Talk:Lahore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Lahore was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 28, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
February 18, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Improvements made[edit]

Add virtual university of pakistan(vu)govt. of pakistan) in universities of lahore.

I've added/replaced some pictures, to help show a better face of Lahore. Some remaining pictures may also need to be changed or added with better ones (such as for the Horse and Cattle Show, airport, parks, stadia and cultural events). Let's try to get the best one's available before inserting them at random. I've also rearranged their alignment to improve the format, as per earlier comment. In the text, I've modified the list of famous roads to make it more complete and informative for a first-time user (otherwise, just street names are useless), and edited the para on the restaurants and food street.

Hope this improves the page. If I've missed out on any copyright info on the images, please provide it so that they are not automatically deleted.

Thanks,

PakBoy

History section

I fixed up the history portion a little. Removed the rudyard kipling reference under history- it was pretty much picked up off the main kipling article and was irrelevant to the history of the city.. if at all it should be mentioned under culture (or the famous lahoris section but that's been removed) but I couldn't really see where it fits in. Also added dates for sikh rule (1799-1849). added cricket world cup in 1996. If anyone has any other ideas for historical events please do add. and someone please fix the Nightlife subheading.. its rather funny but not appropriate.

-R

Semi-protected edit request on 13 September 2016[edit]


Simple grammar error in third opening para: "Lahore is also home to Pakistan's film industry, Lollywood, and is a major centre of Qawwali music" (bolded text indicative of proposed changes)

Risenz (talk) 01:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! DMacks (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Lahore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

July edits[edit]

I think you should see User_talk:Willard84 for explanation. Sources are clear about Mughal Empire, being succeeded by Durrani and Maratha, and the article should reflect it. Willard84 sure violated 3RR for removing that material, but did he had consensus for removing longstanding content? Answer is no. Capitals00 (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@Capitals00: Thank you for your response. It seems to me that the article does already (in the section currently headed 'Post-Mughal) reflect your point that the Mughals were succeeded by the Durrani and Maratha.I feel that it would be more consistent and explanatory for that section heading to be changed from Post-Mughal to, say, Durrani and Maratha. Would that answer your point, or have I missed something? Apuldram (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed, such change will be enough. Capitals00 (talk) 15:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
@@Apuldram: Post Mughal is the most useful descriptive term as it encompasses the struggles of both regimes - there is no reason to list it as "Durrani-Maratha" (you'd actually have to list it as Durrani-Maratha-Durrani" to be accurate) since the area was contested in a period of anarchy following the Mughal collapse, and it was that post-Mughal power vacuum which allowed the chaotic back and forth struggle between Durranis and Marathas.
The most significant thing about the era is not the Durranis or Marathas, but the collapse of the Mughals. Durranis and Marathas were quite insignificant to Lahore, and neither even left any monument in the city. In all, Marathas ruled for only 2.5 years, which is a mere blink of an eye in Lahore history. Durrani rule was slightly longer, but equally insignificant. Again, the most notable thing about the era is that it came as a result of the Mughal collapse. Thus, "Post Mughal" is actually the most useful descriptor, and shouldn't be changed. The Durranis and Marathas are clearly mentioned in the paragraph as well in the context of post Mughal vacuum, and don't require the header also to list them by name Willard84 (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2017

@Willard84: You make the point that the heading Durranis - Marathas for the section is unsatisfactory, because it implies incorrectly that there was a stable era when they were in power. However the heading Post-Mughal is also unsatisfactory, as it removes mention of the Durranis and Marathas from the ToC and makes it harder for readers to find the section. I hope that the compromise Durrani and Maratha invasions will be acceptable to Capitals00, you and the other contributors. Apuldram (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Apuldram: (I wrote this long entry, but you can maybe skip to the bottom to see my compromise. Also I left a message on your talk page regarding help with cleanup of some pages that might concern topics of interest to you.User:Willard84|Willard84]] (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
@Apuldram: That's not actually what my point was. My point was that the most significant characteristic of the era was the political instability following the Mughal collapse, not that Durrani/Maratha implied stability. "Post Mughal" encompasses the anarchy and chaos following the fall of the Mughals, and also encompasses the city the Durranis and Marathas. It isn't hard to find the Durrani/Marathas either, since sourced content was not removed, and no one expunged their memory from this page. They're also noted on the History of Lahore page for those buffs looking for their impact on Lahore. Further, those who are really interested in Maratha conquests would likely go to the Maratha Empire page for this information anyway. There's even an entire page dedicated to the Maratha period in Lahore, so I don't think anyone would have trouble finding the information requested.
Secondly, headers should be for significant eras, while Durrani and Maratha rule were actually quite insignificant. Especially regarding Marathas, their rule was almost inconsequential to Lahore city.?Marathas ruled only for 2.5 years and didn't even leave a single monument (or even a building from what I can tell). The most significant characteristic of the era, again, was the Mughal Collapse, which is why it should still be Post-Mughal, and not entitled after a brief event. Neither the Durranis nor Marathas would likely have captured the city without the fall of the Mughals, again highlighting why it was the fall of the Mughals which was the most significant characteristic of the era.
Tehran was occupied by Soviet forces for a brief period of time in the early 1940s, yet the page there properly does not exaggerate the impact, and doesn't have a section like "Soviet rule". Beirut was briefly occupied by Israelis, yet there is no section entitled "Israeli occupation" because both these events occurred in the context of more significant events.
Thirdly, headers are supposed to be short and concise. Most of the headers on this page consist only of one or two words, but as you've seen, it's difficult to describe these two empires with a short and concise heading. That's why the heading you inserted is actually for words, rather than the typical one or maybe two words. Therefore the term "Post-Mughal" is again a better option - it consists only of two words, and adequately describes what needs to be conveyed.
Fourthly, it's worth noting that the editor who added the Maratha section, User:Coconut0102, appears to be an enthusiast for the Marathas, as is PolandHistoryProf, who displays characteristics of being a sockpuppet - his account seems to have been created with sole intent of reverting my edits to get the Maratha title back. No other edits. Both curiously insisted that a long block quote be inserted despite being completely irrelevant. There is nothing wrong with adding Maratha information where appropriate, but all this begs the question whether the intent is to improve this page, or whether they wish to simply splash the Maratha tag indiscriminately as possible. I didn't delete the sourced information that was relevant (I did remove the useless block quote), but I do not think Maratha abd Durrani rule were more significant than the wake of the Mughal collapse.

Willard84 (talk)

@Apuldram: What do you think of Post-Mughal invasions? I think this is a good compromise; it emphasizes that Lahore was invaded, but also notes the most important characteristic of the era, the fall of the Mughals, while "invasions" (plural) conveys the instability as best as possible with only a few words. I think this is a good compromise and hope you'll agree. BTW I didn't violate the 3RR rule, and the "longstanding content" Capital00 mentioned was made two weeks prior to my reversion.

Willard84 (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:STONEWALLING is not gonna help. Capitals00 (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


@Capitals00, it's not stonewalling when I suggest a change from one set of wording to another. Stonewalling means arguing a page should not change sinply to maintain status quo for the sake of maintaining status quo. What I've articulated is different. My argument isn't "let's just keep things as they are because this is how it's been." My points have to do with what is the most noteworthy characteristic of a certain era. Please scroll up and actually read my reasoning, and what stonewalling means, before offering an unfounded accusation. Please note from the very page you mentioned:

Status quo stonewalling is typified by an insistence on keeping a current version instead of adopting a proposed change, or reverting to the version prior to a disputed change (the status quo), and avoiding substantive discussion of the issues

Those last 7 words are quite important. My lengthy reasoning and discussion with Apuldram, and suggestion of actually making a change from "Post-Mughal" to "Post-Mughal invasions" is incongruent with "avoiding substantive discussion," and clearly not an insistence on keeping the current version since I myself even suggested a change. Willard84 (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

We could return to the status quo for the heading before this dispute - i.e. "Maratha era" in June 2017, but I doubt that would resolve the question. There have been several proposals since then. At the moment there appears to be consensus for the version "Durrani and Maratha invasions". The Durranis ruled Lahore for 16 of the 20 years before they left and the Sikhs took over. We cannot write them out of the history of the city. Apuldram (talk) 12:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Apuldram: The status quo actually was "Post-Mughal" in June 2017, not "Maratha era" (That was added by user Coconut0102 in the middle of the month). Also, there is no consensus thus far - the only person who agreed to the edit which said "Maratha and Durranis" was simply Capitals00. I understand you concern regarding the Durranis, but the Durranis arent written out of history by using the title Post-Mughal. It doesn't mean that the information in that section was somehow deleted; the Durranis are clearly mentioned in the section, and so aren't written out of history. If any empire at all in the Post-Mughal era should be listed, then it should be the more significant of the two - i.e. The Durranis who ruled from nearby Peshawar for 16 years. Not the Marathas were in Lahore for a mere 2 years and who left no trace of their rule. Their short time was completely insignificant to the city.
It's also worth considering that judging by Capitols00, we can get a sense for his political affiliation, which appears to be decidedly nationalist. There's a back story to our dispute, as you can see here at Talk:Godhra train burning where Capitols00, in an attempt to enforce a POV espoused by Hindu nationalists, has tried at least ten different ways to prevent inclusion from a reputable source that goes against his POV that the burning had nothing to do with a payment dispute, and was simply an act of Muslim aggression. You can clearly see that each time, his objection to inclusion of a well-cited reputable source were based upon new requirements that he literally just made up as he went along in an attempt to ensure nothing to challenge his POV could be presented. He also has also tried to launch a sock puppet investigation to get me banned bc my phone logged me out and the edit was listed as my mobile zipper addres (the investigation will go nowhere because I actually clearly signed it "-Willard 84 (phone isn't logging me in).As you know, Indian nationalists revere the Marathas, and so this might impact his/her reasoning.
Being a nationalist, though, in and of itself isn't necessarily a problem at all *except* when it's used to exaggerate the importance of their icons at the expense of the quality of a page by pushing a POV. But anyway, as per Wikipedia guides, consensus has not been reached, and the status quo in June prior to this was actually "Post-Mughal", so it should be changed to that if status quo is to be maintained. I'd have no issue with adding Marathas if they were in any way significant to Lahore's history over all, but they aren't. If one empire is to be listed though, it should be the Durranis since they ruled for 16 years from nearby Peshawar, rather than the Marathas who ruled for only 2.5 from a capital far away, and who left no trace of their brief stint in the city. Willard84 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh, what did you think of the term "Post-Mughal Invasion"? I'm still not thrilled about adding the name of any empire since both the Durranis and Marathas were insignificant, although the latter were far less significant than the former.Willard84 (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Blaming it all on @Coconut1002: is misrepresentation. Article version as of December 2016[1] made separate sections, section title was "Marathas and Afghans" then. Capitals00 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
And before that it was just "Afghan". Going back to cherry pick your versions isn't productive. The fact is still that neither Durranis nor Marathas should be listed IMO. But if any empire should be, it should be the Durranis who ruled for 16 years, rather than the inconsequential rule of the Marathas - who again, did not even leave behind a trace of their rule.Willard84 (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Copy pasting your same argument is not going to help, we need to stick to long standing version since no one agrees with your edits here. Capitals00 (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
What argument? The point I made is that both of us can go back and find a version to support our status quo argument. And Who is "No one?" You and you? Because if you look through the page history, you'll see other users made similar edits. And your argument is what is known as WP:STONEWALLING" - which is ironically what you've falsely accused me of doing up above. Willard84 (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@Apuldram: Im not sure if this influences you decision, but the user who introduced the "Maratha Period" header User:Coconut1002 was just banned as a sock puppet who also went by the name User:PolandHistoryProf (the puppet account that reverted my edits on July 1, sparking this whole debate. This came about, ironically, from Capitols00 attempts to have me banned.Willard84 (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Page cleanup[edit]

Can someone clean up the page's language in order to harmonize it? Aside from the lead, the rest of the article reads as though it was obviously written by several editors with varying degrees of English fluency. Also, could someone expand the history section? It's not thorough compared to otger cities in South Asia despite Lahore's historic importance, and the fact that it's one of Pakistan's most significant tourist draws.

And please avoid adding block quotes unless they're directly relevant to the city of Lahore. Willard84 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2017 (UTC)