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 RegentsPark (talk | contribs) at 14:07, 26 February 2012 (→Support: tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 29, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 22, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
January 24, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
March 29, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
January 14, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
  • Error: 'FGAN' is not a valid current status for former featured articles (help).
WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:VA Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

overpopulation

Alongside terrorism and illiteracy overpopulation should be mentioned. — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Overhaul

Positioning, adding & removing images

Mosque is a good idea. We have Badshai mosque already so I have these two to replace Sitar:

  • a punjabi Dulha with Shahbala in wedding dress
    a punjabi Dulha with Shahbala in wedding dress
  • Line of men bending in Muslim prayers at a Pakistani home during Ramadan.
    Line of men bending in Muslim prayers at a Pakistani home during Ramadan.

September88 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they can be balanced with text (preferably related) both can be added by adjusting size, though the first one is a bit more related to culture. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add something today with text. Thanks for input. September88 (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pic on hold because I noticed and now drawing your attention to the previous peer review's advice against sandwiching text between images. I think we may have to remove a few. September88 (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We can shrink the size and expand the summaries a bit to accommodate. Though it is bad to squeeze in text but there are alternatives without removing images (that will prevent addition of more images though some can still be adjusted along). --lTopGunl (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new reviewer is expressing similar opinion about sandwiching. I agree with you on adjusting images instead of the removal, but the ones we couldn't see any way to improve should be removed. I have edited out File:Chinese Chawal in Basmati.jpg on the that note, feel free to add back if you can adjust it. Others I'll leave for now, and see where summaries can be expanded, though sports section is already long enough. September88 (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its good, not necessary to add everything to this article. We do have a dedicated article about Pakistani Cuisine. This should contain only summaries of each. The pictures that really need to stay are ones like Minar-e-Pakistan and other images that can be adjusted. I'll see what else I can adjust. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the comments below I find it highly amusing that you choose to remove Zardari's pic. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too much clutter as per review. ;) --lTopGunl (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should Khar be replaced by the parliament house? Seems more general... --lTopGunl (talk) 05:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think only the Prime Minister is notable enough to have a picture in the politics section. The Parliament House is more suitable in replacement of Khar. Mar4d (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support for Khar as it also highlights the role of women in government, as opposed to general misguided view of them in burqas; besides I could barely see Parliament house in the picture, its far and road is all that visible. But I could also see that I'm in minority here so... September88 (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest these instead if the image is to be replaced.
  • The house of the Prime Minister of Pakistan in Islamabad.
    The house of the Prime Minister of Pakistan in Islamabad.
  • A Night Shot of the Parliament House, Islamabad.
    A Night Shot of the Parliament House, Islamabad.
September88 (talk) 06:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not majoritarianism, you do have a point. May be we can adjust the way it was before? The Priest's image in early history on the left doesn't look good since it is sending text to right from the start. Previous set up was fine - or if it can be lowered a bit without any sandwiching below to let a line or two above to start from margin. I've enlarged Minar-e-Pakistan to give it prominence it has (can be scaled down a bit if it's too large). Quaid's photograph had related text in the above section so shifted there. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about a picture of the late (and more prominent) Benazir Bhutto? The caption could mention that she was the first female Prime Minister of Pakistan and that her husband, co-chairman of her political party, is currently the President of Pakistan. Mar4d (talk) 06:48, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would belong to history section where she's being mentioned. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant to put Bhutto's image in place of Khar. If we need to put a female picture, I just find Bhutto as being more significant. Mar4d (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just move Quaid-e-azam to the left, otherwise your revisions are fine TopGun. As for politics section, instead of file photo images of politicians, we an have File:Christina B Rocca.jpg and File:Barack Obama, Hamid Karzai & Asif Ali Zardari in trilateral meeting 5-6-09 3.jpg, the former signifies my last posts point and the later our current role in terrorism war with US, alongwith showing our president. Moving back to previous version will just persist the layout problem so lets keep the images to two. I'm also against parliament house because we have enough building pictures already. September88 (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried moving to the left but the image would over lap the section below or sandwich a line or two with above image. May be you can have better luck with it. Well let's compare the first picture you just suggested and the current one. The latter might invoke more comments from our friend from below section :) ...on a serious note, it is a bit less in context than Khar. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed atleast one map now that another is huge, plus one of the two girls pic in demographics as the reviewer advised this as well. The two are interchangeable tho, have you noticed that regardless of the caption "unique style of Kallash Women"File:Kalasha women.jpg, the image was very similar to the colorful girls File:Long Live Pakistan.jpg? September88 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
View of Islamabad City.
View of Islamabad City, Islamabad is one of Pakistan's growing industrial centres mainly because of heavy foreign investment.
The only thing common is both being colourful, the ethnicity is different and are actually representing different things (including the caption and the dresses). They didn't seem to be making much clutter either. But we do have some more white space balance now. To be more precise, the Kalasha image sticks more to the section in question. The other image is just a national celebration which belongs to Pakistani culture. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for this image because 1)Karachi Downtown image is already present in 'Largest cities by population' template. 2)Karachi already has a representation in transport. September88 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Good call. September88 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. --lTopGunl (ping) 21:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kund Malir 3.jpg
Regarding replacement of Islamabad pic, I know it maybe my personal taste, but the article has so many shiny clear skies pics that I think a foggy cloudy atmosphere of the above pic will add some variety. Its more buildings vs atmosphere. September88 (talk) 09:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and per your previous point Karachi already being shown in the interchange image - also I was the nominator anyway. Mar4d replaced it... let him give his opinion. --lTopGunl (ping) 16:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just to clarify, I see a few issues with this picture: When an image of skycrapers is featured on the economy section, one expects to see an image of a central business district, consisting of many buildings and high-rise sophisticated structures which help portray an economic hub. This picture only has two buildings, the right one being the Islamabad Stock Exchange office if I'm correct while the other one is a half-finished building which seems rather un-pretty. Everything else is empty and there's no view of any skyline. The Karachi downtown pic has all these elements; it shows the II Chundrigar Road which is basically the financial and economic heart of Pakistan and has the tallest buildings in the country. I get your point about the contrast/atmosphere, and even if this pic is to be replaced on that basis, I am sure there must be better and more developed pictures of Islamabad than this one (Blue Area might be good example). Mar4d (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2011

(UTC)

Hmm.. well in that case let this stay unless there's another image from Islamabad. The "sky line" does have a representation in this case. How about replacing the Faisal mosque image with a day image with Islamabad's typical foggy atmosphere to balance? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which photo do you want to be edited out and replaced by which image? Mar4d (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In architecture, the subsection below - Faisal Mosque. A clearer and daylight image, if the purpose is to show that atmosphere in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean in place of the Lahore Fort image? Mar4d (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that, but on second thoughts that looks much better. Maybe some place else... --lTopGunl (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The financial district pic down in the largest city template is atleast cloudy, but the view is from too much distance...I'll rest this for now and see for some other place or if any of the bright pics can be replaced by better foggy ones. September88 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A possibly better one of Blue Area, a night view. File:Jinnahavenuenight.pngSeptember88 (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balancing depiction

I think there needs to be some more image balance. I don't see Balochistan being depiected. The Swat image can also get a comparison with the one added here (which ever better can stay). I also found a skyline (from within the article), with some what comparable atmosphere (though not foggy) from Karachi. This image is also in a template in the article so has to be considered for redundancy. See images on right. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to add my two cents, 2 new K2 pics for display and a replacement suggestion for official flora as their is a tree already in economy. TopGun I was talking about the same skyline pic in my last post. Let me see where Baluchistan pic can fit.

On a side note, as the article has done major adjustments since peer review was submitted, I asked two reviewers to give a 2nd check; would be good if they find the time to do so. September88 (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love the beach pic, but the road to Kund malir seems the only one able to fit, as there can be a place in Transport I guess, without the problem of sandwiching.

And to avoid image over loading at the same time, how about population density map from "demographics" removed and Kaalash pic shifted to its place? There is a population density template in the section, it could do without the map. September88 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah well, this skyline is much better, but then again redundancy has to be considered (though I don't think it can be much noticed in the template).
  • Although the current one is a very common photograph of K2 but these two are excellent. Though they both can not be added to the article but they should both be added to "Tourism in Pakistan". On the contrary the current one is just as good (and clear maybe the sunny one equals that?). --lTopGunl (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Love the whiteness of the above and the smokiness of the below pic, but I'm rather neutral on the currents one too. Ok. September88 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Economy shows a mango orchard which is agriculture related, the Deodar tree is actually a good image if you expand it, I just checked its licensing which is free too. The current flora images are close ups and seem suitable for dedicated article for that. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agriculture or no its still a tree. Jasmine is the national flower just as the current pic is of national tree. I don't see how the images are suitable for dedicated articles only; just to give an example, India has its national flower as flora representation. I could see if you think its too girly or something though. September88 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I have nothing against flowers. My point here was aesthetics and clarity, but as you pointed out, there's some difference in taste for that. I'm fine by both. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say road. Lets wait for Mar4d suggestion. September88 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We've only two maps left in the article now (one being the administrative one), I don't think its a good idea to remove the map. Also, it doesn't look like an overload to me... having just pictures would be monotonous. We can remove if there are objections at FAC. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right.September88 (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We also have to complete two previous remaining checks. One of which is tagged as 'working' by you though. The last one, of the images having valid licensing needs to be completed too so that the a reviewer might not waste time over explaining those.
I changed it to {{done-t}}, although some work is still remaining as I'm literally opening and checking each of the 260 references; but lets not worry the reviewers about them. Casliber said he will comment in a few days so I may be able to complete till then. How about you take a quick review of the images details/copyright etc? September88 (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, checking out. Yes, I was doing that at the moment. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done listed below. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Licensing of images (complete list)

Ok, I've made a complete list of all: (No non-free images found)

Results:

Check the licenses before adding any new images or replacing from the suggestions given here. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Buddah pic has an incomplete summary and some other issues as pointed out by Finetooth. September88 (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Mar4d can help, I see that he's on commons... The newly added images to the switches need a review too. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. September88 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Faisal Mosque

I liked the new image, but I added the old one for it being a panorama and for elegant variation of the images which seemed a bit similarly put. Any thoughts? --lTopGunl (ping) 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better though I think the size should be reduced a bit more. Also, there is sandwich text created at sports. I think we should get rid of one pic there and follow the one-image formula for that section too. Mar4d (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The panorama was not clear enough, thus I think the new pic is better. Mar4d (talk) 12:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Sports, which one to keep. Hockey; official nation sport and cricket; de facto national sport. --lTopGunl (ping) 12:53, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment hockey pic is better so I guess keep it. Although cricket could enjoy a unique commentary like' "players enjoy celebrity status in the country", as compared to the same 'national' captions of Hockey like two flora and fauna pics. If a clearer and better pic of cricket is found it can be replaced then. September88 (talk) 13:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Please go ahead and do the neccessary changes. Mar4d (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Review Cricket in Pakistan if you want. I have no objections on which ever stays - just which ever has better aesthetics. --lTopGunl (ping) 13:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the fact that it is a recognized UNESCO World Heritage Site, an architectural landmark built during the Mughal era and there is already a picture of Badshahi mosque in demographics section. Mar4d (talk) 13:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, although we have WP:WEIGHT for the Mughals all filled up. --lTopGunl (ping) 13:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using the switch feature for images

Going through the proposals for images, I think I have a better idea in which we can accommodate many photos and also have different representations and varities of landscapes etc. If you look at the India article, you may notice that some of the images there change whenever you refresh the page or re-visit it another time. This is because they are using a "switch" template (see here). This seems to be a function which randomly rotates selected images in a continuous cycle. We could use a similar function in this page and thus have a number of pictures (for example in geography, where the K2 and Swat valley picture can exchange every now and then with other pics) rather than having to worry about only putting permanent pictures. Mar4d (talk) 03:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. Esp. for the national tree and flower, K2 and other good images that could all be kept. Let's try it out. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:16, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thats wonderful! I totally agree, Had no idea this feature exists. September88 (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good find Mar4d, you solved all the debates. September88 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Karachi skyline image from the template/table might find a place in it too since then it wouldn't actually be redundant. All the rest are good to go. I think we can also sneak in one of the beach images and the winding road to the beach in the same switch as K2 or the valley since it will have its own caption and will be in geography section. And not to forget a switch for hockey and cricket... seems like the solution to all the image problem here. Though the switching might surprise some readers who want to copy an image but it wouldn't load when they go back to the article next time. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How frequently do people copy images from this wiki though? And while we're at it, Zardari/Gilani and Hina/Benazer won't be bad either if its suits. September88 (talk) 06:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do it every other day. You might get the IP troll back for doing that... On a serious note, not a bad idea. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its good, at least there is an option now. Any idea how often is server's cache purged? September88 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever the article is edited, or a manual purge is done... or randomly on its own updates. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. September88 (talk) 00:17, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, current second is the current second on server (out of 60) while "mod" means dividing by the value after it (that would be 8 in this case) and using the remainder of the division for the result... so that would be something like 57/8 (and remainder used instead of the answer) to switch the image after that much time... this would mean a change on every purge. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the new info about the frequency of image switch, I take back Hina and Zardari suggestion. The current version is fine in politics. September88 (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the switch feature

Ok, got free, I'm adding the feature to the chosen pictures, will list here. Also, I think there's a serious issue we need to look at. I'm now editing from a wide screen laptop - almost all the images at the end of sections are displacing edit buttons or headings. Do you see this or is it just different on different resolutions? :/ --lTopGunl (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added:
    • K2.
    • National tree/national flower.
    • Karachi/blue area.
    • Swat valley/Swat valley lake/Kund Malir beach/Kund Malir winding road.
    • Universities: GIKI/LUMS/NUST. Need to add a medical one too.
    • JF-17/F-16.

--lTopGunl (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back! The pics look gorgeous. I just did some tiny link fixes and added another of kulir beach becoz that seemed more beautiful to me. It can be replaced with the other beach too if you prefer.September88 (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, the images size wary according to the screen and most of the images are exceeding their section in wide screen. Perhaps if they are set by %age instead of px they would occupy the same screen width in every screen? September88 (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ty, can you copy the full article to your sandbox and give the percentage a test (haven't tried that before)... I'll give it a review in your sandbox to see how does it seem on the widescreen. The pics are fine now (other than the setup on different resolutions issue)... I forgot about keeping the ref with a stable pic. Good catch. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was wrong in my assumption because as far as I've searched no %age system for pics exists *shocked*. Anyway I'll try to adjust the pics somehow but if they still present the editbutton replacement problems, then I guess we'd have to present for FA like this and rely on the fact that the other featured articles particularly Germany/Japan have more than half the pics with similar problems on widescreen. September88 (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May be we should ask some one who's gone through this before...waiting for Mar4d's comment... --lTopGunl (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Probably let this be this way on the resolution we did it on... some one who objects can be invited to fix it too. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map of provinces

I propose having a large-sized "clickable" map of the administrative units and provinces, similiar to what's been done (example) at Iraq#Governorates, India#Subdivisions, United Arab Emirates#Political divisions and many other articles. The current map's size is barely enough to make out the names of the provinces. Mar4d (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: that's the purpose of maps. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Go ahead. I'll suggest the removal of map in demographics section per peer review though. We have four almost similar maps in the article, one of which is about to go huge.September88 (talk) 07:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One map you might notice (was it administrative divisions?) has been dragged disproportionately probably in MS-paint! --lTopGunl (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I made the changes at Template:Pakistan Administrative Units Image Map. However, I'm going to ask for some help in making the map "clickable" as that requires some sort of expertise. This would allow readers to click on the provinces/territories on the map and automatically open up their Wikipedia articles. Mar4d (talk) 08:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to help with it. Isn't the map too large? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather complicated, so I might actually put an edit template request on the talk page. As for the map's size, I checked other countries' versions and many of them go up to 500 or 600 pixels. This one's 500. If you see the links I gave above (eg. India, UAE, Iraq), their maps are also large. A large map also allows readers to make out the provinces clearly. Mar4d (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I thought you would put up a clickable map that opened into a larger (and clearer) size. Ah, just saw your example... it does need a techie. Do we have a coloured map? ie. with different colours to adjacent entities? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People can still open up the file page, though by clicking on the "I" symbol rather than the image itself, which has been embedded in template form. As for the colours, we can ask someone familiar with image editing to add colours in the subdivisions on the map. Mar4d (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed the info link. An edit request for the template then. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken references

These to references are broken; there names added with no links or citation.

  • "<ref name="World Scientific"/>"
  • "<ref name="International Institute for Strategic Studies through the 2006 dossier. Initial research and publishing was done by the The News International of Pakistan"/>"

Can some one else give them a try? --lTopGunl (talk) 06:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working. September88 (talk) 07:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 (talk • contribs) 07:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another reference broken during your last removal I think "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named GoP; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text". --lTopGunl (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What was the source "GoP"? An official website? (If that, it is reliable enough to cite information about Pakistan). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I'm sorry, I was so busy I somehow completely missed this and politics discussion. GOP's source was www.Pakistans.com. The site practically tells no info about its owners or sources and seems currently on sale with nothing but main page containing empty links.
September88 (talk) 16:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that is obviously not an official site. No problem, that discussion is still on. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Previous reviews

I don't know if all the previous peer review issues from this review have been fixed or not - it didn't make GA after that review so something might be left if not fixed over time: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pakistan/archive2.

Also note in the Featured Article review when this article was demoted, poor → Ãlways Ãhëad got a alot of POV bashing to make him add negative information to the liking of a few reviewers and even IPs under the pretext of balancing: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pakistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why we are getting it reviewed again. We'll just have to make sure the article is through before nomination, maybe even nominate for GA before FA. Also regardless of the haters baseless propaganda, Always Ahead couldn't have handled so many alone, tho' I give him credit for trying. We are atleast three so we may fare better.September88 (talk) 07:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was still trying to work up to their expectations... too bad he's inactive now. GA is not a pre-requisite for FA. A good peer review would be enough. And as you mentioned, we have enough hands here to handle requests during the FA review as well, though I hope we'll get it good enough before them with the current peer review. Some texts, though non objectionable are missing citations, I'll try to get some from the linked articles... add citations to paragraph ends if you find them uncited. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the issue. I can help you guys get some balance into this article, to have a positive review for feature or good article. One note, in its current form the article lacks tons of reliable sources. JCAla (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and feel free to add them then or atleast put {{cn}} where you feel they are lacking. Your FAO source has a 301 redirect, so if you could do something about it, and I've added an {{cn}} to one of your edits where I couldn't find a source. And if you do add a ref, it would be really nice if you could follow the citation format used in the article, or I'd be crawling after filling each of them. :-) Plus since you've done some edits on the topic, and so have I for further npov, I'd like to say that peer reviewer Casliber already have us made some changes to the Kashmir conflict for npov and was ok with the version. Its better to not further touch that because controversial topics like these attract more conflict as they are detailed. Pakistan's article is only for its summary. September88 (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JCAla you are welcome here but keeping the history in mind I will advise (or consider it a request) you to avoid adding controversial information here on the pretext of balancing or bringing neutrality and getting in disputes because this will certainly undermine the effort done by three editors currently working here. --SMS Talk 05:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I am here out of interest for the topic and to make good faith contributions to get this article promoted. Yet, I probably will have a different opinion than some of you on some things. September88, I have added the sources in the right format. :) However, on the Kashmir issue, you are right. I have added rather technical details and removed some detailed content both pro-Indian and pro-Pakistan which would need further elaboration if it stayed. Do you agree? I also fixed the FAO ref. JCAla (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I've not seen your edits yet but I think basic factual details should remain in the summary as the issue is of due weight in the main article as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JCAla Nice of you to correct the format and redirect. But I'm afraid I have to disagree with your recent changes. I requested to keep the version same, instead you've overhauled the section again. When you made the 1st changes to Kashmir for pro-Indian factions, apart from a few accuracy/citation issues, they unbalanced the article in their favor. Still keeping your good faith edits comment, instead of removing the info I corrected and tried to balance it by showing anti-Indians factions views. Both sides shown the article was balanced. Now you have removed all yours and mine additions and the reliable sources to add completely different stuff; which is not to mention having its own issues: "Recent years' comes in wp:recentism, which I had to remove becoz reviewers advised against it. Would be easy if you see peer view before edits. In the second para the "free and fair plebiscite" under inverted commas should mean that these exact words have been used; instead the source only says "plebiscite". I had to change it as it violates copyright. I also merged the triplets refs. Then in the third para, you've written the Indians Elections are regarded fair and free, by whom? Your edit said by UNHCR, when I showed that it isn't, you shifted to 'generally fair'? Who are these general people? One source for regarding such a controversial topic like 'kashmir elections' generally fair is just inviting more additions from other side, making the section even longer and simply more controversy.

So, basically, your edits on kashmir seems to be more pro-indian side; and giving npov and other problems instead of resolving them. For now I have reverted the last para back to previous version, which contains both your addition and mine edits. It contains reliable references added by us both and shows both sides. I've also left your recent edits on the 2nd para of the topic as they are (only corrected inverted commas info). How about now we really do keep it this way. Or it'll have to be reverted back to reviewer Casliber oked version to avoid conflicts. September88 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September88, I am not trying to be a pain here, since this article is about your country. Keep it as it is. But the UNHCR link displays a report by Freedom House which uses the exact words "generally free and fair". This I will add with attribution, ok? And clarify why India considers it an integral part. From my point of view, mentioning the unrests without saying who was behind it and where exactly it took place, is questionable. But I won't press the issue. JCAla (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reiterate September88's point of taking a look at the peer review before making edits as you might be (without knowing) undoing some of the edits that have been according to that. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ JCla: Any editor willing to make constructive edits is welcome. Its not about my country or yours, its about npov and accuracy. And I don't want to be prissy or engage in a debate, but a few issues remain/have yet again arisen with your latest edits which needs to be discussed:

You either missed this point or maybe I didn't explain it clear enough. My last post, newer text in bold--> ("One source (Freedom House) for regarding such a controversial topic like 'kashmir elections' generally fair is just inviting more additions from other side, making the section even longer and simply more controversy.)" As you can see, following your edit, I'm simply going to have to add the other sides views on elections becoz they aren't regarded as cut clear generally fair by everyone as this source say. Plus there is again a statistical inaccuracy/ambiguity in the edit; the source says more than 60% in most polling station. This does not equal overall "over 60%" which the edit is giving impression of. I also have other few minor issues but that would just lead to more debate.

From my point of view, mentioning the unrests without saying who was behind it and where exactly it took place, is questionable. But I won't press the issue.

  • The unrest info was only added for balance after you add the elections info which gave undue weight to one side. And this is exactly why I was insisting upon leaving the article in its previous form as one edit is going to lead to other. A suggestion: Since you have issue with 'unresets' and I see inaccuracy/will edit in response to fair elections info; how about just leave out both these things as it was on the 1st place?

And clarify why India considers it an integral part.

  • Sure. This line , a combination of your & mine edit "India has stated that it believes that Kashmir is an integral part of India referring to the 1972 Simla Agreement and elections taking place regularly." clarifies Indian pov very well and is good to keep.

Plus as you can see in the discussion below, this section might end up merging so lets just settle this now, so if the merger is to happen, the editor is to know which info he has to relocate. September88 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


No, the unrest info was there before I started editing the section. I was the one to put the elections for balance. I agree with your proposal and what Chip wrote in the merge talk, however, and have removed both. Ok? JCAla (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you had edited out the unrest mention plus added elections, so I added it back then with new detail to counter. Anyway yep glad its settled now September88 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, me too. See, understandings can be reached. JCAla (talk) 18:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been easier had you not added that in the first place given the peer review, but good to see this did not go into spirals. Some times you can just ask for a 'why'. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Over all structuring

Propose more structuring and some shifting. "Eduction" needs to be shifted to a subsection of "Infrastructure". "Health" and "Energy" are needed under the same. A section for "Crime and law enforcement" is absent (may be "Court system" can be added too?). Demographics needs a "Language" section and one for "Family structure" --lTopGunl (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead with shifting Education. As for the others sections, I think the more concise and simpler the article contents are the better. India and Indonesia two featured articles have a smaller number of contents than Pakistan's. We might want to draw our attention towards improving current sections, culture sure needs improvement, politics too with mentioning the terrorism war, nuclear program etc that was criticized as absent in Featured delist review. Maybe add a sub-section "War against terrorism" under politics. September88 (talk) 08:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think creating a sub-section for terrorism/war-on-terror is a good idea since it becomes a weight issue though the content can be mentioned in paragraph form. Mar4d (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
War on terror will bring only dispute and POV war to the article since Pakistan's current position is controversial. Some mention is ofcourse necessary as per its notability, but that should go to the end of military section (if not already there). The content should be kept small but that is not equivalent to not having more structure. The structure of important subjects esp. health and law enforcement needs mention atleast, (a small paragraph) with a navigation link to main article. About nuclear program, that can be covered more if an energy section is created. That information only belongs to military or energy section. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, no war on terrorism. For other sub-section how about we ask the reviewers and then make a decision? September88 (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, here's the list:
  • Language (under demographics or may be culture - what ever the trend is).
  • Health (under infrastructure),
  • Law enforcement (under infrastructure or independent - what ever the trend is).
  • Energy (under infrastructure - week support for this).
  • Court system (where should that go? - not any support; just a suggestion).
Obviously all will have very small summaries and links to main articles to keep the article concise. Is this good to be posted at review? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch Language which has been covered in the third para of demographics. Court system and Law enforcement play same role of bringing justice so can be merged. September88 (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC) fourth para of demograph not third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 (talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Putting it up. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well no problem. We can find and add images of any cricketer later on. September88 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Refugees

Pakistan's census does not include the registered 1.7 million Afghan refugees from neighbouring Afghanistan, who are mainly found in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) areas, with small numbers in the cities of Karachi and Quetta. Around 2 million refugees, mostly from Afghanistan Bangladesh, Iran, Africa, and other places are also found in Pakistan.

Please recheck this inconsistency from last edits. In the last sentence 'also' means other than Afghan refugees. So the underlined text seems more correct. What does the citation say? If it is Afghan, then the word 'also' seems redundant and the figures are inconsistent in the same paragraph. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Reverted to previous. The citation only mention Afghanistan refugees. I couldn't find any source for other 2 million refugees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if I can find any other source. Other wise its better to completely remove the sentence. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it since sources place Pak on top of refugee hosts at 1.1-1.7 mil [3]. It can be put back if a source is found. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there are actually many Bangladeshis in Pakistan. I think the reference to Bengalis can be added after Afghans since they too are in a large number. I believe the main article for Bangladeshis in Pakistan has a news source which gives their number. Here's an article dated 1995 by the way which claims that there are more illegal Bengalis in Karachi than other groups (even Afghans) at the time. Mar4d (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Iran, Africa and other places" is unsourced and should be removed. And plus, I doubt we have a large number of African and Iranian refugees here anyway (certainly not as notable as Afghans and not anywhere near the Bengalis). I would also like to add that we can also add the Muslim refugees from Burma (see Burmese people in Pakistan) in the refugee sentence. Mar4d (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why I removed it. And 1.7 M + 2 M goes over the top anyway. If Burmese people in Pakistan is a significant number, it can be added at the end of paragraph. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1995 link I gave above (although outdated) says there are 200,000 Burmese in Karachi. Seems like a large number. I'll try to dig up a more modern source. Mar4d (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source is reliable so I've added it. If there's an updated figure it can later be replaced. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. You guys are fast. September88 (talk) 12:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Even if there's not an updated figure, the Burmese community does have some wide coverage (such as here) so it makes sense to mention them in the refugee section along with Afghans and Bangladeshis. Mar4d (talk) 15:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A source I gave above mentions Pakistan hosting most refugees in the world. Does that need a mention? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an important piece of information in my opinion, since refugee migration has influenced Pakistan's demographical history in many ways. The fact that it has the largest refugee population in the world is definitely notable and should be given a mention. Mar4d (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine

I think we should remove the bit about Pakistani-Chinese food from the cuisine section because it's being given too much weight by being featured on a main article like this. Readers can go themselves to the Pakistani Chinese food article by locating it on the Pakistani cuisine article which has dedicated sections about regional food variations. This page should only contain a summary of native Pakistani cuisine in general, like all other countries' articles on Wikipedia. Third opinions are welcome. Mar4d (talk) 04:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also propose replacing the current picture of Seekh kebabs in the cuisine section with perhaps a better substitute, like this image which has Seekh kebabs as well as naan and Chicken Tikka. The image overall also looks nice. Or, I also have another proposal: Pakistan's national dishes are Biryani and Nihari, so perhaps a picture of either of these would be appropriate for the section. What do you think? Mar4d (talk) 05:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree about Pakistani-Chinese cuisine. I think you already removed the link? The image you suggested is much better and clearer than the current one. Better to replace it. Remember to place the current image in the main article if it already isn't anywhere else so as not to orphan it. Check out the comments in the peer review. More than one image in this section will either sandwich the text between images or send images down overlapping in sections which are both bad. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. If anyone feels that there is a better image (eg. of a Nihari or biryani) or any other food, suggestions are welcome. Mar4d (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Urdu name link to wikitionary; is that done elsewhere? --lTopGunl (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan uses a Wiktionary link for its transliteration. The Wiktionary page also gives pronunciations and spellings of the word in various local languages. Mar4d (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic location

Is it notable enough to add Bush's coined usage of "Greater Middle East"? Pakistan does not call that itself and nor does the rest of the world. It would only be suitable for addition here if it was of national importance to Pakistan. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Greater Middle East article, Pakistan is often classed as part of the region along with Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan. I don't find the designation controversial since the use of the word "greater" makes the definition distinct from Middle East (which Pakistan is not a part of). Although Pakistan is a South Asian country, it strategically lies at the crossroads of Central Asia and Middle East (i.e. historically, whoever went to India from these regions (people of invaders) had to go through Pakistan; Muslim empires are an example). Pakistan is close to Oman, an Arabic-speaking country in terms of coastal proximity, and shares a border with Iran, also a Middle East country (as well as the fact that the Balochistan province lies on the Iranian plateau and is historically connected with Greater Persia). From these perspectives and contexts, I find the reference to Middle East appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is right, but classed by who? That is the question here for NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I remember at some point, the lead did not have the word "greater" in it i.e. the sentence was written as "Pakistan is strategically situated between the important regions of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East." How about omitting the word "greater" so as to avoid confusion with Bush's term and just leave "Middle East"? Mar4d (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan actually is in South Asia. Bush's term is just a neologism. About the strategic description, isn't that a bit long and good for body (geography probably)? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, though that still doesn't override the fact that Pakistan borders Central Asia and the Middle East. Check the Middle East and Central Asia articles if you want to know what I mean; both articles list Pakistan in the "greater" (Middle East#Greater Middle East) and "nations sometimes included" (Central Asia#Nations with territories sometimes included) categories respectively. What I'm trying to say is that it is important to mention Pakistan's geostrategic location somewhere in the article. Moving the sentence to maybe somewhere into the start of the geography section sounds appropriate. You do have a point, Pakistan is a South Asian country first, so sticking up Central Asia and Middle East right in the fifth sentence of the article in the lead is probably not reasonable and is a matter of undue weight from a geographic perspective. Mar4d (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no issue with describing Pakistan's geostrategic location. The question here is only about the terminology used. Somewhere in the start of geography seems fine (or maybe we can check an example from another country). As you said, the description without the term 'greater' is ok, the dedicated regional articles can go into the detail of even the popular coined terms like this but inclusion in this article either needs to have national importance or a global view. How about you add the description you were planning and then we can review it in the article and tweak if needed? The point is does the last line mentioning the "Greater Middle East" in the politics section get to stay? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I don't think it's a good idea to have it in the lead. since even according to bush Pakistan is 'included' in the 'greater middle east' while the lead is describing the position as 'between'. That sentence otherwise too needs rephrasing. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, just to clear up some confusion, you want to remove the last sentence in the politics section about Bush's coined term and also move the sentence in the lead to geography section. Is that correct? Mar4d (talk) 07:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wanted to remove the term "greater" from the lead which was confusing there (which is already done). Though the lead still is a bit confusing since Pakistan is in South Asia while it puts it in between the regions contradicting a previous sentence. As for the bush's term in politics section, I wanted input on whether it is important enough to stay on this article. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to move the sentence from the lead into the geography section. As for the reference to Bush's terminology, I think it should be removed and it would probably be more worth mentioning in the Foreign relations of Pakistan article instead. George Bush is not the President of the United States anymore. The Bush administration is history, and accordingly, mentioning its coined terminologies / policies here is sort of irrelevant. Mar4d (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Ok, may be a rephrase would do too. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've edited out Greater Middle East bit. On another note, I've got a better idea about the lead. From what I understand, the main objection here about the geostrategic sentence is that it refers to as Pakistan being between South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East when Pakistan is actually a South Asian country. How about we keep that sentence in the lead instead of moving it down to geography by rephrasing it in such a way that the misconception in the sentence is removed. By doing so, we basically clarify that Pakistan is a South Asian country but that it is located in a geostrategic position where it meets two other regions (Central Asia and Middle East) rather than "between" the three regions which is the misconception. I think the word crossroads is the precisely the sort of adjective that is appropriate. Mar4d (talk) 10:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I propose the following sentence to replace in the lead (suggestions and improvements are welcome):

Pakistan is strategically situated at the crossroads of the important regions of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East.

Mar4d (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is good and very precise. How about adding that a significant part of silk route crosses/goes through/is in Pakistan? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a new piece of information (I'm not sure if a lead normally gives any new information not present in the article body. It does seem suitable in the history or foreign relations section though and I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned. Mar4d (talk) 11:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it struck me for that too. It is better suited in history or geography (or maybe transportation?). It should be mentioned in 2-3 words in this lede sentence and added to a section since it is an important piece. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding why the regions are important in the body would be off-topic a bit, though I think the word "important" has been written because the sentence is discussing geostrategy (observe the word "strategically"). Mar4d (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Got it. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was altered on claim that it doesn't refer to anything in the body:

"Strategically, Pakistan is situated at the crossroads of the important regions of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East."

If so, body should be updated with the related information as there's consensus to use this sentence. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did this already with reliable source half a month ago. See in geography, so reverted the edit.September88 (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good then. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

The infobox reads "Unity, Discipline, Faith"... I've always known it as "Unity, Faith, Discipline". Can this be confirmed from a reliable source...? official site? The Urdu version (might not be in the same order as English one) is "Faith, Unity, Discipline". --lTopGunl (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its generally referred as you say. Found this and this source on a quick search which is good enough to change the order if you want. September88 (talk) 17:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confused about it. I found reliable sources claiming all possible orders. Only if an official source or a Quaid's speech could be found... --lTopGunl (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Found the official source.http://www.infopak.gov.pk/Eemblem.aspx. September88 (talk) 04:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw this. Editing for it. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --lTopGunl (ping) 18:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indo-Gangetic Plain

This is the content from the citation:

Pakistan is situated at the western end of the great Indo-Gangetic Plain. Of the total area of the country, about three-fifths consists of rough mountainous terrain and plateaus, and the remaining two-fifths constitutes a wide expanse of level plain. The land can be divided into five major regions: the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges and their subranges; the Hindu Kush and western mountains; the Balochistan plateau; the submontane plateau (Potwar Plateau, Salt Range, trans-Indus plain, and Sialkot area); and the Indus River plain. Within each major division there are further subdivisions, including a number of desert areas.

I think this is only a preview and full citation free access is not needed per WP:SOURCEACCESS. You can still confirm though. This detail is about that content in question and seems to be an appropriate citation. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The extent of the Swat and Cemetery H culture of the Rig Vedic people was in the Hindu Kush to Punjab region and the upper gangetic plains. The late Vedic period, from 500 BC onward, blends into the period of the Middle kingdoms of India.
The problem is not about whether or not Pakistan is situation within Indo-Gangetic. But whether 'Cementery' and 'Rig Vedic' people lived in the Indo-gangetic region in the early history of mankind? These lines are under "early history' sections. As it is, the source is describing the present geography while the content asks for past cultures verification. Two different things. September88 (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'll see if I can find another reference. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you found the reference? If not, here is one. JCAla (talk) 11:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I guess we decided to leave this due to lack of ref. September88 was cross checking this.. add if appropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was this content re-added with the ref? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't. While the newer source found is valid, I don't see any particular reason to add it now as the Indo-aryan who composed the Rig-Veda and Vedic civilization has been mentioned in the section already, so it will be rather redundant... September88 (talk) 16:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

Since the "quotes" are removed from the acronym sentence, the sentence now implies that there are still 30 million Muslims in the area. Either the quotes should be put back or the sentence should be changed to past tense ie:

The name is was an acronym representing the thirty million Muslim brethren who lived in PAKSTAN—by which we meant the five Northern units of India viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan.

--lTopGunl (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it. I removed the quotes because the source containing direct quotes could be deemed unreliable and the new source does not have the exact wording.September88 (talk) 01:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put back quotes instead because the other wording sounds really awkward. September88 (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if I give you the original pamphlet? [4]. I've added it. Check out. I think the source is now properly cited (Even if the link doesn't work - as you say that is not necessary). It was there in the previous sentence too, just noticed it. I think even if the source is considered unreliable, the original source is still attributed and will stay reliable. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice!September88 (talk) 01:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking/Underlinking

I think the first occurrences should be linked in lead. Body should be handled accordingly as well. There're some points given on the peer review page by Finetooth. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the links as advised by Finetooth in the review. But Mar4d is right too, India is a featured article with half the lead linked. I'm neutral on the issue for now. September88 (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They should be minimized but not completely cleansed. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Science and technology

I think there should also be a short sentence on the Pakistan Antarctic Programme in the science and technology section, since Pakistan is only of a handful of nations ([5]) to have an active research presence in Antarctica, including a summer facility (the Jinnah Antarctic Station), and plans to open another base soon which is going to be permanent (unlike the Jinnah station) as per this. Mar4d (talk) 11:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sure. September88 (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Added with reliable source. Mar4d (talk) 09:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations and redundancy

I plan on completing the overhaul of references within the next week. Can you guys tell me which content you consider redundant because I don't want to end up finding sources of content about to be removed. Also because the references are a mess atm, (many non-obvious lines uncited/ unreliable citations which points back to wikipedia as source) some content might be needing change and some deleted to fit with new sources. Should I wait until the content is stable or should I go ahead with citing? September88 (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can go ahead with citing, the content will be trimmed to for length purposes and not completely removed, so citations will still be needed. If you think that some content is better covered somewhere else or citations can't be found, remove it. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone figure out just where is the "National symbol of Pakistan" table located? Its citation needs updating. September88 (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at this article and its citations: National symbols of Pakistan. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't get it...O.o September88 (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article has a cited table of national symbols, if that's what you were looking for. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that there is only {National Symbols of Pakistan} in Pakistan article and I couldn't find where the real template is located to edit it. September88 (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you mean the table on this article. Right, that's a template being transcluded. Let me check it's original location. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go. Templates in the article get listed in the end with categories when you click show preview while editing. --lTopGunl (ping) 19:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oky, Thanks! September88 (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've completed the review of references. Citations have been filled, dates turned consistent, duplicates merged, content match with sources, Economy & Transport rewritten/updated and all obvious unreliable refs have been replaced.Any minor formatting left will be done in coming days. These are the few sources whose reliability I'm suspicious about, but removing them will mean rewriting Flora and Fauna among other content changes and I thought it best to ask for a 2nd opinion before replacing them.

September88 (talk) 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've replaced the major suspicious refs. The remaining minor can be dealt with if called out in the review. September88 (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I didn't see this... replacing the refs for the same content with better ones was an easier solution. Is there any suspicious reference left? About "Nations Encyclopedia", encyclopedias are tertiary sources and they might be useful in providing references for the material they provide but I guess there's not much harm in directly citing them either. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
faqs.org, Defence Talk can be critiqued, but since they cover a line each, they can be easily removed if pointed out. As for world-gazetteer, it is sourcing the largest city template and might need a thorough search for another reli. source if criticized. I've been able to find upto 11 largest cities by popul. from official sources not 20 so leaving it for now. September88 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Culture and society

On topic of removing redundancy and structuring. Something needs to be done about 'Culture and Society'. It is haphazardly divided and has too many subsections. I suggest to merge Media's 2nd para with Literature and Architecture under "Arts". Both literature and architecture can be trimmed easily they are describing historical influences which has been somewhat covered in "Early history'. The readers can easily wikilink back to 'Pakistan's Architecture and Pakistani literature' article for details. September88 (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to help on one side, but let me point out the side effect it will have on Sports and Cuisine; they'll be disparaged under shadow of the new big section. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is. And the section won't be long. I'll keep to two concise paras. September88 (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A better Idea. Name it, "Art, architecture, and literature" and put all under it as it is. It will speak for its length. We can then tweak or trim. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On a second thought, there's no real need. India is an FA and it has short sections under culture in the same way. It is important to give a comprehensive view of culture, which too much trimming will take away. It already has small sections. Merging sections to make it look bigger while actually trimming the content will do the opposite. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
India has literature and architecture under one section. Conciseness is also good for FA. I don't see any need for this delving into history of these two topics, when it has already been mentioned under "History" section that Mughal and Hindus influenced the culture of region. Literature 1st para apart from 1st line can go and architecture 2nd para has unreliable source so will be trimmed anyway, and these both can be merged together as your scratched suggestion said, it won't be too long or short. September88 (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about this. I'll do a sample of my version of "culture" on my sandbox and then show to you and Mar4 and we'll see which is better? September88 (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A sample would be a good idea. Copy-paste it into your sandbox. If the roughly shaped form looks good, we can add it here and tweak it further. Yes, some previous details can be easily removed and my previous suggestion was per that to put them under the same section. However, my second point was meant to prove that some short sections in the article won't do any harm by themselves unless there are other issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get your point and agree. The number of subsections and the way they are organized is what doesn't look right to me, not the individual length. Will show a sample soon. September88 (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Don't put too much effort in the draft version. We'll add quality when it's included. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right. September88 (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talking about subsections, was there a decision to merge everything in the demographics section? I see that the 'ethnic groups' and 'religion' subsections have been removed and the information has been combined. Mar4d (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did that as per the advise of the main reviewer. See the review page. He warned us of too much clutter from many short subsections which could easily be combined with mains. Same was the case with "Geography and climate". Though, as I gave an example above, having some short subsections is still good to go. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I don't think there's any need to merge the media and entertainment section though. That section includes cinema, music and television, which are three topics with a large enough scope and don't need any merger. The architecture and literature section can probably be combined however. Mar4d (talk) 04:17, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After playing around in my sandbox, I've discard the idea myself. If any question of excessive contents arose in FA review, it could be dealt with then. September88 (talk) 00:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not a big deal, esp. when we have points to defend the status quo. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health, energy & law enforcement/courtsystem

This was given an "ok" by a reviewer, see Finetooth comments, part 5, to be added to "Demographics", "Science and technology" and "Administrative divisions" sections respectively in a concise manner. Now the issue is what all to add and which citations to use, since the main articles either lack citations or are in a mess. Let's add some 3-4 liners here for each (suggest in 3 futher subsections here) to compare as a draft. I'm adding very crude versions give your improved ones below them; we can get citations after that or twist the phrases accordingly. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Health

Ok, this one is the lede of the main article to start with:

Healthcare in Pakistan is administered mainly in the private sector which accounts for approximately 80% of all outpatient visits. The public sector is led by the Ministry of Health, however the Ministry was abolished in June 2011 and all health responsibilities (mainly planning and fund allocation) were devolved to provincial Health Departments which had until now been the main implementers of public sector health programs. Like other South Asian countries, health and sanitation infrastructure is adequate in urban areas but is generally poor in rural areas. About 19% of the population and 30% of children under age of five are malnourished.

--lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare in Pakistan is administered mainly in the private sector which accounts for approximately 80% of all outpatient visits. The public sector is led by the Ministry of Health, however the Ministry was abolished in June 2011 and all health responsibilities (mainly planning and fund allocation) were devolved to provincial Health Departments which had until now been the main implementers of public sector health programs. Like other South Asian countries, health and sanitation infrastructure is adequate in urban areas but is generally poor in rural areas.

Since it'll be under demographics, infrastructure scratched. September88 (talk) 05:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw that Health is already mentioned in demographics. We can fit the new info in between instead of a new para. New info in bold.

Life expectancy at birth is 63 years for females and 62 years for males as of 2006 compared to the healthy life expectancy at birth which was 54 years for males and 52 years for females in 2003. Expenditure on health was at 2% of the GDP in 2006. Private sector accounts approximately 80% of all outpatient visits. About 19% of the population and 30% of children under age of five are malnourished. The mortality below 5 was at 97 per 1,000 live births in 2006. During 1990–2003, Pakistan sustained its historical lead as the most urbanised nation in South Asia, with city dwellers making up 36% of its population. Furthermore, 50% of Pakistanis now reside in towns of 5,000 people or more. September88 (talk) 06:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth mentioned that, well we're good to go for "health" then. I think there were a few sources in "Health in Pakistan". I think the mention of provinces responsible for the health sector should be mentioned in a one-liner as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.. Added with [citation needed] tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Energy

This one is a mixture of a few related main article leads:

Electricity in Pakistan is generated, transmitted, distributed and retail supplied by two vertically integrated public sector utilities: Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) for all of Pakistan (except Karachi), and the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) for the City of Karachi and its surrounding areas. There are around 16 independent power producers that contributes significantly in electricity generation in Pakistan. Nuclear power in Pakistan is provided by 3 licensed-commercial nuclear power plants under Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC). The electricity generated by commercial nuclear power plants constitutes roughly 2% of electricity generated in Pakistan, compared to 65% from fossil fuel and 33% from hydroelectric power.

To be tweaked if citations are missing or for improved quality. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.. Added with [citation needed] tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Law enforcement & Court system

This is the main article's lede and another main article's list converted to prose for an overview. Seems quite adequate to be put as a summary here (maybe shorten it?):

Law enforcement in Pakistan is carried out by several federal and provincial police agencies. The four provinces and the Islamabad Capital Territory each have a civilian police force with juridiction extending only to the relevant province or territory. At the federal level, there are a number of civilian agencies with nationwide jurisdictions including the Federal Investigation Agency and the National Highways and Motorway Police, as well as several paramilitary forces including the Pakistan Rangers and the Frontier Corps. The most senior officers of all the civilian police forces also form part of the Police Service of Pakistan, which is a component of the civil service of Pakistan.
The court system of Pakistan is distributed as such, per hierarchy; Supreme Court of Pakistan (Apex court), Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan, High Courts of Pakistan (one in each province and also in federal capital), District Courts of Pakistan (one in each district), Judicial Magistrate Courts (with power of Section 30 of Cr.PC only in criminal trials), Judicial Magistrate Courts (in every town and cit, Executive Magistrate Courts (Summary trial court), Courts of Civil Judge (judges with power of 1st class and 2nd class cases).

--lTopGunl (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most senior officers of all the civilian police forces also form part of the Police Service of Pakistan, which is a component of the civil service of Pakistan.

And they're fine I think. September88 (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, no trim? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sure want court system/law trimmed but the way its written here, there couldn't seem a way to shorten without leaving out crucial info. Did a quick search too and didn't find anything concise and good, so I guess its ok. Just trim the line I scratched above and change the prose some so its not a ditto copy of the two articles leads. This can be the source for courts 123

As for 'Energy', the condition in my house tempts me to write something critical...but seriously its fine. Health should definitely only include the two lines not scratched because it already has a para on it. September88 (talk) 12:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm adding the paras with [citation needed] tags (since you reviewed the sources, it will be easy if you source them). --lTopGunl (talk) 12:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done.. Added with [citation needed] tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Here is another version of courts:

The legal system is derived from English common law and is based on 1973 constitution and Islamic law. The Supreme Court, provincial high courts, and other courts have jurisdiction over criminal and civil issues. Special courts and tribunals hear particular types of cases, such as drugs, commerce, and terrorism. Pakistan's penal code has limited jurisdiction in tribal areas, where law is largely derived from tribal customs. September88 (talk) 12:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is more concise though it flies over the details. Replace it with this one. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done some rewriting and added citations. September88 (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tourism

As per Chipmunkdavis comments on peer review:

I suggest you cut down the total article size [...] I'd do something drastic with the Tourism section. It reads very advertisment like, quite WP:PEACOCKy. It's also weird that it's not included as part of Economy.

And after checking all the countries featured articles, I suggest removing Tourism altogether. Its not the major industry of Pakistan, why a separate section for it? Whatever small influence it has on economy can be summed in a line in that section. September88 (talk) 02:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing altogether won't be a good idea. It was there in the article when it was FA (though that article wasn't as good at structure or comprehensiveness as this one), but without a dedicated section. Tourism is known for potential in Pakistan and is hindered by the terrorism issues since the last decade only. See Finetooth's comments about the structure that there's no fixed criteria for the countries and all countries are different after all. I think it should stay, just re-terming any of the WP:PEACOCK words in the section is what is needed (saying K2 is the second highest peak or other facts are not peacock words). --lTopGunl (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read Finetooth comments but Chipmunkdavis makes valid points about size as well. Besides Pakistan is known for its potential in agriculture 1 2, regional leadership 1 and some other things too. Just because someone decided to focus here on Tourism only doesn't makes it more important than others or makes it necessary for it to be kept. I think giving a separate section to it itself screams advertisement because it clearly belongs under economy where its potential can be described along with the other sectors potential. Your K2 point is valid, and I think the image along with its caption would fit perfectly in geography.

And while we are at it, you mentioned trimming down things in peer review. Where else do you think the trimming should be done, now that we're done adding major new content? In my opinion Flora and Fauna, Economy and Transport needs to be rewritten for prose and better/updated info where some editing in/out can be done. September88 (talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we add tourism to economy, that's the section which will need trimming. Some content about ancient sites can be shortened and placed in the "Early history" where it is already mentioned with the only addition of its today's significance as attraction for researchers or tourists. K2 photograph will look monotonous and give undue weight to the mountainous terrain (which is just a part of Pakistan) in the geography section as one such image is already there. You are right on the agriculture getting a mention only in the economy section. How about merging and trimming tourism without significantly changing anything else and then scrutinizing it for a thorough trim? For Flora and fauna", if you want to rewrite it for prose and quality, that is one thing, but trimming that section will require some care, ie. without removing the information part and yet fixing the redundancies. The rest are already short subsections and trimming will not be appropriate. I'll give the article another read and do some trimming my self if possible after your go at the tourism merging, will that do? --lTopGunl (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'll take your advice for shifting some things to other sections and will do an edit. We can scrutinize later and see if it fits. But have to say the point is the removal of less important things so that the main size of article is reduced, so merging or no if the content size is to remain approximately same just spread all over than its a rather moot point. And I meant replacing the geography pic with K2. September88 (talk) 06:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be the aim but that is often done by reducing the over running sentences without getting much information removed. Let me see. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I ended up editing out a lot, so you can undo and focus on only removing peacock words if you don't agree. September88 (talk) 08:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've added back the important info without adding any prose, ie. to the existing text at the end of the sentences. This includes the full section removal of tourism without giving any significant length to already existing sections, see the total change made by your removal and my re-adding [6]. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! September88 (talk) 12:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regional power

I reckon a short sentence should be added in the article about Pakistan's regional power status, or if not that, at least its "middle power" status. There are reliable sources in various places on Wikipedia to establish this (see the following sections: Regional power#South Asia, the map at Regional power#Current regional powers, the list at Regional hegemony). In addition, the Middle power article mentions Pakistan at Middle power#List of middle powers. There's also a very good map at Power in international relations#Categories of power. I think the lead might be the appropriate place to mention this (perhaps as the opening sentence of the last paragraph talking about the armed forces, nuclear power and international relations). Before that happens however, I need your opinion. Mar4d (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything necessary, about both, nuclear power and nuclear weapons, has already been mentioned concisely (keeping in mind we are on an article wide trim drive in the section above). This has it's own notability, but to prevent repetition of that, I say add this in a line or to where the same is mentioned. Military section's end would be a good idea. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is to follow the example set at the lead of India which goes off like "A nuclear weapons state and a regional power, it has the third-largest standing army in the world...." Similiarly, the last para of the lead over here could be modified and perhaps start like "A middle-level regional power, Pakistan has the eighth largest standing armed force....." I'm not proposing any new extra material ofcourse, just three extra words to start the para with references. Mar4d (talk) 11:23, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That could be done - if it is incorporated in the same sentence. This can be further shortened, just "A regional power" (with wikilink to middlelevel power). But then we'll have to take a look at the body that the tone implies what the lead summarizes. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my proposed lead paragraph below (bolded bit is added by me): Mar4d (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A middle-level regional power[1][2], Pakistan has the eighth largest standing armed force and is the only Muslim-majority nation to possess nuclear weapons also being the first nuclear power country in the Muslim world, and the second in the South Asia[3] It a recognized nuclear-weapons state and is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States and a strategic ally of China.[4][5] It is a founding member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation)[6] and a member of the United Nations,[7] Commonwealth of Nations,[8] Next Eleven economies and the G20 developing nations.

Also, now that I copy pasted the para from the article, I also notice a few grammatical glitches. Mar4d (talk) 11:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is slightly incorrect, it is a "middle level world power and a regional power" (see the main article for middle power). That is why I suggested the shortened form, but if adding like this consider this correction. Yeah, fix the grammar ofcourse. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:43, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you write your preferred/modified version of the phrase below, just to clarify? Mar4d (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A middle-level world power and a regional power..." or "A regional power and a middle-level world power..." or "A regional and a middle-level (world) power..." --lTopGunl (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following looks good: "A regional and middle-level world power...." since the word "power" isn't being repetetive. Mar4d (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – Good to go then, add it
--lTopGunl (talk) 12:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, I've been trying to modify and make the following paragraph sound better and not repetetive. Here's the current version:

A regional and middle-level power,[9][2] Pakistan has the eighth largest standing army in the world and is a recognised nuclear weapons state, being the first and only nation to have that status in the Muslim world, and the second in South Asia.[3] It is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States and a strategic ally of China.[10][11] Pakistan is a founding member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation)[12] and is a member of the United Nations,[13] Commonwealth of Nations,[14] Next Eleven economies and the G20 developing nations.

What I didn't like about the previous paragraph is that it was being repetitive by mentioning the Muslim world twice. It should only give one mention to that, as well as South Asia, and it should be preceded by "it is a recognised nuclear weapons state" as that sounds more relevant. Mar4d (talk) 16:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I've changed army back to armed force. Just a question should it be "armed force" or the plural "armed forces"? Mar4d (talk) 16:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Ok, starting with corrections, replace army with armed force (check by listing the main article table's "active" column in descending order). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok you changed. Should be plural. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, now there's no mention of Pakistan possessing nuclear weapons first in the Muslim world, but it is concise now. Just to make sure the paragraph doesn't leave ambiguities. On second thoughts, it's good, maybe some more trimming?--lTopGunl (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if the word "possessing" is added between "weapons" and "state", so as to make it "nuclear weapons possessing state". Does that clear the ambiguity to some extent? Mar4d (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a small change. Check it when you're free and let me know if something needs improvement. Mar4d (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not add anything about possession then since being a nuclear weapons state is enough to be mentioned in the lead for that reason, nuclear weapons possessing state seems redundant/trivial while previous was descriptive but long. I'm changing it to just nuclear weapons state. I think that would be fine? Or change if there's something non trivial. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Looks good now. Mar4d (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Congress

A question: I noticed Library of Congress as ref. 226 & 44, alongwith this page sections cited individually at ref. 55 & 128. For consistency's sake one of the two approaches is to be applied; it could be one reference to the main page for all the different details or individual references to each section. Which is better? September88 (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a way to cite more than one pages of a source from a merged reference. It appears something like "[1]:242". I've seen that at many articles, but never needed to do it. Might be a good idea to ask for the method on WP:Help desk (since I don't seem to find an example article). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Asked, but reference gets long and messy that way. Just bundling up everything under a PDF file now. September88 (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text sandwich

There seems to be a bit of text sandwich in the history section I suggest to remove the priest with Ajrak (since that is on many other articles and in the infobox of History of Pakistan. Also, the POF eye was not sandwiching anything. That section was lengthy enough for two images - actually there was a whole screen full of just text (I've added that back, let me know if there are objections). As a side note, I suggest image of Mughals be replaced with Muhammad bin Qasim's since he is more notable for the earliest history of Pakistan ie. advent of Islam in to this area (open for discussion). --lTopGunl (ping) 17:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text is sandwiched in the colonel period, politics and sports as well...The new pic in the early period looks really good, so if the removal is to be done, I'd too vote for removing either of the other two because they are somewhat similar ie both statues. September88 (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried all I could to remove those text sandwiches before but that either renders the image too small or something else displaced. Those are two lines in colonel and three in sports, that can be handled I guess? Yeah I was suggesting the same, ie. the priest. --lTopGunl (ping) 18:34, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they could be ignored for now... September88 (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, fine about that. --lTopGunl (ping) 10:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the sandwiching problem persist with Budda, how about replacing it with the smaller Indus king/Ajrak? September88 (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
 – I fixed the issue instead (if that was the only problem).
--lTopGunl (ping) 12:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you noticed, but the history section got stuffed up after you made the adjustment. There was a big white space in between early history and colonial. Could you clarify about the edit button being displaced? It looks normal on my computer. Mar4d (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The edit button was displaced to the left by the picture on my screen which is set to 1024x768. I think it might be giving the same issue other wise too. How about moving them back to their places and keeping the "{{br}}" tag at the end so as not to displace the edit button? --lTopGunl (ping) 12:22, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, my screen is showing everything perfectly normal. When you added the br tag, there was a big (pretty large) white space about three or four lines long seperating colonial history from early history. Does that appear in your screen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar4d (talk • contribs)
I don't know, everything is normal on my screen too (let September88 check it out may be she sees a difference). There was no white space on my screen, only the edit link went to its place. What ever a third screen says. It is ok on my screen at the moment. Check it out. (revert if there's white space). --lTopGunl (ping) 12:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's better than before but there's still an odd white space still about 2-3 lines. I really have no idea what's happening. Does it have anything to do with the internet browser? (I'm using Google Chrome) Mar4d (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you be more precise as to how the edit button goes on the left? Which image is displacing it (is it the standing Buddha)? Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No, atleast 2-3 lines is there for me too (but that's what I did) though it wasn't as much as you said before. At the moment it's 2-3 lines on the left and one line under the picture on the right which is just enough for it not to go to the section below. The Mughal image without a break crosses the edit button a bit which displaces to the left like any other event of an image overlap. --lTopGunl (ping) 12:39, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any possible way to finish the white gap (I think it will be raised at featured article review)?.... Mar4d (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think by changing image sizes and some adjustments there so that br tags are not needed. Because both conflicting issues (ie. white space and link displacement/overlap) would be raised. You can try the adjustments if you want. I'll tell here if the link gets displaced and then we can ask September88 to confirm it. --lTopGunl (ping) 12:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which image should be reduces and by how much? Mar4d (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced Mughal image to 170px and the issue went away but the image was too small for its worth then. It'll have to be a hit and try adjustment I guess. --lTopGunl (ping) 12:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the history section is now, I see the edit button replaced. Never saw any white space in either cases. September88 (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the white space seperating colonial period from early/medieval period. Can you notice it? Mar4d (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A tiny white space is present because of the displacement of edit button to the left, if this is what you're talking about....September88 (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think you should adjust it since there's already some confusion here. (Note the use of br tags at the end of section to push the colonel section down). --lTopGunl (ping) 13:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried by changing sides and by reducing Mughal pic to 150px, the edit button problem remains if <br is not used and if <br is used the white space appears. The only thing that can be done is divide the para into three. Check. September88 (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, this seems good now - both issues resolved. --lTopGunl (ping) 14:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job. No more white spaces. Mar4d (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see Badshahi Mosque doing that but the Iqbal image is fine. Try adding a br tag at the end of demographics then. --lTopGunl (ping) 14:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done September88 (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National Symbols of Pakistan

Agree, plus there are country articles which have national symbol templates. I'll try to find a way to accomodate it. Mar4d (talk) 12:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
National symbol had, flag, anthem, animal, tree, bird, flower and emblem, as you see apart from two, all these are listed in the article which is why I removed it. I don't have any objection if its added back, but its better if its fitted somewhere it doesn't clutter.. September88 (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well then does this need to be added back or is it good without it? --lTopGunl (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This one gives sandwiching problem with Benazir's pic, which is another matter entirely. If you like to use it in the article its better used as a replacement for any pic. September88 (talk) 06:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right... maybe if the section expands a bit at a later time, it can be added then. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. September88 (talk) 06:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Progress

550+ edits in ~10 days. Previous version [7] vs current [8]. (A comparison). --lTopGunl (ping) 13:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully we will reach the 1000 mark before the end lol. This is what I call progress. The article is a lot improved now, and it will keep on getting better until the goal is reached. Do not want another failed review in its archives :-) September88 (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at the old version, I can only say: "What a mess!" Mar4d (talk) 13:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sport

The section doesn't mention anything about Pakistan hosting the 1990 Men's Hockey World Cup or that Pakistan has hosted the international Hockey Champions Trophy tournament eleven times. Just an observation.... Mar4d (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be concise summary of all sports. It might not be covering some other sports totally. Those need to be added too. It is a short section anyway - maybe we can have two images after some expansion? --lTopGunl (ping) 20:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Touches

The article will be put up for FAC soon. Any suggestions for final touches or discussion can be done here. I'll be doing minor fixes myself too and am listing things that could use help:

  • Quick re-check of the whole article for prose/conciseness by deletion or editing of unnecessary material.
  • Lead, and see if something in the lead isn't covered in the rest of body. I think atm only 'middle power' status is not mentioned anywhere in the rest of the body and needs a good place to fit in.
  • Buddah image in the History section has an incomplete summary, all new images needs check for similar problems.  Done
  • Images, most of them, are exceeding their section limit in wide screen. I couldn't find any solution for this, so if anyone else could please fix it.

Any other suggestion are welcomed. September88 (talk) 17:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a list for all the images as dated in a section which all seem to be good with copy rights Talk:Pakistan#Licensing of images (complete list). Some new images were added which need to be checked. I'm not sure about the issue with the Buddah image... I suggest we complete the summary on the image instead of replacing it. Issue with widescreen resolution needs to be taken to help desk as the discussion in the images section has done no good. About K2 or Balochistan having more than one images, there might be some balancing issue (or maybe not) but the fact that in actual only a single image will be displayed at a time makes that not such a big deal as it wont matter when being displayed - no issues if they are removed to keep one/two each either. Actually I would recommend increasing the switch images in geography and climate to eight-ten with other sites. As for copy edit, I've taken a quick skim and didn't see any bad grammar or such but it would still be good to have fresh eyes on the language since we're too used to this after making the major edits to the article over a long duration. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to complete the description pages of Buddah, POF Eye, Hostels.jpg, Karachi Downtown, and Hockey. Hopefully they are done right, and checked all the other new images. They're good.
  • I asked for the image exceeding problem to help desk but they were unable to come up with any solution. One suggestion is to use {{Clear}} after the images. Let me try.
  • I think what Mar4d meant was that their are many other places of Pakistan beautiful enough to use here instead of utilizing switch mode to show different poses of same places. Mar4d if you can find good images of other areas I'd say feel free to add to the article. I for one have no issue if a couple of photos of same areas are replaced. September88 (talk) 14:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and infact recommend adding images of more places to the switch. Replacing doubles of previous locations is not a big deal either. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This [9] is the result of using {{Clear}}. The good thing is that {{Clear}} works accordingly the screen sizes and if a particular image is not giving problem in smaller screen it will not interfere with the structure there. The negative is that the same 'white space' problem encountered earlier can be seen in the wide screen, as it pushes the next section heading down to make space for the picture without colliding with its edit button. So yay or nay? September88 (talk) 16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I say its much better than the previous condition on the wide screen right now. I only see white space in the early history section where it gave problem before.... there were some br tags there try removing those - maybe then there's some less white space. Do you see white space anywhere else on your resolution? I'll be using my own desktop from probably tomorrow so wont be able to address from the wide screen perspective though. If there's no white space in any other sections I say lets add it. Mar4d or another user's opinion should be awaited though before we add this. In anycase we can add or remove this per FAC whatever is suggested there. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. And just to clarify, I see white space under every section where I've put 'Clear'. Some I've minimized by shrinking the size of pics, others are not so prominent as to look ugly. September88 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I suggest waiting for a bit wider consensus on this. It is perfect unless you're on a wide screen currently... I see that other articles adjust the images in such a way that the text is wrapping them on all resolutions ie. the sections have enough text to fill up around the image. About the issue you pointed out about page numbers once India resolves this by completely changing the citation format which are in a separate section pointing to references [10]. But I guess if multiple page numbers are to be added some thing like "[1]:200" can handle that. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to show me a sample of "[1]:200" because I' m not getting it. O.o. Or to simplify things perhaps the multiple pages book refs can be linked to the main book page instead of previews? September88 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Made some thorough invane searches, couldn't find the source of the multiple page citation format... so I guess we'll have to do with this for now. About the images, since I'm back on my own computer, I see "clear" tagged version in your sandbox without any white space in the end. If some one else with a lower resolution than wide screen can add their views, may be its good then. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have access to both wide & small screen and can verify that white space problem only shows in widescreen when "Clear is used. So ok on adding it then right? September88 (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok from myside, adding {{unanswered}} to ask others. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I see white space on widescreen(16:10) with clear used which is not looking good at all. I have tried minimizing the white space as much as possible by moving images and editing captions herebut it still has some white spaces left. May be I have missed some issues raised in the peer review but does it really matter how it appears on widescreen (for FAC)? --SMS Talk 14:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might matter if the reviewers are using widescreen. I don't know how other articles deal with this. The 'clear' option was suggested at help desk. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The peer review basically advised the images to be contained within their section and not displace the next section's edit buttons. It might or might not matter to reviewers depending upon their own screens and preferences as I have seen some FA's with similar issues but we are just trying for perfection. September88 (talk) 15:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whether it is allowed or not but using {{float}} can make the rest of white spaces disappear. --SMS Talk 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried it? If it does then that's all we need. I don't think there will be any issues with being "allowed". --lTopGunl (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, try it and I'll get back at you after I see its effects on widescreen. September88 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well the thing is Wikipedia has a Fluid layout, so as the resolution increases, the content also fills up and takes the entire available screen space. Even if you manage to clean up the white space on say a resolution of 1366x768 (16:9), the layout would still look odd at a resolution of 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 (also 16:9).
One of the ways to fix the issue would be to make the images a bit more smaller, or increase the textual content so that it fills the white space. The best way would be to use CSS Media Queries to adapt content based on the available screen space, but I'm not sure if Wikipedia actually allows that.  UzEE  06:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tried using {{float}} but I was wrong, it is not useful here. The most I can reduce the white space is this version but again it won't be looking any good when seen at different resolution than mine. And I agree with Uzair, it is difficult to remove white space completely and also avoid images appearing along with other section text for all display resolutions. And I hope reviewers will also understand this. --SMS Talk 12:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I guess lets leave this for now and see if the issue arises in FA. September88 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll have to do that. Article is good as of now. If there are issues at FAC we can deal with them there. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers

Add {{rp|288-323}} at the end of the references to add page numbers. I've found an example. See the ones being used in Pakistani English. This was what I was talking about... if necessary this can be used. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is very neat. I'll change all the refs to this style if further clarification need is raised at FAC. September88 (talk) 14:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir conflict should be merged

I've been taking a look at the article for a while and was intending to post about this weeks ago but could not be bothered. But since I have seen some editing activity going on in that section, I might as well propose it now. My question is, do we even need a seperate section for the Kashmir conflict? Since this is a political and military-related conflict, can the information present in there not just be merged under the "military" section? If you take a look at the India article, there's only a passing mention (less than a sentence) to Kashmir's disputed status under the modern history section and then just one sentence again in the military section (again, half a sentence). I have also observed that there is hardly any reference in that article to Pakistan's dispute over Kashmir. On the Pakistan article, the Kashmir dispute has been overdone and it is also disproportionately large, raising issues such as WP:WEIGHT. Alot of the info here should be moved into the Kashmir conflict article and we should only follow WP:Summary style here; I generally think four sentences should be enough. Once the section is cut down, its content should be moved and accommodated into either military' or 'politics' (which ever suits better). Any thoughts? Mar4d (talk) 10:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have specific objections to this, but I think the issue does have some WP:WEIGHT (per its importance to Pakistan) for a separate section. Because it is not well covered in that article means it needs to be done there too. On the contrary if this is to be merged I'll suggest evenly merging it into history and military section. I'm almost neutral on this - a bit tilted to a "week keep" though. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that the issue is not important - it is very important, but the way it is being presented is overdoing WP:Weight (in contrast, this topic and Pakistan's disputes hardly have such coverage on India). The content can be broken down and still conveyed meaningfully even after being moved into 'history' and 'military'. There's really no need for a seperate section, that too one in which summary style isn't being followed and one whose content is mostly political and military conflict-related (it's basically redundant). And just for the record, I've been searching the history log of this article and have just observed that this section wasn't even in the article in the first place until it was introduced on 21 November 2011. It's a section that has been created rather recently and also without discussion from what I see. Mar4d (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well better let September88 comment on this, as she rewrote this full section during the peer review and I think it was neutral after that. If your issues are that the section might invite controversial additions, I think there are other ways for dealing with that. As for the weight of being mentioned in this way in a separate section, I think there's space for discussion and it can be merged, but I'll want to know what will go where just to be clear. We can give it the required scrutiny here for its recent introduction and merits in the article. You are right about a section not being present on India... I'll also want to check how Peoples republic of China and Republic of China are handling such content. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's wait for September88. I want the main information to stay but the overly-specific and redundant information should be removed and trimmed down. Generally speaking, I don't think any country articles on Wikipedia have entirely separate sections for disputed territories or military conflicts. That's what the purpose of the history, politics or military sections is. Mar4d (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also neutral on whether it needs its own section, as it is a very notable issue for both countries (I feel it is underrepresented on India). However, in its current state, the huge amount of history in the second paragraph can go, and all the information on the Indian part of Kashmir in the third paragraph could probably go as well. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I'm going to echo both TopGun and Chipmunkdavis. Kashmir Conflict is notable enough to have its own section, but if the merger keeps important points intact than its fine too as I'm pro to concise article atm. Perhaps showing a sample merger before actual will help in finally deciding. September88 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mar4d, what are your plans about doing/not-doing this as this would be the only main task left before we proceed to FAC - the section "Final touches" is almost idle now. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here are some proposals:
  • The first (opening) sentence of the Kashmir conflict can be moved into the 'modern era' section of History, preferably just before the sentence talking about the military conflict in Bangladesh.
  • Second sentence should be in military
  • Third sentence (talking about the percentage of the region administered by India and Pakistan respectively) can be added in the modern era section of history as well, just after the opening sentence I mentioned above.
  • Most of the second paragraph and the three-lined third paragraph belong to 'foreign relations' in the Politics section. Some of it can be trimmed down.

This is the basic plan. If everyone's fine with it, I am willing to carry out and demonstrate the merge as per above. The tweaks and trimming can come in afterward. Mar4d (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is good to go. The part about control of areas can also go in the military section as the militaries captured the areas and it has a context to the 47 war. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The colonial period mentions 1st Kashmir war in its last sentence. I think the opening sentence of Kashmir conflict fits there instead of modern history, although probably if its modified a bit, it will be ok in Modern history too. The other suggested changes are good. Go ahead.September88 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"... especially after Pakistan ended its support of the Taliban regime in Kabul."

This statement is very controversial. It needs a clause for balance. JCAla (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence can be fully removed for its controversial nature of Pakistan always denying military support beind discussed at Talk:Taliban and then whether to take recognition of government as a kind of support. This is better suited in the dedicated articles. Do you have a suggestion on how to phrase it? I think the allegations don't belong to this article as they'll not merit enough weight, while this is the official status. The allegations have been denied repeatedly; now if we add the allegations, we'll have to add the denials too.. this will lead to inclusion of everything that has no place here. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the sentence can be fully dropped under the "politics" section. But the section "military" definitely needs to mention the support to the Taliban. This was and is one of the major Pakistan military activities, yet this article makes no mention of it at all, while it i. e. mentions how many (ten) Israeli planes were shot down by Pakistan's Air Force, etc. JCAla (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually what you base your argument on itself is controversial (which you would know very well given the dispute on Taliban article). Pakistan's denying of this support (at all times) makes it controversial. I think this can be totally removed from this article... remember this is about Pakistan which has many many more things to cover than this. Without covering its cultural relations with Afghanistan, if we cover this, this will be out of weight. Let's see what others have to say on this. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, waiting for what others have to say with regards to it being mentioned under "military". I am going to remove the sentence under the politics section. JCAla (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you agree with the sentence as it is, TopGun? JCAla (talk) 08:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is good now... except a side effect is that the sentence is now ambiguous. Why are the US-Pak relations strained is not mentioned while the strain is. How about adding a single line about US-Pak misunderstandings and ISI-CIA clashes without mentioning Taliban and rather keeping it to things like Raymond Davis or Salala incident? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is due to mention a case such as Davis while not mentioning the bigger picture with the Taliban or Bin Laden in Abbottabad. The US position would be seriously disregarded with only mentioning the two events as you proposed. I think the sentence can stand as it is, if we are asked to elaborate, we need to work out a concise clause which represents the both views on the bigger picture. JCAla (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't get it. My suggestion was just an example. What I mean is a little explanation of why the relation is strained should be mentioned. Even Taliban can be mentioned without taking any 'sides'. Something like, "US-Pak relations have however strained due to Taliban issues" or "recent mistrust over Afghanistan and terrorism related issues has caused much strain on US-Pak relationship recently" (I prefer second one). --lTopGunl (talk) 09:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And to balance it without mentioning details, we can then give citations of US-Pak deteriorating relationship including those of US accusations and the recent NATO strike on the Pakistan army and a few more if needed. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. Still, if you say, they have been strained by mistrust that is mainly following Pakistan's narrative as the US says it has concrete evidence for the ISI's supervision i. e. of the Haqqani attack against the US embassy in Kabul. Also, a GA or FA reviewer will question oversourcing. So, we should keep it to one source each for US and Pakistan pov. What about: "... strained by Bin Laden being killed on Pakistani soil, allegations of Pakistan harboring and supporting the Taliban against ISAF forces in Afghanistan, which Pakistan denies, as well as mistrust and missing coordination culminating in the Salala incident." But I guess you won't agree to that. So what about "strained by a divergence of interests in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)." JCAla (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of bin laden in the country article was strongly denied by many editors previously as it is out of weight and he is of no significance to Pakistan as a country (he isn't even mentioned in Saudi Arabia article as noted in a comment before). And the debate about Taliban will pull us back into the Taliban dispute which will grow into something completely out of weight. I agree with your second suggestion which is pretty much similar to mine save the mention of mistrust. I think there are citations from US side as well that talk about mistrust. Without mentioning any allegations or denials all together, talking about mistrust will be neutral from both sides. So some thing between "recent mistrust over Afghanistan and terrorism related issues has caused much strain on US-Pak relationship" and "strained by a divergence of interests in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present)." can do I guess. The pure mention of strained divergence of interests can be implicating as well (actually against both sides). Maybe another user can phrase it better. Lets wait for another suggested derivation of this. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about we integrate our two versions: "... strained by a divergence of interests and resulting mistrust in the War in Afghanistan (2001-present) and on terrorism related issues." JCAla (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better. I think this should be added until someone else has some other modifications to suggest. A citation about salala incident or another US activity in Pakistan should be added (a citation that covers views from both sides... I suggest picking one from the 2011 NATO attack in Pakistan as that is a GA) and I recommend adding a citation about Pakistan's denial to BBC report since that has both the accusation and denial mentioned by third party sources. A third can be added too if in balance. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then we add the sentence. But, again, I advise against oversourcing with regards to the GA/FA review. Choose one reliable reference of your liking to display Pakistan's pov, and I will choose one link for the US pov, ok? JCAla (talk) 10:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the sentence. I know FAC is very extensive and there's no chance of any POV surviving in FAC. See the last part of my comment. I think we should add citation covering general incidents rather than points of view and those citations should cover views of both sides. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We would have to discuss then what two incidents were outstanding, which is difficult. I prefer articles clarifying the positions generally. It is easier if you pick one reliable reference and I pick the other, this way it will automatically be balanced. JCAla (talk) 11:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My point here is that picking a citation from each side will actually do the same allegation-denial thing in the underlying citations. This can be prevented. I think a small discussion of that can handle it. You've dealt with the current citations, what are they about? There's also an option to rather add two citations which cover the whole of the relationship which is easy as we have a dedicated article for that to pick sources from. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are in no hurry since this source (which is already in the article) already contains a lot of information. We could add "Pakistan backed attacks on American targets, U.S. says" and "In Pakistan, anger builds against the US. What do you think? JCAla (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's no hurry and as I said, I'll refrain from using sources merely representing allegation/denials POV and instead use incident and analysis based sources. We've atleast solved the phrasing issue to much extent... the citations can wait till endorsed by other editors. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are also incident-based sources. But, again, there is no hurry. JCAla (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If its endorsement to the phrasing, the current version as edited by TopGun at 10:59, 26 January 2012‎, is balanced. I'd say go ahead with citations. September88 (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although, why so much focus on Pak-US relationships? There is 1 line for China who is the closest ally, 2 lines for India with whom there been many wars and 5 lines for US? Wanted to throw it out here as this has been in my mind for quite sometime. September88 (talk) 15:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. This is WP:RECENTISM and should be avoided. But not a big deal... rather content on China can be increased. I think India has mention elsewhere as well so that is in right weight. If you want to reduce this text, that is possible too.. but what to remove? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Probably the decade by decade info or reasons of each decade relations can go..I'll add a line or two for China and concise US tomorrow and see how it goes. September88 (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This, "Since late 2001 Pakistan has been listed as a major ally to the US in the war against terrorism. The US increased military aid for Pakistan providing $4 billion more in three years after the 9/11 attacks than before.[62] Pakistan suffered direct and indirect losses up to $67.93 billion,[63][64] thousands of casualties and faces nearly 3 million displaced civilians due to its role of a frontline nation in this war.[65]", is controversial in the sense of lacking information for balance and redundant since foreign relations are dealt with under "politics" anyway, not under "history". "Pakistan suffered direct and indirect losses up to $67.93 billion,[63][64] thousands of casualties and faces nearly 3 million displaced civilians due to its role as an involved nation in the war against terrorism.[65]", would be less controversial. I propose, leave the politics section as it is, and instead cut down on the history section. JCAla (talk) 17:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut down history. The politics section I think needed some tweaks for overall balance though, so added a line on China and phrased us-pak some. September88 (talk) 17:45, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seems better. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your changes, except those to the consensus sentence. Pakistan's support for either side, US or Taliban, is a controversial issue and would need a presentation of both views. JCAla (talk) 13:21, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of India (navigation link)

I've removed this navigation link from the history section (it was also removed by another editor previously - Mar4d I think - but now put back by JCAla). This was suggested at the peer review, but I think History of South Asia should actually cover the Pakistan related topics from History of India (the fact that it isn't yet should not be basis of an argument as instead that article should be improved). Any one wishing to add it back can do so and I will not consider it edit war if a reasonable argument is given in the edit summary or here since I've not really removed this on neutrality basis. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, History of South Asia is more neutral. It should also be noted that Pakistan shares some of its history with Afghanistan and Persia, and not to forget Bangladesh. South Asia generally sounds more inclusive of all these regions. I'm sure if it's raised at FAC, this can be clarified. Mar4d (talk) 14:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added it per peer review. Didn't know you guys had removed it in the past. It was suggested by a reviewer, and it is reasonable considering that Pakistan and India were once one country thus share a common history. JCAla (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that was a suggestion.. but History of Pakistan actually covers that common history already. For the general sense History of South Asia is the correct article (which needs much improvement but is still the correct one for this purpose). If there's a reason other than common history (since that is included in history of Pakistan article) I wont be opposing it. Not a big deal anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Not a big deal. JCAla (talk) 08:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Suggest applying for the FAC. This can be delayed if the "Kashmir dispute" section has to be merged. I'll also suggest to wait for all editors contributing to the overhaul to be active (or their confirmation) before we apply so that quick changes can be made if suggested. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll be stuck till RFC is over. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ page

In another conversation I suggested that an FAQ page be created at Talk:Pakistan/FAQ so that further interruptions can be reduced. September88 & Mar4d support this. This section is for suggestions on what all to put in that page. A previous suggestion from Mar4d includes the recurring failed proposals from archives. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Once Mar4d is done with merge of Kashmir, any further additions to the topic for now, as discussions here and in per review agrees that the info present is balanced.
  • Once all the lead issues are resolved, FAQ to avoid further edits/additions for now as all the sensitive data written there will have been thoroughly discussed in talk pages and peer review.
  • Other topics discussed to death like Terrorism [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

September88 (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAQS:
  • Q1:Can I add/remove an image? or Why was my image removed?

It may have been removed due to following: 1) To avoid clutter 2) To avoid image copy-right issues 3) To maintain balance in representing major areas of the country. Please discuss on talk page before addition or removal of images.

  • Q2:Can I add --- and --- details? or Why was my text removed?

There are many reasons for text removal: 1) It contained unnecessary detail about a subtopic. Pakistan's article is for summary of the subtopics, all details belongs to the relevant subtopic's article page. 2) Your edit maybe giving WP:NPV WP:Recentism etc issues. Discuss in talk page before adding details about sensitive or controversial topics. 3) Lack of proper citations.

  • Q4:Why no subsection for --- or ---?

Article is meant to be well covered but concise per xyz. If your given topic does not have a subsection, then chances are it does not have WP:due importance or consensuses has been to avoid creating a subsection for conciseness.

  • Q5:Pakistan is not located in Middle East, nor does its location is strategically important!

Logical location info and link archeives12345? OR/and consensuses has been to include Pakistan's location as its currently given in the article. Do not modify it, see talk 1234567 archives for further information.

  • Q6:The map of Pakistan is incorrect!

Proper explanation.

  • Q7:Terrorism/Kashmir/any other controversial topic should be mentioned more!

Detail on separate topics or just answer of Q#2?

Based on our discussion, this is a very rough draft of how I think FAQs can go. Modify it for improvements or edit for redundancy/add your own questions. September88 (talk) 17:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are good. We can write up answers/explanations to such questions and add them there. I'll wait for Mar4d's comment and then create the page. We can always update it for more (The RFC below is going into these too). --lTopGunl (talk) 21:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added some explanations, amend if required. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. September88 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two women abused every hour in Pakistan

Perhaps rates a mention as a cultural thing? [23] Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would firstly require a reliable source, secondly I doubt there's a specific connection to Pakistani culture (the rate doesn't seem exceedingly high, given Pakistan's population), and thirdly it seems too detailed for the country article anyway. We usually do not mention detailed crime statistics on such articles. Huon (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would the tribune do[24]? Or the BBC [25]? The PWHRO [26]? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tribune and the PWHRO both cite the same NGO estimate to that effect; I'm not sure that makes them reliable sources concerning the number of women assaulted (as opposed to sources about the NGO's claims). The BBC gives an entirely different statistic. While the Tribune provides some background about the legal situation, I still don't see how the issue is significant enough for this article. Women's rights in Pakistan seems a better place for information on domestic violence statistics and legislation. In the US, which has less than twice Pakistan's population, roughly 20 women are victims of rape or sexual abuse every hour (per rape in the United States). I suspect severe under-reporting for Pakistan's numbers, but a 2/hour rate seems rather good in comparison. Huon (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference of course being the Hudood Ordinance. America of course does not have a law which sends rape victims to prison. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Hudood Ordinance is history. It was amended by the passing of the Women's Protection Bill. Also, it would be quite foolish to call this a mainstream cultural thing; the sources in question primarily deal with customs in rural areas. Women abuse is not a phenomenon only restricted to Pakistan, and it would be delusional to think otherwise. You need to make a case why only the culture section on the Pakistan article should contain such information while other country articles don't. Mar4d (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two women raped every hour in India [27] Bridal burnings? Widow Burnings? all in India? maybe mention those while trying to desperately dig dirt upon Pakistan would equalise your pov pushing maybe? 109.150.57.203 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DS, I am unable to understand what do you mean by relating culture with the rate of abuse? Can you please elaborate! --SMS Talk 20:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its pretty simple sms hes trying to equate Pakistani culture with sexual abuse im surprised other users havent caught onto his antipakistani vendetta 109.150.57.203 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what would be next? Probably children abuse in Pakistan and that may be related to climate of Pakistan. --SMS Talk 21:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In particular, this is hardly the place to discuss rape in India. Bringing anti-Indian nationalism into the debate does not help, and mentioning Indian crime statistics in this article is inappropriate and would not serve to "equalize POV-pushing". (As an aside, per population India's rape numbers seem even lower than Pakistan's. If you try nationalistic POV-pushing, at the very least use numbers that support your cause.) Huon (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working hard searching for something to be added to the article... this is just inviting a conflict. I don't see how this article is the place for adding that content. Like SMS said, I'll like to see you start a third section with something new related to climate as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 22 January 2012

descipline=نظم not تنظيم


Hakku 313 (talk) 14:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The english word Discipline has two translations (or meaning) in urdu .i.e. Tanzeem and Nazam-o-zabt not just Nazm. --SMS Talk 15:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Request declined per above. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with lead section

struggle for independence

More specifically, the part quoted below:

"Pakistan gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, after a struggle for independence led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah that sought the partition of British India and the establishment of a new independent state for the Muslim majority populations of the eastern and western regions of India."

The "struggle for independence" should be linked to the Indian Independence Movement instead of Pakistan movement, since it was the Indian Independence Movement which resulted in the creation of the dominions of India and Pakistan. The Indian Independence Movement was led by numerous leaders along with Jinnah. Comments? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan was created as a result of the Pakistan Movement, so I think a wikilink to this article is more relevant in this context. Mar4d (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That this was Pakistan's "struggle for independence" would be a misrepresentation. The Indian Independence Movement (which precedes the Pakistan movement) resulted in the creation of the dominions of India and Pakistan. Do you dispute that? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indian independence movement did not result in creation of Pakistan.. it only resulted in the independence of British India. Pakistan movement was the reason for the partition which is clear from that article. I don't think there's even a dispute here on this. Pakistan celebrates its independence not only from the British but also for the partition (actually more on that). Pakistan movement accurately represents the cause. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the statement quoted above in context: "Pakistan gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, after a struggle for independence [...]". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my comment was inclusive of that context. Pakistan gained independence through Pakistan movement. Both movements were separated by two nation theory though both were seeking independence but Pakistan's struggle for independence (even from the British) was based on Pakistan movement. There would be no Pakistan if it was just for the Indian independence movement. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with TopGun. Pakistan gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, and the Pakistan Movement itself existed many years before that. The Two Nation theory and subsequent partition is what distinguishes Pakistan's independence from the British Raj compared to the independence of the Dominion of India. Mar4d (talk) 12:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) To characterize the efforts of Jinnah and other leaders for a separate country for Muslims as a "struggle for independence" is a misrepresentation. The actual struggle for independence was between what constituted British India and the British Empire, and later British India was divided in accordance with the agreements between the leaders of British India. I will appreciate more commentary from other users on this subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please re-read the second part of the sentence (.....after a struggle for independence led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah that sought the partition of British India) i.e. Pakistan's independence was a struggle that sought partition. Hope it sounds clearer now. Mar4d (talk) 13:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Actually that is inaccurate because the partition did not occur after the Independence rather along with it. That is actually what Pakistan movement demanded... that if British were to go, the partition was to happen along with it. Also, you are confusing Indian independence movement with British India. There was much more to the British India than that movement. Pakistan movement was a major part (and conflicting with Indian independence movement to some extent as far as the congress was concerned) of the British India's struggle for Independence. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Top Gun's thesis about "Pakistani independence movement", is taken as true, rewording is required as this sentence hijacks the entire struggle of independence from British colonialisation. The editors may like to claim that this movement is independent of India's struggle for independence from mid-nineteenth century, but the Encyclopedia Brittanica clearly indicates otherwise (alt link). The relevant quote being "Jinnah, therefore, was more open to a negotiated settlement, and, indeed, his first instinct was to preserve the unity of India, albeit with adequate safeguards for the Muslim community. For Jinnah, the Lahore (later Pakistan) Resolution of 1940, which called for an independent Muslim state or states in India, did not at first imply the breakup of the Indian union." AshLin (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is self explanatory. There would have been no Pakistan without Pakistan movement or Lahore resolution or a separate struggle for independence which focused on partition. There are already many sources present in the related articles for this lest you call it a thesis. You are synthesizing what you believe is true from the quotation you provided. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks AshLin. Even the title of the article is not "Pakistan independence movement" but Pakistan movement. Pakistan was not granted independence from India, it achieved independence from British rule, one day before India did. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The title does not imply the fact as it is a proper noun. Pakistan achieved independence from British rule as well as British India. This is evident from the partition. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be helpful to point out at this time that the article on Pakistan movement is full of unreferenced statements, deadlinks, along with some referenced text backed by sources of dubious credibility, and the rest without proper information in the citations, much of which is conveniently unverifiable. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS 2) The fact that the article is not in good condition doesn't mean that the movement is not the correct one to be linked here. This is being based on actual history rather than that article. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am beginning to suspect that you are using Wikipedia to advance your revisionist ideas of the history of the two countries. Pakistan's independence is as much as a part of the "Indian independence movement" as is India's. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicion is wrong. My disagreement with you does not become a proof of that either. I've given all reasons behind my objections. Better to stay on content. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to be clear on one thing. When we speak of the "Indian independence movement", we don't mean India India, but we mean British India. British India was British India, and it included present day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Until the Cabinet Mission in 1946, the movement was unified; there was no Indian movement or Pakistani movement. It was only during the negotiations of the Cabinet Mission that the partition matter came along. Before that, there was only the Indian independence movement. Again, don't get me wrong; I mean British India, not India India. Cheers, Lynch7 12:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any response from TopGun or Mar4d to Lynch's comment? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the subject being discussed in the sentence, "Pakistan gained independence" (not British India). Pakistan's independence was the partition (it wouldn't be independent as Pakistan otherwise). That effort was led by the mentioned leaders (to which there won't be any denial I guess). The "struggle for independence" here refers to that and not to how the movement for getting rid of the British started. The sentence is not incorrect per se as the "struggle for independence" points to Pakistan. How or when is another story. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is heavily POV. Do you have references to back up the assertion that "Pakistan's independence was the partition"? You will not find serious, academic mainstream sources saying that Pakistan gained independence from India, or that India gained independence from Pakistan as a result of the partition. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check my last comment again, it says Pakistan's independence (in itself), it does not state gaining independence from the united India as a main point - which is also true and provable by sources mentioned - but another debate. Union of India and Dominion of Pakistan did not gain independence from each other, they were a result of the partition (without which there would have been only one entity). The point here is Pakistan's independence was gained by Pakistan movement (Indian independence movement only referred to the getting rid of the British rule). Every source present will differentiate that Pakistan's independence was demanded by the Pakistan movement. Here are some "...brought strength to Pakistan Movement, enabling it to muster support for independence and opposition to Hindu domination..." [28] "...public sentiment about the colonial experience gave birth to the Pakistan Movement and the eventual independence of Pakistan." [29]. This seems very obvious to me. Do you know Pakistan Movement is also known as Pakistan Independence Movement? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto with the above. I urge Nearly Headless Nick to re-read the first sentence he posted for this thread ("The "struggle for independence" should be linked to the Indian Independence Movement instead of Pakistan movement, since it was the Indian Independence Movement which resulted in the creation of........Pakistan") There is a major chronological flaw inherent in this statement. TopGun's reply above may help identify that. Mar4d (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the chronology is like this: British Raj --> Indian independence movement --> Two Nation Theory adopted by the Muslim League for a homeland --> Indian Independence Act 1947 --> Dominion of Pakistan and Union of India. Please correct me if this is an inaccurate depiction. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*cough* Any response? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 10:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My response is above. Mar4d might not be keeping tabs on this... the talk page is too large, and will likely remain so till the overhaul is complete.. you might want to leave him talkbacks. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

islamic republic

Discussion moved from User talk:TopGun

Thanks for pointing this out. I think it makes more sense to link the words "Islamic republic" at the second instance, because it appears more cleaner. A good example would be the article on the Islamic Republic of Iran. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the bold title seems cleaner that way but if I was unaware of the term, I'd want to find out the details from the first occurrence. I don't have objections if the link is moved my point was only overlinking, but still can you propose that on the article talk? I think other editors currently giving it a over haul might have something to say too. Although I don't see any other reason to oppose the move of the wikilink to the second occurrence. Just that it might be questioned at FAC. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably very easily defensible to not link just one part of a full title, because the title should be taken as a whole. It does also look cleaner. CMD (talk) 13:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess the link should be moved to the second occurrence then? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it looks better that way. September88 (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

declared nuclear weapons state

"declared" is once again a word that should be avoided, as "self-declared" would be more accurate. The best way to go about it is to simply remove the word and say "[...] and is a nuclear weapons state". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually that will still be ambiguous. Also, declaration is made by self generally. The same is with India. India and Pakistan's nuclear status is differentiated from the suspected ones by this way. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not all declarations are self-declarations. What I have suggested holds true for the lead sections on India and North Korea. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that needs to be clarified here is that Pakistan has actually tested nuclear weapons... that amounts to declaration I guess. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:42, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be against Wikipedia's policy on original research. I think we can find reliable sources asserting that the Government of Pakistan has "declared" possession of nuclear weapons, and such a fact can be included later in the article. But for the lead, it is sufficient to say it is a nuclear power. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is original research to state the declaration as that has many many sources to count for. If you are talking about WP:WEIGHT that is just one clarifying word. Another suggestion will do though. replace declared with some other 1-2 word adjective which removes the ambiguity? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Using "Pakistan has actually tested nuclear weapons... that amounts to declaration I guess" as a justification for including "declared" amounts to original research. We can either keep on arguing about this, or we can conclude that the most neutral and succinct way of presenting a fact is to just say it without adding a weasel word as a prefix. My previous statement was that "self-declared" is more accurate than "declared", and that the best way to go about it is to just state that Pakistan is a nuclear power. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 15:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have no suggestions, I think we should wait for more input before moving forward. I'm fine with removing declared... but without any clarification it will seem dubious... also the tests have weight enough to be put in the first mention. There actually are citations present that Pakistan declared itself a nuclear state by testing the weapons. But then again, I'll not go into that debate when this one is not a big deal. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the basis of language is invalid. The terminology comes from non-proliferation literature where "nuclear weapon states" refers to the five states which are declared as "nuclear weapon states" in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. These five are the permanent members of the UN Security council nd enjoy veto powers. They are USA, Russia, China, UK, France. Four other states having nuclear capability or having been considered by the world community to have nuclear capability, but which are not signatories to the NNPT - India,Pakistan, North Korea & Israel - are considered as "declared nuclear weapon states" and that is the connotation of the term - non-signatory, non-permanent member of Security Council of UNO which has a tested nuclear weapons or is considered by the world to possess nuclear weapons. AshLin (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were emphasizing the same.... the fact that a certain country has actually tested the nuclear weapons should be differentiated from those simply suspected to have them. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation may be to the same effect, but it is as invalid as Nick's as the term arises from the NNPT as already explained and not from the language. AshLin (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

partition of British India

"[...] led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah that sought the partition of British India and the establishment of a new independent state for the Muslim majority populations of the eastern and western regions of India"

I propose that this should be changed to "[...] that sought the partition of India and the establishment of a new independent state [...]" for accuracy. British India ceased to exist after the passing of the Indian Independence Act, and the conditions for the division of the country were laid down in this statute as well. Therefore it's "Partition of India" and not "partition of British India". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are confusing the title, British India was largely known as simply India. British India seized to exist on 14-15th August if I'm not mistaken... it was chosen for the official dates by the viceroy to match the date of an old military victory of his. In short, both the statements mentioned by you should mean the same thing (current one being less ambiguous). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you understood what I stated above. British India ceased to exist after the Indian Independence Act came into force. This statute laid down the process for the division of the country into two parts, until that time, the country was only known as India and not British India. Hence, the title "Partition of India". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My reading is that independence was hand in hand with partition, and so the clarification about British India is perfectly accurate as well as being clearer to readers. I haven't read any source that noted British India as being independent as a single unit. CMD (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. Also note that the British crown remained the head of states for Dominion of Pakistan and Union of India till they became republics. This implies opposite of what User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington states. But remaining focused on the issue at hand, both sentences would mean the same one being clearer. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, this makes sense. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan has been characterized as "failed state" from last 4 years

Pakistan has been characterized as a failed state and has ranked number 12 on a list of the “Most Failed States”, according to an 2011 annual report published in the Foreign Policy Magazine. In both 2009 and 2010, Pakistan took the number 10 spot on this index, whereas in 2008 it was ranked number nine. references: 1) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/17/2011_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings 2) http://tribune.com.pk/story/193321/pakistan-ranks-12th-on-failed-states-index-report/

if anyone is still having some doubts, feel free to discuss here.

--Morsecoder (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't think this can be added here, adding a report by an American magazine about failed states is some thing completely undue to be mentioned in a country article. I don't think such reports are even being mentioned in war affected countries. It would still need proper discussion before adding it to an article about such a discussion about Pakistan. Please do not edit war to add this to the article, you are on the brink of WP:3RR. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this finds a place here; it would have been a different case if an overwhelmingly large number of sources mentioned this, but a single report..I don't think so. Lynch7 13:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lets see shall we, [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37] Seems to have been mentioned a great deal worldwide. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of them related to the same report. Mention in the lead? Definitely not. Somewhere else? Has a better chance IMO. Lynch7 13:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was not of the opinion it belongs in the lede. Bit it certainly warrants a mention in the article. In fact a news search for "Pakistan"+ "failed state" gets you 3,970 hits. And 2,660 on books. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is even an entire book from Yale University Press on it The search for peace in Afghanistan: from buffer state to failed state Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To back MikeLynch's point, "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the AP. Each single story must only count as being one source." from WP:NEWSORG. As far as the book is concerned, it is not the majority view either. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the reported news stories are not simply re-publications, but independent analyses and reports. I think this may warrant a mention in the article, but that should be done while clearly specifying the "Foreign Policy" report and also the fact that this report has been disputed or critiqued (with sources). The weight of this assertion has to be carefully considered and should not be more than one sentence, in my opinion. (See also: List of countries by Failed States Index) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That should be a good compromise. Lynch7 13:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, probably best placed in the Modern era section. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we go. It already has been mentioned where it belonged. To mention here we don't only have to see that List of countries by Failed States Index is a dedicated article for this purpose and as such comes lower in hierarchy of coverage if we consider that (so the content already has due coverage) but also that is this index being mentioned in all the country articles? (esp. the top 20 or so?) Don't think so. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somalia actually has it in the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That will be something like a reiteration of 3 previous sections started by you. Comparing with Somalia? Do you see there's a marked difference? I remember this point being raised by you and rebutted before by another editor. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. The list is a main article documenting research by two different organizations (Foreign Policy and the other is the reputable Fund for Peace). At the same time, pertinent content can also be included in the article on the subject of their works (which is Pakistan, in this case), while keeping WP:WEIGHT issues in consideration. Other countries may or may not receive attention due to these works because they don't figure in the extremes of their report. So, due consideration to WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS is required at all times. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mere observation The person who inserted this piece of information into the lead also seems to have edited many India-related articles. Considering the fact that this is not the first time a "failed states" mentioning proposal has been put forward on this talk page, and also considering the fact that whenever these proposals do come around, they always tend to have a connection to this particular part of the world, I hear a rather loud deafening voice in my ears screaming out "conflict of interest!" :) Mar4d (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Conflict of interest? :) I wouldn't be so quick to judge. An Indian editing Pakistani articles (who also edits Indian articles) should not be immediately deemed to have a COI. Let's be a bit rational here and keep this on topic. Lynch7 14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We might have to set up an FAQ subpage under this talk soon for recurring rejected proposals. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note and more on-topic, I think the failed states list is more relevant to perhaps Foreign relations of Pakistan article. Mar4d (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see four people saying this warrants a line in the article, why are you calling it a failed propsal? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something like WP:NOTVOTE? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something which has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources warrants a line in the article, as it is WP:NOTABLE. apart from the fact you do not like it what rational do you have against it;s inclusion? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've given my reasons above. Let's stay away from assuming rationale of others. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this line is included, it should be brief, accompanied by any critique of the report; that way, it will be neutral. Lynch7 14:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think every one agrees with that (incase it is included), but the dispute seems to be about inclusion in the first place. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listing out previous discussions on the subject for context:

— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 14:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the above archives show, this topic is clearly controversial and has been discussed passionately at length by many other editors (both supporting and opposing). It is also noteworthy to point out that no overwhelming consensus was achieved at the end of any of these threads despite the lengthy discussions that took place. An obvious point of contention is that if it is WP:DUE to make a mention of the 'failed state' index in this article at all. I am inclined to believe that two or three editors do not make a consensus (if that's what is happening here) and that taking a look at the old archives, many other people would still have diverse opinions and views of this subject. I would recommend calling in an RfC for this topic to get more input from different people and perhaps notify other editors who edit articles pertaining to Pakistan (or have expertise/are knowledgeable in this area) and listen in to what they may have to say about including this information in the article. This is required to form a consensus. Mar4d (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. I am starting an RfC here. Lynch7 14:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion on whether mentioning of Pakistan as a "failed state" is undue. Past discussions show one prominent report that describes it as such. Prior discussions have been inconclusive, and the issue is up for discussion again. Lynch7 15:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Index: Failed States Index 2011 - Foreign Policy
Links to coverage: [38], [39][40], [41], [42], [43], [44][45]
Why are there sources presented that don't even have the word "Pakistan" in it, I.e. aljazeera.com, www.isn.ethz.ch and the two German one's? And why the "Failed States Index 2011" article when it doesn't mention Pakistan either?TMCk (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some editors were of the opinion that the failed states index were not notable, the links were given to show it was widely cited Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, My response here for not cluttering up the heading.TMCk (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Support

  1. Support Per my sources in the section above. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support mentioning it in the "modern era" section. Not important enough to be mentioned in the lead. A single sentence should suffice. Huon (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Whether it merits mention in the lede is disputable. However, it is an issue which clearly needs mention in the article, as does its perception as a terrorist state and global attitudes towards Pakistan. There is a great need for a section on foreign relations of Pakistan since Indepence, keeping in mind its affiliation with SEATO, CENTO, Islamic nations, China, War on Terror etc. The perceptions can come in this section too. AshLin (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Conditional support First of all, this definitely does not belong anywhere close to the lead. Public perception of a failed state is Somalia, and as noted in this conversation that is an extreme to which Pakistan, and in fact no other nation, is quite comparable to. That would be highly undue. I would also think it incorrect to state somewhere "Pakistan is a failed state", or something similar. A blatant statement of fact is probably incorrect, as even the index describes each case. What I would support is somewhere in the article "This factor is like so and this factor is like so, and due to this Pakistan has been noted by Foreign Policy journal to almost be a failed state." I don't think its position in a list should be given, as that depends as much on other countries as it does on Pakistan, and at least for the past four years Pakistan has not slipped downwards. Note that Pakistan is not at a Somalia level. CMD (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support It should be included in the article. Eventhough some of the natives of that country are arguing for non inclusion but due to dozens of references and support, this fact cannot be neglected under any conditions and is worth mentioning in the intro of the article. --Morsecoder (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support kinda Undue in the lede. Necessary in the body. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support It's our duty to include truth in the article whether it's sweet or bitter. --Lforlinux (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Lforlinux (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  8. Support After reading the above discussion, i have decided to participate in poll and vote as support because after doing some research on internet about foreign policy magazine, i found their ratings pretty genune. --Madridbulls (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC) — Madridbulls (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: "Sherepunjab" and "Gabrupunjabi" are the same person. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sherepunjab. Mar4d (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose Per my comments in the section below. Having looked at past discussions in the archives, I think this is a complex matter and as such is not WP:DUE for this article. It may be worth having WP:WEIGHT on the Foreign relations of Pakistan article. There are too many reasons that can be debated upon why this is not appropriate, though I believe two particular arguments are that this has too much of WP:RECENTISM (just back in 2005, this same list was ranking Pakistan at 34th position. It is therefore accurate to say that the latest rankings are taking into account events only in the recent five or six years). And secondly, there is ample WP:RS coverage which is critical of this index's assessment of Pakistan (for various reasons), suggesting in many cases how Pakistan being featured on this list is something to be taken with a pinch of salt. I would be willing to put up some of those sources and works over here (which are a mix of both Pakistani and foreign authors), whenever I get the opportunity to buy time. Mar4d (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose: This already has due coverage in the dedicated article, List of countries by Failed States Index. As such this is not relevant to this article per WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. Other country articles (top 20 on the list or so?) also do not include mention of this index or any such thing. An example given of Somalia by a user is self explanatory about how extreme the case has to be for this to be mentioned. This is highly controversial while not as much notable to get enough weight in the main country article. Also, republications of the same report should not count as 'more' references which would be against WP:NEWSORG. Edit war and aggressive behaviour by the adding user also raises a red flag (not to mention it proves it only invites more editwar). This should go into a sub article, may be to the foreign relations article for Pakistan (to make it topical of which countries do such reports come from). This [46] reference mentioned by the adding User:Morsecoder itself states this in context to foreign relations (especially with USA) and we should not apply any WP:SYNTH here to strip the context. Coming to the analytical side, details of why Pakistan is claimed to be a failed state (or even suggested to be one) are not provided by the user adding content (or any other supporting users) and then we'll be having grounds for adding the index and the report's analysis to all the other country articles? --lTopGunl (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Very contentious label. The salient criteria to Pakistan may be mentioned in the lead, but not the term itself. In fact, the lead already says: "Since gaining independence, Pakistan's history has been characterised by periods of military rule, political instability and conflicts with neighbouring India. The country continues to face challenging problems including terrorism, poverty, illiteracy and corruption." So, I don't see what would be added by the addition of the "failed state" pejorative. Shrigley (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose The usual criteria points for calling a country a failed state are already well written in the article. If some points related to this criteria are not present they can be added but calling a country failed state will be undue. And I would like to quote some text from Fund for Peace's report on Pakistan (2011)[47] based on this Index (this index was also created by FFP) to show how much research they did for calling Pakistan 12th most failed state:
    Former President Musharraf declared rule by martial law in 2007, and this is yet to be rescinded by current President Zardari., Fund for Peace, Country Profile Pakistan
    Pakistan is transitioning back to democracy after nearly twenty years of military and authoritarian rule by former President Musharraf., Fund for Peace,Country Profile Pakistan
    --SMS Talk 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose I think a link to this report could have been provided in the RFC question, however assuming it's a single report, even if produced by a reliable source, doesn't make the mention notable enough to mention in the country article, IMO. I might change my opinion if I saw the report. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Edit: Having now seen the report and coverage, I think that the challenges that were the reason Pakistan wound up number 12 on that list should be discussed in the article, but I'm not sure the term "failed state" needs to be used explicitly. The list doesn't seem to mention, how low the rank needs to be in order for the state to be "failed" so rather than labeling Pakistan "failed", it looks like what the list does is highlight problems Pakistan is experiencing. --Dailycare (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  6. oppose controversial, contentious and undue.-- altetendekrabbe  21:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose The term is too loaded to apply to a country for which it's not clearly true, and it's obvious from this discussion that it's controversial and not consensus. The criteria which the sources used to call it "failed" seem vague and arbitrary. --Sam (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE and WP:RECENTISM. To expand a little, lead already signifies the problems that country is facing overall, illiteracy, poverty, terrorism etc, which have been expanded in the body as well, so now on basis of balance adding such a controversial term which is clearly making way for npv issues and has no clear consensus is unnecessary. September88 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I am responding to a request for comment and have not previously edited this article. It seems to me that the term failed state is both a new term and also a political comment. I do not think that political comment should appear on the pape for a country,i.e. Pakistan. I have come across the blog of William Easterly, Professor of Economics at New York University where discusses the failed state concept. http://aidwatchers.com/2010/01/top-5-reasons-why-%E2%80%9Cfailed-state%E2%80%9D-is-a-failed-concept/ Rather than deciding whether to use the term it might be useful to describe the more relevant factors such as infant mortality over time, inflation over time, GDP over time and whether there is cicvil war. Isthisuseful (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Belongs in an article on the politics of Pakistan, not on the country article. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per WP:SNOW. Given the active editors committed to pro-Pakistan position (I don't judge on its grounds, just declare the fact) this is not going to happen; thus I see no sense in arguing over neutrality of the statement. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose per Pseudofusulina and others above. To avoid overweighting the recent, this belongs in a subsidiary article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extended discussion

Response to Mar4d: Recent-ism will not really work here. Discussion of Pakistan as a failed or failing state has been ongoing for years. Barnett Rubin (1995) The Search for Peace in Afghanistan: From Buffer State to Failed State Yale University Press ISBN 978-0300063769 Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book you mention above (The Search for Peace in Afghanistan: From Buffer State to Failed State) seems to be about Afghanistan, which being called a failed state in 1995 wouldn't be a stretch in my opinion. The index listing of Pakistan is relatively recentism. Mar4d (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had that one open as well. I ought to have put Stuart Elden(2009) Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty University of Minnesota Press ISBN 978-0816654840 The point of course being that it has been discussed for quite some time, and as such really needs a line in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Sigh) A book published in 2009 is not "quite some time" ago. This really has WP:RECENTISM written all over it in big capital letters, from top to bottom. Mar4d (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So for at least three years people have been discussing Pakistan as a failed state and you say this is recent? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TopGun: Tg says Also, republications of the same report should not count as 'more' references which would be against WP:NEWSORG. It has already been pointed out to him by NHN To be fair, the reported news stories are not simply re-publications, but independent analyses and reports. So this rational is flawed. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did not say which references my comment referred to, so your response is loosely aimed. It only points to the ones which are or would be republications. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TopGun: This has coverage in Failed State but in one of the most disputed of failed state candidates, it is pertinent to have a brief mention, with proper referencing, neutrally worded etc. AshLin (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It already has been as mentioned in terms of actual issues by Shrigley. Which is an excellent point, since those are the point of focus for a country. This index and such reports do not belong here. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Shrigley: Agreed to its not appearing in the lede, but why should the term not come up in the main text, properly referenced, weighted correctly in neutral language? AshLin (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes up in the context of international perceptions of Pakistan, as you suggested, then it's fine. But Wikipedia itself should not judge Pakistan to be a "failed state". Shrigley (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Pakistan is not a failed state (at least not yet) but the term recurs in relation to Pakistan in academic literature and a brief, NOPV, reliably referenced mention would be suitably encyclopedic. AshLin (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"International perceptions of Pakistan" would then mean foreign relations... hence that article would be the place to add it terming it as perceptions of so and so. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By your own logic, anything presented in the international media or foreign press about the state of Pakistan would qualify for the article on its foreign relations and not Pakistan? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my oppose comment, we should not strip the context out of it. The reference is talking all about its relations and how, for example US, perceives Pakistan's condition. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two general comments on the proper location of this information: Firstly, I don't see why the foreign relations article should be considered a good location for such information. Pakistan is not considered a failed state because its foreign relations are so bad, but because of its domestic problems. Secondly, while it should of course be mentioned in the list of countries by Failed States Index, that does not preclude mention in this article. Otherwise, it would be rather well-hidden. On the other hand, TopGun's argument from precedent is somewhat persuasive; for all I can tell, only Somalia and Chad, nos. 1 and 2 by Failed State Index, mention it in the articles. Huon (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, Huon. It's true that Chad and Somalia are the only two countries on which this term features, but at the same time, the question is not why it only appears on Chad and Somalia articles, but whether Pakistan was a subject of significant coverage by independent and reliable sources that would qualify such claims to appear on the Pakistan article? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 16:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the point about the foreign relations was not because of the foreign relations being bad but about how other countries perceive Pakistan's condition on the issues it is facing. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing the old discussions you listed, a point raised there is worth a re-mention that this will also make grounds for things like state terrorism accusations in other country articles, especially the contentious event related ones like USA. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There again, it will be an issue of WP:WEIGHT. I am still sitting on the fence for this one, and will make a decision based on the representations made here in sometime. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely the point I wanted to make about WP:WEIGHT. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Morsecoder: Your claimed 'dozens' of references are not what are being rejected here. You seem to be making it a simple question of whether you provided reliable sources or not. Your sources do not constitute a majority view, or even a minority view due enough to be added to the country article. For the prejudice you made in your comment, Mar4d has put forward an equally suitable one for you in the main section referring to COI. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to TopGun:Please select your words carefully, it's not a prejudice, it's a well known and well published fact. And by dozens of references , i was refering to the references given by the supporters of this fact. For your reference, i am giving the links again.But next time i expect some decency and politeness from your side. [48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64]--Morsecoder (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read my comment again and then read WP:BATTLE. The prejudice I referred to was the one you took against opposing users. Don't think you get my point here. Adding more and more references isn't the problem. It is who these views are coming from. Certainly not a majority view. And I think you can hardly prove it to be a minority view enough for a mention. We have millions of sources that accuse USA of terrorism on different accounts, do they get to go in to the country article? See WP:COATRACK. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SMS: Thanks for point out the instances. Those are factual inaccuracies in the report. But the current discussion is whether the coverage of the publication Foreign Policy (magazine) report qualifies for a mention on this article. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but what I get is that this Failed State Index is prepared by The Fund for Peace in collaboration with Foreign Policy. --SMS Talk 19:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that the agreement only extends up to publication of the index, and not the reports (see 2011 report on Pakistan). Also, this report does not seem to be a part of the same project (The Failed States Index 2011). A claim, if inserted in to the article, should not mention Pakistan as a "failed state", but instead say something in this respect: In the Failed States Index 2011 published by the Foreign Policy magazine in collaboration with Fund for Peace, Pakistan was ranked <#RANK> out of <NOS>. This is simply a suggestion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And which section do you suggest this text should go to? If it is added I think there is also a need to have background of this index, like (addition to your suggestion) ..... based on these indicators .... Also if anyone has missed reading the Indicators for this index, content related to most of the indicators is already present in the article. And I hope everyone here knows that this index is generated by a software which is fed news items related to that country. --SMS Talk 20:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a separate issue. Can you please amend your opinion above to reflect that this report is not a part of "The Failed States Index 2011" published by FP? This is so that new users participating in the discussion are not misled. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This Index is prepared by The Fund for Peace and the article by Foreign Policy based on the index was written by both in collaboration.[65]. The report on Pakistan is written by FFP and is based entirely on the index. I have corrected my opinion above per my understanding of this issue. --SMS Talk 21:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant link for the Failed State Index is 2011 Failed State Index grid. The discussion has veered away from the topic under focus. There are several reliable sources which classify Pakistan as a Failed State Pakistan and just as many disagreeing. Many of these give scholarly analysis of their viewpoints and include RS in the form of websites, books & academic papers. It is also clear that there is scope for Pakistan to be considered amongst the category of FS and that there is good sources to justify stating it has not reached that state f affairs. Are editors who oppose denying this?
  • Editors are trying to take apart the reliability of a web company based on some factually incorrect data on their web site. Do they want a listing of reliable sources for this issue?
  • I hd suggested that this is correct for body but not lede. Are the opposing editors desiring the complete non-mention of this issue?
  • I had earlier mentioned that the issue be discussed under foreign relations - a completely new section required to be created for this article. That is where it should come. AshLin (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The foreign relations are covered appropriately in the article blended carefully over last two months during and after the peer review. Suggesting to create a separate section and then re-organizing all that content will be counter productive to those efforts and against that consensus. If you are in support of mentioning this, you can still keep your points up by adding it without altering any other content. But then again, this is undue to be added in this article. Don't think any one has yet outright rejected a source as 'unreliable' per se, reliable sources actually can be unreliable for certain things. For example, the index might be published by RS but the instability, the methods it is calculated by (a comment above says through a software?), lack of technical details, contentious contradiction by other sources etc can even account to the complete unreliability for this matter. Editors who are asking for this to be added to the lede (esp the initiator) are completely off the track on this issue or understanding of WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My review of this issue is strictly based on the statement of this RFC, if anyone wants to present some other source for calling Pakistan a "failed state", please first amend this RFC. I doubt the reliability of FFP's index (related to Pakistan only) based on the method they employ to find the index and on their report about Pakistan (that basically explains Pakistan's standing on the index). And as Mar4d stated, is 12th position that much important to be mentioned? Rather what I feel more important is describing the indicators which I see already well mentioned in the article. --SMS Talk 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dailycare: Thanks for the addendum. I think that has been the issue since the framing of the RfC. The question is not the determination of whether Pakistan is a failed state (that should never have been the issue), but whether the Foreign Policy and Fund for Peace Index (both of them have only published the index together) has received enough coverage from independent and reliable sources to warrant an inclusion of the fact that the Foreign Policy magazine has ranked Pakistan No. 12 on its index of failed states 2011 (or since <YEAR>). — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 21:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As looking at the index throughout the years will tell, Pakistan was not in the top 12 failed states list in 2005. In fact, it was ranked all the way down at 34th. Then in 2006, it jumped up 25 places into ninth position. The 2007 listing shows it at number 12 while from 2008 to 2010, it moved between number 9 and number 10. The most recent listing (2011) listing shows that it dropped from number 10 to number 12. As these figures reveal, this list is unstable and fluctuates year by year and this is true especially for Pakistan's inclusion. So coming to the question, should the numbers for Pakistan be taken at face value? Can this list be mentioned in the article keeping in mind that the figures will not necessarily be the same each year? What doesn't stop the possibility that in 2012, Pakistan may drop down even further from number 12? Realistically, Pakistan can not go up any further, since the only states above are countries like Iraq and Afghanistan or certain countries in Africa. To those supporting inclusion, how crucial and important is this list to deserve a mention in the article? What makes "number 12" special? Is it WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT-worthy for getting a mention? And lastly, to reiterate my main argument: considering that Pakistan was ranked 34th in 2005 (just a few years ago), doesn't this have WP:RECENTISM written all over it? Mar4d (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please dont misquote Wikipedia Policy. BTW WP:RECENTISM is an essay not an accepted guideline. Even if we accept its validity, WP:RECENTISM is for articles created as a result of sudden news interest and dominated by a single temporal POV. Obviously, article Pakistan does not suffer from such a point of view. Denying the inclusion of a relevant fact by claiming WP:RECENTISM is a Red herring on your part. See Ten Year test. The facts when neutrally stated and properly referenced pass the ten-year test keeping in mind that Pakistan has been considered as a Failed State from 2005 onward. AshLin (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't agree to recentism because it is an essay, here's a policy for you: WP:NOTNEWS. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, which says Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Top Gun, your pointing to this policy indicates your lack of understanding of it. This issue of Pakistan buing debated as a failed state with its antagonists and protagonists has refs ranging from web cites, books, scholarly articles and news. These are RS & over a period of time. How does it give you the impression that WP:NOT NEWS is relevant here? AshLin (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand the policy. Haven't you read the arguments above by Mar4d about how unstable the index is? --lTopGunl (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to AshLin: This RFC is not about a new section in the article which will need everything carefully weighed and placed to be re-adjusted into the section (which is a counter productive effort). See the peer review and the overhaul section above. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I voted Reject and I am not from or have ever visited Pakistan, so I would appreciate if those voting Support do not insinuate that all opposing viewpoints are some unreasonable local patriotism. Personally, I do not see how adding such a mention increases the reader's understanding of the nation of Pakistan. It would be inflammatory and unhelpful, and is a non-consensus opinion which is, IMHO, unencyclopedic. --Sam (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from the support section: Support The issue is well referenced, relevant and deserves brief but accurate mention. A new section entitled "Foreign relations" needs to be created here. AshLin (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted (see vote number 3). Mar4d (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sherepunjab: Every one is adding a reason sardarjee, dont just say it is worth it. --Repitile1 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close: its time this gets a closure, clearly no consensus for adding the phrase anywhere in the article. I've requested one at AN/RFC but that seems backlogged. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ The United States and the great powers: world politics in the twenty-first century
  2. ^ a b Solomon S (1997) South African Foreign Policy and Middle Power Leadership, ISS
  3. ^ a b Siddiqui ZH, Qureshi IH (October 13, 2005). "Nuclear power in Pakistan" (PDF). The Nucleus. 42 (1–2). Nilore, Islamabad: The Nucleus PINSTECH publication: 63–66. ISSN 0029-5698. Retrieved 2011. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. ^ Kapila, Dr. Subhash (22. 03. 2004). "United States Designates Pakistan as Major non-NATO ally of American in South Asia: An Analysis". South Asia Analysis Group. Retrieved 8 July 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  5. ^ Aneja, Urvashi (June 2006). "PAKISTAN-CHINA RELATIONS" (PDF). IPCS.
  6. ^ "Senate OIC Report". Senate of Pakistan: Senate Foreign Relations Committee. September 2005. p. 17. Retrieved 8 July 2010.
  7. ^ "United Nations Member States". http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml: United Nations. 3 July 2006. Retrieved 8 July 2010. {{cite web}}: External link in |location= (help)
  8. ^ "Pakistan". Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 8 July 2010.
  9. ^ The United States and the great powers: world politics in the twenty-first century
  10. ^ Kapila, Dr. Subhash (22. 03. 2004). "United States Designates Pakistan as Major non-NATO ally of American in South Asia: An Analysis". South Asia Analysis Group. Retrieved 8 July 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  11. ^ Aneja, Urvashi (June 2006). "PAKISTAN-CHINA RELATIONS" (PDF). IPCS.
  12. ^ "Senate OIC Report". Senate of Pakistan: Senate Foreign Relations Committee. September 2005. p. 17. Retrieved 8 July 2010.
  13. ^ "United Nations Member States". http://www.un.org/en/members/index.shtml: United Nations. 3 July 2006. Retrieved 8 July 2010. {{cite web}}: External link in |location= (help)
  14. ^ "Pakistan". Commonwealth Secretariat. Retrieved 8 July 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan&oldid=478947496"