Talk:Pakistan

Edit request on 23 November 2012

birthplace of famous stoner 94.174.219.192 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: - no details for any edit. Begoon ^talk 01:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Troop contributions

‎Secret of success changed the article to say that Pakistan sends the second-largest troop contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. This is incorrect. Pakistan's 8,541 troops are indeed more than sent by any other country. Bangladesh's total contribution is greater because they send more policemen, not more troops. See also Talk:Pakistan/Archive 16#UN Force Contribution. Thus I've reverted his edit. Huon (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My deep apologies for the misunderstanding. I should probably gone through the archives after the first revert. Just a doubt, why are only the no. of troops mentioned and the total number of all military personnel ignored? Secret of success · talk 14:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the policemen are military personnel, and while I have no idea whether the "UN Military Experts on Mission" are, they don't change the ranking anyway. Thus the troop number seems most relevant to the article's "military" section. Huon (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir

I think to understand this dispute, we will need to go back to the early history of 1947. Just to have an idea I am pasting a portion of article from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir. "Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten[30] for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.36.164.228 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be aimed at improving the article. Do you propose any specific changes? Huon (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

To explain the modern situation. The entire region has a population of 12 million and increasing. The area has been hardest for the indian army as the violence escalates on a daily basis. for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g2JjuuQu3g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTb3cOBEIBo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJn7zRLwx-o In the past India had accused Pakistan of "kashmiri infiltrators" when such incidents take place. Power of 200 Million (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For the last time, please read WP:Reliable sources. Had you actually read that you'd already know that grainy youtube videos do not come close to satisfying the criteria. Articles from well-recognized news outlets do meet WP:RS. Secondly, this article is not the venue for additional info regarding the conflict. It is a serious and complicated conflict, with anger, frustration, and accusations on both sides. That complex topic is detailed primarily in Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts and India–Pakistan relations, along with numerous other topics linked from those articles. For the last time, Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for folks to air their grievances; they are intended to discuss specific improvements to articles. Talk:Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts/Archive_1#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 This is an example of editors tackling a difficult topic and working toward a consensus. Until you take a few minutes and read the links I am providing to you, you're going to continue wasting your time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually i was merely replying to the person as he wanted to discuss and get a better idea of the Kashmir situation. As a gerneral reply under the Pakistan discussion page. To answer your comments I am not sure about "complicated conflict, frustration, accusations" as Pakistan seems to be calmly firing back without any problems and the indians are firing from their positions without stepping forward. I doubt india is naieve enough to pick a fight with 200 Million people. Especially considering Pakistan easily outnumbers all of indias north western states bordering Pakistan and has enough ammunition for 3 years of protracted war. Although the rhetoric and acccusations against Pakistan have been common for decades in the indian government see referece eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001-2002_India-Pakistan_standoff.

I would however like to clarify about wikipedia use of videos from news sources such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OuaNTU3KKU or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz6BCPkHGvY&list=UU5UYXj452MIT9UhKshDmjmA&index=1. I think this would be distinct to videos such as these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNSe3A6QPX4 which i don't think meet the standards. Power of 200 Million (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Current topic on mutilation of indian soldiers being removed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A current topic has been removed by a user and clarification is needed on this. Power of 200 Million (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I already told you on your talk page that (1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox and (2) any information added to the page must be backed by a reliable source, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing in it of a soapbox nature i was merely stating the facts. Pakistan government summoned the indian envoy for an unprovoked firing on a outpost on sunday which resulted in the death of one Pakistani soldier. The indian government has summoned the Pakistani envoy for an attack which resulted in the death of 2 indian soldiers. The Pakistan army has stated that if any soldier was killed due to unprovoked firing it would retaliate immediately or at any instance in the future.

Pakistan media has stated that the mutilations of the 2 dead indian soldiers were carried out by indian army to use as propoganda against Pakistan. Read the topic again before blanking it out completely, this is a discussion page not the article page. Power of 200 Million (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Even assuming that there are reliable sources for this, and even assuming that this has become a big deal, I don't see where this fits into a summary article on Pakistan. --regentspark (comment) 19:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not mention anything about a summary article, I did however say that it could be mentioned in the page. My issue is why was my topic removed from the discussion page. And to answer your comment, No its not become a big deal. Pakistan rarely concerns itself with india, majority of Pakistanis do not care much for india and consider it third world and poverty stricken. Power of 200 Million (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. We're not going to add some random accusation to an article regarding a topic you have a beef with. Please read WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS and stop wasting everyone's time with your frivolous requests. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.