Talk:Poverty in Pakistan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Poverty in Pakistan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

An entry from Poverty in Pakistan appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 September, 2006.

Wikipedia

Template:Releaseversion

Response to the db tag

The stub was merely created today. It is the victim of Pakistani jingoism. See Poverty in India, Poverty in the United States and elsewhere. Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This statement made before significant modifications were made to the article.Hkelkar 12:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Raply placed in own section.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jingoism and rants

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to call it jingoism, but the article is a quickly assembled op-ed at best, and it contains nothing to argue for its own special article or even a bit part in broader cry-me-a-river cause porn. This is what free blog hosting is for. Wikipedia is not a free blog host. --einexile 10:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Think again. Every single sentence of importance in the article is sourced from legitimate journals, news articles, and published works."Op-ed" indeed. People are welcome to comment, but it would be nice if they actually read the article and followed through on the sources first.Hkelkar 12:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I reverted the most recent edit as of this date

The caption was a literal translation of the Urdu as written on the image.Plz keep it that way
No citation tags are neeeded as every statement I wrote is sourced from the ADB paper or the references. Kindly read the ADB paper at least (that's why it's cited N->infty times) Not a whit of original research was added so please respect the integrity of the article. Hkelkar 12:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the citation tags to passages which were controversial or borderline POV. Since you'd cited the ADB paper 13 times alongside 11 other sources I don't think it's unreasonable to request citations for this information. (I didn't read the ADB paper because I correctly suspected it had been plagiarized, and I wished to clean up an embarrassing front page article without sharing responsibility for that.) I altered the caption because only quotation marks were necessary to make clear it was a translation from the Urdu, and because the original caption likely did not include internal Wikipedia links. The "literal translation" was also poor English and thus poor translation regardless of its word-for-word accuracy. All that aside, a blanket revert was quite inappropriate as most of my changes were simple copy editing. --einexile 12:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plagiarism.Wikipedia is not supposed to contain original research per WP:OR. All my edits are re-worded from the article. Plus, I have provided additional sources wherever needed.There is no controversy other than any that you may have manufactured. If you have problems with the source then take it up with them. If you have any sources that refute the claims then by all means, put them in the article with any edits that they may back up, provided they satisfy WP:Reliable Sources. The literal translation, poor english or not, belongs as such on the article as it is a "literal translation".

Any "bad language" is on the part of thae chap who wrote the original caption in Urdu so it is not up to us to correct it as that WOULD constitute Original research also. Again, please don;t dictate rules that are either nonexistent or are contrary to wikipedia policy.A blanket revert was appropriate because citation tags were unnecessary and majority of the edits were unwarranted. Plus, your edits like changing gender to sex was bad as the word gender contains no ambiguities here whereas "sex" is ambiguous (sex as in male/female or sex as in copulation???).There were many other issues.Liek I said, do not remove sourced statements, introduce original research, or put cn tags where none are warranted.Hkelkar 13:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are rambling here, so I won't waste your time or mine with any more of this slap fight. However, I do recommend that you reconsider the blanket revert, and instead return the passages which were important to you. Your revert put back numerous silly errors and a good deal of careless or awkward language. --einexile 13:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please make specific points instead of general incivility.Hkelkar 08:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

All sides should keep off the article until the article is off hte main page. We dont need an 4edit war scarring it, its a WP:DYK.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of making changes to the article, and it still needs lots of copy editing, so unless Hkelkar has an ongoing conflict with another user it's better if you guys continue work on it - especially because it's on the main page. --einexile 07:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homeless boy from Peshawar

http://flickr.com/photos/38644729@N00/48393621/in/dateposted/ The picture never mention that he is indeed homeless. Please provide proof otherwise I will remove that picture from the article. --- ابراهيم 16:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He might be playing just outside his house (shown in the background). --- ابراهيم 16:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very poorly written article

There is very little data on poverty in Pakistan and some tidbits on fundamentalism, women's rights and human rights. This entry sounds much more like something written by a western newspaper writer concerned with alqaida/taliban stuff. It is of very poor quality.