Jump to content

Talk:Pakistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PreserveOurHistory (talk | contribs) at 04:24, 3 January 2023 (→‎Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2022: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured articlePakistan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 29, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 22, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
January 24, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
March 29, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
January 14, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
March 25, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 6, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage


Shorten the article

This article is insanely long, way past what WP:Size allows. What should we do about it? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, the article is way too long and difficult to read comfortably. Many sections, I think specially "Independence and modern Pakistan" or "role of Islam" are way too detailed and the whole article can simply be trimmed. Looking forward for more opinions Jamal047 (talk) 12:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Middle versus Regional power

A couple of notes. The current edit warring is problematic (beyond it being an edit war, per se.) in a number of ways. First and foremost, while consensus can change, making such a change with an existing source that states otherwise is inappropriate. The source needs to reflect whatever text it attributes. That's such a basic thing, it's puzzling to see it being overlooked by experienced editors. 2ndly, referencing consensus from 4 years ago, or from 6 years ago, all discussions whose consensus was not codified at the time through a fomral closure, is also problematic.

It's especially problematic when disputants refer just to the consensus itself, rather than the substance of the contested content. While, as noted, text-to-citation is inflexible, WP:ONUS is less so. Otherwise, it'd just be the Consensus required rule, at which point one could simply say that a new consensus is needed, declaratively, and nothing else. But at the event, the expectation is for disputants to actually explain themselves substantively, rather than vaguely pointing to discussions from years ago. Please do better, everyone. El_C 16:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Yes, there was formal closure on regional power. See Talk:Regional power/Archive 5#RfC: On quality of sources. Pakistan was discussed extensively in the RfC because it lacks quality sourcing. It hasn't been added to Regional power itself since that discussion. Same should happen here. --Yoonadue (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I missed that. But that is an exceptionally poor, exceptionally brief and undetailed closing summary for such an important multi-faceted matter. But regardless, all of you should follow the general ethos of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS by dealing with Pakistan, specifically and in detail, here, on its country article page. El_C 16:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it can be discussed here as well. I will look forward to any new scholarly sources with enough details and those that were not already analyzed in those discussions. --Yoonadue (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth running a dedicated RfC here to settle the matter once and for all, but I'll leave that to whomever's discretion (for now, at least). El_C 18:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @El C: You're probably aware of this already, but it's worth noting that that RfC didn't establish consensus against the term "regional power", only for a threshold of sourcing needed to make that statement. Which is honestly pretty pointless, because CONTEXTMATTERS really ought to be applied everywhere. The other section linked here contains a lot of cherry-picking by most of the participants, and some original research, but doesn't constitute any consensus either. Particularly given that multiple participants from both "sides" have been indeffed since, a new consensus-building exercise is probably necessary. As my stamina for a nonsensical dispute over a nonsensical label is zero, I will not be doing anything about it (this is honestly very similar to the MEK is a cult/isn't a cult nonsense). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde93: it's a cult...ish! Actually, no, I wasn't aware, I just sort of skimmed it. But that ("new consensus-building exercise") makes sense and generally aligns with my current position. Yeah, getting an admin to oversee troubled pages/matters such as these is, to put it midly, challenging. For those reasons and more. To that: I, too, can't commit to doing so here. I only encountered this at RfPP in passing (permalink), but I highly doubt I'd be able to spare the time or energy for this kind of rabbit hole, either. El_C 18:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @El C: Seeing as I'm passing hard on this, I can hardly blame you for doing the same! Vanamonde (Talk) 19:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why Pakistan is not given respect?

Pakistan is a great country but every body calls us bad. 2400:ADC5:1A0:A400:ED4E:E50A:8F8C:1B (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are asking this question probably partially explains it. You can't demand respect from other people. Respect has to be earned. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Junagadh ("and Manavadar")

There needs to be some kind of an elaboration in the main article space about the inclusion of Junagadh ("and Manavadar") in the info-box map. Currently, this piece of territory is depicted as being claimed by Pakistan and controlled by India, but there is no explanation anywhere throughout the article as to why this is the case. I've done my own brief research, and it seems that Pakistan's claim to Junagadh (which includes Manavadar, much like Kosovo "and Metohija" that is claimed by Serbia) is almost entirely symbolic in nature. Nobody in Pakistan seriously believes that Junagadh is worth fighting for or could feasibly actually be acquired by Pakistan. In essence, Pakistan is simply claiming Junagadh in order to annoy the Indians, so it's more of a political ploy than a genuine territorial dispute. The territory of Junagadh is not connected to Pakistan by land, so there's very little hope of Pakistan gaining control of it (I mean, Pakistan controlled East Pakistan i.e. Bangladesh for a while, but that clearly didn't work out). Pakistan did not officially claim Junagadh until August 2020, when they decided to add it to their official map. It seems that Pakistan's interest in Junagadh is largely politically/symbolically connected to its interest in Kashmir. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant RfC from last year: Talk:Pakistan/Archive 21#RfC for map. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GINI index is low for Pakistan instead of medium

The value is 29.6 which comes under "low" category. Needs to be changed. Haroon Fida (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

Pakistan,officially Republic of Pakistan Emanli (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan as secular nation,where hindus,christians,buddhists and other religions may live. Emanli (talk) 19:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – dudhhr talk contribs (he/they) 19:52, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1971 Bangladesh genocide - Why is it missing?

Why is there no mention of 1971 Bangladesh genocide committed by the Pakistan military? There is an academic consensus that the events which took place during the Bangladesh Liberation War constituted a genocide. That's like an article on Germany without mentioning the Holocaust. EmiratiEmir (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Languages Misleading

Kindly reverse the regional languages section. Its misleading! Agent05032 (talk) 10:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Can you provide a bit more detail into the issue? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:05, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2022

Pakistan, as Republic of Pakistan Emanli (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Emanli (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map is wrong

Pakistan only claims kashmir and a piece of Gujarat near the southern part of the Gujarat-Pakistan border, not Junagadh. 2601:154:C47E:3AA0:85D5:9FD:A798:1A22 (talk) 00:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 December 2022

Driving side in Pakistan is right side — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulllahkamran (talk • contribs) 13:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Driving side in Pakistan is right side not left side Abdulllahkamran (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Driving side in Pakistan is right side Abdulllahkamran (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they drive opposite to a steering wheel, which means left side PreserveOurHistory (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2022

The CIA data source is using the 1981 and 1998 Census language data as "ethnicity data". Pakistan doesn't ask for the ethnicity of the people in its census. They ask about the mother tongue which tells us the person's ethnicity. For example, the mother tongue of a Punjabi will be Punjabi and for a Pashtun it will be Pashto etc.

The actual stats can also be found on the Pakistan Languages Wikipedia page. Punjabis are 38.78% of the population not 44.7%. Pashtuns are 18.24% of the population not 15.2% Sindhis are 14.5% of the population not 14.1%. There are many more corrections needed too. The CIA Factbook has used outdated language data from 1998 and 1981 census so please use the official 2017 Pakistan Census as a source and correct it. MT111222 (talk) 07:55, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the "Ethnic Groups" section data to the following:

Punjabis 38.78%

Pashtuns 18.24%

Sindhis 14.57%

Saraikis 12.19%

Muhajirs 7.08%

Baloch 3.02%

Others 6.12% MT111222 (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change the ethnic group data to the following:

Punjabis from 44.7% to 38.78%

Pashtuns from 15.4% to 18.24%

Sindhis from 14.1% to 14.57%

Saraikis from 8.4% to 12.19%

Muhajirs from 7.6% to 7.08%

Baloch from 3.6% to 3.02%

Others from 6.3% to 6.12% 

MT111222 (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Also, using wikipedia as reference likely to become WP:CIRCLE Lemonaka (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 December 2022

The CIA data source is using the 1981 and 1998 Census language data as "ethnicity data". Pakistan doesn't ask for the ethnicity of the people in its census. They ask about the mother tongue which tells us the person's ethnicity. For example, the mother tongue of a Punjabi will be Punjabi and for a Pashtun, it will be Pashto etc.

The most recent census data can also be found on the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics website page.

Link to 2017 Pakistan Census language data:

https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/population/2017/tables/pakistan/Table11n.pdf

The CIA Factbook has used outdated language data from 1998 and 1981 census so please use the official 2017 Pakistan Census as a source and correct it. Please change the ethnic group data to the following:

Punjabis from 44.7% to 38.78%

Pashtuns from 15.4% to 18.24%

Sindhis from 14.1% to 14.57%

Saraikis from 8.4% to 12.19%

Muhajirs from 7.6% to 7.08%

Baloch from 3.6% to 3.02%

Others from 6.3% to 6.12% MT111222 (talk) 06:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for pointing it out Jamal047 (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 December 2022

Chief of Army Staff and JCSC names needs to be changed in Military Section, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.175.67.161 (talk) 05:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Website section should be removed

It's not appropriate to provide a nation's website link in its article. Referring to other nations' articles, their nations' respective websites are not included. I think the website section should be removed. Skrizlee (talk) 22:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, CMD (talk) 02:27, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Pakistan GDP Nominal is 1.04trillions GDP PPP is 3.35trillions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.165.202 (talk) 11:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Not supported by a source. —Alalch E. 11:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan&oldid=1131226961"