Talk:Pakistan/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Why no reference to terrorist elements

With articles like these http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1734113.stm and http://www.zeenews.com/South-Asia/2007-09-17/395435news.html

all over the place, one wonders why this article makes no reference to substantial evidence of terrorist elements operating from within this country ?

- Agree with user above, this should definitely be considered for inclusion.

Agree. Also, I couldn't locate the updates regarding Pakistan-Taliban talks that are going on and no updates on current state of Sharia implementation. Nshuks7 (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30tGS-xDJg0&feature=channelTafrik (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.82.12 (talk)

Agree with users above, now with the 2009_Lahore_attack_on_Sri_Lankan_cricket_team, there is little doubt remaining about the widespread prevalence of terrorism in Pakistan. Moderators please consider for inclusion, a section on terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozdeh (talk • contribs) 08:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And lest we forget, there is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozdeh (talk • contribs) 08:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} A section on terrorism in Pakistan is needed.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Edit request rejected because the request does not include specific text that should go in that section. Such a general improvement request can go into the talk page, but Template:editsemiprotected is reserved for cut-and-paste improvements. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 03:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

reply to all: hello :) you all might have had your answer already from the previous editor of this section. but let me make some things clear. to BLAME a country that its aiding international terrorism activities is quiet a large offence against the sovereignty of that country. and the report of BBC that you guys are reffering to, is 8 years old :DDD.

there is already a page about the chronicles of terrorism in pakistan, as a user said. and there is no need to add some suspicious material to that page too. i think this makes the matter clear. arsalan... (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

@user above, any perceived 'offence' or offenses aside, an article of such breadth and defining the totality of a country needs to point to all the dimensions of that country, not just what would be written in a textbook read within that country. The truth needs to be told. @8 year old article, look at this [1] it is barely 8 hours old. What are we trying to hide ? Mozdeh (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not lahore attacks on srilanka team butit is terrorists attack on srilanka team,the word islam means peace,the word mulim means the one who spreads peace and addresses protection,islam stands for peace not for terrorism,the first means of jihad is means controlling your self from evil and by reffering to this information i dont think so that those people who are exploding bombs in pakistan are muslims,the prophet(p.b.u.h.) once said that" to seek knowledge is an obligation to both muslim men and women", when all muslims have to follow the teachings of prophet (p.b.u.h),why did they make girls' schools and colledges close.may be they are not even pakistanis,another question in my mind is that how a person could ever even imagine to explode his or her own religious place where he/she offers prayers?people think,think about it unless its too late,terrorists deosnot belong to any country or nation,they are always like those exiled people who are never allowed to enter thier country ever again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.130.8.4 (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree with user above on the greater issue, though the specific issue that this discussion seeks to address is urging the wiki users who hold the protection lock to unlock the page and allow for addition of a section on terrorism in Pakistan or at least include a visible link to such content. Again the intent here is comprehensiveness beyond anything else.--Mozdeh (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. And here is a related interesting article http://www.watoday.com.au/world/west-warned-on-nuclear-terrorist-threat-from-pakistan-20090413-a4ac.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.62.162.238 (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

^ Why to add this to only Pakistan Article. There are daily terror on polls day in india. Car bomb blasts in Assam, india. A lot number of muslims died in gujrat denoide. What about adding terrorism in indian article also with reference to hindu extimists? Please stop all this recism now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashifyy (talk • contribs) 05:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason is, there is no other country in the world where everyday life of average citizens are affected by terrorists; other than ofcourse Afghanistan, Sudan and Sub-Saharan Africa. And, has Government that does not control the entire country. Any Islamic radical organization looking for recruits start with pakistan. Other countries have problems with terrorism too, but neither in this scale nor in this magnitude. USA has neo nazis, so does Germany and India has Hindu extremists. But these organizations do not have the capability to disrupt the entire nation.Sumanch (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Why the comparison with India ? And 'recism' (sic) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.82.12 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism word can be placed only under one heading in current article - "Pakistan in popular culture" :D Please don't mind, it's a joke 125.21.165.158 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)Joker

you can edit now YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 06:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Rapidly growing economy

The user Nikkul changed the statement "rapidly developing country" by cutting out the term "rapidly". I have provided three sources that clearly indicate the strength of the Pakistani economy. From the MCB report:

Being amongst the fastest growing economies of the region, Pakistan’s

economy had been growing at an average rate of 7% for the past four financial years,

with the platform now set for economic growth to accelerate even further.

And an excerpt from the BBC report:

This is the engine room of Pakistan's rapidly-growing economy, and the steel will be used to make everything from railway wagons to oil drums.

From the GCC report:

Due to wide-ranging structural economic reforms that were introduced six years ago, Pakistan has exhibited a rapid, strong and sustained economic recovery.

Pakistans 7% + growth rate means the country is, by all means, a rapidly growing economy. Deletion of a statement with sources knowing full well that they validate the information on a Wikipedia article is considered vandalism. Nikkul undid my edit within minutes - not enough time to read and understand all 3 reports I have provided. Zaindy87 (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it might be my fault, but I looked at all three sources and could not find the word rapidly used. The encarta didnt mention economy at all. None of the sources said rapidly. I dont want to revert your edit cuz it might be my mistake. Please let me know. Thanks Nikkul (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The three quotes I have provided are straight from the sources I linked to the word "rapidly". You can read them at your convienience. The first link goes into deep details about the Pakistani economy. Zaindy87 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

7% is rapid, by any standard of reckoning in economics. Here is John F. Burns from yesterday's New York Times, "Ghosts that haunt Pakistan" (1/6/2008), "General Musharraf won popular approval with economic policies that attracted the heaviest foreign investment inflows in Pakistan’s history, and an annual growth rate that came close to matching India’s, averaging about 7 percent." And here are Shantayanan Devarajan and Ijaz Nabi, Economic Growth in South Asia: Promising, Un-equalizing,…Sustainable?. June 2006. South Asia Region, World Bank, Washington DC 20433. "Pakistan’s recent economic turnaround illustrates how loosening the credit constraint in a reforming economy unleashes rapid growth." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the information about the economy is misrepresented. While you did succeed in getting some support for you belief you lost the objectivity of Wikipedia. It is not about putting your ideas forward but the bigger picture. News reports and articles will print anything..every other day they post that China will be the superpower of this century..if you search enough you'll get some arabic paper printing that Pakistan will be the next superpower. That should not invoke a representation on the Wiki page. BTW 7% is really not rapid when you compare to India's 9% and China's almost 10%, more importantly the "emerging market" term should be taken out since to any sane financial person/investor the term emerging markets symbolises "BRIC" coined by Goldman Sachs which stands for Brazil Russia India China. There is actually a new segment these days which does include Pakistan, it is called the Frontier market which includes other smaller developing economies like Kenya,Ukraine,Bangladesh etc. I think the article deserves another scrutiny since it gives an excessively sugar coated version to the point of being almost misleading and incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan ban (talk • contribs) 01:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Besides this being an old decision, I can barely comprehend what you are trying to say, either because of your grammatical mistakes or my own lack of understanding. All most everything you have said can be challenged (especially since you cite no sources to back up your claims). A 7% GDP is rapid when you compare with the GDP of the United States, which is 2.2%(See here). How is emerging market are wrong word choice? Emerging market is a financial market of a developing country, usually a small market with a short operating history according to this source. I have never heard of the word "market frontier" and just searched for it and found little information on it. Please give me more information as to why this article "deserves scrutiny"? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You do not compare the growth rates of developed economies with that of the developing ones. It's good that you are serious about the article and I did do some research and it does seem that the word emerging has been misused in layman articles and thus I think since this is not a srtictly financial document it is fair to use that term, maybe not in the Economy section..but that's up for debate. At least in NY,LON,TOK it would seem incorrect but then again this article has a wider audience. According to this source Pakistan is @ #61 when ranked by GDP growth rates(07 est), i don't think that means rapid. Hopefully the english was simple enough for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan ban (talk • contribs) 22:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about Pakistan's being among the highest GDP countries. I'm saying 7% is high and is considered rapid. I am not sure if the source you cited was accurate, since according to the UN, Pakistan's growth was at 7% in 2007 (See here). I have another source (The World Bank) which said in 2005, that Pakistan was among the top reformers which I in my opinion is a good indication of a growing economy (See here). --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

7% is not the highest and nobody claimed it to be, just because India and China might have higher rates of GDP growth, it does not devalue Pakistan's own economic growth. Emerging markets are not restricted to just BRIC countries. BRIC is a concentration mostly used for mutual fund purposes. It does not mean that those 4 countries are the only ones that are emerging. The MORGAN STANLEY Emerging Markets Index INCLUDES Pakistan! Source: http://www.mscibarra.com/products/indices/licd/em.html#EM. Why would an Arabic newspaper claim that Pakistan is going to be the next superpower? Pakistan is NOT even an Arabic country! By the way if you care to read the original poster provided links from the BBC which stands for British Broadcasting Corporation and most importantly it is not an Arabic newspaper and is actually quite a reputable source.

On a side note, when you read about newspapers claiming China will be the largest economy in the world by 20xx date. It is most likely a forecast hypothesis based on economic conditions both qualitative and quantitative. If you would actually read the articles. I'm guessing you read such headlines and skip on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qbadge (talk • contribs) 18:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please note that in Pakistan, mutual funds are known as unit trusts. Why do some contributors insist on using American English in a Pakistani article? The curious hybrid of Pakistani [modified British] English and American English in the article presents a most disorganised [not disorganized mind you!] appearance. Kslall8765 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Political Turmoil

Given the very unfortunate recent events that have unfolded in our country, I would like to ask weather we should include information about the upcoming elections or just wait till they happen? I would not like to edit without discussing, so please feel free to comment. Nikkul (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please feel free to add information at the relevant article. Pakistani general election, 2008. Only a brief 1 line summary would be added to the country page after the elections are over. The details go on the elections article. Cheers. Zaindy87 (talk) 04:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Given the very unfortunate recent events that have unfolded in our country." user:Nikkul, which country are you talking about? Since when did Pakistan become your country? (And, BTW, "whether" is not spelled "weather." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, when did fowler gain the right to tell me what country I belong to? Do you even know any of my family's history? Do you know that some people have parents that are from India and Pakistan? Is it prohibited that one person belong to only one country? Please do not tell me about my history and my affiliations. Nikkul (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

pictures

I only deleted the bush-zardari picture because gorge w. bush isnt president any more now an O bama-zardari shoud be put there (im not taking zaradri to US to get a pic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersaiyan474 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Pakistan sentiment

There ought to be a section on anti-Pakistan discrimination in the Pakistan page. Nobody seriously discussed a merge in the deletion debate in the Pakistanphobia AfD, and I arrived too late to make a difference in that discussion. Furthermore, I question whether classifying Pakistanphobia as delete and Indophobia as no consensus was really the right thing to do, given that there was arguing both for and against deletion on both articles. — Rickyrab | Talk 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How about adding the List Of Major Hotels In Pakistan?

Hey friends! i got an idea that we should create a sub topic of Major Hotels in Pakistan... Give me your comments or suggestions please?? mEe-ThE SuRGe 14:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is not a travel guide.--Loodog (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Since the section is currently protected and I cannot edit, I just want to point out that the 'Demographics of Pakistan' section of this article has been vandalized, if someone wants to revert that edit.

Thanks.

Lowercases (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

^The above was done (not by me) assuming you meant the demographic info within the infobox. Derekbd (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Article not adhering to Featured article criteria due to huge additions

User:Zaindy87 and others have expanded this article vastly in the last two months, bringing it above 80k from 68k. The article is no longer in WP:SUMMARY style, and also is not adhering to the guidelines for country articles ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject countries]). If the article bloat is not removed soon, I will propose it to be demoted from a Featured article.

In particular, the article has unnecessary details in "Government and politics", "Economy", and "Society and culture". The "Society and culture" section is exceptionally horrible ... too much detailed crammed into this section while it should have been just a summary of the child articles.

As of now, the article is becoming unworthy of an FA, I'll just propose its demotion pretty soon the article is not trimmed down. --Ragib (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What specific things do you want to see trimmed? Name the paragraphs. As far as I can see, everything in Government and politics and the economy section is a summary. I expanded society and culture section based on the FA Germany. I have taken most info in the architecture section from the German language Wikipedia, where also Pakistan is a featured article. I have checked the Wikipedia countries project page, and it says the society section can include the sections that are included in the English language Pakistan article. As for size, the FA India and Germany are both larger in size, and the Wikiproject countries does not limit the size of country articles, so I don't see why thats wrong with this one's size increasing either. So please be specific in which parts you have a problem with, and name them here so we can edit them. Zaindy87 (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, your argument about India being larger is not correct. That article's size is 83 KB or so, *because* it has a large number of references and citations. If you consider only the text, India is about 32KB, whereas Pakistan is about 48 KB (1.5 times).

You also fail to see my main point ... the top level country page needs to be written in summary style. Time to time, people will come and try to add their favorite content into the page ... when that continues unchecked, the article becomes a mess, as seen here.

Here are my specific comments:

• Society and culture - Wikipedia:WikiProject countries says that Culture - Give a short summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known artists. Link to article "Culture of X".. Instead of that, we see a huge section broken down into numerous subsections talking about various aspects of Pakistani culture. No, all the details don't fit here. They need to be moved to Culture of Pakistan with a brief summary here.

• History -- too much details. Compare it with India#History

• Government and politics too much details. A lot of content overlaps history (i.e. chronologies added there unnecessarily).

• Economy - too much details. Needs to be shortened by at least one or two paragraphs.

• Tourism - no need to have this section at all. Can be linked from a nav template.

• Images - just too many images (21?). There shouldn't be more than one, at most two, images per section.

In the end, the article has degraded over time ... adding too much content here is not going to help it. If these concerns are not addressed, I believe it is time to start a featured article removal process for this article. --Ragib (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, for your reference, please check featured article criteria which states - It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).. The length requirement isn't set in stone, but summary style is mandatory. --Ragib (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, compare the "text" content length of other country FAs like Australia, Indonesia, Belgium, Cambodia, Cameroon ... all of them are written in summary style with less text (and more citations) than Pakistan. --Ragib (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject countries also states: This structure is advisory only, and should not be enforced against the wishes of those actually working on the article in question. There is no strict, set critera for the length of the article. Like I have said before, everything is in summary style, there is no section which goes into great detail.

The Society section has subsections, but how is that a bad thing? They are summaries of the various forms of arts of Pakistan. The FA Germany contains food, the FA Pakistan contains architecture. Each country is unique and anyone who can add relevant info should do so to improve the article.

Also, you might want to know that the history, economy and government and politics section have remained virtually the same as they were just before the article was promoted to featured status.

And you cannot arbitrarily declare that tourism section should not be there or that there are "too many pictures". Tourism is the livelihood of many people in northern and central Pakistan, and the country has many heritage sites that interest foreigners (disregarding the current political situation). And who says there should not be more than 1 or 2 images per section? As long as the images are conforming to the section lenghts, there is nothing wrong with images.

So let us recap what you're saying here. You are making generic claims about many sections of the Pakistan article being not in summary style. Yet, I have not seen you provide one single example of what you are talking about. That is because there simply is no part of the article that is not in summary style. Now let us also compare your claims by comparing the FA Germany with FA Pakistan.

Section	FA Pakistan	FA Germany
History	Begins in 7000 BC. 1,043 words long.	Begins in 1 century BC. 2,370 words long.
Government and Politics	1559 words. Including administrative divisions and military.	Including military and foreign relations, ~1000 words. State info which is in table form not included in this count.
Economy	724 words.	Round about the same - 703 words long.
Images	23	42

So what seems to be the problem? As you can see from the approximate word counts of the various sections of either articles, the Pakistan article is still within resonable length. Now, please, either provide specific areas which you feel should be trimmed, or drop your demand which I consider ridiculous. Pakistan is a large, complex nation and it should not be expected to be summarized within 5 lines for every section. Copy/paste on this discussion areas you have a problem with. Thanks. Zaindy87 (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is denying Pakistan to be a large complex nation. The main issue is Summary style which this article is NOT adhering to. You can cram even more material into the article, making it a one-stop-shop for info about Pakistan, but that is NOT the way articles are written in WP. By pasting content here rather than the topic specific sub articles, you make this unmaintainable and contrary to WP:SUMMARY. Germany is also a bad example violating WP:SUMMARY. You can declare my comments on length to be ridiculous, that's your personal opinion. I have already pointed out the sections that need to be trimmed. --Ragib (talk) 07:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have invited other editors, especially those who had supported its FAC, to take a look and comment on the issue. --Ragib (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That is a good move. Let us wait for other opinions and go from there. Zaindy87 (talk) 07:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ragib that this article has changed far too much from the version that was featured. The content currently shows that some editors have little or no understanding of what we mean by no original research, neutral point of view, citing reliable sources or summary style.

• The first and most glaring problem existed before the FAC two years ago and has quietly grown again; namely the sheer amount of "History" crammed into the article. Back then it was crammed into the History section but now it has expanded into other sections. In particular the bulk of the Government and politics section is really political History — the only parts that are relevant to the section are the second half of the 1st paragraph and the whole of the Administrative subdivisions subsection. The rest of that section should be in relevant daughter articles.
• The Military subsection is very ambiguous with one citation and reads more like a recruitment poster than an encyclopedic entry, e.g.:

"Approximately 620,000 personnel are on active duty in the military which is the world's 7th largest armed force. It consists of the Pakistan Army, Pakistan Navy and Pakistan Air Force. Combined with the 302,000 strong Paramilitary forces and the Coast Guard, the Military of Pakistan has a total size of nearly 1,000,000 personnel."

The first sentence suggests that the Military of Pakistan has 620,000 personnel and consists of three services, whereas the third sentence suggests the Military has 1 million personnel and consists of five services. As an informed reader I know what it is trying to say but on Wikipedia we have to gear content towards uninformed readers and I believe an uninformed reader will look at that and think it is gibberish.

"Pakistan's military is led by an officer corps that is not restricted by social class or nobility..."

Compared to who, what, when or why? Has it ever been restricted by class? Is there a common perception that it is restricted by class?

"The Pakistani military is a completely volunteer force and has been involved in many conflicts with India."

Why are these two statements linked to each other within the same sentence? What is the relevance of repeatedly highlighting the conflicts with India? Have there really been many conflicts or is it more like three wars, one "significant conflict" and an ongoing "low-intensity" conflict in Kashmir?

"Combined with this extensive combat experience, the military is also actively involved in contributing to United Nations peacekeeping efforts."

Who is this statement aimed at; uninformed readers or potential recruits? Summary style — "Pakistan has the highest number of troops deployed worldwide for (UN) peacekeeping missions."

"Other foreign deployments have consisted of Pakistani military personnel as advisers in many African, South Asian and Arab countries."

So what? Are we showcasing the experience of the military of Pakistan?

"The Pakistani military maintained division and brigade strength presences in some of the Arab countries during the past Arab-Israeli Wars, and the first Gulf War to help the Coalition."

Another promotional sentence which really belongs in the History of Pakistan article and not here.

"The Pakistan National Command Authority is responsible for exercise employment and development control of all strategic nuclear forces and organizations."

Whoopadeedoodah!! Are we writing an encyclopedia article or trying to reassure concerned citizens/journalists/governments/intelligence agencies that Pakistan is in complete control of it's nuclear weapons?

"September 6, known as Defence Day, commemorates the military’s role in defence of the nation."

Thats great to know. Put it in Holidays in Pakistan.

"Image:Shaheen 2.jpg"

Why is this picture here? Is it mean't to be informative? Then it belongs in the Military of Pakistan article. Is it mean't to be sabre-rattling aimed at neighbouring states? Then it belongs at the Ministry of Defence Production website.

• The Economy section has more detail than is absolutely necessary:

"Despite clear progress, reports by the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and the UN Development Program place the poverty rate in Pakistan between 23% – 28%.[54] The CIA factbook places the poverty rate at 24% in 2006,[55] and notes that levels have fallen by ten percent since 2001."

Summary style — "The poverty rate in Pakistan is estimated to be about 23% — 28%." with one citation for each figure. There is no need to "name-drop" which organization supports which estimate as this becomes clear when an uninformed reader reviews the citations at the bottom.

"The growth of non-agricultural sectors has changed the structure of the economy, and agriculture now only accounts for roughly 20% of the GDP."

Compared to when, who and why? We know that the economy was once very agro-based but we need to tell uninformed readers about this.

"In recent times, the Karachi Stock Exchange has soared, along with most of the world's emerging markets."

Soared? Like an eagle? Use some neutral language please. Also explain which precise part of history is mean't by "recent times" because it could quite easily be the last fifty years for all we know.

"The top industries in Pakistan are telecom,... ship building, and more recently, Aerospace."

That last little addition shows someone was really eager to point out that Pakistan has an aeronautical complex. To me that just says more nationalistic sabre-rattling.

"Pakistan has accomplished many engineering feats such as construction of the world's largest earth filled dam Tarbela, the world's twelfth largest dam Mangla, as well as, with collaboration with China, the world's highest international road: the Karakoram Highway."

Perhaps we could give "Pakistan" a medal for all these "feats" or perhaps we could just write that there are "two major dams (Tarbela Dam and Mangla Dam) and half a dozen additional dams planned." with a separate sentence for the Karakoram Highway.

"Pakistan is also home to a thriving arms industry which exports $200 million (USD) annually, mostly defence equipment and arms to countries in the Middle East and South Asia, and its defence officials are hopeful that these exports will surpass $500 million (USD) a year within the next five years."

Yet another promotional bit for the military, huh? Wikipedia is not an advertisement board.

"In keeping with its rapid economic development in recent years, Pakistan registered an economic growth rate of 7 percent in the financial year 2006–07, the fourth consecutive year of seven percent growth."

Summary style — "Pakistan registered an economic growth rate of 7 percent per annum for four consecutive years up to 2007."

"In its June 2006 Economic Survey global finance giant Morgan Stanley listed Pakistan on its list of major emerging markets in the world economy, placing it on a list of 25 countries displaying continued moderate to strong growth over a sustained period of time.[65] The report noted "its economy has been growing quickly in recent periods and corporate direct investors have taken notice"."

Summary style — "Pakistan is a major emerging market" and merge this and the associated citation into the first sentence of the section.

"A similar report by State Street Corporation, states that "economic growth (in 2007) has been strong and the stock market has been helped by privatizations as well as foreign investment". Concurrently, highlighting the strides made on the economic front in recent times, Moody's Investors Service in December 2006 upgraded Pakistan's credit rating from B2 to B1, noting a "positive outlook"."

"In late March 2007, the Asian Development Bank "Outlook 2007" report predicted that strong growth would continue iwas highlighted by news that the foreign direct investment (FDI ) for FY 2006/7 would touch $7 billion, eclipsing the targeted $4 billion. Telecoms, real estate and energy are major industries for FDI."

Reading these sentences conjures up an image of Trevor McDonald reading the news. There is a marked difference between how information is provided by newscasters and how to provide the same information in an encyclopedia. These sentences are not summary style and properly belong in the Economy of Pakistan article.

• In the Demographics section, the article cites Ethnologue to highlight that "Punjabi... has no official recognition in the country." If there is no official recognition, then why did the 1998 Census bother to provide statistics for Punjabi and several other languages instead of just Urdu and English?

• In the Education section we need the statement — "The government has decided to introduce 'English medium education' on a phased basis to all schools across the country." but we don't need to quote the government word for word as in — "This new policy states that "English language has been made compulsory from Class-2 onwards" and the "Introduction of English as medium of instruction for science, mathematics, computer science and other selected subjects like economics and geography in all schools in a graduated manner.""

• In the Society and culture section there are seven citations, of which six occur in the final paragraph and one in the third paragraph. That is a heck of a lot of Original Research and not enough reliable sourcing.

The sentence about — "Increasing globalization has increased the influence of "Western culture" with Pakistan ranking 46th on the A.T. Kearney/FP Globalization Index." makes no sense because the Index methodology makes no mention of "Western culture".

• The Architecture subsection is an almost exact copy of the Pakistani architecture and relies on two citations from a single source. We don't need the level of detail given by the subsection here and could do with considerable condensing of the text.
• The Literature subsection has several citations but it bears little resemblance to the main article it links to (which is completely unreferenced at this point). However one weak sentence is "During the colonial age the native seal under the influence of the western literature of realism took up increasingly different topics and telling forms." What on Earth is a "native seal"? Some kind of local sealife perhaps?

• In the Tourism section, there is evidence of poor literacy in the sentence "The people of northern areas depend on tourism also. From April to September tourist of domestic and international type visited these areas which became the earn of living for local people." Is it just the "northern areas" people that depend on tourism? Why do tourists only visit between April and September? What exactly is a "tourist of domestic and international type"? How do local people "earn of living" for the six months between September and April?
• At the end of the Tourism section — "To promote Pakistan's unique and various cultural heritage, the prime minister launched "Visit Pakistan 2007"." is a prime example of poor citation technique because it uses a no-longer-existent blogging page as a source. You'd think that there might have been a more relevant link like a newspaper article or even perhaps the Tourism Ministry?

The solution to this problem is for all sections from History to Tourism to contain only the lead sections of each daughter article together with sufficient reliable third-party citations. If such lead sections do not exist then we need to create them. What we do not need here is a "one-stop shop for all info" {{cite editor| name=Ragib| url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APakistan&diff=190570821&oldid=190569882| date=2008-02-11| accessdate=2008-02-11}}. Green Giant (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, finally someone has pinpointed the problem areas. I have some comments to make about the specific sentences Green Giant has made observations on.

"Approximately 620,000 personnel are on active duty in the military which is the world's 7th largest armed force. It consists of the Pakistan Army, Pakistan Navy and Pakistan Air Force. Combined with the 302,000 strong Paramilitary forces and the Coast Guard, the Military of Pakistan has a total size of nearly 1,000,000 personnel."

620,000 is the number of active regular military personnel from the 3 main components of the defense forces. The paramilitary is like the US Marines, meant for specialized operations. The Coast Guard is not combat oriented, which is why it should be noted separately from the main combat forces. I think this paragraph is pretty clear. Anyone who is unclear as to the purpose of each could simply click and visit the article for each individual organization. However, if you feel that it is unclear, you are welcome to make changes to make it clearer to the uninformed reader. I can't really think of a way to make it any more simpler than it is here.

"Pakistan's military is led by an officer corps that is not restricted by social class or nobility..."

This is a poor sentence, I almost deleted it but the person who created the military section put this in there, so I did not want to delete it without discussion. I think this line should be deleted or at least amended to say what exactly an ordinary Pakistani citizen should do to join the military, such as "any citizen of Pakistan and Azad Kashmir between the ages of 16 and 22 may join the armed forces".

"The Pakistani military is a completely volunteer force and has been involved in many conflicts with India."

Once again, a poor quality sentence. The military is a volunteer force and it has been involved in various conflicts with India, but this information should not be bunched together. I will split this sentence to mention some of the conflicts, and merge the volunteer force with the information mentioned about how an ordinary citizen may join. All this will be only 2 or 3 sentences long.

"Combined with this extensive combat experience, the military is also actively involved in contributing to United Nations peacekeeping efforts."

I think whoever created the military section simply copy/pasted it from the defence.pk website. I will change this sentence to conform with the neutrality policy.

"Other foreign deployments have consisted of Pakistani military personnel as advisers in many African, South Asian and Arab countries."

I think this sentence is at least somewhat important. It serves to inform the reader how the Pakistan army has helped allied nations. However, I did a google search yesterday and could not find a source for this, though I searched for only a couple of minutes. If I cannot find a source, I will delete this sentence.

"The Pakistani military maintained division and brigade strength presences in some of the Arab countries during the past Arab-Israeli Wars, and the first Gulf War to help the Coalition."

In my view this is definitely important. Pakistan Air Force pilots shot down several Israeli Air Force jets during the various wars between Arabs and Israelis. I think this sentence serves to inform the reader that this military's operations haven't been limited only to Pakistan in terms of conventional warfare. Very few armies have taken part in combat on other continents, and an uninformed reader would not expect the Pakistani military to have this distinction, so I think this should remain, although with a source.

"The Pakistan National Command Authority is responsible for exercise employment and development control of all strategic nuclear forces and organizations."

This is a sentence that I added to the section. It simply lets the reader know what organization of the military is in charge of the nuclear weapons, which form a very important component of the deterrence factor. The India article also mentions which organization controls it's nukes. In fact, this is from that articles military section "India maintains the third largest military force in the world, which consists of the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force.[8] Auxiliary forces such as the Paramilitary Forces, the Coast Guard, and the Strategic Forces Command also come under the military's purview." You might notice they mention the paramilitary and coast guard as auxiliary forces as well.

"September 6, known as Defence Day, commemorates the military’s role in defence of the nation."

Not a particularly important sentence, if it is already mentioned in the holidays section, then it should be deleted from here.

"Image:Shaheen 2.jpg"

It is simply an image to represent Pakistan's military. FA's India and Israel have pictures of missiles representing their military as well.

As for the economy section, you have caught some good weaknesses. However, your comment about the aerospace industry's mention is excessively harsh. Is there a good reason it should not be mentioned? The industry has made good strides recently, and it deserves a mention here. The "engineering feats" part is again not NPOV, so it should be changed. The other summary style suggestions to shorten sentences you have made should be implemented.

The education section contains information about the English language being taught from class-1. I tried to delete that information but the user who inserted it reverted my edit. I still deleted the sentence which mentioned the conversion of 18 colleges in Karachi to English medium. Considering the thousands upon thousands of English medium institutions in the country, that was not worthy enough to be mentioned on the main pakistan page. I agree with your suggestion for shortening it.

And having lived in Pakistan for 17 years, I can definitely assure you that the "Western influence" is increasing by the day. Anyone who has lived in Pakistan recently or currently lives there could tell you that.

I translated the architecture section from the German Wikpedia. After user Ragib complained of the length of the article, I noticed that this was the longest section, so I tried to search for a Pakistani architecture article to siphon off most of the information to. Having found none, I created a new one by copy/pasting all the information. Then, I trimmed the architecture section on the Pakistan page, but could not see how it can be shortened further without losing some valuable information. Could you make suggestions on how to trim this section?

The Literature section is again translated from the German Wikipedia article on Pakistan. It has no sources there, at least not inline citations, so the sources on the Pakistan page were found by me through Google. This translated section is of far superior quality to the main Pakistani literature article, if I do say so myself. I will change the "native seal" to something more appropriate .

I have a few tests in the next couple of days, but I will get to work on some of the sections soon. If you can do it as well, we can get this done quicker. Thanks for the feedback, and let's bring the qualilty of this page back up. Zaindy87 (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on my criticisms and not surprisingly I have some comments on your comments.

• Frankly, I don't see any need to mention how big the military is, how many components there are, eligibility criteria or how to join the military. Just provide a {{main}} link at the top of the section. I disagree with you when you say that the paramilitary are like the United States Marine Corps because the Marines are a full military force on an equal footing with the US Army, Navy and Air Force. The only equivalent US paramilitary forces I can think of would be the Border Patrol and the Civil Air Patrol. The Pakistan Paramilitary Forces article is a little bit of Original Research because it suggests that the various units are a single force whereas really they are several separate forces under various Ministries. The Civil Armed Forces for example include only the Rangers, Frontier Corps and Coast Guard and are involved in border patrols, anti-smuggling and anti drug operations and some law-and-order although some units can be "regularised" like the Khyber Rifles were during the 1965 war. However this does not justify giving them a mention in the country-level article as opposed to the daughter article on the military of Pakistan.

"Other foreign deployments have consisted of Pakistani military personnel as advisers in many African, South Asian and Arab countries."

Many countries have maintained and continue to maintain military advisers in other countries so I cannot see how this somehow unique to Pakistan and worthy of mention.

"The Pakistani military maintained division and brigade strength presences in some of the Arab countries during the past Arab-Israeli Wars, and the first Gulf War to help the Coalition."

I know that there were PAF pilots involved in the Arab-Israeli wars but I don't recall a formal military arrangement between Pakistan and the Arab states (not saying that there wasn't one, just can't find any evidence for it yet). Did the Pakistani military take part as official Pakistani forces or did individuals just volunteer to serve in the Arab forces? If it is the latter case I don't see how this makes the Pakistani military distinct.

"The Pakistan National Command Authority is responsible for exercise employment and development control of all strategic nuclear forces and organizations."

We have already mentioned Pakistan's nuclear status three times in the sections above this sentence and once in the Shaheen image caption. Why do we need to mention this status so many times?

"Image:Shaheen 2.jpg"

If we need to represent the military, wouldn't an image of soldiers be more appropriate?

My comment on the aerospace mention did not mean I want no mention of it, just that it looked like a hasty addition. All it needs is for the extra "recently" text to be removed and the capital "A" in "Aerospace" to become "aerospace".

"And having lived in Pakistan for 17 years, I can definitely assure you that the "Western influence" is increasing by the day. Anyone who has lived in Pakistan recently or currently lives there could tell you that."

I am not disputing that Western influence has increased, having seen it for myself first-hand. What I am disputing is the link being made between the Globalization Index and Western influence.

As for the architecture and literature sections, we should remove them entirely until we can find substantial reliable sources. Although I am not opposed to copying from other Wikipedias, we have to be alert to the danger of assuming that content on other Wikipedias has been sourced properly. I am going to be busy at work for a couple of days but I will try to help with some sourcing some citations.

Good luck on the tests. Green Giant (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Hi, just wanted to add some additional comments with regards to the current state of the article. I was one of the editors that supported Pakistan's WP:FAC back in '06...the article obviously has changed greatly since then. Here are some of my thoughts...

• WP:SUMMARY - Zaindy87, you are right when you say that "Summary style" is not policy, but a style guideline. However, you have to remember WP:FA?'s guidelines with regard to "brilliant prose". If WP:FAC nominations have shown anything historically, it is that "main" articles with concise, well thought out subsections allow for engaging reading and it is typically such articles that make the trasition to WP:FA. Also remember bullet (4) of WP:FA?, which explicitly references WP:SUMMARY.
• I think the prose starts off reasonably well, but is in tatters by the time it hits "Society and culture". This article can benefit from a good copyedit.
• Some specific points wrt the article:
  • Lead: Islamic Republic should not be wikified, per WP:LEAD
  • The first sentence should establish context...something like "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a country in South Asia." is simple and to the point. Pakistan being the demarcation between Central Asia and the Middle east is less important to the context of the article and even if not, can be mentioned in subsequent sentences. Consider rewriting the lead sentence per India (ie. Pakistan, officially, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is...)
  • Pakistan is a founding member....and is a nuclear power". Is it important to mention this in the article's lead? What is the purpose of this sentence anyway? It starts talking about all the organizations that Pakistan is part of and then out of nowhere the country's nuclear capabilities is being discussed. Consider the scope of the sentence.
  • Etymology: Per WP:STYLE, words like "Pakistan", "Land of (the) Pure", etc should be italicized and not written in quotes.
  • History: I know it is hard to effectively summarize the history of a country with about 5,000 years of human settlement but the prose in the history section is in bad shape. It starts talking about Harappans, Arabs, etc and then suddenly, there's this sentence — The modern state of Pakistan was established on August 14, 1947 — and then we go back to discussing the Indus Valley, etc. The section doesn't have a chronological flow to it..it is very choppy.
  • Government: The third paragraph is far too specific for Summary style guidelines. Let's summarize the gist only.
  • Islamabad, troops apparently entered the Supreme Court and were surrounding the judges' homes and opposition leaders like Benazir Bhutto, Imran Khan were put on house arrest They apparently entered? Did they or did they not? If they didn't, then this sentence doesn't belong in the article...if they did, it should be properly cited.
  • I propose formatting the "Government and politics" section as follows: paragraph 1, Pakistan's political structure (executive, legistative, judiciary, etc) paragraph 2, Pakistan's international role and membership, paragraph 3, Internal politics, including the rise of PPP, MQM, rise of ZAB, Zia, Musharraf, etc, paragraph 4, Pakistan's foreign relations with US, India, China, GCC, etc.
  • Military: There is hardly any mention of Pakistan's emergence as a nuclear state. This discussion is most relevent in this section, and not in the lead. The lead is supposed to effectively summarize the contents of the article — save for the lead, Pakistan's status as a nuclear power is not mentioned anywhere in the article.
  • Economy: What does rapidly developing country mean? There are many aspects to a country's development, economy being one such facet. This is a section about economy, let's present economic data (GDP, PPP Per Capita growth indicators) only.
  • but imprudent policies led to a slowdown in the late 1990s. Imprudent according to who? If this is someone's opinion, let it be explicitly stated as such.
  • Maybe I'm not getting the point, but what is the purpose of the paragraph detailing the construction of highways, dams, etc? If this is to indicate that there will now be more effective transport channels for trade, let it be made clear.
  • There is no discussion about income disparity, Gini coefficient, etc.
  • The top industries in Pakistan are telecom, software, automotives, textiles, cement, fertilizer, steel, ship building, and more recently, Aerospace. Can we quantify "top"? Is this supposed to represent sectoral revenue per GDP, per exports, etc? Let's add quantifiable data.
  • Let's avoid adjective amplifiers (great improvement, rapid growth, KSE has soared...) in the economy section...let facts and data speak for themselves.
  • Demographics: Literacy rate, death rate, infant mortality, etc should be discussed in this section.
  • Education: This section only discusses primary - high school education. What about universities, vocational institutes, etc?
  • Society Far too large. There isn't a prescribed formula for what constitutes a well balanced section on Society. Perhaps you could review the relevent sections in India and Bangladesh to get some idea on how to format this section. It is entirely too long in its current state.
• I do agree with Ragib that the article's quality has degraded since the FAC. However, a lot of points have been raised by some editors — let's give the primary contributors to this article the opportunity to fix the prose/content as necessary. Once that's done we can decide on whether or not we should consider moving this to WP:FAR. Thanks AreJay (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Article isnt' reffed properly and the formatting is totalling random and inconsistent. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Further minor changes & tourism section

I'm going add a couple more subdivisions to the Culture section. I will not add any text, but as we have seen people tend to keep adding information about various aspects of culture that don't really seem to fit anywhere, or are better off being added to daugter articles. I'll create subheadings for music, and popular media with links to the respective daughter articles. In addition I will place an edit notice in each section that these are merely a summary and any further info should be added to respective daughter articles. This should help keep the culture section from ballooing any further, and helps the reader jump straight to music or popular media sections. I will also make the History section to conform to a chronological pattern, instead of the mismatched events separated by centuries being thrown into the same sentence.

Also, earlier on I dismissed Ragbis suggestion that the tourism section should not be included. Having re-read it, I now think it should be removed. Countries with higher tourism rates than Pakistan do not have this section, nor does the section present any useful information about the country which hasn't been mentioned in other sections of the article. Zaindy87 (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Culture section should be trimmed down. For example we dont need so much information on holidays. A few lines would be enough. The culture section should be modeled after the Indian culture section, which briefly mentions all the necessary information. Also Tourisim does not need to be mentioned, and subsections arent really necessary. Noor Aalam (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sort of leading on from subheadings, I think having subheadings in the History section will just encourage people to keep adding content and we will be back at square one. I propose we remove the subheadings. Green Giant (talk) 04:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

FA's Libya, Israel, Turkey, Germany, and Belgium all have subheadings. It helps keep the sections short, people are encouraged to add content if the entire history section is just one chunk instead of divided by eras. People add random mismatched info without subheadings. --Zaindy87 (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

To begin with, we are not supposed to have so much materials in each section that you'd need subsections. Per WP:SUMMARY style, each section of the top level article should be a summary of the particular topic. You can add all the subsections you need in the History of Pakistan article. --Ragib (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor note

Just a minor note:how about an interactive map.Ardeshire Babakan (talk) 19:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from using terms like "partition"--'Pakistan was NOT created from Partition of "India"

This is not correct. No partition of British India or 'India' occurred. Before that, Pakistan was part of Islamic Mughal Empire. Before that, Pakistan was part of various empires originating from different regions. British India was created artificially by the Britishers and is not to be used as a gauge to determine Pakistan's ancestry.

Therefore, not only is it an insult to say Pakistan was created out of 'India' or 'British India', it is also insulting to Indians as their country was never broken up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik357 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is an insult, but you can't hide the truth, Pakistan , as well as the republic of india, bangledesh and union of myanmar were all part of "British india". Pakistan was created out of india, and india was broken up. You do not have any references, and so, what proof do you have?

Opinions are not strong unless supported by references. Unfortunately, your comment above is utterly devoid of any references (not surprising considering the claim). --Ragib (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Ragib, Check out the following:

http://rupeenews.com/2007/12/27/pakistanis-refuse-to-call-is-partition-in-1947-it-was-independence-or-separation/

Mik357 (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

You linked to a wordpress-hosted blog which anyone can create, and where anyone can also claim the moon is made of cheese. :) --Ragib (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the silly pictur which tries to ridicule a solid argument by indulging in condescending and patronizing hubris.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.99.1 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 with this edit

Rajib,

The sources you look at stating Pakistan was 'partitioned' from India or British India can also be created by anyone of any mentality who can claim anything. Mik357 (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pakistan was a distinct identity as a separate nation 5000 years ago.The "Wordpress blog" has sources, names, maps and solid evidence on why there was no "partition". Kindly do not use the term which is not acceptable to historians and is a concoction of extremists in India. (Moin Ansari, Editor Rupee News)

"Rupee news" which is a blog, is not a reliable source. < sarcasm >By the way, the Govt of Pakistan seems to be taken over by "Indian extremists" (feel sorry to break it to Mr. Moin Ansari), as Pakistan's Govt National Documentation Center (NDC) publications explicitly use the term. "Military Department Records, 1878-1949, "Partition of India and Armed Forces, 1946-47". It also seems even Quaid-a-Azam was not spared ... the "Indian extremists" have defaced his photos with such a derogatory term too : "The final phase of the partition of India(2 June, 1947". [2].</ sarcasm >.

"Pakistan was a distinct identity as a separate nation 5000 years ago.", the words coming from a blogger has no value in terms of academic research on history. You should come up with references from historical sources that show that, on 1947, Pakistan suddenly came out of nowhere, and suddenly land officially designated as "British India" (which is an entity officially recognized , and adequately cited) just vanished. Good luck finding anything on that anywhere other than "Rupee news" blog. --Ragib (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You talk about "blogs" with such disdain...This is amazing. Some of the best writings today are on blogs. CNN, Newsweek all have blogs. Just becuase it is written on paper doesn't make it right. Just becuase it is on a blog doesn't make it wrong. I hate to break it to you but Wikipedia is also a "blog" and that is its strength.Hubris and arrogance prevented you from even considering the evidence presented (comment by Moin Ansari, March 2nd, 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.99.1 (talk • contribs)

Dear Mr. Ansari (IP 67.80.99.1), a blog is a self-published source. We can't depend on it for anything. For example, I can report on my own blog that I think or I claim that the moon is made of green cheese. Then, hypothetically, I can claim my blog as a source and add that info to Moon, would that be ok?

On the other hand, if you write something on your blog, and when commenting on your opinion, I say that "Mr. Ansari has said this", it will be fine.

In other words, we can't depend on a self-published source for facts, ... such sources are good only for showing the publisher's opinion.

On the other hand, Wikipedia requires verifiability as the strongest of all policies ... so, there is a very clear distinction between your blog, and a wikipedia article on anything. The former (your blog) is your own opinion-piece ... people can get away with making amazingly unsupported claims (as seen above in the claim about "Partition"), while in Wikipedia, we depend on established and reliable sources (research papers, books from scholarly sources etc). I hope the difference is clear to you. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Map of British Raj, 1909

.

I also assume Mr. Moin Ansari (is it you, Mik357?) is not familiar with the formal extent of British Raj, as it existed before 1947 Partition. To help with that, let me present this official map of British Raj, circa 1909, published at the "Imperial Gazetteer of India". Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The official map you displayed included many countries in the Subcontinent and hundreds of states. Partition has to divide a whole. Since the whole consisted for more than 570 states, why would the independence of Pakistan be considered "partition", while the indpendence of Burma is not considered "partition". (comment by Moin Ansari, March 2nd, 2008. Details are posted on Rupee News, but you fail to consider the evidence..becuase "you know it all...and your opinion is fact while everyone elses opinion is wrong and incorrect)

Just a minor point, is it really constructive to begin a response with ha ha? - no matter how outlandish you think the comments are?

Pahari Sahib 01:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right, I was just being sarcastic. :). --Ragib (talk) 01:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Unlike me of course with my moon and cheese comment :-) Pahari Sahib 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Ragib,

You asked for a reference and I gave you one. My friend, you are not an authority. I will simply keep on undoing your addition of the unnecessary term.

If you desire more sources, than please, search by yourself. I am satisfied with my findings and if you have want, do some research. And trust me, no need for sarcasm. I don't wish to come down to personal arguments of any sorts with you - it's not my style and besides, just as I am a nobody to you, you are a nobody to me with whom I don't wish to talk to beyond what is needed.

The fact remains and you can not deny it, there was no 'India' before August 15, 1947, day after Pakistan was created. If 'India' was not there, than how is it that Pakistan was partitioned from it? British India was simply a term used to describe the area of British Empire in South Asia, nothing more. India lost no territory with creation of Pakistan.

Mik357 (talk) 02:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Rajib,

According to the map posted, Nepal and Bhutan too appear as parts of British India. How accurate is this map? So is Mynamar (Burma) 'PARTITIONED' from India? Is Bangladesh 'PARTITIONED' from Pakistan? I sure don't see those statements in the articles for Nepal, Bhutan, or Bangladesh. Pakistan is not a special case.

Mik357 (talk) 03:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not understand your comment above, are you claiming the map, from Imperial Gazetteer of India to be fake? Or are you claiming that Pakistan was an independent state not part of British Raj at that time? Please refer to British Raj to learn about the locations under that entity and subject to Government of India under British Raj. As for Burma, it became separated from British India on April 1, 1937. As for Bangladesh, it became independent after the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. The Partition of India was a historic event almost invariably referred to as such by historians, books (and everything else). So, what was your comment? Are Pakistan and India not a result of the Partition of India or not? Did some magician build the land out of a vacuum on 14 August 1947? --Ragib (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You very conveninetly said that you do not understand the points made. The points are valid and very potent. Your map shows more than 570 states. The states on the Indus banded together to form Pakistan. Those on the Ganges banded together to form Bharat. Why call it "partition", when British Raj had hundreds of states and was not mone monolithy which was "partitioned". You say Burma "seperated" from ....How about Nepal? Did it separate or was it partitioned. Either be consistent on using "partition" for all countries AND states in the Subcontinent, or don't use partition for Pakistan only. Why wasn't Afghanistan "partitioned' when Curzon retreated? Why wasn't Iraq which was also part of the British Indian Empire also "partitioned"? Why wasn't Aden, which was part of the British Indian Empire also partitioned? Why wasn't Indonesia partitioned from the Dutch Indian Empire? Why wasn't Aaos and Cambodia partitioned from the French Indian Empire? All these points are made with maps on http://www.rupeenews.com but in your hubris you fail even to consider the points. (comment by Moin Ansari, March 2nd, 2008)

By the way, you already are close to breaking 3 revert rule. --Ragib (talk) 03:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone! So Mik357, are you also negating the efforts of the Muslim leaders like Quaid-e-Azam who struggled for an independent Muslim country in the Subcontinent(i.e. British India). Sorry to say but you can't change the facts! And please refrain from reverting to your edits as you may face a block for disruptive editing or violating 3 Revert Rule! let this issue first be solved here at the talk page. --SMS ^Talk 03:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The Official constitutional name of the country is "Bharat" (AKA 'India' in English')

Columbus called America "India", and other islands as East India...thousands of miles from Bharat. "Indians" is America is not their name! Just because the British called it "India" does not make it so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.99.1 (talk • contribs)

The article does say "Its territory was a part of the pre-partitioned British India" - it does not say "Its territory was a part of the pre-partitioned India" Pahari Sahib 04:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

---

If anything, Pakistan achieved independence from UK and hence broke off from UK and not India, Hindustan, Bharat, or 'British India'. Thus, Pakistan resulted from 'partitioning' (if you like that word) of the Britain or British Empire. Now, regarding this if you need proof, I will more than happy to provide you with references (and all top rated ones as well).

And I don't know whether that map is correct or not but it, as you can see, shows Nepal and Bhutan as part of British Raj...well that is not correct. Besides, if you want to follow that map, then technically not all of Pakistan was part of British Raj as Baluchistan and Kashmir is not 'under British Indian Administration'.

Mik357 (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Its funny that you say all this and then come up with an Indian POV like "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir".

Pahari Sahib02:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

SMS,

Thanks for telling about the rules here. I am not an expert on Wiki rules so I really do appreciate people letting me know. Also, the fact is, Quad-e-Azam struggled to achieve a Muslim nation called Pakistan in South Asia from United Kingdom and not from India. India didn't grant us independence. We were created before India and that is a fact my friend even you can't change.

Mik357 (talk) 02:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Pahari Sahab,

Hmm, agreed. Maybe it was a slip of tongue but from the neutral sources I have seen (don't have energy to post links), Kashmir is divided into 2 regions - Pakistan Controlled and Indian Controlled.

Nonetheless, entirely my mistake....I have changed it to 'Kashmir'.

Thanks a lot, appreciate it.

Mik357 (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

That's better :-), but "neutral sources" shouldn't be calling it occupied (unless it is mentioning India's claim)

Pahari Sahib16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While we are on the note of not calling it "partition," how about acknowledging that the British INVADED the country as well as the Mongols, Greeks, etc. It was not as if the people of the region asked them to come!98.134.70.94 (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose this article will have to be deleted then: Partition of India.--Loodog (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is interesting bit of history. How do we explain the coins, with clearly printed "India", postage stamps, and the Indian Independence Act. How do you explain the "Hind" in Waris Shah's poetry, or the "Hindustan" in Iqbal's poetry. This is strange Kulveer (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)Kulveer

Checked out the official CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF PAKISTAN, on an official website of the Government of Pakistan . It says "Partition Scheme: In October 1946, an Interim Government was formed. The Muslim League sent its representative under the leadership of its General Secretary, Mr. Liaquat Ali Khan, with the aim to fight for the party objective from within the Interim Government. After a short time, the situation inside the Interim Government and outside convinced the Congress leadership to accept Pakistan as the only solution of the communal problem. The British Government, after its last attempt to save the Cabinet Mission Plan in December 1946, also moved towards a scheme for the partition of India. The last British Viceroy, Lord Louis Mountbatten, came with a clear mandate to draft a plan for the transfer of power. After holding talks with political leaders and parties, he prepared a Partition Plan for the transfer of power, which, after approval of the British Government, was announced on June 3,1947. Both the Congress and the Muslim League accepted the Plan." Kulveer (talk) 05:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Kulveer

Partition refers to the vivisection of the area known as the Punjab. Half of the Punjab went to Pakistan where as the other half went to India. And before anyone who doesnt understand geography begins to argue that the majority of the Punjab was awarded to Pakistan, let me make it clear that the area known as "Punjab" extends as far as New Dehli. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnysgrewal (talk • contribs) 04:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not accepting the fact that Pakistan was created out of the Division of the geographical entity of 'India' that existed at that time tantamounts to re-writing of History. Jinnah's speech to Pakistan's constituent assembly needs to be read in this context, in which he said that "I know there are people who do not quite agree with the division of India and the partition of the Punjab and Bengal[3]. Much has been said against it, but now that it has been accepted, it is the duty of everyone of us to loyally abide by it and honorably act according to the agreement which is now final and binding on all. " On wikipedia we need to convey the actual history of the region of Pakistan, and hence Partition needs to be acknowledged as an actual event that took place in history. Kulveer (talk) 06:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Kulveer

removed "muslim" from subheading

I have removed the term "Muslim" from the nationhood subheading. What does that mean? Musilm Nationhood? Anyone who reads this article can see clearly from the demographics section that Pakistan is an overwhelmingly Muslim majority country. The term "muslim" need not be inserted here. Also, at the time Pakistan was founded, the Quaid-e-Azam said that "religion will have nothing to do with the business of the state". --Zaindy87 (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

UN

Pakistan is not the country which has deployed the largest amount of UN peace keeping force. Its India and also during the first war of Kashmir the Pakistani army did not capture Azad Kashmir and all those areas, they were on the verge of complete retreat when the UN was called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.209.202.143 (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for these claims? Pahari Sahib 08:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to say but Mr. Anonymous facts are different from your first claim, please check this Summary of UN Peacekeeping forces Contributors. --SMS ^Talk 11:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir and the northern areas are under Pakistani control since 1947. They were a part of the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir whose ruler decided to join India. Unless Pakistan captured these areas, how are they under it's control? And it was Nehru who asked the UN to intervene, so maybe your information about who was in what kind of position at the end of the war is not accurate ;) --Zaindy87 (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

wrong temperature given

highest temperature for pakistan written as 50.55C at pad idan which is wrong. reference given tells you about the high temperature for a specefic day in a specefic year. thus it is also null and void.actual high temperature is 52.8C at jacobabad. references for this are

http://www.mherrera.org/temp.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/city_guides/city.shtml?tt=TT002690

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.187.234 (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Islamic militants in the north-east of the country

We are told that the Military are engaged in an armed conflict with the above group. Would someone tell the Wiki readers what they (the Islamic militants) are called or known as and what Province or administrative area is the north-east?Eog1916 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually that should read north-west of the country, the article actually links to Federally Administered Tribal Areas. Pahari Sahib 01:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Caption of Jinnah speech photo

The date given is 11 August 1947. Should it not be 14 August?

--Ash (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No! it is August 11, as you can find a little detail about it here Muhammad Ali Jinnah's 11th August Speech. --SMS ^Talk 14:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing "Greater Middle East" reference

No other article on a country included in this "Greater Middle East" definition mentions it as such in its beginning paragraph. Only as a minor sidenote at the botttom really. Most sources, academia and other references put Pakistan in South Asia, if not all of them. Very few well-informed sources would call it "Middle Eastern". We've already mentioned its alleged "Middle Eastern" ties due to its Pashtun and Baluch populations in the west by stating "its located in the region where South Asia converges with Central Asia and the Middle East." In my view, these cultures don't so much represent "Middle Eastern" influence as they do a sort of South-Central Asian cultural "Iranosphere" that just happens to overlap into western Pakistan. Also, Afghanistan and western Pakistan are often historically known as frontier regions of South Asia. But back to the point, we should just label it as South Asian and keep the following sentence acknowledging its convergence with central asia and the middle east as recognition of the extra regional ties it has historically or culturally. It's pointless to also initially define it as part of a minor, fringe-based political definition used for diplomatic purposes only by one administration, especially a definition only given prominence in this article and not on an article on say Sudan or Somalia or Mauritania, all considered part of Bush's "Greater Middle East" as well. [[Afghan Historian (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)]]

Pakistan is ONLY in South Asia, even the Pakistani news agencies and the government of Pakistan itself ONLY considers itself South Asian. It is a member state of SAARC. Signed, a Pakistani. Mik357 (talk) 18:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, Pakistan cannot be limited only to South Asia, half of the country is located on the Iranian Plateau and is populated by Iranic (around 35%) peoples. Pakistan is also part of the Greater Middle East and Central Asia. Signed an Iranian! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.161.37 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, your opinion is useless here. You're Iranian, not Pakistani. You have no say on where Pakistan is or not, regardless of your nationalistic bullcrap. I'm a Pakistani Pakhtun and I say its in South Asia, with some Central Asian overlap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.255.203.224 (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC) I highly doubt that, cuz Pashtuns are the ones living on the Iranian Plateau in western Pakistan, hence part of the Middle East. Also, Balochistan represents the easternmost point of the Iranian plateau (Suleimon mountains). Btw.. I am Pashtun from Khyber, nice try though!(i'll assume your another dilutional complexed indian).... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.220.150 (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

East Pakistan?

I don't understand this removal of the mention of East Pakistan. I think its important to make clear that when Pakistan was created in 1947, half of it was located in East Bengal. You must explain why modern Pakistan is so different from the one that was founded. Any country's civil war and secession of a significant territory and a major chunk of the population deserves clear mention in the beginning. Vishnava (talk) 02:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

That edit has been explained to me by the editor, so I am ok with it. But I would like to ascertain other people's opinions regarding what I feel deserves permanent mention in the article introduction. Vishnava (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What was the explanation? Pahari Sahib 01:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

This was our conversation. However, my point has been addressed so its cool. Vishnava (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I do have to mention though; Vishnava did a great job on rewriting the leading section. It seems better now. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

While reading the edits you had made, I realized that the tone in which you present Bangladesh as a part of the country, it seems as if you are stating that East Pakistan was a separate country than West Pakistan. Rather than having to say this

Before its secession in 1971, Bangladesh was a part of the country, known as East Pakistan
— [[User:As cited by Vishnava]]

..shouldn't it say

Before its secession in 1971, Bangladesh was a part of the province of East Pakistan

The former just made it look like East Pakistan was a separate country – Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 15:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

"Before its secession in 1971, Bangladesh was a part of the province of East Pakistan" --- No, Bangladesh WAS the province of East Pakistan, not "a part". --Ragib (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Ragib. That's what I meant! ;) Cheers. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please someone correct area of Pakistan

I'm not accustomed to editing in Wiki hence kindly somebody correct the area of Pakistan. Source: Statistics Division, Government of Pakistan - http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/publications/pocket_book2006/general/population.pdf

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francismichael (talk • contribs) 08:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done but just for info, do see Area of Pakistan mentioned at List of countries and outlying territories by total area, to know why it was mentioned 880,254 sq Km. Since it wasn't cited so I edited it. SMS ^Talk 08:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry! I didn't see the area mentioned in the text of the article mentions before that states it is 803,940 sq Km with the source as the CIA factbook. The reason is it also includes the territory of Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir. SMS ^Talk 08:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Afghania province incorrect

A section states that Pakistan name was created using alphabet from Afghania province amongst other province names letters, thats wrong the province is simply known as North West Frontier Province, it may be renamed as Pukhtoonkhwa in the future, but was never called Afghania as far as its history with Pakistan in concerned. Please correct that section.(116.71.39.196 (talk) 18:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC))

Please refer to the pamphlet written by Choudhary_Rahmat_Ali ..., he explicitly used the term "Afghan province". --Ragib (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Before 1850, NWFP was part of Afghanistan. In 1525, Babur travelled in and around the NWFP and explained in writing that the region that is NWFP today was called "Afghanistan" and it's inhabitants were called "Afghans". Even before that period, during the Delhi Sultanate period, the area was known as "Afghanistan" and the people as "Afghans". You can search for all this HERE by typing "Afghanistan" or "Afghans" in the bottom of the page.--119.30.79.215 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

The name of the country is Islamic Republic of Pakistan, or Islami Jhamuriya Pakistan. The name written in the article is incorrect, futhermore, it is a gross act of vandalism that must be corrected immediately by the wikipedia editors. Wikipedia should know that such inaccuracies cannot be tolerated on websites of this calibre, because it is apparent that the name was changed on purpose, just to mock the country. Theseawolf (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)Theseawolf

The name was changed without explanation by User:Takolavo on 2008-05-08. I have reverted that edit, and left a warning on the user's talk page.

Keep in mind that most of us who edit the English Wikipedia can't read Arabic, so we wouldn't know if a change to the native name is incorrect. =Axlq 15:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Southwest Asia

The lead paragraph for this entry indicates that Pakistan is part of Southwest Asia; however, the entry for Southwest Asia does not include Pakistan in its list of the countries in that region. Someone should resolve this discrepancy. Klmarcus (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And it also states that the country is a part of the Middle East? As if. Norum (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

which date format to use?

A date audit has shown a mixture of both international and US. I've used US throughout now, but please buzz me if this is not a good idea. Tony (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Demographics error

Just a small point, the muslim population of pakistan according to the latest available data i.e. the Pakistan 1998 census states 96%. This has been corrected before but somebody chose to change it to 97%. The reference tagged to it also states 96%. There is no data currently available that is more reliable than the last published census. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samk108 (talk • contribs) 15:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add the national symbols of Pakistan in the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_symbols_of_Pakistan

Title Symbol Notes Great Leader Muhammad Ali Jinnah[20][29] lit. Quaid-e-Azam (Urdu) Mother of the Nation Fatima Jinnah[30] lit. Madar-i-Millat (Urdu) National poet Allama Muhammad Iqbal[20] Official map by Mahmood Alam Suhrawardy[20] National language Urdu[20] National flower Jasmine[20] National tree Deodar[20] (Himalayan Cedar) National fruit Mangifera indica[20] (Mangifera indica) National animal Markhor[20] (Himalayan Goat-Antelope) National bird Chukar[20] (Red-legged Partridge) National game Field hockey[31] National mosque Faisal Mosque[32][33] National monument Bab-e-Pakistan[34][35][36] (Urdu) lit. Gateway of Pakistan National monument (Pakistan) National Monument[37][38]

like this.

ok allah hafiz

 Not done, the page is already rather long and we have a separate article on them for a reason - I don't see a good reason why they need to all be in the main article. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake

In the history section, "greivances" should be "grievances". I would edit myself, but can't.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ellster (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing that out - now fixed Pahari Sahib 12:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Notes

in the reference section it states Indias position on Kashmir as POK while on Indias main page it only mentions Indias POV and ignores Pakistans point of view this needs change or just delete indias position on the references section why is this so unbalanced in indias favour. 86.158.177.237 (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

{{editsemiprotected}} The article contains the meaning of Pakistan, which currently reads 'land of the smelly' but should read 'land of the pure'. can someone change this please?

thanks.

Some infidels with anti-pakistan motives try to create schism between Shia's and Sunnis by attributing such hateful statements to either partiies. Pakistanis should be well aware of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.28.141 (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

change name meaning

{{editsemiprotected}} hi, can the meaning of the name Pakistan be changed from 'Land of the smelly' to 'Land of the Pure'.

thanks.

I've changed it back to "pure", and fixed another two pages that were vandalised by the same user. —Snigbrook 13:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

G20 membership. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.136.94 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

G20 developing nations

Pakistan is a member of the G20 developing nations. Can you also add this please at the beginning of the article. Thank You.

Noorkhanuk85 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)noorkhanuk85Noorkhanuk85 (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir Bias

i have noticed that next to pakistans subdivisions section azad kashmir of pakistan there is a note stating it is disputed territory while on the indian page it is absent which portrays that india occupied kashmir region is not disputed can some one remove this note or add it to the indian page atleast to make it less pakistanphobic and less anti pakistan please 86.156.211.85 (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC) Are all pakistani editors dead or just not capable of changing this bias against there own country look at indias page it showed indian occupied territory as part of india while showing azad kashmir as disputed we need a map like that showing indian occupied territory clearly please wake up 86.156.211.85 (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir, the Pakistani-administered Kashmiri territory is not defined, well-described nor mapped in this article. While not economically significant, it is a significant political issue and deserves better than it's now got. I'm not competent to fix it; someone who is could make a significant improvement in this matter. Frankatca (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In the India article Azad Kasmir is claimed by the Indians in a light green colour. I believe either we should add Indian Occupied Kashmir in light green, or force the Indians to remove their map claim to Azad Kashmir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.58.66 (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Population ranking.

In its summary the article states : "Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world and has the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia."

However, Indonesia is actually fourth in ranking, and Pakistan is actually sixth after Brazil. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population)

Aanixd (talk) 09:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)aanix 12.12.08

Isn't the sentence saying exactly the same thing? Pakistan has the 6th largest population in the world, and if you consider adherents of Islam, Indonesia has the highest number of Muslims, followed by Pakistan. So, I don't really understand where you see a problem, because the sentence you quoted is stating precisely this. --Ragib (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Province name Afghania is incorrect

Its NWFP not Afghania —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mailsaifee (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Please go back to 1930s and tell Chaudhury Rahmat Ali about that. :) Sarcasm aside, the "Afghania" was a proposed name, not what the actual name the area ended up with. So, nothing is incorrect here. --Ragib (talk) 04:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)