that this is a great achievement. Green Giant 08:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

References

the references cited after the notes section, what do they refer to? ie, where are they cited or used in the article? --Bob 21:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can explain, but from as far as I know, prior to about a month ago, nothing in this article was internally cited. All references belonged in a reference section at the bottom, which is the section you mentioned. Beginning with the push to get this article featured, the editors of this article realized that internal citations (aka inline citations) were neccessary and a push began to do so. Since most of the reference that were already there were added by past editors, most the current editors did not have access to them. So other sources were used. However, in order to preserve the actual references for the non-contentious issues, the reference section has been mainted, with an additional notes section for the inline citations. Pepsidrinka 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So, we don't know what text these references support? They should be properly linked to and/or cited as well--Bob 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as I understand, every fact does not need to be internally cited. It is usually only those contentious issues or those issues that are difficult to believe that require an inline citation. However, other facts, such as "Pakistan is part of the United Nations" would not require an immediate citation, but it by all means needs a reference. That is why general citations are found. Obviously no one is going to dispute that Pakistan is not apart of the United Nations, however, where did you get information from? It is good to provide references in general. I feel like I just repeated myself three times. Your thoughts? Pepsidrinka 02:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pepsidrinka, there are some things that are simply indisputable like the UN membership, as almost every political entity is either a member or an observer. It might be better to rename that section as Further reading or some similar name. Green Giant 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this reference used for:Malik, Iftikhar H. "Religious Minorities in Pakistan". Minority Rights Group International. September 2002. ISBN 1897693699  ? Why is it there? The others as well. --Bob 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

Can someone put a proper map of Pakistan in the article which clearly shows the major towns.

Featured Status

Congratulations to everyone who has helped bring this article out of the Dark Ages and into the light of Featured Article. Green Giant 08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Conragtulations to all editors for their tireless efforts in achieving Featured Article status Gnangarra 09:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How can now it appear on the front page of Wikipedia ? congrats!! --digitalSurgeon 12:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A requests has been made at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. I just set the lead as the portion to be displayed on the main page, though if someone has a better idea, please by all means make your voice heard on the linked talk page. Pepsidrinka 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Future track

• Spoken Article, as in Australia, India etc... --digitalSurgeon 12:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE INSULTING JINNAH & GHANDI PICTURE!

Hello;

The top picture with Jinnah and Ghandi must be removed instantly, it is offensive, insensitive, and ill timed to have such images with hegemonic and deep seated politcally motivated contations to be placed on Paksitan or wiki altogether.

There is no need whatsoever to include the Ghandi terrorist in a picture with Jinnah, Ghandi is not the founding father of Pakistan and is a man responsible for riots and influencing them by emotional blackmail (ie starvation), The terrorist was always locked into prison by the British and this should give you an indication of Ghandis intolarable charachter. Jinnah on the otherhand was a seperate individual with different rational and morals, he was never once in prisoned, and he led a DEMOCRATIC move that was peaceful. There is no need to have Jinnah in a picture with Ghandi as there is with Churchill and Hitler on the Churchill webpage, churchill stood for peace and democracy likek jinnah, Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence.

With utter disgust, A Pakistani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.122.237 (talk • contribs)

This is not a political forum, but a neutral encyclopedia. If you have a genuine free-to-use image of Jinnah, then please provide it so we can change the picture. Until then, please desist from vandalising the article. Green Giant 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling Gandhi a "terrorist" just shows how meaningless the comment is, and that you need to look into history. Perhaps reading the book "Freedom at Midnight", or even the Gandhi article on wikipedia may open your eyes. It was Gandhi, who went on a hunger strike when the newly formed Govt of India denied the transfer of 55 crore rupees as Pakistan's share. Gandhi's last fasting was *For Pakistan* and *for ending violence*. I am bound by wikipedia's principles of No personal attacks, so am refraining from any remarks on the emptiness of your comments. A lot of people worked hard to make this article featured ... that included Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis. Any further attempt to vandalize it would result in appropriate administrative actions, according to wikipedia's policy on vandalism. Thanks. --Ragib 04:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From the article on Gandhi

Gandhi advised the Congress to reject the proposals the British Cabinet Mission offered in 1946, as he was deeply suspicious of the grouping proposed for Muslim-majority states - Gandhi viewed this as a precursor to partition. However, this became one of the few times the Congress broke from Gandhi's advice (not his leadership though), as Nehru and Patel knew that if the Congress did not approve the plan, the control of government would pass to the Muslim League. Between 1946 and 1947, over 5,000 people were killed in violence. Gandhi was vehemently opposed to any plan that partitioned India into two separate countries. Many Muslims in India lived side by side with Hindus and Sikhs, and were in favour of a united India. But Jinnah commanded widespread support in West Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and East Bengal. The partition plan was approved by the Congress leadership as the only way to prevent a wide-scale Hindu-Muslim civil war. Congress leaders knew that Gandhi would viscerally oppose partition, and it was impossible for the Congress to go ahead without his agreement, for Gandhi's support in the party and throughout India was strong. Gandhi's closest colleagues had accepted partition as the best way out, and Sardar Patel endeavoured to convince Gandhi that it was the only way to avoid civil war. A devastated Gandhi gave his assent.

On the day of the transfer of power, Gandhi did not celebrate independence with the rest of India, but was alone in Calcutta, mourning the partition and working to end the violence. After India's independence, Gandhi focused on Hindu-Muslim peace and unity. He conducted extensive dialogue with Muslim and Hindu community leaders, working to cool passions in northern India, as well as in Bengal. Despite the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, he was troubled when the Government decided to deny Pakistan the Rs. 55 crores due as per agreements made by the Partition Council. Leaders like Sardar Patel feared that Pakistan would use the money to bankroll the war against India. Gandhi was also devastated when demands resurged for all Muslims to be deported to Pakistan, and when Muslim and Hindu leaders expressed frustration and an inability to come to terms with one another.[13] He launched his last fast-unto-death in Delhi, asking that all communal violence be ended once and for all, and that the payment of Rs. 55 crores be made to Pakistan. Gandhi feared that instability and insecurity in Pakistan would increase their anger against India, and violence would spread across the borders. He further feared that Hindus and Muslims would renew their enmity and precipitate into an open civil war. After emotional debates with his life-long colleagues, Gandhi refused to budge, and the Government rescinded its policy and made the payment to Pakistan. Hindu, Muslim and Sikh community leaders, including the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha assured him that they would renounce violence and call for peace. Gandhi thus broke his fast by sipping orange juice.[14]

I'd say initailly he was against pakistan seperation but once this occured he did all he could to foster peace between the two countries. Keep the image even Ghandi could forgive and move towards peace sure we on wikipedia can Gnangarra 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

^if you are not able to help me in removing that terrorist Ghandis picture from the article then you have no rights to critcism my editing either, I have equal rights as you people if not I have more rights because I was affected directly by this terrorist! Jinnah was a man of peace and Ghandi was a terrorist! Why is that so hard for you folks to accept? Why do you all hate Pakistan so much? Why can you people not accept Pakistan as an idependent and soverign state? You people are anti-pak crowd and want to destroy the islamic republic of pakistan by posting insulting images and that is totally unacceptable to me! What you have done is greatly insulting to pakistani sentiments, Isnt it enough that Ghandi is on India page? must you force this man, his religion, his inferior ideology upon us? we are soverign state the days of colonial rule are over and we will determine its destiny not outsiders, indian, banglageshi, or anyone else! The Japan page has also been infested with those with political ambitions notably chinese and koreans who are trying to distort its history and damage its standing in the comity of nations and this is happening here also.

You have grave crime of posting, such sickening picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

Hi Babil79! Please try to accept that the picture incidentally depicts Jinnah with the "terrorist" Gandhi. Is not the picture significant in this that Jinnah had the heart to cooperate even with such a terrorist? BTW, is it written anywhere in the Pakistan article that Pakistan is not a idependent and soverign state, as you claim? And do you really think that posting an image would lead to destruction of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as you also claim? If that is the case, then I fear you shall find great difficulty in "determining the destiny" of Pakistan (as you again claim)! By the way, your comments reminds me of something. If you are intersted , check those out at here and here. Also see this [1]

Bye.--Dwaipayanc 12:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same person Image:Ali-jinnah.jpg and could it be a suitable replacement Gnangarra 12:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ali-jinnah.jpg seems to be of Jinnah. However, the image is not clear and so cannot be considered to be a suitable replacement. Also, as the article has already undergone a peer review and is a Featured Article ( one of the best in Wikipedia), the present image can be supposed to have undergone the scrutiny of many wikipedian across the world. So before randomly changing the image (that too due to the request of someone who does not sign his comments), please ask those editors who have toiled to make Pakistan a featured article.--Dwaipayanc 13:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

the gandhi image was one that was used after during FA I questioned the copyright status of the previous. This suggested image came from one of the talk pages of those discussing this subject. I believe the current image doesnt harm the article, being from australia I know(knew, i read the article) very little of the actions of gandhi only his basic legend(he passively faught for india's independance). With Ali Jinnah until I read the article, (then only because of its FA nomination) I had not even heard of him. When I saw the image I actually thought it was presenting Ali Jinnah as an exceptional statesman to be seen being embraced by a legend. I agree the suggested image isnt as good as the one in use. Gnangarra 15:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are not able to help me or Pakistan then you have no right to criticism us either!! I will not stop until Jinnah and Ghandi image is removed. period. I have recived nothing but critcism from other wikipedia members and told that I will not be allowed to change image, even though many of these same members openly admit they know next to nothing about Jinnah or the Pakistan movement. What rights do these people have to tell me about Pakistan? Why are you always attacking Pakistan? cant you bully someone else? As for the editors who have been working constantly on Pakistan page, good for them but they do not have more rights than me. I have uploaded countless jinnah images; Image:Jinnah2.jpg and Image:Jinnah1.jpg I politely request the Jinnah and Ghandi picture be removed and repalced with a more sutiable picture, I will not tolerate any criticism as that is what members here have been doing right from the begining. I dont need austrailians or americans or anyone else to tell me about founding father of Pakistan and why he is included in such a degoratory picture or in the case of Dwaipayanc telling me or insinuating that im mentally ill is unwarranted and uncalled for and has no place on wiki. I can tell the anti-pak vampires here are trying to distort the image of our small religoius state.

Now you've done it!! Please take a look at No personal attack policy. Calling people names will get you banned!! The rest of your comments really don't merit a reply. As for the picture, I think a consensus have been reached here on that. Thanks. --Ragib 17:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ive done it? Incase you have difficulty reading Dwaipayanc was trying to insinuate that i was mentally ill I dont see you warning him, besides why do you people have more rights than I do? Every time i try to make a contribution im told the "editors" ie an indian team has spent many weeks to bring the article up to par ie indian standards and contribution is not good enough, Who put you incharge of wikipedia? The whole point of wiki is for peace to acess neutral information which can be edited by users, In the case of this site the webpage is controlled by a few that hate Pakistan. Ragib; who are you to tell me my "comments really don't merit a reply"? I have equal rights and i will excercise my rights to protect the rights of my country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.122.237 (talk • contribs)

Pakistan is a featured article now thanks to the efforts of many editors from across the world, including, of course, people from Pakistan. So you do not have any proof that the article is being mal-handled by others.

And here is a proposal: prove the image is derogatory for Pakistan's image, wikipedians will remove it. Give some rationale. Don't just bark and threaten. As a citizen of a democratic country, you must be knowing that in democracy a particular person's wish is not important. It is the consensus that matters. If the majority of people tell that the image is derogatory, it will be removed at once. Period.

I was not meaning that you were mentally ill. Rather I tried to point out that the comments you made sounded like "Delusion of Persecution." I understand I have hurt you. I apologize. I am sorry.

Bye the way, even if I did insinuate, it would have been much less offensive than what you are doing here. Without any sort of provocation, you are calling Gandhi a terrorist. Before making such comment, try to gather some reference. Who do you think you are that such comments would be entertained? And who do you think you are that your claim to remove a good, historically important image would be entertained? I am amazed to see an educated man like you talk so irrationally. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. LoL. You called Pakistan a "small" country ! You seem to have no idea about the size or population of your own country !! It's amazing. Good luck in your mission.

Ok, let's see ...

If you are not able to help me or Pakistan then you have no right to criticism us either!!

Who's helping Pakistan or you? We are writing an encyclopedia article on Pakistan. Sure, it's good for the world. But the intention is not to "help" any entity... rather the editors are doing it for advancing human knowledge.

I will not stop until Jinnah and Ghandi image is removed. period.

You are free to do so, as long as you put forward "sensible" claims. Calling Gandhi a "terrorist" doesn't help your argument, rather it makes it totally laughable. You might come up with better arguments if you want to continue your objections to the image.

Why are you always attacking Pakistan? cant you bully someone else?

Huh? A lot of editors have spent *unpaid time* to review, edit, enhance this page. Who do you see attacking who? Specific examples would be better than "everybody attacking me" type arguments.

I can tell the anti-pak vampires here are trying to distort the image of our small religoius state.

"Vampires"? Great, there goes your arguments!!

Jinnah was a man of peace and Ghandi was a terrorist! Why is that so hard for you folks to accept? Why do you all hate Pakistan so much? Why can you people not accept Pakistan as an idependent and soverign state?

I need not elaborate further. Please take some time to read history, rather than making such incoherent statements.

In the end, you of course have the right to voice your opinion, but you should support amazing claims with amazing facts, citations etc. I can't possibly see you coming up with any fact that shows Gandhi as a "terrorist" in forseeable future. Thanks. --Ragib 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi a terrorist?!! A next thing I wanna hear is Nelson Mandela being accused of Aparthied! --Spartian 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, here is the other gem from 86.131.122.237 (talk · contribs) ,

Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence..

Now you can get an idea of the sort of argument he's trying to rant on. But I think I'd stop replying to his rants. --Ragib 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Every time i try to make a contribution im told the "editors" ie an indian team has spent many weeks to bring the article up to par ie indian standards and contribution is not good enough, Who put you incharge of wikipedia? User:86.131.122.237

Does that make me an Indian too? I'd hate to think my parents have lied to me all this time and suddenly you've revealed my real ethnicity :P - The Pro-Yorkshire Green Giant 00:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I find this whole argument rather funny, Gandhi (not Ghandi) a terrorist and Jinnah a savior and a man a of peace. I've heard from fellow Pakistanis this argument and I've heard from Indians (apparently intended as an insult) the exact opposite, Gandhi a savior and Jinnah a terrorist. I dont think either are true and any who support either one has a bad comprehension of history. Just as Jinnah stood by a secular India and later on, a secular, tolerant and democratic Pakistan, Gandhi was for a free, united, tolerant India with equal and unalienable rights for Muslims. He fasted for peace with Muslims as well as to get money for the state of Pakistan. What's more, HE GAVE HIS OWN LIFE FOR THE RIGHT OF THE MUSLIMS TO LIVE IN PEACE. A Hindu fanatic, Godse, (whose RSS sister branch BJP would later massacre thousands of innocent Muslims in Gujarat), remorselesley took his life for his support of the Muslims. The people who would persecute Muslims in Gujarat, abuse Muslims in Kashmir and tear down the Babri Masjid in an effort to promote the Hindu Rashtra, were the same people who took Gandhi's life. Therefore, how about we give the man credit for his actions and let his picture stay on the website. He may have been too much of an idealist and maybe doubted some policies that would have easily kept Pakistan and India together, but he knew the Muslims were his equals and accepted them as such readily. In fact, his influence went so far as to him having a Muslim follower from that now Pakistan-entrenched territory (and my homeland) of NWFP; Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Frontier Gandhi). -User: Afghan Historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.1.200 (talk • contribs)

Whoever made this accusation must be an extremely hateful person. I am not Pakistani, but I've been there many times and personally I know that the Pakistani people don't look at Gandhi as a terrorist. Only a select few extremists. Gandhi didn't want Pakistan to exist, but he was a merciful man who gave a lot of good to the world, as did Jinnah. Disgusted Pakistani, you obviously either aren't really Pakistani and just a fake trying to make Pakistan look bad, or a Pakistani, but not a real one, as you insult this great man. We shouldn't do that. I repeat, most Pakistanis don't look at Gandhi in this manner. Stallions2010 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a fuuny arguement made by some extremist personality here. I don't want to waste my time in replying such rubbish and nonsense. I would say just one thing.... not just Indians but the whole world adds Mahatama (great soul) before his name to show the respect they have for him. Today, Mahatama Gandhi has become a symbol of Non-Voilence and Peace for whole Humanity.....his peaceful ideology is a ray of hope to save humanity from increasingly terrorist and extremist ideologies. Holy Ganga 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi might be a 'symbol of non-violence and peace for whole humanity' to you, But we are not here to talk about your religious conviction, If you dont mind I would rather you kept your religious beliefs to yourself, The reasons for removing the Ghandi picture are clearly as follows:

1. Gandhi was NOT founding father of Pakistan: No reason for him to be on Pakistan page

2. Gandhi was AGAINST the Pakistan movement: Again No reason for him to be on Pakistan page

3. Gandhi was a CRIMINAL; He was constantly imprisioned by the British no need for a criminal to be seen in a picture with a democrat and visioniary like Jinnah who unlike Gandhi was NEVER inprisioned AND WAS the founding father of Pakistan.

4. Gandhi emotionally BLACKMAILED his followers; He would often go on hunger strikes and fast for days on end, and in many cases almost killed himself, We dont need someone with that kind of charachter on this page

Can anyone disprove my claims on Gandhis charachter? These ARE ESTABLISHED FACTS, This should be more than enough to have the Ghandi + Jinnah picture WITH A PICTURE OF JUST JINNAH; Why should a civilized statesman like Jinnah have to share glory with a half naked criminal like Gandhi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

Babil, your rant is taking a laughable shape. Looking at points 3 and 4 made me remember once again that today is April 1. Anyway, I guess the consensus here and almost everywhere in wikipedia is heavily against the ideas presented in your rant. There are a thousand ways to make this article better, and many people, pakistanis, and non pakistanis alike, are working on it. Coming here to say Gandhi was a "Criminal"/"terrorist" etc. just invalidate whatever credibility you have as an editor. Nationalism is good, and everyone should have it, but extreme jingoism is a very very bad thing. Thanks. --Ragib 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If only all this effort were spent on Pakistan related article it would be lot closer to FA. What a waste of time. People should ignore this "person." --Blacksun 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The top picture with Jinnah and Ghandi must be removed instantly, it is offensive, insensitive, and ill timed to have such images with hegemonic and deep seated politcally motivated contations to be placed on Paksitan or wiki altogether.

God,that's sad in so many ways.

So you actually believe that people on wikipedia actually have deep seated politcally motivated contations, due to which they create a freaking open-for-editing article on wikipedia.

And ill timed.....why is it ill timed ?? or better yet when, according to you, would have been the proper time for it ??

Listen, whether you like it or not Gandhi and Jinnah did spend a considerable time of their lives togather, as part of the same movement and fighting for the same cause(which would then be getting the british out of India).

It happened, and it's a fact, try living with it.

is a man responsible for riots and influencing them by emotional blackmail (ie starvation)

If you would stop reading the Chunky Butt magazine and go for Newsweek instead you would find that it was the week long fasting of Gandhi which led to muslims returning to normalacy on the streets of delhi, after the formation of pakistan the muslims were a target of vicious hate riots throughtout the country and "the terrorist" went on hunger strike till the riots ended.During the first three days, the reaction from the common public was "Let him Die if he so badly wants to", the next few days saw a waning in the riots and increasing concern for the health of Gandhi, which would have millions marching towards delhi, by the end of the week the riots stopped and the muslims roamed the streets of delhi freely, like they used to.

And what did the man do after then ?? Take a bite into a big chocolate cake ?? nooo............he freaking, went on a nationwide tour telling people to put an end to the nonsense.

Have'nt you heard "Iswar - Allah tere` naam.Sabko Sanmati de` bhagwan"(The hymn gandhi chanted in his porbandar monastary.It traslates to "The name Iswar(Hindu for God) and Allah(muslim for God) are all the names of the one, universal god.God give peace and calm to humanity".

Anyways, the United States Government has been calling him a Champion of Liberty for a few decades now, and publishing stamps bearing his face, so the free world does'nt seem to think so badly of him after all,huh ??? ??? ??? ???

The terrorist was always locked into prison by the British and this should give you an indication of Ghandis intolarable charachter.

He was also called by the queen to visit the Buckingham Palace,always called upon by the Governer Generals of India.

He was the inspiration of the likes of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela(another hero who,by the way also spent a lifetime in jail).

He features regularly in the speeches of the newer crop of British politicians who use the "Gandhian" ideology of peaceful co-existence, to spread peace around areas like Birmingham,where the immigrants overpower the locals.

And, January 30 is commemorated in the United Kingdom as National Gandhi Remembrance Day.

So much for your "British locked him up" crap.

So,the british locked away the man who tried to free his country from their rule.What's the big deal ?? Did'nt the british try and kill George Washington in the Battle of Long Island ?? Did'nt they lock up Nelson Mandela throughout his young life ?? Did'nt they sell opium to the youth of China ??

It's called Imperialsm, my retarded friend. Try living with the fact that it existed.

There is no need to have Jinnah in a picture with Ghandi as there is with Churchill and Hitler on the Churchill webpage, churchill stood for peace and democracy likek jinnah, Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence.

God, it's sick in so many ways. Are you allowed to open your mouth outside of your home by your mommy, by the way ??

Incase you have difficulty reading Dwaipayanc was trying to insinuate that i was mentally ill I dont see you warning him, besides why do you people have more rights than I do?

He was barely insinuating,I'm saying outright that you are a raving lunatic(a euphimism for a loon who's not even funny).We have more rights than you do because we're not retards,is it so hard to understand ??

The whole point of wiki is for peace to acess neutral information which can be edited by users

for peace to access ?? what the f$*k ?? who's peace and what's acess ??? the information can be edited by users,all right.Users with IQ over 30.

I have equal rights and i will excercise my rights to protect the rights of my country.

Trust me you have bought as much shame to your country as is humanly possible through the medium of wikipedia.Your language is painfully atrocious and you tone is like a communist on wall street.Go back to your basement and live there for as long you can, I bet you have enough Chunky Butt magazines to keep ya company.You're an embaressment to both the pakistani nation and this talk page. Freedom skies 05:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on making this a featured article guys!

As for the mention of the claims to Kashmir, why no mention of this on the India page since Pakistan also claims Indian-held Kashmir just as India claims Pakistan held Kashmir? Kind of a double-standard. Tombseye 21:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm; it'a probably more a matter of getting around to it. There is also a minor row about noting Kashmir among the list of territories in Southern Asia (which I support). Anyhow, there you go! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that myself. Probably create more of a problem if I mention that much of its history and ties are Central Asian, but either way. I'm not sure it's a matter of getting around to it. One guy wanted to add that Azad Kashmir was Occupied and when I suggested we'd have to do the same for the article on the Indian controlled part, he basically objected and disappeared. At any rate, at some point it would be logical to add this info. to both or delete here if it's going to just be mentioned here. At any rate, the article looks great now. Now if some of us could improve some of the other country articles that almost made it like Iran. Tombseye 03:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing

THis article tells nothing of the pakistani genocide of bengalis. I don't see how it will affect the pov of the article

Wrong Map

I am deleting the map of Pakistan 1947 to 1971 until somebody can put a correct map there. In 1947, Kashmir was neither a part of Pakistan or India. Revert if I am wrong. Raswa 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of removing the map entirely you could have changed the displayed text. It now reads "Pakistan up to 1970". Green Giant 00:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that inaccurate too? Why not correct it before reinserting it. Raswa 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In either case, part of Kashmir should be shown in different color. Raswa 00:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not discuss this before undertaking a small crusade? There was no need for you to add your comments to the archived candidacy for featured articles. The best place to raise the issue is on the talkpage here. The title of the image is now "Pakistan in 1970". Why should Kashmir be in a different colour? Green Giant 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Clearly I didn't realize the page was archieved already. Kashmir isn't incorporated into Pakistan entirely, only the northern areas are. Isn't that true? Then why should the map show all the Pakistani controlled areas? Raswa 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are several references throughout the article that state clearly that Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir are de facto parts of Pakistan but not de jure. If you look at the map, it shows a clear border between Pakistan proper and the two disputed areas. If a reader reads the article and looks at the map, there should be no ambiguity about the issue. Green Giant 16:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some nutjob's vandalized the article! I'm doing the reverts! - User: Afghan Historian (I may be critical of my homeland sometimes, by I never saw it as a terrorist country. Give me a break!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.164.136 (talk • contribs)

-the MMA do indeed cause a lot of hell for a progressive Pakistan, but who in the hell says that makes it a Terrorist state? Have some decency people, even if the MMA do not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.15.161 (talk • contribs)

destroyed article, READ THIS PLEASE

This is shabbirbokhari1 I logged on this article yesterday April 16th 2006 and say that someone had destroyed the Pakistan article rubbing out evrything that was written and writing some very offensive things, I am half Pakistani and British I still find this very offensive, Even though the article has been changed back to normal and is the same as it was before. WHY WOULD ANYONE TAKE THE TIME AND Write many offensive things. Such as 'Grow up and be little terrorists', 'Pakis Basterd'. I am shore that many other Pakistanis would be outraged by this. Luckuly not many people have seen it.

Please ADD..................

THERE WERE LINES ADMITTING HE WAS RACIST IT SAID "I AM THE KKK" {[mR. X}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.177.182 (talk • contribs)

irc channel on freenode

Hi,

Guys we need to start a communication medium, Wikipedia is missing a lot of stuff on Pakistan and there are some other issues as well.

I've started a #wikipedia-pakistan channel on irc.freenode.net we should start having discussions there, we can start with improving the Pakistan portal.

regards

--digitalSurgeon 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If others are going to actually enter the channel, I'll start to idle there from now on. I normally idle in #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, but this channel can be a good medium in place of talk pages. Pepsidrinka 22:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE THESE LINES

hi. The webpage Pakistan, has the following lines " Although Bollywood movies are banned, pirated discs are easily available, so Indian film stars are popular in Pakistan as well" in the culture section. However, this is a baised statement and currently software piracy is being addressed in pakistan.. and to state such a fact is to diminish the reputation of a country ..

kindly either erase the page or change it to Although Bollywood movies are banned, Indian muslim film stars such as Shahrukh Khan and Aamir Khan are popular in Pakistan as well. This is the same effect that pakistani TV actors such as Moin Akhter and bands like Strings and Junoon have a vast popularity in India.

Regards, Imran Quadri iquadri@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.228.35 (talk • contribs)

I rollbacked your edits because I was under the impression it was vandalism. Please use edit summaries in the future. I should have not used my rollback, however, I'm going to leave the article in its current state until more discussion regarding the sentence is held. I for one don't have a problem with it. The fact of the matter is, piracy is a huge problem in Pakistan. If you say that steps are being taking to counter it, please provide a reputable source that makes that claim and then a countering sentence can be added to the paragraph. Pepsidrinka 22:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lines about piracy must be removed given that Pakistan has taken bold steps to counter this problem; The steps Pakistan has taken invclude the Business Software Alliance (BSM) launching a nationwide 'piracy witch hunt'.

Here is a neutral source on the latest developments concering Pakistan fighting piracy:

http://www.itp.net/news/details.php?id=20388&category=

Also here is the website of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA)

http://www.pemra.gov.pk/

May I add that pemra is department specifically formed by the Pakistan government to counter piracy, this itself and in addition to the BSA anti-piracy drive should remove all aprrehensions about Piracy in Pakistan.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

I agree with what Pepsidrinka did because at the time it was unsourced claims. The first link provided by Babil79 only shows that BSA is doing something, but it does not show that piracy has ended. The second link to PEMRA is just a homepage - is there anywhere in that site that mentions combatting piracy? From what I can see PEMRA was specifically formed to "induct the private sector into the field of electronic media" but can't see any mention of countering piracy. Oh and please sign your comments anon and Babil79. Green Giant 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What i dont understand is that piracy is an issue which is being tackled worldwide and is all over the world.. but why only on the pakistan webpage you have mentioned related to bollywood.. I could say the same thing in india/ america, any country you name it. I have lived both in England and currently am in France.. and i see on day to day basis, software piracy and music piracy and no body raises an eye. WHY SHOULD A PIRACY RELATED ISSUE RELATED TO THE WORLD IS BEING MENTIONED IN THE PAGE OF ONLY PAKISTAN.. Sounds like anti-pakistanism to me. And in case, people needing proof of software piracy being stopped in Pakistan. I am a citizen of pakistan, who lives 6 months in pakistan and 6 months abroad, so i have a better idea about the conditions of my country then some body who just wants to invalidated my sentiments. KINDLY NOTE THAT THIS IS A NEUTRAL WEBPAGE AND ADDING UNVERIFIED DATA mocks all of Pakistanis and i for once take an exception to that. Imran Quadri iquadri@gmail.com

JINNAH PICTURE

i have provided a suitable picture of Jinnah.. which has no copy right problems , yet to see it being replaced again with a same picture of Gandhi with Jinnah.. Being a webpage to Pakistan. I think this page suits best with a picture of Jinnah only.. and respects the sentiments of Pakistanis.. kindly think before rollbacking the webpage. If Gandhi and Jinnah picture is to be added.. kindly add it to Gandhi's own webpage and leave the Pakistan webpage only for things related to PAKISTAN.. I repeat.. its not out of disrespect or anything but i believe that the pakistan webpage must show things about pakistan and pakistani culture. Imran Quadri iquadri@gmail.com