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 SamTr014 (talk | contribs) at 04:42, 19 June 2005 (→‎Getting off track). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to the Pakistan talk page.

Archived pages

Older versions of this pages are at:

Standardization

/Temp - Please help out in getting this page up to template standard if you have the time. Thanks, Metz 18:09, 26 Dec 2002

Population Size

I have corrected the misinformation regarding Pakistan's standing in terms of population in the muslim world. Current standings of Pakistan's population is between 145-159 million. Indian muslim population is 120-125 million. omerlivesOmerlives 12:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) According to the following webpage [1] there are more muslims in India than Pakistan. --24.30.75.0 03:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are more Muslims in India than there are in paksitan, please accept the fact. Here is the proof [2].

No, the Indian population on that website (islamicpopulation.com) is wrong. They don't use the most reliable source, the Census of India, for the actual count of Muslims in India. Instead, islamicpopulation.com does it backwards, multiplying a "guesstimated" 14% by India's total population. That is not the correct method: the percentage should be calculated using the count of Muslims, not the other way around. Below, I have also pasted text from the other section. 68.20.222.41

Pakistan is the second largest muslim country

Why is Pakistan said to be the third largest muslim country in the world? According to CIA.gov figures, the muslim population of Pakistan is 0.97 x 159,196,336 = 154,420,446, which puts it behind Indonesia. India's muslim population is much smaller than Pakistan's: 0.12 x 1,065,070,607 = 127,808,473.

India may have had a greater muslim population 10 years ago, but the latest figures indicate that Pakistan has 27 million more muslims, a substantial difference. --Hausa 22:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True. Pakistan has more Muslims than India, according to the Census of India and CIA Factbook data

Here are the links for the CIA Factbook data for Pakistan [3] and India [4].

2001 Census of India estimates from Milli Gazette, an Indian Muslim newspaper [5].

It's clear that Pakistan has a much larger population of Muslims than India. The persistence of this opposite claim is surprising and IMHO ideologically/politically motivated. Criticforaday 18:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, India isn't a Muslim-majority country, so the claim "Pakistan is the 2nd largest Muslim country" is true even if you believe that India has more Muslims. 68.20.222.41 16:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Book "Muslim World after 9/11" clearly states that India is the second largest muslim country. In fact India is the world's largest hindu country & also the second largest muslim coutry.

If you have more reliable sources that would be really helpful.

While I am not a party in this tug-of-war between Indian and Pakistani supporters, I would like to point out that census data are facts, books (e.g. "Muslim World after 9/11") cannot always be assumed to be facts. Anyone can write a book without proving a point (I do not say anything for or against the aforementioned book, though), whereas census data can be considered scientific tools for comparing the ranks of countries in terms of population. And that is what should be considered instead of continuing this endless Edit war. Let the facts win, not anyones POV. --Ragib 07:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the section claiming pakistan is the second largest muslim nation. This is not true. The CIA fact book is outdated & linking to a newspaper which clearly states that the data is before the 2001 census is not the smartest thing to do. We need the facts. Please provide the link to the official pakistan census.

To the anonymous editor above, Pakistan is the second largest muslim nation in the world, and you were unjustified in removing it from the section. CIA figures are by far the most up to date, figures we have on the populations of Pakistan and India. All the latest data points to Pakistan with a larger muslim population, and by a margin of at least 20 million people. If you have solid evidence that would make us believe the CIA are wrong in their analysis, then please let us know. --Hausa 19:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Independence Topic

It is seen that the User Ragib is strongly against Pakistan and is writing his opinions and his version of history in this text with references to a Bangali website.This is unsubstatiated and besides not reliabley sourced.Also This is just and intro to Pakistan not were you may edit historically inaccurate and unsupported info and not the proper place to put it.At the same time you suggest vandalism by another member to this article where as you yourself have been doing this all along.Also I see you have voiced your opinion (Anti -Pakistan) on the Bangladesh Article in wikipedia again you sway from neutrality to anti pakistani sentiments in that article.I can understand your greviances but history has two sides of the story and you constantly want only yours to be heard.You should refrain from that as a Bengladesh citizen and a member of wikipedia.My suggestion to you is to refrain from touching articles in this portion plus try to have less animosity towards Pakistan in writing if you cant I suggest you not edit anything on wikipedia at all,its an encyclopedia not a newspaper.Otherwise I will have all articles and work written by you checked and removed if appropriate.--Herst1 22:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you mention me specifically, I'd be more than happy to counter your allegations. Let's face them one by one:

  • I am Anti-Pakistani: No I am not, and I do not have anything against the Republic of Pakistan and/or the Pakistani people as a whole. I have a lot of Pakistani friends with whom I have had a good discussion on these topics, and none of them had anything to say about my being "Anti-pakistani". Let's face it, just because some one attributes the Holocaust on Hitler, would you term that person Anti-German?
  • I put my version of history, which is unsubstantiated: I invite you to go read the Bangladeshi newspapers (you can read the English ones) on some specific dates, March 26, December 14/16. If you still say those newspapers carry "my version" (which would, definitely, be quite flattering to me), please go ahead and read about the 1971 war from some neutral sources. What exactly do you claim as unsubstantiated? Fact: There was a war between March 25 and December 16, 1971. Fact: A large number (may be not 3 million, but definitely between 200,000-1 million) Bengali people died during that time Fact: Pakistani Army Generals initiated the war to prevent handing over power to an elected Govt. What do you find irrelevant/false here? Ok, I'm not the final authority, and don't claim so, therefore, please point out the things you feel as false, and let us discuss them first. I'm totally open to discussion in a logical manner.
  • This is not an intro to Pakistan: Fine, get rid of the history section completely. Forget that between 1947 and 1971, there was another 54% people in East Pakistan. Giving a sentence that in 1971 East Pakistan seceeded doesn't make any sense, nor provide any "intro".
  • suggesting Vandalism is wrong: Please visit [vandalism definition in wikipedia] to learn the meaning of the word. FYI,

"Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." If any user had any problem with any wordings that prompted them to delete complete paragraphs, they were free to discuss this in the Talk page (i.e. here).

  • I provide anti-pakistani opinions in Bangladesh: Again, the opinion is, "Anti-pakistani-rulers-who-committed genocide-in-1971". If anyone wants to write a history of Bangladesh, the info that it became independent after a 9 month independence war is definitely the first information to put there. I am not expressing any POV, just bare mention of the facts.
  • "Otherwise I will have all articles and work written by you checked and removed if appropriate": Dude, get a life. You are acting like a child and giving funny threats. Please go ahead and check all my articles. Wikipedia is a public forum, and any article I write, initiate is not my property. Anyone is free to edit anything, the community constantly checks any vandalisms (which is exactly what you threaten me with). If you have anything to discuss/dispute, please do it in a civilized manner conforming to Wikipedia standards and etiquette. Please don't issue "Threats" and any other illogical dialogs.

Finally, anyone is free to discuss anything with me. I stand by my edits (also my edits, not text written by anyone else, so please check that) and would be happy to provide appropriate references.

P.S. Should I assume that you deleted/blanked my User page? The coincidence between your outburst and blanking of my page is uncanny. --Ragib 04:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to provide the following links in connection with the allegations presented above regarding the facts I presented, and that which were viciously disputed by Herst1

Please come up with any proof or references that refute my claims for which I have provided some references above.

Thanks.

--Ragib 05:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I am waiting for discussion on this topic, would anyone at least initiate any view/opinion on this? Discussion is always healthy for progressing towards a neutral point of view. So, lets talk!! --Ragib 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Hello folks. Well, I'm afraid the points Ragib makes are actually correct. The massacres perpetrated by Paksitan's military in what would become Bengladesh are pretty well documented and yet largely ignored. And before everybody jumps on me, I'm of Pakistani descent and Pashtun origin, but American born and raised, but I've studied the history quite extensively. Read a book called Genocide by Leo Kuper and you'll find a lot of info. regarding this very dark chapter in Pakistan's history. I think it's a good idea not to think of Pakistan's history as something that must always be presented in a "positive" light. And it's not as if Bangladesh hasn't had human rights problems of its own during its short history. It's just life. And I'm not knocking Pakistan at all, but I'm being realistic I think. --Tombseye

Cleaning up history section

After putting the proposal for discussion here, I am dismayed by the lack of response, except one from Tombseye. Anyway, the history section of the article is imbalanced and full of different types of POV. So here are some changes I propose:

  • Pakistan Movement: The following lines seem to be quite unimportant and somewhat a POV. "The cause found a leader in Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who became known as the Father of the Nation. On Auguest 16th 1946, He launched an offensive jihad called Direct-Action. He thundered at a rally in Calcutta "We have placed gun on India's temple and are ready to fire it....". Next day more than ten-thousand people were murdered on the streets of Calcutta. This event is called Great Calcutta Killing." I propose to clear this out and instead write some lines on the referendum that took place in Bengal and Punjab and the guy who drew the borders (Some British official). Also the roles of Suhrawardy, Jinnah, Gandhiji etc need to be clarified.
  • The info on Iskandar Mirza, Ayub Khan, Yahyia Khan, Bhutto, Zia. It is surprising that the history section is very vague about the chain of succession among the rulers. I want to clearly specify the transfer of power from Elected civilian govt in 1954 to Army (Mirza, Ayub, Yahia) and so on.
  • The East Pakistan/Bangladesh question: The history section would be totally unfair and biased if half of the country until 1971 is given only 1 sentence. Besides, East Pakistan, by its own right, deserves more mention before 1971 (when it earned more than 50% of GDP). So, I want to add subsections on that part.
  • Bhutto-Zia-Benzir ... : No mention of the links in the article.
  • Relationship with China  : In the 60s, Pakistan, China had a very close relation...this definitely needs to be mentioned here.

So there goes my proposal. Please assist me on this and have a discussion here before someone starts flaming me over any parts. --Ragib 20:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have done an edit. I hope it is NPOV enough. I am open to suggestion. Painting Jinnah, about the only South Asian leader never to join so much as a demonsttration, as a blood-thirsty rabble-rouser is a bit much.
And yes, we need to add the stuff you talk about; I was just cleaning things up a bit.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:43, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I added some sub-sections in the history section, including info on Ayub Khan's rule, 1970 election and results, and 1971 war. Before someone goes on and puts any POV accusations, please have a discussion here on what everyone thinks of those changes and any possible modifications. --Ragib 22:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Cleaning up-a few points

Sounds good. Your take on the Pakistan movement revision sounds good. A little more objective writing wouldn't hurt. The transfer of power section could also use some work. Do what you can on that and I'll add whatever I can, but will let folks know what I want to add as well. The East Pakistan/Bangladesh deserves more, but not too much more and here's why, there is a Bangladesh page so it'd be kind of pointless to write more than a few paragraphs in a section, but there should be something more than a few sentences I agree. Might be worth mentioning the controversy regarding the genocide as well, which will undoubtedly rub some people the wrong way, but I don't see why it should. not like the people of Pakistan are all directly responsible, except for those who took part in the atrocities.

The China relations are very important I agree and I would also mention the Baghdad Pact that ran from Pakistan to Turkey as part of an envisioned defense pact that would prevent Soviet aggression towards the Mideast. Also relevant would be the relations with Afghanistan that were really up and down. The cooperation between Pakistan and Iran in crushing the Baluchi rebellion might be worth mentioning as well. I mostly did some work on the History of Pakistan under the Ancient section. It sure needed some work and I hope people are cool with the additions as I thought they were relevant and the last writer kind of glossed over centuries of history.

Tombseye 03:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the ideas. You are right that the history section should be balanced and not focus on just EP/Bangladesh too much. Also, there are plenty of stuff already in Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, Bangladesh etc on those topics, so reiterating stuff should not be done. I'd try to add summary information ... definitely not just a line, but at least equal to other parts of history. I also think that some info has to be there about the Mass Migration following the Partition of 1947, and at least a couple of sentences on the effects of it (Mohajer etc). I will add whatever I can, and try to stick to facts as much as possible.--Ragib 03:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ragib, your proposal sounds like a great plan to me. You have my full support. Foobaz·o< 00:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See my comments to previous heading above.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Urdu name at the top of the box is wrong.ٗٗ

"جمحوریت" (Jamhooriyath) is wrong. The correct name is "Islami Jamhooriya-e-Pakistan". (I am putting the mistake down to someone trying to get it right in Arabic, when the langugage the name is in is Urdu). My keyboard is acting up a wee. I will put in the right one as soon as I can.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Please summarize your changes in the Edit Summary box

There have been many edits in recent days without any summaries, and from anon users. Please leave edit summaries when editing pages. It takes a second to write a brief sentence, but benefits others as to why you made the edit. Also, please sign up for an account. Thanks. --Ragib 02:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the nature of misinformation about Pakistan

It is our common goal here to build articles about Pakistan that are neutral, well-informed and objective. In these times, however, much of what is said about about Pakistan is not neutral, well-informed, or objective. I am starting a section here to discuss the prevalent misinformation and possible remedies that may be adopted. Here is a very brief outline of the types of misinformation. This is intended only as a beginning. MartinGardnerFan 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uninformed, and unaware of it

Some of the contributers remind me of an article I read in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, titled Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments [6]. Before anyone chews my head off for being insulting, let me say here that it is only mentioned here to provide objective evidence in support of something we all know: that people who are woefully uninformed are often also blissfully unaware of the depth of their deficit. (to be continued later) MartinGardnerFan 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sensationalism or "good news is no news"

(to be added) MartinGardnerFan 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sytematic bias - the demographics of the editors

(to be added) MartinGardnerFan 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misinformed by biased information sources

(to be added) MartinGardnerFan 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth acknowledges democracy

User:24.126.17.155 commented in a recent edit, "No evidence that commonwealth acknowledges progress towards democracy."

Here's evidence:

8. CMAG noted the adoption by Parliament of the Legal Framework Orders, thus bringing them into Pakistan's Constitution. The Group welcomed the progress made in restoring democracy and rebuilding democratic institutions in Pakistan as well as the restoration of the 1973 Constitution, as amended by the 17th Amendment, and decided therefore that Pakistan should no longer remain suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth. [7]

This user has made many changes, and I suspect his knowledge of the subject matter leaves much to be desired. 68.20.223.178 17:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blanking of sections, please show restraint

King1 (talk · contribs) blanked a section, I think such blanking needs to be justified more in the talk page before doing so. A brief comment in the Edit summary is really not enough to justify drastic blanking. I would revert the section, until the discussion is done on this from all sides. --Ragib 21:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, but seemed reliable info. Any way lets discuss it here. King1 21:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate info !!!

  • Pakistan is not 3rd largets country with english as official language. Brazil,India,US are larger in terms of population. In terms of area, US,IND,AUS,CAN are bigger.
  • Info about land area is inaccurate France+UK land areas > land area of Pak.
  • Middle class is <6.9 million according to www.farmfoundation.org/documents/ Ben-Senauerpaper2--10--3-13-03_000.pdf

Seemed like a reliable independent source. Though it is 2-3 years old, its unlikely that it increased by 25 million in 2-3 years. So the claim that it is 30 million and hance is large is doubious.

  • GDP growth rate is 6.1% which is the official figure. (CIA world fact book). This was also on documents given to the journalists when Pakistani PM gave his speech declaring it to be 8% which seems odd.

King1 22:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm, can you please check Brazil? It states that Brazil's official language is Portuguese. Also according to this, offical langauge of Brazil is portuguese. English is widely spoken.
  • In case of land area, please check List of countries by area. France's area is 547,030 sq km and United Kingdom's area is 244,820 sq km. Add that, you'd get 791,850 sq km. Check the entry for Pakistan there. 803,940 sq km. It;s about 12,090 sq km larger that France+UK combined. Unless Britain has drained of 12 K sq km of North sea, you information is definitely incorrect.
  • For middle class information, please consult Official Census of Pakistan. That should give you a solid info based on scientific data rather than any other sources.
  • I don't comment on GDP, I leave it to the Pakistani contributors to discuss on that.
In the end, please just don't go on deleting or blanking statistical information without citing valid sources. See how good the discussion makes you feel? We now have solid data and references, rather than data-to-please-pakistani's or data-to-please-Indians. Let the truth and statistical information prevail. Thanks. --Ragib 22:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check CIA factbook for land areas. Land Areas: France 545,630 sq km, UK 241,590 sq km Pakistan :778,720 sq km Hence inaccuare to say land areas of france + UK < land area of Pakistan.

I didn't find any info on Official Census of Pakistan the site which says middle class is 30 million. Note that in the article, this middle class is said to have income > $8000. The site I mentioned defines middle class as with income $6000 and says it was less than 6.9 million.

Check CIA world fact book. Brazil has English as official language. We are not talking about national language. King1 23:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC) I take that back.;) King1 23:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by area gives total area, not just land area. King1 23:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


According to total areas also, the info is inaccurate according to world fct book. If you compare areas to france/UK why not compare other things like economic and other indicators too? Seems very convenient to me. I think it would be totally fair if I add these comparisons in the article. Especially since non-technical audiance cannot comprehend the figures easily. So those comparisons should help too. Also lets to this for all asian countries. SamTr014 19:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody removed references to the comparison of areas, which is good since the information was wrong. Now why not add comparisons of economies, society, techonlogy, military, etc.? I am all for comparisons since figures don't mean much to general audience. Pleople were supporting land comparisons, and nobody opposed it, so nobody should oppose these too. SamTr014 22:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status of religious minorities and women

Inaccuracy & POV. A recent edit by Gandolf (talk · contribs) created a non-standard section, in which the preponderance of assertions are ‐

  • false, fabricated or inaccurate
  • prejudiced, biased, or non-neutral
  • unreferenced, unverifiable, or attributed to unnamed sources.

Appropriateness. The above issues aside, should something like this even be on the main page? The main pages for most countries don't talk about sensitive topics. The India page, for example, doesn't talk about the Gujarat massacre, or even mention ethnic and religous violence or the several seccesionist movements, or any crime whatsoever. Most unpleasant issues are simply avoided. I don't mean to offend any Indians by mentioning this. I simply want to raise the issue of whether we should look the main pages other countries as examples to be emulated here.

I have moved the non-standard section to the Domestic politics subsection on the same page. and divided it into Status of religious minorities and Status of women, and am using those titles for the purpose of organizing discussion here.AnalyticHistorian 19:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status of religious minorities

The block of text inserted by Gandolf (talk · contribs) has numerous errors and prejudicial statements - For example, he says -

According to Pakistan Government census figures, the population of non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan has fallen from 18% of the population after Partition in 1947, to 0.1% today.

This is untrue, as even casual examination of the evidence shows. At the time of partition, large numbers of people moved both ways. East Pakistan had the vast majority of Pakistan's Hindus. When it seceded, Pakistan lost over nine-tenths of its Hindu population. In West Pakistan, the only Hindu-majority district was Tharparkar. When the Indian army withdrew from Tharparkar, it took most of the Hindu population with it. Today, religious minorities make up about 3% of the population of Pakistan, not 0.1% as Gandolf incorrectly states. He goes on to say,

According to reports, non-Muslim minorities, especially Hindus, are subject to kidnapping, extortion, robbery, and murder on a regular basis. A lot of Hindu families report that their daughters have been kidnapped, converted to Islam by force, and kept as wives or concubines by Pakistani Muslim men.

No authoritative source is quoted, or any source at all. AnalyticHistorian 19:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The information should be kept since there is no reason mentioned to exclude it. The sources? there are many! Just google 'minorities in Pakistan'. These are authentic sources. SamTr014 22:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive sectioning and information

Without agreeing or disagreeing on the content of the disputed section on status of minorities, I would like to point out that this section is not a part of the standard sections according to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries. According to that, the main article on a country should include brief information, and should have the following sections:
Lead section
The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).
If the etymology of a country's name is too long to explain in the lead section, split it out into a separate section (titled "Name" or similar). Naming disputes can also be handled in separate sections.
Facts table
Next, there is a table with quick facts about the country. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.


The contents are as follows:
  • The official full name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all.
  • The name of the country as it is recognised by the majority of the English speaking world, should ideally be used for the name of the article.
  • A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of <country>, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
  • A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
  • Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
  • The official language(s) of the country.
  • The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
  • The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
  • If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
  • Land area: The area of the country in sq km (km²) and the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it Negligable if ~0%).
  • Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
  • GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
  • Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: dollar.
  • Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
  • National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
  • Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
  • Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.
Sections
The rest of the article should consist of a few short paragraphs. These paragraphs should give an outline of the history/politics/etc. of the country and link to a full article on them. Many of the CIA World Factbook subpages can be used as a starter for these full articles.
The heading should look like:
== Politics ==
''Main article: [[Politics of the Netherlands]]''
The sections are:
  • History - A brief outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs should do), including at least a paragraph on the current events going on there. Link to "History of X".
  • Politics - Short overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Link to article "Politics of X", and also to "Foreign relations of X".
  • (Subdivisions) - Quick overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states, departments, etc.) and give the English name. Also include overseas possesions. Link to "(subdivisions) of X". This section could also include an overview map of the country. The CIA World Factbook Maps could be used here, but other sources are available.
  • Geography - Quick description of the country's main features, climate, . Include link to "Geography of X".
  • Economy - Something brief about the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Link to "Economy of X".
  • Demographics - Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Link to article "Demographics of X".
  • Culture - Give a short summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known artists. Link to article "Culture of X".
  • Miscellaneous topics - a list of links to all the other topics closely related to the country. The four other default CIA subpages should be listed here (communications, transportation, military, foreign relations)
  • External links - Links to (official) websites about the country.

In view of these standards, the current page on Pakistan is gradually becoming a big mess. This should be quick references, not almost a book length article. Sure Pakistan may or may not have persecuted religion X. But putting a huge section/many subsections on it would make this article unreadable. So, take the content and just start a new article titled "Status of Minorities in Pakistan" and put a reference to it in this article, possibly with a See also tag. Many countries of the world have done injustice in the name of religion, but messing up the main page of the country with a huge list of references just muddle the wikipedia. So, please discuss the possibility of moving content to a new article and cleaning up the politics section. --Ragib 01:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think removing or making these sections obscure is recommended. Pakistan has long history and has rich culture as said in the article. So obviously the article needs to have more content than the countries you mentioned. I strongly believe that the section on christians be maintained which gives a side of pakistani culture that is well known. There is no reason to hide it or move it since it is an integral part of Pakistani politics. Google "minorities in pakistan" and see how many hits you get. After doing google, I am in favor of making a separate section not just a subsection. SamTr014 02:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Which returns us to the subject of POV. I am not sure why you claim it to be an "integral" part of the culture. You can definitely mention the persecution on minorities in the politics, allot that a para, with a see also link to the minority-persecution article. I am really surprised to see the antagonism here, many other countries in the region has such problems, but that doesn't mean you make 20% of the main article on the country talking about that. And before you jump over to claim my pro-pakistani attitude, I'd like to point out that I am not from Pakistan, and my only intention is to restrain excessive clutter here. The strong belief you claim in the above paragraph is interesting, do you want the whole article to be filled with just one aspect? I'm sure minorities of Pakistan are not well treated, but making that a whole section here is not really a good idea, unless you want to make it a biased article. A country's profile needs brief information, and not just pages and pages of reports on its political activities. Wikipedia standards suggest (see above) making a separate article for that sort of content, and providing a link to it. There is no "hiding" of content in that way. And finally, please take a neutral attitude, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a campaign speech!!! So, I again call for moving the content to a new article and adding references to it instead of the plethora of sections/subsections cluttering the main article. --Ragib 02:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you will find as many articles on google about ill treatment of muslims or any other minorities in Holland since you mention. On the other hand there is tons of informative articles on about the subject "minorities of Pakistan". What does it tell you? On the other hand there are hardly any articles about Technology in Pakistan. or IT industry in pakistan. or Internet in Pakistan. (The sections are full of misinformation by the way as pointed out by somebody). So to sum it up, your accusation of my being biased is regrettable.
The sections should stay since it is widely known, veryfiable and a huge part of contemporary culture/politics in the country. I would not mind you 'cleaning up' IT internet economy sections.

SamTr014 02:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take a cue from the article on India. That is a very good example of a top level country article. There are many accusations that can be found about persecution on minorities in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. But putting a whole section on that topic in the top page is not done usually. See India for example. The article is clean, concise and points to references appropriately. I am just saying that what is the problem in following standards and putting the section in a separate article, as in the case of India? I also agree about the content of the IT section, which should also be moved elsewhere. In any case, your logic that Google returns X number of articles on subject Y doesnt mean you should put a section on it on the toplevel country page. Just to give an example, "religious persecution of minorities in India" returns 236,000 hits in google while "religious persecution of minorities in Pakistan" returns 151,000 hits. Do you see a big section on that topic in India? So, your logic on google hits is not valid in this case. Thanks. --Ragib 03:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind you doing whatever you want to India article, infact I may contribute too. I am not saying that google hits is a criteria. Did I say that? I said very clearly that it only indicates you which parts are important to the country and which are not. That should be clear to anybody.
SamTr014 03:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention whatsoever to add to the India article, because at its current state, it is in very good shape. My argument was that we should follow standards and not make exceptions just because google returns many hits on a topic. Right now the Pakistan article is in serious disarray. Put yourself into the shoes of a person who wants to get information on Pakistan and looks it up in wikipedia. Isn't the current page just too much of information? The history section is yet another part that has grown exponentially.... that too could be merged with the History of Pakistan article. I have no affiliation with India, Pakistan, Pro/Anti-India, Pro/Anti-Pakistan etc groups of people, my only concern here is that a top level article should have concise, brief info and not a huge section on every single topic that someone thought was important. And that's why I liked the India article, which gives brief overview on everything and redirects the user to go to other pages on different topics. That should be done in case of Pakistan too. --Ragib 03:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
PS, you claim that Google hits show what is important to be in the first page. I can show that many other topics return more than a million hits in google, yet not mentioned in Pakistan. Look for "space aliens in Pakistan", you'd get 133,000 hits. Does that mean we should make a section titled "Space alien/UFO visits in Pakistan"? No way!! --Ragib 03:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status of women

The block of text inserted by Gandolf (talk · contribs) has numerous errors and prejudicial statements - AnalyticHistorian 19:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Christians

A section and block of text inserted by SamTr014 (talk · contribs) is POV and non-neutral, and contains factual errors, Factually inaccurate is the statement, "Christians account for 2.5% of the population" however, Census data, puts the percentage at 1.59%.

The following statement is non-NPOV and uses weasel words: "However, there have been numerous allegations that Christians in Pakistan have been subject to systematic persecution." 68.20.214.76 12:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC) No one is saying that Christians do not face challenges in a society that is over 96% Muslim. But there are no laws or policies whose purpose is to persecute Christians. The elite of the country is sympathetic to Christians, having been mostly educated in CHristian schools - both the President and the Prime Minister attended Christian schools and colleges. Most of Pakistan's nurses are Christian. The general population is not much aware of Christian-related issues, except when Christians are attacked by terrorists. When there was an attack on nurses in the northern Punjab, for example, there was a huge outpouring of sympathy from the local population there. Many thousands came to offer their condolences. People in Pakistan mostly have a fovorable view of these dedicated educationists and health workers, and because of them, Christians in general. That is why I would say there is no systematic persecution of Christians. 68.20.214.76 13:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Form of government

A recent edit by Gandolf (talk · contribs) has inserted statements that are inaccurate, prejudicial, POV, non-neutral. Even the true statements need context and perspective. I'll work on a revision later. If someone else wants to do it sooner, please go ahead. AnalyticHistorian 19:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the status of religious minorities and women page to new

I am moving it to a new page and putting a reference to it in the Politics section. Right now, the issue has boiled down to the point that a large amount of material, unverified news etc are just copied off the web and being posted here. The whole article looks a huge mess, and needs to be cleaned up. Please comment on my proposal on moving the page here, (see also the discussion on this above). Thanks. --Ragib 07:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Material that is not just biased & inaccurate, but inflammatory hate-mongering as well, should be rapidly removed

As the recent Newsweek story illustrates, inflammatory material can have real-world effects. If it is something that tends to increase hatred and prejudice between groups, or serves as an incitement to "revenge" for real or imagined wrongs, then I think it should be removed first and discussed later. For many sensitive subjects, it takes time to put up a balanced and well-researched essay. Fabricating sensationalist hate speech, on the other hand, seem to come easily to many people. Often they can just copy it off the internet. Let's give the upper hand to goodwill, sound evidence, reasoned discourse, and civilized speech. 68.20.17.95 12:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whoever removed the statements I added about he number of Christians in Pakistan, please explain this removal. I gave a range of figures, the census data and three sources for what I wrote. I may add that, under the circumstances, it would not be surprising if the census figures for the number of Christians were too low. DJ Clayworth 04:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Let's restate the figures and sources:

  • "The most recent census pegs the number of Christians in Pakistan at 2.09 million, while the community puts the total figure at four million. " [8]
  • "There is no clear figure for the number of Christians in Pakistan. according to the country's church records, there are closer to 10 million." [9]
  • "According to the most recent census, taken in 1998, an estimated 96 percent of the population are Muslim; 1.69 percent are Christian; 2.02 percent are Hindu; and 0.35 percent are “other” (including Ahmadis)." (that gives a figure of 2.41m) US department of state

DJ Clayworth 04:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The last statement is the most correct; the others are misleading. While there was some room for statistical error before, in the last few years, the government set up the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) and the numbers are much firmer. Everybody now has a National ID Card from NADRA, and in the application process, NADRA collects personal data, including religion. The most recent information should therefore be quite accurate. 68.20.31.13 13:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted text

I had to remove the section on "Status of Christians". No, I have no opinions on the content's veracity. The text is copyrighted, and it was simply cut and pasted from a website. I have removed the text and listed the source in the copy vio tag, according to standard wikipedia copyright violation procedures (see copyvio). Thanks. --Ragib 06:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may as well remove the copyright tag if you remove the text, otherwise it doesn't make sense. DJ Clayworth 06:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 'disputed section' tag on the 'persecution of Christians' section. The section reads, in entirety: According to the the most recent (1998) census conducted by the Government of Pakistan, Christians make up 1.59% of the population, or around 2.3 million people. Other estimates put the number higher. However, there have been numerous allegations that Christians in Pakistan have been subject to systematic persecution.

There has been no indication on the talk page of how this might be disputed. DJ Clayworth 00:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 'disputed' tag was placed there when there was a lot of copyrigthed and somewhat dubious content placed there. At the current state of it, the information there is confirmed fact, and I do not think there is much POV there except for the last sentence, which probably needs a few references. In any case, I think this small content of the subsection doesn't really deserve a subsection by itself and may be moved/merged with other sections. Thanks. --Ragib 01:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Authors r creating a false pedigree for Pakistanis

I knows this is ur national identity thing and all but in wikipedia u ust follow the facts. Quote:

"Pakistan is a country with long and rich history shared with North India dating back to the Indus valley civilization, one of the oldest known urban civilizations in history. In ancient times, Pakistan was conquered by many groups, including the Persians, Greeks, Greco-Bactrians, Kushans, White Huns, and Scythians, and various other more obscure groups. Pakistan is partially separated from modern-day India by natural barriers such as the Rann of Kutch and the desolate 500-mile (800-km) long Thar desert, and many of these groups did not penetrate further into the rest of South Asia."

Who r u kidding with? Except Greco-Bactrians these groups were based in India. I'm infact a descendent of Scythians.. Plz we donot want official Pakistani position in wikipedia. Moreover India and Pakistan share about 1500km border how can they be partially separated. Historically Pakistan was NOT a separate area it was coined in 1930....

Before the Muslim rule of north India, Pakistan was rarely part of India politically

Those that did not go beyond Pakistan include: the Achaemenid empire, The Macedonians under Alexander, the Greco-Bactrian KIngdom, the Parthians, and the Sassanid Persians. The largest portion of the total area in South Asia conquered by the White Huns was in Pakistan, not in India. During much of its history, the Kushan empire was ruled from Pakistan, and the vast majority of its territory was not in present-day India. I'll grant you that the Indo-Scythians, after conquering Pakistan, established kingdoms to its southeast. They are an exception: most groups did not penetrate beyond Pakistan. Of those that did, most did not stay or last.
Before Muslim rule, Pakistan was politically subject to India only under the Mauryan dynasty. From the start of Achaemenid rule, to the beginning of the Delhi Sultanate, over more than seventeen centuries, there was only about 180 years of Mauryan rule. Isn't that the objective truth? FactNTact 17:08, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

The authors of Pakistani history have conviniently avoided Hindu heritage of Pakistan. No one would debate that Sindhi,Punjabi and Kashmiri along with Urduare Indo-Aryan languages and Sinhis,Punjabis and Kashmiris were originally Hindus because many Sindhis,Punjabis and Kashmiris still preofess to Hindu faith. Vedas were writen on the banks of Indus. India hisotrically was never a united political entity but people living in the subcontinent were a part of one culture, one heritage. Why there is a gap between between Indus Valley Civ (2000 BC) and Mauran Empire (200 BC) it looks as if there is denial of history project going on. Parthians went as south as Tamil Nadu. The reason Kushan empire was centered in Pakistan was becoz Pakistan and North India was centre of Indian civilization. One version of this article tells Pakistan is located in Greater Middle East.Pray tell me what is greater middle east.

Graeco-Bactrians are descendents of Macedonians.These may have been conquering communities but Pakistan was originally populated by Aryans. These communities mixed in to Aryan culture thus we donot have any trace of them. Do u want to imply that because White Huns ruled Pakistan, Pakistanis are descendents of WH, thats wishfull thinking. (Note: This message was left by anon user 62.252.0.9 (talk · contribs)).

Pakistanis are a diverse mixture of many people (a fact supported by genetic studies, BTW.) Nowhere does the article claim anything else. There's a gap (~15th century BCE to ~6th century BCE) between the Indus Valley Civilization and the Achemenid rule because we don't have verifiably-dated written records from that period, at least for ancient Pakistan. If you have factual knowledge to the contrary, feel free to add to the article. FactNTact 23:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Where is this Greater Middle East???

See another example of Pakistani history-denial campaign. You guys are so mentally enslaved by Arabs that many of you have made false Arab lineage for yourselves. Ragib,iFaqeer where is this GME (Greater Middle East). Wikipedia has descended into mass of information written by wishful writers with a vendetta. (Note: this comment was left by anon user 62.252.0.9 (talk · contribs)

What in the world are you talking about? Where in the article does it say that Pakistanis have an Arab lineage? FactNTact 23:19, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Since you name me, I would like to state clearly that I have not written that phrase, and neither can I comment on its source and its authenticity. Please check out the history of this article to seek the person concerned. Also, you might think about toning down your language to a more decent level, rising above your national identity and *signing* up for an account. At the least, you could also think about signing your messages (which only requires you to type ~~~~, not a too-difficult task. As for whether or not Pakistan is in Greater Middle East, I have no idea, nor any objection or any particular fondness for the classification. Thanks. --Ragib 23:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto me. I also have no preference about whether no particular desire to include Pakistan in the "Greater Middle East" and think many Pakistanis would have mixed feelings on this issue.FactNTact 23:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what 62.252.0.9 (talk · contribs) meant by "written by wishful writers with a vendetta." Nothing here seems wishful or vengeful to me. The dictionary defines vendetta as

  1. . A feud between two families or clans that arises out of a slaying and is perpetuated by retaliatory acts of revenge; a blood feud.
  2. . A bitter, destructive feud.

As far as I can tell, the article here is factual, and its tone is neither bitter nor revengeful. What am I not seeing? FactNTact 00:01, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Loosely taken vendetta means having strong opinions about a person,community etc because of personal griviences against a person,community etc. Here from tone of this article author seems t purposely ignore Pakistan's Hindu heritage. I'm a Sindhi Hindu. This article tells me my ancestors were never a part of present day Pakistan. It's as good as telling a person that he is a bastard. Pakistanis and North Indians share common Aryan ethnic heritage. This article states that by the time Islam arrived, all Pakistanis were Buddhists, which is amisleading and a false statement, by the time Islam reached modren day Pakistan, Buddhism was already in decline largely due to resurrgence of Hinduism. I dont know much about Balochistan and NWFP but Sindhis,Punjabis and Kashmiris were Hindus atleast. I agree that Balochistan and NWFP was never a part of India but it is indisputable that Sindh,Punjab and Kashmir along with N.Indian states shared common cultural heritage. Somewhere on this page i've read that most of Pakistan's Hindus were in E.Pakistan. But W.Pakistan at time of Partition contained 15% Hindus. Sindh was 30% Hindu while Punjab was 48%Hindu-Sikh state. This article says Graeco-Bactrians are ancestors of Pakistanis. But i believe their direct descendents are known as "Kafir" Kalash. My point is that Pakistan was already Populated by Indo-Aryans. Even if they were overpowered by some foreign cultures, basic population would still be Aryan. And how would you explain Sanskrit ancestry of your languages. Ragib u r playing around my question about "Where is Greater Middle East?". There is simply no such thing as GME. Try googling for it. (Note: this comment was left by anon user 62.252.0.9 (talk · contribs)

  • I am not playing around your "question", I simply stated that I have no idea and have no interest in disputing about that. My most interest has been parts of the 20th century history section, and that's it. My only "other" contribution in this article has been to keep it in a readable state and thwart vandalism as it happens. I have already stated that you'd better ask the person who put in that sentence, what GME actually means. Also, you should ask people who are from Pakistan, I'd rather not be a party to this bi-partisan dispute over heritage and affiliation. Thanks. --Ragib 22:04, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello folks. Sorry to have created controversy if there has been any. Well the Greater Middle East has little to do with the "Arabs" so much as a continuity based upon certain common historical currents (the empires of the Persians, Greeks, Arabs, Turkic groups etc. that did not directly impact India for example) and a designation used by various schools of thought from the University of Chicago's Near Eastern dept. to G8 Industrial nations who lump Morocco to Pakistan as this Greater Middle East, while maintaining that Morocco is also part of the Maghrib and Pakistan is South Asian as well. The reasons are the common empires that have shaped these areas. I added it also to show that while eastern Pakistan has a South Asian affinity, the west has an Afghan/Mideastern affinity as well. The compromise being that Pakistan is both South Asian and Greater Mideastern (or Central Asian since I don't believe Afghanistan is South Asian and nor is western Pakistan except by association with the rest of modern Pakistan) not unlike Turkey which can be both European and Mideastern or, for some people, exclusively one. As for the buddhism question, actually this is not misleading at all. Muhammad bin Qasim and the Syrians found many gold statues of "budds" or buddhas which they proceeded to melt down sadly. They seem to have found more buddhist stupas then hindu temples. One can dismiss their observations if that is what is desired, but what is the alternative evidence? Many of the ruling dynasties were Hindu however and even some of the Iranian Shahis of Kabul were Hindu as well, but the majority of the people appear to have been buddhist, but no census was taken that I know of to verify. It is Indian historians who largely believe that most of the people of northwest South Asia were buddhists although i have heard it claimed that there was a process of hinduization that was taking place when Islam arrived. It's also misleading to say everyone is "Indoaryan" also. The Indoaryans were themselves coming from Iran/Afghanistan after merging with locals somewhat and then they again merged with local Elamo-Dravidian peoples in ancient Pakistan. The languages today are Indo-Aryan in the east and Iranian in the west with the Dardic groups in the north, which some put within the peripheral Indoaryan family OR separately. The Romany appear to speak a Dardic tongue albeit one that has been greatly altered in Europe etc. In addition to all of this, the invaders from the north and west would all contribute a little at a time until the population OVERALL would be impacted. For example, the Greek contribution is probably tiny, but perhaps 5% in the Northwest Frontier province etc., while the overall impact would be 2% or less. I'm just saying it's not really known, but they were 10% of the population of Bactria (Afghanistan) if the number of colonists are to be believed (60,000 in a country that maybe had over half a million ppl at the time). The next group of invaders add something else and so on. The Kalash (the pagans are a minority today as most have converted to Islam) claim to be descendents of Greeks as do some Pashtun tribes, but unless genetic evidence is forthcoming this is not that likely as invaders tend to be absorbed here and there and vanish into the larger population which moves around. As for the White Huns, this group is largely Central Asian Turkic and not related to the Aryans or Europeans, the other Huns who went to Europe were by that time much mixed with Slavs in contrast. "White" Huns is a deceptive title. Ultimately, Pakistan (and India for that matter) change a little bit each time, but changes are not uniform everywhere. India's population density is much bigger and invaders would be able to have less of an impact compared to the Aryans who would have a massive influence early on. One of the problems I've noticed is that Pakistan is often subsumed into "India" while the events taking place in Pakistan are one thing and those in India are another. Or i should say the area that would become known as Pakistan later. So while many references say to refer to Indian history, one reads scant mention of what happened in Pakistan, while the Guptas are discussed etc. Because it's a separate country there is no reason not to discuss the particular history of the region. Even Bangladesh appears to have been largely buddhist for example even as late as 1200 CE. Lastly, yes Pakistan, in the east, had large Hindu/Sikh minorities, while it is surmised that most of the converts to Islam came mostly from the buddhist majority with some Hindu converts as well. This doesn't seem that inconsistent or improbable surely. Lastly, I highly doubt the Arab contribution to the gene pool is any higher than that of the Greeks overall, with the Baluchis getting more of it from Arabia itself I'd say and perhaps some Sindhi Muslims (we're talking very distant and from over a millenium ago so don't get bent out of shape) and Pashtuns in Afghanistan where Khorasani Arabs lost their language over time, although i'm skeptical that there is very much Arab or Semitic contributions even though people claim to be descended from both Arabs and ancient Hebrews even. This is perhaps more complicated than they are all one group or not. This is an eclectic society that is not unlike the Balkans in this regard. And as an atheist Pakistani-American of Pashtun origin I really have no desire to see this as simply Pakistan's enslaved mentality to be part of the Arab world so much as a desire to see some historical continuity. Pakistan can be part of two regions or be classified as overlapping and the world won't end. The problem is that the Indian perspective is strictly that, from their own POV. Pashtuns or "pathans" are often ignored as peripheral for example (not by you, but by others). Indian hegemony notwithstanding, history does not begin and end with Hindu nationalists who seem to be making many assertions that gloss over the particulars in seeking to establish Hindu continuity while relegating buddhism (let along Islam) to the backbins of history and perhaps are ignoring the fact that buddhism is in many ways an offshoot of early Hinduism which was still evolving even with the advent of Islam coming from the west. --Tombseye 24 Wednesday 2024 00:13


Just a question

Somebody can put me right, but has the decision to avoid all mention of the Kashmir issue and relations with India (along with a statement of charges and counter-charges) been taken after a revert war or something? I was looking for it, and to my shock, its not even mentioned, except for a single line. Or if it is, not too prominently, I couldnt find it. Surely theres some NPOV way of mentioning the charges that are thrown around about Kashmir? It certainly belongs in an encyclopaedia article on Pakistan. Hornplease 04:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Removed irrelevant text

I removed Mr. Khalid Mahmood Bhatti Helsingor's comments or rather rants from here as the topic is totally irrelevant to the purpose of this page, that is, to talk about the wikipedia article Pakistan. This is not a message board or newsgroup, so please do not put inconsistent discussion in this page. Thanks. --Ragib 01:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sikh Raj section

This section should be merged with the Pakistan in Middle Ages section. Keeping it in the current level breaks the continuity in the history section. Also, from the appearance of the content, it looks like copied and pasted from somewhere else. Anyway, I am merging it with Pakistan in middle ages section, while keeping most of the content intact. Thanks. --Ragib 15:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, some claims by the original author Thetruth (talk · contribs) seem to be unsubstantiable. For example, claims that the Sikh empire was the "first secular state in modern world" is definitely untrue, because the US and the French republic predated it by several years. Similarly, " At its peak from 1825 to 1839, the Sikh kingdom was worthy of European rivalry and was one of the most attractive destinations for many European; travellers, artists and writers who flocked to the Lahore Durbar for its style and its patronage of the arts", seems quite dubious and possibly a POV/exaggarated claim. I reworded the subsection to make it speculation/unsubstantiated claim-free, and I'd welcome the author to come up with reference to back his claims. Finally, the sections were simply cut and pasted from Khalistan which itself is disputed, so references are even more important in this case. Thanks. --Ragib 21:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After SusanPowL0 (talk · contribs) reinserted the sentence on "first secular nation" issue, I looked up US constitution, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which is a part of the Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the U.S. Congress from infringing on six rights. These guarantees were that the Congress would not:
  • Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion (the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment")
  • Prohibit the freedom of religion (the "free exercise of religion")
This supports the notion that at least the United States was a secular nation before the Sikh empire. Thanks. --Ragib 03:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I also refer to Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The US was and IS a secular country, unless the first amendment or the bill of rights are thrown out. --Ragib 03:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

vandalism accusation

SamTr014 (talk · contribs) has accused my change as "Vandalism". I would suggest you talk here in the talk page before putting some possibly POV remarks on the article. I do suspect you do this due to your biased views, which are clear from your comments in the edit summary. Please refrain from any POV attitudes and rise above your religious or national affiliation while editing an article. Also come to this talk page before putting in your edits. Thanks. --Ragib 02:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You reverted my addition without contradicting the content. Facts cannot be called POV.

  • Also Pakistan has come into international spotlight due to the Nuclear proliferation racket run by A Q Khan to Iran and North Korea.

Is this wrong? Also support to Talibans and Kashmiri militants is undisputed and pretty open. Do you say it didn't happen? SamTr014 03:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Well, since you continue to revert , I am quite suspicious of your actual agenda here. Would you suggest we put every sort of speculation and other information at the top level page of a country? Do I see similar wording in any other country, say India, Bangladesh, United States or otherwise? If you are hell-bent on expressing your views, please create an article like "Pakistan's link to terrorism" and link it here at the top level country page. The top level country page is not the place to vent your POV based on your national or religious origin.
And also, your wording of the disputed section is clearly POV, needs no other comments. --Ragib 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Since I have made 3 reverts so far, I am stopping any further reverts, but I would ask for someone neutral to mediate in this issue, and stop this meaningless revert-cycle. Also a discussion in the issue is very much welcome. Thanks --Ragib 03:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its interesting that instead of attacking the facts I mention, you indulge in questioning my personal motives. Please answer the question and continue discussing the subject instead of attacking me personally. Also interesting is the fact that you do not remove pakistan playing important role in war on terror. Why not add facts in the beginning for which the country is known(famous) for? SusanPowL0 03:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This is CERTAINLY interesting. I commented to SamTr014 (talk · contribs)'s edits, and I got replies from SusanPowL0 (talk · contribs). No offence, but the edit pattern and other activities do suggest multiple identities (a.k.a. Sockpuppet). I also would like to question the actual intention here, isn't your view POV? How are you certain that "Pakistan is famous for Terrorism"? Please try to be neutral. I am not a pakistani, and yet have maintained parts of this article for some time. I also had to face persons acting the opposite way, adding biased and POV comments in Pakistan's favor. Please try to rise above national and religious affiliations while editing articles. As for "why I didn't remove the line on war on Terror", I think someone put that there long ago and that line was a consensus during editing a couple of months ago. Thanks. --Ragib 03:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I got my girlfriend interested in the article, and sometimes she forgets to sign off. Any way, continuing discussion in the next section you created. SamTr014 03:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What should be in the top page of a country page?

I have discussed this here and elsewhere that a country's top level page should be free from POV comments, "facts" or other information as much as possible. Pakistan may or may not have relations with terrorists, taliban whatever, and its human rights record may be or may not be good. But that doesn't mean that that type of "information", claims or views should be vented on the top level page, even at the top paragraph. The Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries show a particular format for country level articles, and that should be followed as much as possible. For example, even Afghanistan's page do not have claims and labels in its top paragraph. Accusations of terrorism or abetting in terrorism can be made against many countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh even France. That doesn't mean someone should put that type of claim in the first paragraph. Personally I do not have any stake in defending any particular country, e.g. Pakistan, I'm not even from Pakistan. My country even had a bitter independence war with Pakistan, but that doesn't mean that I should put my personal beliefs in editing/contributing to Wikipedia articles. I regret that SamTr014 (talk · contribs) has continued to add disputable claims or "facts" at the top of the article. I am not against the issue of dissemination of facts. Pakistan's possible links can and should be put at articles titled "Terrorism support by Pakistan" or similar, but continuous insistence on putting the "Pakistan is a terrorit country" label at the very beginning of the article is not the way wikipedia should be written. Thanks. --Ragib 03:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph SHOULD include what the country is best known for. The facts I mention are the the ones for which pakistan is best known for today. So they have to be included in the first paragraph and no reason to make them obscure. Also stop attacking me personally. Thanks SamTr014 03:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there are a lot more people who would disagree with your notion that Pakistan is known for "being a terrorist country" etc etc. By your notion, anyone can claim country X is known for atrocity Y, based on personal conviction. That doesn't make that view universal or a "fact". I am not attacking you personally. But it seems that you are quite stuck to that notion, and not willing to give in to discussion. Please see POV, and wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Thanks. --Ragib 03:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When did I ever say that "Pakistan is a terrorist country". I am only saying that Pakistan is as much known for the support to taliban as for playing the central role in the war on terror. Agree? There is no reason to include the later and exclude the former. SamTr014 04:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, here is a hypothetical situation, should the main level article for the United States start with "The US is known for the killing of native americans"? Or India should start with, "India is known for riots"? Both statements here can have "facts" associated with them, but the issue is, is that "fact" or claim the single most important factor about the country? Looking into common precendent in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries, and other country level articles, I do not see such statements, "facts", claims put in the first page of any article. That is my point. I am not disputing your "fact" or claims. You can write up articles on the topic to your heart's content, and put a reference in see also section. You are assuming that your view ("Pakistan is known across the world for supporting terrorists) is the only view held by all people of the world. That is what a POV is, and that is what Wikipedias Neutral Point of View policy tries to avoid. As for the line on support for war on terror, I didn't put it there, and it had been there for a couple of months or so. Removing that should be just fine in my opinion. I reiterate, the top level article for any country should be brief, consist of facts and not POV ... or claims about "best known for its support to terrorists". Thanks. --Ragib 04:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then why did you remove just the mention of support to taliban and kept role played in war on terror?. Why didn't you remove both if you claim to be a neutral person and attack me for being biased? SamTr014 04:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I DID remove both comments in my first edit today, but hey, it was *you* who accused me of vandalism. Please refer to this diff. [10]. The article is protected now, but I will remove the "war on terrorism" sentence when it becomes unprotected. Anyway, you still have not been able to justify the POV that "Pakistan is known for X", x being this or that. Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View is a good thing and possibly the main factor in keeping an encyclopedia neutral and credible. Thanks. --Ragib 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see. I accused you of vandalism because you removed the text without arguing about its validity. You say I haven't justified certain claims. So which of the two sentences you say are invalid and I need to justify? 1)Also Pakistan has come into international spotlight due to the Nuclear proliferation racket run by A Q Khan to Iran and North Korea. 2)Pakistan became known in the west after 9/11 for its support for the Islamic fundamentalist groups like Talibans and Kashmiri Militants. I included these two sentences because I saw the other things mentioned too, such as "war on terror". SamTr014 05:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, lets see, am I too confusing in my words? I have no judgement on your 2 sentences, my point being these are only 2 among a thousand other factors for which Pakistan is "famous for". Lets see, Pakistan is famous for Mohenjo-daro, famous for Cricket, has become known in the west long time ago as a country with many many dictators etc etc etc. I could just go on and on and on. Don't you see my point? Also, I can easily show you that your point is not valid. For ecxample, Pakistan has been in the spotlight ever since its existence and its wars with India. And please show an opinion poll or other statistics that validate your claims that people didn't know of pakistan before and only know because of the 2 facts you mentioned. As I said, there are many many things a country is known for, and it is fallacious to be adamant that your claim is the only one, and one so important that it HAS to be mentioned whenever you write the introductory paragraph of a country's page. You had put the same argument last month about insistence on adding several sections on Pakistan's human rights record, and other issues. I am sorry to say that from your edit history, it seems that you may have a personal grudge against Pakistan, and hence the POV. I am not affliated with Pakistan and have even wrote sections of Pakistani history remarking on the Atrocities committed by Pakistani Army during the Bangladesh Liberation War. But still my personal grudge doesn't mean I should write "Pakistan is known for killing 3 million Bengalis in 1971". That is a fact, but that is not what is relevant in the top level page of a country. There are appropriate sections to mention that, which I did. And there are appropriate sections for mentioning Pakistan's relation to militants, and that is where you should put your comments/claims/facts, not on the top paragraph where the country is introduced. Now, does my point make sense to you or would you still stick to "my-claim-is-what-everyone-MUST-believe-so-put-it-in-the first-paragraph" attitude? Certainly that's not what I am disputing. Thanks. --Ragib 05:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have habituated of calling people biased if they don't agree with you. Please do not indulge in personal flamewars and try to stick to the subject. You never contradict the facts and cannot argue logically which I find frustrating. Let me copy again what I wrote before: 'You say I haven't justified certain claims. So which of the two sentences you say are invalid and I need to justify? 1)Also Pakistan has come into international spotlight due to the Nuclear proliferation racket run by A Q Khan to Iran and North Korea. 2)Pakistan became known in the west after 9/11 for its support for the Islamic fundamentalist groups like Talibans and Kashmiri Militants. I included these two sentences because I saw the other things mentioned too, such as "war on terror".

So you are saying we need to produce statistics for every single sentence? Just ask people around you what Pakistan is known for today. SamTr014 05:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


(Note, the above comment signature changed from SusanPowL0 to SamTr014).

Sorry, I was talking to SamTr014 (talk · contribs). I am quite confused, two users, both replying to the same dialog !! (sockpuppet alert!!!). Please use only one account to answer, and refrain from using the Fake sockpuppet accounts. Anyway, I made my point fair and clear. You do not get my point, see above for whatever that is. To remind you again, "Please do not put speculation and claims in the top level paragraph of country articles". By speculations I refer to your claim that people know Pakistan for your 2 "facts"/claims. The validity of the two points Isn't my point clear yet? Or do you want a "1000 things Pakistan is known for" list at the top paragraph? Certainly even a small sample population of 10 people would disagree on what Pakistan is known for, so you can't point out ONE single issue at the top of the page. Thanks. --Ragib 05:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This increases my suspicion that you don't even read replies to your 'arguments'. quoting from the paragraph above. I got my girlfriend interested in the article, and sometimes she forgets to sign off. Any way, continuing discussion in the next section you created. SamTr014 03:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SamTr014 06:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I copied and pasted the paragraph was not that I wanted you to dispute the claims or I thought so. I just wanted you to continue the argument you started (You wanted me to justify something). CLEAR YET?? SamTr014 06:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, it is impossible for others to see when the identities switch between you and the other user, and why the same thing happens again and again. But I would take your word for it on why the same thing happened again. Thanks. --Ragib 06:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • This discussion is turning into a dialogue, so I would invite neutral mediators, possibly Administrators and others (not sockpuppets, though)to look into the discussion. I rest my case based on arguments placed above, namely my objection against putting unprovable speculation about the "reason country famous for" in the top paragraph of country articles in Wikipedia. Until then, I stop my part of the "dialogue" .Thanks. --Ragib 06:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'The unprovable speculations about the "reason country famous for" in the top paragraph of country articles' are 1)Also Pakistan has come into international spotlight due to the Nuclear proliferation racket run by A Q Khan to Iran and North Korea. 2)Pakistan became known in the west after 9/11 for its support for the Islamic fundamentalist groups like Talibans and Kashmiri Militants. I do think these are extremely important and need to be in the introduction. Ragib certainly don't. SamTr014 06:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been viewing this page recently and Sam I have to say that Ragib is absolutely right when he does not include this information in the article. For example, thats like writing in the first paragraph of the USA article that the US is a country that has started all the recent wars, supports dictatorships and enjoys bombing countries for their own economy. What you wrote is highly POV and the fact that you think that international spotlight came on Pakistan only because of these incedents means that you have nothing more than an anti-Pakistan POV. This is not needed in the intro of the article. --Anonymous editor 06:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sam. The sentences correctly point out what Pakistan is known for today. Ragib's attempt to make these two points obscure are regrettable. The sentences MUST be included. 24.126.17.155 06:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I would want to know if this was yet another identity being switched, because the history listing of the article on Pakistan show a clear transition between SamTr014 (talk · contribs),SusanPowL0 (talk · contribs), and 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs), the similarity in comments left in edit summaries and that in the past (On May 21, 2005) , similar "coincidentally" consecutive edits have been done by SamTr014 (talk · contribs) and 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs). I again say I may be wrong, but such "accidentally" consecutive edits and almost similar type of edit summary comments do indicate a single user. Sorry if I was wrong. Thanks. --Ragib 06:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I ofcourse agree with Sam. Why hide what Pakistan did? Especially an act that is so important and so relevant today? Add the two lines. SusanPowL0 06:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In this case, how are we sure that this is a different user, after frequent the switching of identities between SamTr104 (talk · contribs) and SusanPowL0 (talk · contribs) that occurred in the previous sections of the talk?. --Ragib 07:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot agree more with SamTr014 and the other two commentators. Ragib's attempt to hide things is condemnable. Add the statements. 128.125.20.94 06:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam did tell me to comment here. Anything wrong with that? See above. SusanPowL0 07:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SAM, please stop talking to yourself. This is a serious issue. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

RFC:What should be in the top page of a country page?

I have listed the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I hope that will bring some neutral and "actual" users to the discussion. Thanks. --Ragib

It should never go into the section, let alone the first sentence, what a country is best know for. This is only a comment, and the facts should go first. In addition, the question by whom? comes to mind. Also for reasons of consistency of country articles, these should start with a semi-standardized intro, giving the basic facts. --Pjacobi 09:03, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

I agree completely with Pjacobi. In addition, saying that Pakistan is known for terrorism shows US or, more generally, Western bias. Surely Indians, British people or the Pakistani themselves would also think of very different things. It's probably best to avoid mentioning such sensitive and subjective judgments in the lead paragraph. Imagine if we started the article Germany with 'Germany is best known for murdering six million Jews'! Even if it's true it doesn't belong in the intro. Of course you need a substantial section on terrorism, but as I understand it that's not the issue here. Junes 10:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - "Susan"/"Sam" appears to be a POV warrior. (Perhaps from India, Im guessing.) India by the way "is best known" for its curries, slums, and relgious extremism. :) -SV|t 21:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are not from India, but no points for guessing where you come from. SamTr014 23:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) So you think its a POV? Strange that nobody including you disputed the validity of these lines, some only said its inappropriate for the sections. SamTr014 00:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pjacobi, Junes, and Stevertigo; "is best known" sentences are inappropriate, and probably original research to boot - is there a poll that shows that a plurality of the 5 billion people in the world know Pakistan for this? Further, I'd argue that the slightly more neutral sentence "In recent years, Pakistan has been playing an important role as an ally of the United States in the "War on Terrorism"." that is currently at the end of the intro para in the protected version also does not belong. Aside from a long-running, stable relationship, describing a country in the intro section in terms of its relationship with another is both non-neutral and inappropriate. Here, it is evidence of strong US-centric bias, wherein countries are described in terms of their links to the US. CDC (talk) 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no "best known for" sentence! in the first place. I too think "best known for" is inapproprate. What I propose to include in the intro section, along with "major role in war on terror" (which is included already!) is these two lines. Ragib's assertion that I want to have the article open with these lines is a lie. I just want to have these in the opening paragraph. Thats all. 1)Also Pakistan has come into international spotlight due to the Nuclear proliferation racket run by A Q Khan to Iran and North Korea. 2)Pakistan became known in the west after 9/11 for its support for the Islamic fundamentalist groups like Talibans and Kashmiri Militants. These two should follow the assertion that Pakistan is playing a major role in war on terror(which is included by the way). SamTr014 23:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response to Junes, part of what you may be saying is the very crucial point that we must not confuse a regime or government/administration with the country, or more importantly, the nation/people its geographically contiguous with or proports to represent; moreover, for instance, the validity of such representation may be a majority only by a small margin. ~ Dpr 07:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to stop by and give my input. Someone earlier suggested that facts can't be POV. This isn't exactly true. While facts themselves may not be POV, the inclusion of certain facts and their prominence can be POV. I think that subjective statements shouldn't really be included in the first paragraph of an article such as this. Some people may know Pakistan for their nuclear program. Some may know it for its role in the US "war on terror". Some may know it for harboring/supporting the Taliban. Some may know it as the country involved in the dispute with India over Kashmir. Some may know it as the country with some really tall mountains. It's hard to say. So, don't say. Mention the relevant facts in the first paragraph, but leave the subjective stuff for presentation later in the article. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 07:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having been asked to come give my opinion, I just want to second what Kmccoy said. While I suspect the assertion that is being put into this article is quite true, and could probably go into the article somewhere, it is not neutral to put it in the first sentence. Something like Australia's (The Commonwealth of Australia is the sixth-largest country in the world by area) or Canada's (Canada is a country in North America, the northern-most in the world and the second largest in area), I suspect would be more appropriate. Ambi 08:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • The notion that Pakistan is best known for supporting terrorism is very odd, and sounds like someone generalising rather wildly from her own (somewhat limited) knowledge. It's astonishing that there should even be a debate about this; such a sentence anywhere in the article would be unacceptable (being unverifiable personal research at best, but in fact almost certainly false (and PoV). The idea that the article should start with it... words fail me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • To be fair, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the nature of the proposed changes. As can be seen in SamTr014's comments, the sentences do not say 'best known'. Also, the article is not supposed to start with them, although they're supposed to be in the introduction. Still, it's not acceptable IMHO. Junes 11:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Ah, yes. To be honest, I had trouble following his comment, so skipped over it. Going back to read it with your comment in mind, I can see what he meant. I still think that the material shouldn't be included in the article, much less the first paragraph. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan has a military dictatorship, possesses a stockpile of WMD openly, has proliferated them openly to renegade countries, has openly supported radical islamist groups. Its a unique country which has done it all. Is it not? It should come through clearly. Thats all I want. SamTr014 20:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I suppose that the United States article should note that the U.S. has recently become widely known internationally as a country widely regarded as being renegade and possessing a stockpile of WMD openly, has openly supported vicious dictatorships and violent terrorist groups, which has illegally invaded Iraq, has flouted the Geneva convention, including torturing prisoners, has instituted draconian domestic laws that run roughshod over human rights, and that it executes minors (I believe that Saudi Arabia does the same, so the U.S. isn't completely unique, it's true — but at least it's unique among Western states). No? I assure that it is widely known for all those things, and more, and that they're all claims that can be and have been backed up by numerous citations. Should they appear in the introduction? Should they be emphasised in the article? Or should we forget all this xenophobia and naive politicking, and get back to writing an encyclopædia? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You level so many charges on the US that its hard to take seriously. The last one especially, putting US and Saudis on the same plane on human rights issue is ridiculous. SamTr014

Opinions

I don't think that the statment about Pakistan supporting the Taliban or being associated with terrorism should be put in the fist paragraph. For the same reason I don't think mentioning Pakistan's support the War on Terrorism should be in the first paragraph either. IMHO, the first paragraph should only include a basic overview of the country as you would with any other article otherwise I consider it a POV. Falphin 16:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one. Perhaps the "War on terrorism" should be put in recent events. I am against writing large portions on support for the Taliban; that is not needed. The United states supported the Taliban too during Soviet invasions, perhaps that should be put into the first paragraph of the USA article? Ofcourse not, that belongs separated and briefed - perhaps in history-related section of this article. --Anonymous editor 17:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Its a progress that you agree that the statements are true. (You said "US supported Taliban TOO"). Also the validity of AQ Khan racket should go undisputed. Do you think they are not significant or relevant today? Pakistan has a military dictatorship, possess stockpile of WMD openly, has proliferated them openly to renegade countries, has openly supported radical islamist groups. Its a unique country. Is it not? It should come through clearly. Thats all I want. SamTr014 20:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SamTr014 please learn some history. What I said was during the SOVIET invasions meaning Afghanistan. Both the US and Pakistan helped the Afghans (including Taliban) fight against the soviets during the soviet invasions. My statement has nothing to do with the current situation now. What you don't understand is that there is no place for your anti-Pakistan point of view in the article and you fail to understand what does and does not belong in first paragraph of the article. This is similar to saying UK got international attention with the mad cow scare, maybe we should start the UK article off like that? USA, Russia, UK, Israel, India, etc. also possess stockpile of WMDs openly, also every country in the world has had many situations that put them "into the spotlight" and makes them "unique", does that mean we should start off all of these articles that way??? Failure to understand is the difference between you and other editors of this article. --Anonymous editor 21:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The things I mention are a LOT more significant and relevant today than the mad cow disease, and hence pakistan cannot be compared to anybody else. SamTr014 21:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We never recognised Talibans, let alone supporting them. We never had their embassy or ambassador. US may have TOLERATED pakistani support to the talibans during that period, thats all. Don't put US and pakistan in the same league on that. SamTr014 21:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please go learn some history. The US was the larger supporter of the Afghans including the Talibans when they were fighting against the Soviets. Pakistan was involved in the war as it was its neighbor country being attacked. I thought one could look at the map and realize that. The fact that you think the things you mention are more relevant is your own personal POV and therefore gives other editors more ground not to incorporate that into the article. Every country has had its moment that put it into the "spotlight" somewhat; that does not mean that the opening paragraph has to say that. --Anonymous editor 23:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Before advising me to learn my history, please produce sources which say US recognized/supported taliban regime. I would like to know which school teaches this kind of history. Pakistan on the other hand not just recognized and supported taliban regime, they infact trained and armed them! My earlier remarks are right on the mark. We tolerated it that time. SamTr014 23:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) Thanks for admitting that Pakistan was involved and did support the taliban regime.SamTr014 23:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I never denied anything, you assumed I did. I was arguing against your extreme POV against Pakistan and speculation about how it came into the "spotlight". Now about US support, this is from our own Afghanistan article on Wikipedia:
"In August 1978 the American government commenced funding anti-government mujahideen forces with the intention of drawing the Soviets into intervention; with the government in danger of collapse, the Soviet Union intervened on December 24, 1979. Faced with mounting international pressure and losses of approximately 15,000 Soviet soldiers as a result of mujahideen opposition trained by the United States, Pakistan, and other foreign governments, the Soviets withdrew ten years later in 1989. For more details, see Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."
The mujahideen (freedom-fighters) were many Afghans including the Taliban. There you go, my friend, I hope you are happy that my previous point has been proven. Now maybe you can move on and productively edit the article rather than make speculations and insert POV. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)


Funny that even the best cition you could come up with does not say US recognized and directly supported TALIBANS. SamTr014 00:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Funny that you still deny it, when my quick citation clearly says that the US TRAINED the Afghan opposition which includes the TALIBAN. Read the Afghanistan article for yourself. Surely even training is supporting, everyone knows that. Please read correctly before trying to make personal attacks. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think I wrote talibans in capitals? SamTr014

There you go, look up to my last response. I didn't think you needed this much clarification to understand. Now maybe we can move on.--Anonymous editor 00:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I repeat, why do you think I wrote talibans in capitals? SamTr014

Getting off track

It seems to me that the discussion is getting slightly off track. While this may be an important discussion to have, it's one to have when the page isn't protected. The key issue right now is to try to find a way to stop the edit war that caused an admin to protect the page. It sounds to me like there are two controversial statements in the first paragraph of the article -- one listing Pakistan as an ally of the US in the war on terror, and one listing Pakistan as a country that proliferates nuclear weapons and a recent supporter of the Taliban. Could the solution be to just remove both statements? Maybe find a few benign facts to beef up the intro, but facts which aren't controversial? Or maybe just leave it without either statement, just end with "and the OIC"? Then the page could be unprotected and further discussion can be held here as to where that information may be best presented later in the article. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 00:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (which cites Netherlands as a good country article), and it suggests for the intro section this:

The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).

Looking at the Netherlands article itself, it says:

The Netherlands is one of the most densely populated and geographically low-lying countries in the world (its name literally means "Low-lands") and is famous for its dikes, windmills, wooden shoes, tulips, bicycles and perceived social tolerance. Its liberal policies are often mentioned abroad.

So, the things it cites are neither controversial nor "in the news" type of statements. I doubt that section is updated during a trial at The Hague to say that it is "well-known for the trial of Mr. Johnson, the alleged war criminal", or whatever. Maybe what I jokingly said earlier about mountains would be a good thing to mention. Or something similar. It just seems like if a statement is controversial to the point of creating an edit war, it should go later in the article in a section devoted to that topic -- if a topic is that controversial, a single sentence can't possibly sum it up. How can we find a consensus so that we can get this article unprotected? kmccoy (talk) 01:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that is a good policy for all types of articles, thanks for researching into it. Falphin 03:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree to Kmccoy's point, that a top level page for a country should start with standard things, and not anything that may be considered a POV. The debate started on the sole point on adding the unnecessary "facts"/opinions on the first paragraph. While the Pakistani association with Taliban may or may not be true, (I do not have any judgement or opinion on that), raising that issue as "known for" in the first paragraph introducing the country is incorrect, and not a good thing. My opinion is that country-level articles in any encyclopedia should not sound as a partisan news coverage, any association with any sort of regime, or any alliance with other countries can be placed in the history section or appropriate places elsewhere in the article. The edit war is an unfortunate thing, and it is regrettable that resulted in the article being protected. I completely agree that the two sentences on the "ally in war of terror" and "supporter of Taliban" both do not count as "important" facts to present in the top page. I think the majority opinion so far has been so, and using the standard policy for country-level articles should be followed always. I would urge SamTr014 to continue his edits according to the established standards, if links to taliban need to be mentioned, ample opportunity to do that is to create an article titled "Terrorist links to Pakistan" or something like that, and place a link to the article with a small summary in the history section's-subsection of Pakistan. It seems the majority opinion is also in favor of this. Thanks everyone for their neutral opinion, and I just hope this article would be NPOV and unprotected pretty soon once we get over this. Thanks. --Ragib 03:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that Ragib wouldn't even agree that the two lines I mention are true after all this discussion! Lets discuss validity of the lines first in that case. SamTr014

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan&oldid=15428146"