Talk:Pakistan/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 → Archive 22

Article fully protected for three days

Due to the recent surge in disruptive editing I have fully protected the article for three days. Please discuss proposed changes here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 23 August 2015

Ejaz ul haq s/o tahir muhammad sui dera bugti 182.183.137.202 (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC the images issue

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus not to include the images. AlbinoFerret 01:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • An editor is persistent to the restoration of the unrelated and substandard subjects images to the state article, I have explained my good faith edits that are for the credibility and the standards of the project. The state article is not a photo album nor the place of promotion for substandard subjects. The problem is that that part of the world demonstrates extremely own affection, fan phobia and promotional methods with gaming the system of the project without using common sense and adopting the guidelines and policies in the right direction. The dispute is based on some motivations, and there is clear visible that the images even are not related to the article nor the subjects are mentioned in the section. I hope, the uninvolved editors will comment in accordance with the neutral point of view.Thanks. Justice007 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Mutt Lunker, if you do not know, you should not revert the good faith edits, first, please, explain why do you think the substandard, and the minor artists images should be on the state article while there are much higher figures. We are not here to make the articles substandard. Second, no any other state article has the large quantity of the images as this article. It is not a photo album. Such images are the personal motivation that does not endorse the guidelines and policies of the project. The wiki link fulfills the subjects names rather multiple unnecessary images. You did not give the valid reason in the edit summary; that's why the reverting was not legitimate and restored. Please reach a consensus, I have then no problem.Justice007 (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:BRD for an explanation. You made a bold edit, I considered your change to the article to not be an improvement as the images are in my view pertinent, so I reverted your change, then you may "Discuss the edit, and the reasons for the edit, on the article's talk page. Don't engage in back-and-forth reverts because that will probably be viewed as edit-warring.". So please revert your reversion to the status quo ante your bold edit and discuss, with the aim of reaching a consensus on the matter. That you simply don't like the pictures is not a valid rationale. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I added back the images those are a bit the higher figures images than the minor actors. I did not say the images were not pertinent. I said that was state article; there should be added the higher figures images. I hope this helps. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Bold, Revert, Discuss; please read it again. It is not Bold, Revert, Edit War, Make a Small Concession and Hope to Get Away With It. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Please do not try to force me, and do not game the system, I am not going to compromise for restoring the minor artists images in this article. Use common sense before insisting your interests that even you did not edit before that article. Let's wait the comments and review of other uninvolved editors. I will accept if there is the consensus to add that minor artists to the state article. I am surprised that as an experienced editor forcing for adding the minor artists images!!? Justice007 (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Gaming the system? That's rich. Your reason for not complying with "the system" is "I'm not going to compromise"?! It is not the party contesting a change who must seek consensus but the instigator of that contested change. That is you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I used the Wikipedians term 'Compromise' if you are familiar with that!. Why do you want the images of minor artists in this article, what do you have the interests? You are still silent to give the valid reasons that why and how it is important? The both subjects are even not mentioned in the section content that are not related to the article. Do you know the other higher artists of that part of the world if not, please do not make yourself confused. Reach a consensus, that is the solution, and I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
You used the term "compromise": to indicate you are not willing to make one! You continually say that consensus must be reached while you are the very one forcing through a change before a consensus has been reached to do so. Accusing another of edit warring when it is you that continually impose your change fools no-one and is a blatant double standard. Let's address this before further discussion of the content. Please revert to the status quo ante as requested. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Photo of Fawad Khan is having banner of Red FM behind him, we should not add such photos, it will be promotion of that brand. That brand sponsored that event (filmfare) not this article. Moreover photo of Nazia is also very substandard and she is also not well known. I think if you want to add someone's photo then one can add photo of Atif Aslam, he is really major singer and famous in entire sub-continent. But it is just my opinion. --Human  07:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Mutt Lunker, stop your illegitimate forcing to the restoration of the images that are simply not related to that article, even the subjects are not mentioned in the article section where that were added. You are avoiding to answer that I am asking you, how do you think that the images should be in that article and why? if you do not answer with valid reasons, I am not going to discuss with you further. I am not for my personal interests, reconsider your way of dealing the dispute that is totally irrelevant to the discussion. First read the article, especially the section where your status quo ante and BRD does not apply. Most higher artists of Pakistan are Mehdi Hassan, Noor Jehan and more others.Justice007 (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I am addressing your warring. You are the one that made the initial change to the article and are "illegitimate(ly) forcing" this position, against the staus quo ante. Your vexatious claims of edit warring are a blatant double standard. Have a word with yourself. The section is about media and entertainment so it is entirely pertinent that it be illustrated by figures from that world. You may not be impressed by their work or think that there are better choices to be placed there but argue your case and gain consensus rather than continually forcing your change through, against WP:BRD. I am not the one making the change. I am open to discussion about the matter but because of your vexatious behaviour I have had to address that first. We'd probably have resolved the matter by now if you had not declared ownership of your revised version. Take a leaf out of @Human3015's book, with a constructive and non-combative approach. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
...although the realisation that @Human3015's contribution was at the direct request of @Justice007 rather puts matters in a different light. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Justice007, I will take a look to the article. DIbraNEW (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
To be honest this seems to be a pretty thickheaded debate. The image of Fawad Khan seems to be pretty sub standard. Cant we find a better one? and I am not even sure who the second actress/singer/crooner/mutant superwoman IS. She is just a nobody for the general populace. If you are going to put up images at least make sure they are of good quality. Putting up low quality images and then warring for them staying up is pretty thickheaded to be honest. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

English as an Co-official Language

I have a difference of opinion on English being co-official language of Pakistan. Once, Supreme Court of Pakistan has already issued a directive to make Urdu official language of Pakistan. It automatically replaces official status of English language. There is no other order or directive needed. For example, there is no need for Supreme Court of Pakistan or another government institution to issue an order to remove official status of English. Supreme Court of Pakistan or Government of Pakistan are never going to say that English is not an official language because after this order, there is simply no need to do that.

My suggestion in this regard is that we remove English as co-official language from the article unless we have a proof from reliable resources that English is still an official language of Pakistan. Unless, someone from the Government comes out and say, oh yes, English is still our official language alongside Urdu. Sheriff (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Despite the court order English is still used as the primary official language by the Gov. of Pakistan. Actually if we can add information on our own interpretation of primary sources, like the Constitution of Pakistan (Article 251), then English was never the official language of Pakistan after 1988. But we all know (and have reliable sources supporting this info) that its not true. Supreme Court has just reiterated what was already written in the constitution and should have been implemented by 1988. And this shift of official language is not practically possible in a day that is why Supreme Court has also suggested a timeline (presented by govt) in its judgement, that may take some months to implement.
Anyway we use secondary sources and preferably do not rely on self explanation of primary sources like this judgement. The news reports about this judgement only say that SC has asked the government to adopt/implement/shift to Urdu, not that it has already moved to Urdu as the official language. --SMS Talk 21:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Economy

Why did you place Economy section under Infrastructure? This is wrong - you check other articles, for example Germany — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.5.10.248 (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The reference paper cited for the population figure states a different number

Hello,

The population of Pakistan as cited in this article is given as 209 million. The paper cited for this figure states that the population of Pakistan in 2015 is 191.71 million. Why this discrepancy?

202.69.13.179 (talk) 09:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Which paper, where is the source?Justice007 (talk) 10:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's the link to the paper - [1]. This citation is number 12 in the list of references at the end of the article. 202.69.13.179 (talk) 06:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Corrected. -- SMS Talk 07:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

No one ever had the title "King (or Queen) of Pakistan"

The King (later Queen) in relation to independent Pakistan held the following official style and titles:

  • Until 22 June 1948:His Majesty George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India[1]
  • From 22 June 1948 until 6 February 1952:George the Sixth, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith[2]
  • From 6 February 1952 until 6 February 1952:Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith[3]
  • From 6 February 1952 until 23 March 1956:Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith[4]

Notably, in 1953 when the Sovereign's titles were 'split' so as to have different titles for each realm, Pakistan opted to keep her title the exact same for Pakistan as it was for the UK. It was the only realm that chose not to include its own name in her title. To speak of a person having a title "Queen of Pakistan" is sheer fiction. My initial edits to correct this in the article were reverted. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Odd though it sounds, technically dominion means that the king or queen of GB is also the king or queen of Pakistan. I'm not sure, though, that the title King of Pakistan works because it all depends on what title the King/Queen used. For example, Elizabeth II is Queen of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. So can one refer to her as the Queen of Australia? Suggest (though I'm sure they've seen this if they're editing) pinging Pakistan specializing editors like @Mar4d:, @Smsarmad: and @Faizan: or asking the more general question at Elizabeth II. For the record, the source provided to support the current text doesn't use the words King of Pakistan or Queen of Pakistan so those exact terms are unsourced. --regentspark (comment) 18:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
See Monarchy of Pakistan, which shows a photograph of Elizabeth II as Queen of Pakistan. In Canada, Elizabeth is "Queen of Canada and her other realms and territories." Do you have a source showing that George VI and Elizabeth II never had the title of King/Queen of Pakistan? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Onus to provide source is on someone who is trying to include disputed and controversial content in an article, the only source which was there is not a WP:RS in any way, it is easy to find a source for something which ever existed instead of finding a source for something which never existed. Why would someone mention something which never existed? Sheriff (report) 20:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Technically, FrenchMalawi is correct in that there was no title 'Queen of Pakistan', however, all the same, the monarchy of Pakistan was separate from the the UK and other realms, Elizabeth II was Pakistan's head of state, and bore the title Queen. I don't know quite how to express in the article that she was in every real sense Pakistan's Queen, but not titled as such. I'm pretty sure doglegging into a lot of discussion of exact titles isn't it. PepperBeast (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The current wording "had two British monarchs" covers this quite well. I don't see any need to spell out King of Pakistan when that isn't stated that way in any reliable source. --regentspark (comment) 21:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that this monarchy claim is significant enough to merit any attention on any Pakistan related article. cӨde1+6 LogicBomb! 21:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I second cӨde1+6 and want to add that even if there is an RS for this, it still doesn't merit mentioning and I would like to see a 100% consensus to warrant this mention at this point on Pakistan article which I don't see happening. Sheriff (report) 23:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

User:pepperbeast - The first time you put back in the "Queen of Pakistan" stuff, you reverted my edit with the edit summary "Strange POV". After I saw this, I input this detailed description, opened this discussion and took back out the "Queen of Pakistan" stuff again. In my edit summary, I said, "see discussion page". With the edit summary "Restored correct info about monarchy" and no discussion here, you reverted again. Why did you make these edits? The second reversion was particularly frustrating for me. Frenchmalawi (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Heraldic.org website
  2. ^ Heraldic.org website
  3. ^ Heraldic.org website
  4. ^ Heraldic.org website

Geographic features of Afghanistan geography need to be mentioned in first paragraph?

Very first para. says "[Pakistan] is separated from Tajikistan by Afghanistan's narrow Wakhan Corridor in the north, and also shares a maritime border with Oman." Is this feature of Afghan geography really worthy of mentioning in the very first sentence? Tajikistan doesn't border PK. Why mention this so prominently? I took it out but it was reverted. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Voting in first LB phase begins in Sindh, Punjab

Voting in first LB phase begins in Sindh, Punjab LG polls in Punjab, Sindh begins amid low-scale violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.178.134.141 (talk) 07:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Pakhtoons

In Pakistan PAKHTOONS are the most sweetest and the most agressive people known.39.41.235.115 (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Establishment Events in the Infobox

I can't help but notice that there are dates under the establishment section of the infobox that shouldn't be there. That section is for the creation of a NATION, not an IDEA for one. The uneccesary material will be deleted. Anasaitis (talk) 07:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2016

39.42.88.171 (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change, Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No mention it was part of India

Over the years I have learned that wikipedia is anti India. And here is another example. You would think in the first paragraph, or second paragrpah, or third paragrpah, there would be a mention that Pakistan was part of India. But no. Theres none. Instead, it was home to ancient civilizations is what it says.....That was ancient India.....but wikipeida is anti india....and...many pakistans change history and change the truth because they don't like India. 2605:e000:2483:af00:d9cb:ac0c:e484:773a (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

internal link error

Under foreign policy or something there is an error. Use find to get to the part where it says "Arab World" Arab world is linked to the Middle East page instead of the Arab World page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_world The Middle East and the Arab World are not synonymous as the Arab World does not encompass the whole of the Middle East but does encompass much of North Africa 96.237.106.143 (talk) 21:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you. --regentspark (comment) 22:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dialing code, ISO code should be on the top , to be displayed in instant search!

I would like to see the dialing code, ISO code on the top , to be displayed in instant search! Examples below: https://www.google.com.pk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#newwindow=1&safe=active&q=turkey+language https://www.google.com.pk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#newwindow=1&safe=active&q=england https://www.google.com.pk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=iran%20language RehmaIkram (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hill

A hill is less steep and is lower in elevation than a mountain. Hills do not rise above 600 metres in height and they have distinct summits. They are formed by the build up of rock debris or sand deposited by glaciers and wind. A hill can also be formed when erosion carries away all the soil of a mountain after millions of years. A hill can also be formed when successive layers of magma cool and solidify. Hills are found in low mountain valleys, valleys, plain and sometimes even in your backyard! by Muhammad saad — Preceding unsigned comment added by God of legend (talk • contribs) 15:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Didn't mention that its east wing was seperated

You should write that how it was separated all the problems etc Abdul Rafay Shakeel (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It is discussed in the Independence and modern Pakistan section. Why do you say that it is missing? - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 24 external links on Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Pashto & Sindhi Languages of Pakistan

Please update the section on "Languages". Pashto speakers are not 15.4% but 08%. And the Sindhi speakers are not 14.1% but 12% (making the Sindhi language the second most spoken language in Pakistan after Punjabi). Please refer to the current data from this BBC article on Pakistani languages (12 September 2015). Thank you! SarfarazLarkanian 01:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually the BBC report has mentioned languages accornding to 1951,1961 and 1981 census.These census can be seen here.But the latest census is of 1998 which says Sindhi is spoken by 14.1 and Pashto by 15.42 and this census report can be seen here.--HassanKhan95 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Who on earth would even want to look at http://www.tariqrahman.net/content/scholorly_articles/pashtolangformation.pdf, this is by no mean a WP:RS. BBC article is published in September 2015 and does not state whether the data is based on 1951, 1961, 1981 or 1998 census. The source link that you added explains how you are trying to push in original research in Wikipedia. I don't know when people will understand that this is an encyclopedia and not a portal to promote their nationalistic agendas. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I m not talking about the entire book , I m just talking about page no.3 in which government of Pakistan's official 1951,1961 and 1981 census figures are given --HassanKhan95 (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
That is not a WP:RS, its a self published source and moreover none of those figures are same as BBC figures. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Did BBC report mentioned that these figures are of recent survey?Did it mention that these are figures of 2015?Did it told from where or how they took those figures?.Publishing a report in 2015 doesnt means that those figures are of 2015.They took those figures from old census (there may be a difference of some points i.e instead of 1.23 they wrote just 1 but overall those same figures as in old censuses).1998 census is the latest census so its figures should be kept.--HassanKhan95 (talk) 15:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Nope, not acceptable, first of all, the document you are showing me with 1951, 1961 and 1981 census figures is not reliable by any means and thus it's figures cannot be considered reliable. BBC report does actually mention that there source is CIA Factbook which makes CIA Factbook as secondary source and BBC as tertiary, both more reliable than a primary source. It does not have to mention what year the figures came from, the report is published in September 2015. Can you bring a more reliable source dated later than that? I will accept that. Here is another reliable source which attests to the figures from BBC and CIA Factbook. All of them cannot be wrong. Here, i block quote that for you:

In Pakistan, Punjabi has the highest number of speakers which are 48 per cent of the total population. However, Sindhi language is spoken by 12 per cent, Pashto and Urdu 8 per cent, Balochi 3 per cent, Hindko 2 per cent and Barohi 1 per cent.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The figures you have given are of old censuses that were conducted before 1998.
And BBC report is published in September 2015,It does not means that its given figures are of 2015, you are saying the the document is not realiable source,why not?.And how CIA and BBC report may be based on facts? Did BBC or CIA conducted any servey? or Do they have system to investigate it.Pakistan government conducts survey and on that base reports are submitted , Howevwr CIA and BBC have no system so that it conduct a servey or Census which is based on Facts.If u see the same CIA factbook is telling that Sindhis are 14.1% and Pashtuns are 15.42% ,If Pashtuns are 15.42% then how is it possible that Pashto is spoken by 8%.--HassanKhan95 (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The BBC source is reliable and recent. We don't ask how the sources get their information or why the number of Pashtuns is not equal to the number of Pashto speakers - that evaluation would be WP:OR. I'm restoring the BBC numbers. If you don't like that, I suggest you go to WP:RSN rather than edit warring. --regentspark (comment) 16:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
@RegentsPark: There is an apparent attempt for canvassing going on by HassanKhan95, he canvassed Massagetae and i am pretty sure this revert on Talk:Pakistan is done by either one of them. Massagetae has also reverted me on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and restored unsourced materal after he was asked to intervene by User:HassanKhan95 at User talk:Massagetae#Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:35, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
SheriffIsInTown, stop your propaganda see the timing of message given to Messagetae and also check the time of revert on Khyber Pakhtunkhwa article, the message was give after revert and the purpose was just to invite a neutral person to participate in discussion.--HassanKhan95 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Its still called canvassing on your part even if it was other way around, you saw him supporting your point of view at Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and you thought let's invite him to Pakistan so he can support your POV here as well. How does it become neutral? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

1971

@RegentsPark: Your summary line for this edit reads that "the source is not WP:RS and the statement is undue". Please can you explain, why do you think so? Source is a published book written by a well-known Pakistani diplomat and as for the statement, why do you think that mention of "Operation Searchlight" and "genocide" is due but not the atrocities committed by "Mukti Bahini". It's a documented fact that they committed the atrocities as well. Without mentioning those, the content would not reflect an NPOV version. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

A Pakistani diplomat is not a scholar and is likely to be a biased observer. If there are other, scholarly, sources that attest to atrocities committed by the mukti bahni, then that's fine. But, even then, this is probably not the right place to add that in because the chain of thought is election --> civil unrest --> military action. --regentspark (comment) 17:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The part played by Mukti Bahini was part of "civil unrest" part of chain of thought. As for Qutubuddin Aziz, why do you think that he is not a scholar? I think a diplomat can be a scholar as well. He did not write only on that topic, he has written many many books and on wide-ranging topics. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:39, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
If there were atrocities committed by Awami League or Mukti Bahini members, then there must be scholarly sources that say so. Relying on a Pakistani diplomat as the only source is not a good idea. Then we can take a look at whether the Mukti Bahini were created in response to operation searchlight or the other way round. --regentspark (comment) 18:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

History Section

I have inserted a passing mention about the Maratha Empire, since for a brief period it collected tributes from Sindh and Punjab and also filled the vacuum post the decline of Mughal Empire -- Amit20081980 01:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Population

Pakistan's population does not exceed 199 million. As of 2013, when the last census took place, it was about 182 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.122.200 (talk) 11:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Media and Entertainment

Should probably mention this: [2] Rklawton (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Self praise

Some statements in the article appear to be bordering on Self-Praise and read like a laundry list. Examples: 1) Economists estimate that Pakistan has been part of the wealthiest region of the world throughout the first millennium CE having the largest economy by GDP Comment: That would be better suited in history and not overview of current economy.

2) "It is ranked 16th on the 2012.... the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, SAARC and CERN." Comment: While that is an impressive list, it is too detailed to be impactful. I find the second lowest poverty rate better, but after whom? (Sri Lanka).

3) "According to the World Bank, Pakistan has important strategic endowments and development potential." Comment: This sentence does not add much weight. Paragraph can be made better without such filler and with more factual information that is objective.

My two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.134.144 (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2016

119.160.98.35 (talk) 02:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Blank request — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2016

Pakistan is one the first country, which is established based on islam. 111.68.104.201 (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Time zone

The infobox currently shows:

Time zoneUTC+5 (PST)
• Summer (DST)
UTC+6b
  1. Not always observed; see Daylight saving time in Pakistan. Currently uses standard time year-round.

If - as the footnote says - Pakistan currently uses standard time year-round, then the DST field should be removed completely and the footnote moved, eg:

Time zoneUTC+5b (PST)
  1. See also Daylight saving time in Pakistan.

Any objections to my making this change? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Sports Section needs to be improved

No pictures of the hockey team that have multiple world cups No pictures of either Imran Khan or Younis Khan lifting the 1992 (50 over) and T20I World Cup No Picture of Jehangir Khan and Jansher Khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.107.205.207 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2016

113.203.158.193 (talk) 06:16, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion of subsection on corruption

Hello,

a subsection on corruption should be added to the government and politics section as it is important enough. Kind regards,Sarcelles (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2016

i want to make addition to the languages as:

Saraiki[1][2]

Mybabydoll1985 (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 talk 00:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Spoken languages in Pakistan". Pakistann.com. Retrieved 29 August 2016. {{cite web}}: Check |archiveurl= value (help)
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Pakistann.com was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Sports

Besides what happened in 2009, Pakistan cricket didn't let down their efforts to play quality cricket. They played whole cricket in neutral venues which resulted in huge loss of revenues but still they won 2009 T20 Worldcup with the players like Umer gul, Shahid Afridi and Saeed Ajmal, then with the help of world class spin Pakistan team produced quality test cricket that helped them to reach on the top position in test ranking, 1st time since the introduction of ranking system in 2001. Pakistan team increased the interest of cricket lovers in test cricket with bringing these end time winning matches.

Sohailwahidbux (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Soviet-Afghan War

please change ((Soviet-Afghan War)) to ((Soviet–Afghan War)) 2601:541:4305:c70:107f:de89:c7:90cc (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: WP:NOTBROKEN EvergreenFir (talk) 22:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2016

According to world terrorism index pakistan is ranked no.1, it is unable to remove terrorist activities from the country.

Porkipaki (talk) 23:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. And not according to Global Terrorism Index — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 20:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2016

Srinivasnavalapudi2209 (talk) 09:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. No edit request made. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Population

Is now 201,995,540 according to the source Beatitudinem (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Article fix

=The lead at least should have one sentence on post independence Pakistan,,...

  • 3 wars with india
  • Nuclear bomb because of the two wars in 1965 and 1971 and intiation of plotonium/nuclear program by india
  • Soviet war
  • Afghan war
  • millions of afghan refugees since the start of the conflict (1978)

Lead sections:-

1.

  • Pakistan is a federal parliamentary republic in South Asia. -> (change to)
  • Pakistan is a federal parliamentary republic consisting of four provinces and four federal territories

2.

  • It is the 36th largest country in the world in terms of area with an area covering 881,913 km2 (340,509 sq mi). -> (change to)
  • At 881,913 km2 (340,509 sq mi) it is the 36th largest country in the world in terms of area

3.

  • mentions not the capital islamabad and major metropolitan area (karachi).

4. The post-independence history of Pakistan has been characterized by periods of military rule... ------- change to Since post-independence Pakistan has experienced several military coups, conflicts with India,

5. The country continues to face challenging problems, including overpopulation, terrorism, poverty, illiteracy, and corruption. ---change to The country faces challenging problems (continues to face---overpopulation wast a problem before --


1. Military ...

"Came into existence after independence in 1947" writing the date like this rather than "after independence"....(15-august pakistan had command of the army and the british indian army was divided on june 30 1947. _-- Saadkhan12345 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 October 2016

Fb beta (talk) 05:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Ethnic group changes in infobox

This is an attempt to get K.K Khel to discuss their changes, including presenting the source they have for their changes. Ravensfire (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

Arsalan Amjad most beautiful boy. 39.48.55.43 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Not a valid request. --SMS Talk 12:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Pakistan as a Middle Power (25.11.2016)

There is a new book on the market that has a big chapter on Pakistan as a middle power in Asia and its relations to the United States and China since the end of the Cold War. I would like to add some details from the book chapter to the Wiki article on Pakistan, but editing is prohibited. Can anyone please include at least the bibliographical info of the book?

Fels, Enrico (2017): Shifting Power in Asia-Pacific? The Rise of China, Sino-US Competition and Regional Middle Power Allegiance. Springer: Cham, pp. 437-505. (http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319456881) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:70:EE6D:B61E:D9A:7304:7804:85AB (talk) 11:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Contribution of Tourism to economy

The contribution of tourism to economy is 3% (according to 2012 data). It is not significant and hence I propose mentioning tourism revenues in a few lines in the economy section and deletion of this section. Help me reach a consensus or share your views.

Also, the education section fits better in culture & society and not in infrastructure? Thanks Pppooojjjaaa (talk) 02:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Regional power?

I noticed the edit warring over the "regional power" mention in the lead. The first source says Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power. So this is not something that has consensus among the reliable sources. The second source calls it a regional pole of power, with India being the other pole. So, this is not the same as being a "regional power". I would expect that a regional power has to provide some kind of regional leadership. Given that Pakistan failed to hold the SAARC summit, its claims to regional leadership are quite dubious. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

(oops, forgot to log in. Repost) Kautilya3 (talk · contribs), this is exactly why I reverted the edits - twice. There is nothing, absolutely nothing, concrete in any of the sources provided by Towns Hill that explicitly refers to this country as an outright regional power. The dubiousness of this claim to regional power status made me revert the edits. Might I also mention that the sources that this user provided are almost 15 years old? A lot can change in 15 years. China wouldn't have been considered as powerful as it is today in say, 2000, for example. The world was pretty unipolar in 2000, with the US being the sole superpower in existence, but it is now pretty multipolar. 15 year old sources in this case are illegitimate.
I am really amused (and kind of flattered) that someone spent time and effort in taking me to the arbitration committee when I was merely carrying out my duty and reverting what I saw as a flagrant attempt at nationalistic chauvinism. Am I assuming good faith here? No. Am in the wrong for not assuming good faith here? I doubt it, because a cursory glance at the editing histories of these two users gave me an insight into their behaviour on Wikipedia. Tiger7253 (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I will take a look at various sources. I haven't seen the first source cited before, so will need to take another look at it. Interestingly, it does have a whole section discussing Pakistan's status, strengths and weaknesses as a regional power. The second source linked clearly mentions Pakistan as a regional power in South Asia. Similarly, B. Buzan in The United States and the Great Powers: World Politics in the Twenty-First Century defines regional powers as those who "define the polarity of any given regional security complex", and defines Pakistan as a regional power in its region. Going through such readings, I find the assertion carries weight. Pakistan is undeniably a very important country in South Asia and beyond, and enormously large in terms of its population, demographics, military strength, nuclear capability, as well as in terms of its geostrategic politics and foreign relations. All these are factors of a reasonably influential country, as the first source notes. Economically, it is much developed than its other South Asian neighbours and has the 25th largest GDP. I will try expanding on Pakistan's influence within the body, but obviously it is important for the WP:LEAD to adequately summarise the country's position, as is the case with all other country articles. Mar4d (talk) 13:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    I looked at the sources as well. The first source lays out the criteria for what constitutes a regional power and concludes that Pakistan is one. However, it does also state that "Pakistan is not often thought of as a regional power" indicating that this (the view that Pakistan is a regional power) is not a widespread view. The second source categorically states that Pakistan is a regional power (and goes on to say that that stymies India's claim to great power status). So, what we have is an analytical source (the first one) that states that this is a minority view and a second source that makes a categorical claim. My guess is that reasonable research (not just a google search for "Is Pakistan a regional power" and then picking up the first references that include all three words - as is obviously what's been done here) will bear out the Regional Power claim but someone needs to do that work. --regentspark (comment) 14:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's another analytical source, citing RSCT theory, according to which both India and Pakistan are classed as "regional powers" (pg 886-887):

  • NOLTE, DETLEF. “How to Compare Regional Powers: Analytical Concepts and Research Topics.” Review of International Studies, vol. 36, no. 4, 2010, pp. 881–901. www.jstor.org/stable/40961959.

I think this pretty much settles it... cӨde1+6TP 20:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Quote, in case it needs to be embedded in the citation, on account of the fact there's dispute on this topic: "In the framework of their regional security complex theory (RSCT), Barry Buzan and Ole Waever differentiate between superpowers and great powers which act and have an impact on the global level (or system level) and regional powers whose influence may be large in their regions but have less of an impact at the global level. This category of regional powers includes Brazil, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey." cӨde1+6TP 03:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Code16. I am happy to reinstate the mention of 'regional power' along with this statement in the footnotes. I will add a more explanatory paragraph in the body in due course. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Always a pleasant sight when a productive talk page discussion yields a constructive outcome, over edit warring :) Mar4d (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2016

please change left hand drive LHD to right hand drive RHD Pakpatriot (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done please provide a reliable source to support your change you want to be made. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:47, 17 December 2016 (UTC).

Role of Islam in Pakistan

@Towns Hill:, while I agree with you that a section on the role of Islam is needed, I think the current section is overweight and contains too much detail. It needs to be summarised more tightly. Perhaps Mar4d and Smsarmad can help? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:, I don't agree with the weight argument. Firstly, if a country was founded on the name of Islam, then this relation should be given due weight, which is considerable in this case. Secondly, it has approximately the same word count as the "Independence and modern Pakistan" section, which seems reasonable given the context. With that said, if there is unnecessary detail that can be trimmed, we should trim it (via consensus) but not because of this section's weight, that is not a problem for this section. cӨde1+6TP 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The rise of Muslim nationalism and its role in shaping the Pakistan Movement is an important part of the history, so some coverage is warranted. However, I agree that the current section is way too long and contains some irrelevant or overdose of information. It would require some trimming, and should preferably be merged under an existing section on politics or religion. Unfortunately, I don't think I have the time or resources to undertake that exercise. Frankly, in my opinion, this whole article is worthy of an overhaul. A few editors (myself included) last attempted one back in 2011/12 to promote it to WP:GA level, but the current state is nowhere near that version. Mar4d (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Map

Currently, this map is used. That is not an accurate nor neutral map, even my Pakistan's own definition. This one's slightly more accurate. Pakistan's official maps usually include most of Kashmir.

So maybe the most neutral solution is a three colored map: first color indicates territories that are a part of Pakistan (according to everyone), second indicates parts of Kashmir that are administered by Pakistan, and third indicates parts of Kashmir administered by India but shown by Pakistan in its official map.VR talk 16:44, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

  • It is ã reasonable suggestion. Justice007 (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I would just revert it back to its original form without hesitation no need to comment about it. 2A02:C7D:1536:C00:B9CD:9286:8868:44CB (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Major Restructuring Needed

After having compared Pakistan with United States, India and China articles, I have come to the following conclusion.

i. 'Economy' sub-section needs to be given its own Section (move it out of 'Infrastructure').

ii. 'Geography, environment and climate' section should be listed right after 'History' and above 'Government and politics'.

iii. 'Urbanisation' sub-section needs to be moved and listed under 'Demographics' section.

iv. 'Military' sub-section needs to be given its own Section (move it out of 'Government and politics').

v. 'Science and technology' sub-section can have its own Section (move it out of 'Infrastructure').

Consensus is sought for the necessary changes (which should be carried out by Senior Wikipedians), after which this article needs to be nominated for Good Article status.

P.S. Each recommended point should be debated separately so that the ones with consensus can be implemented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.238.233 (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

@Shahrukhwani1: @Towns Hill: @Mar4d: @TopGun: Comments? -mfarazbaig 23:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mfarazbaig: Thanks for your suggestions. I mentioned a few months ago on this talk page how this article needed a major revamp. A few editors including TopGun and I had attempted one back in 2011 to take it to WP:GA, but the initiative died down. The current state of the article is not even close to what we had structured. It is a herculean task and unfortunately not one that I might have enough time and resources for :) Mar4d (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
@Mar4d: Thanks for your prompt reply. Since no one else was interested, I went ahead and made the necessary structural changes after comparing this article to India, Indonesia, Japan and Germany (all featured articles). It is also important to note that each of these FAs are ONLY around 200,000 bytes long. See below: reasons for changes made.
Point (i) and (ii) are the same way in those FAs. Point (iii) was common sense. Point (iv) - except Germany each have a separate Military section. Point (v) - left it where it is for now, since its not our strong suit. - mfarazbaig 19:13, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2017

1. In 'Military' sub-section, "As of current, the Chairman joint chiefs is General Rashid Mahmood alongside chief of army staff General Raheel Sharif" needs to be updated to

"Currently, the Chairman joint chiefs is General Zubair Hayat alongside chief of army staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa[1]"

2. In 'Nuclear power and energy' sub-section, "Energy from the nuclear power source is provided by three licensed-commercial nuclear power plants, as of 2012 data." needs to be updated to

"By the end of 2016, energy from the nuclear power sources was provided by four licensed-commercial nuclear power plants.[2]"

3. In 'Tourism' sub-section, "Pakistan is home to several mountain peaks over 7,000 metres (23,000 feet)" needed a reliable source, thus it is provided here,[3] 111.88.238.233 (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. - Mfarazbaig 18:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "General Qamar Bajwa COAS, General Zubair Hayat CJCSC". The News International. November 27, 2016. Retrieved 9 January 2017.
  2. ^ "Pakistan turns on fourth nuclear plant built with Chinese help". Hindustan Times. Dec 28, 2016. Retrieved 9 January 2017.
  3. ^ "5 Pakistani peaks that are among world's highest". The Nation. December 11, 2015. Retrieved 9 January 2017.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2017

hi pakistan does NOT CONTROL Kashmir India does 60% boo yeah take that Pakistanis 171.79.24.11 (talk) 12:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 13:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Featured article

I see that India is a featured article. I find that this Pakistan article is written much better than India. so why it is not a featured article. why anyone do not take the task? Safroniia (talk) 13:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I nominated it.69.108.66.78 (talk) 10:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Gallery

@Johnbod: I did read the MoS, as well as WP:IG. This stuff is more suited for Wikivoyage. And in case you haven't noticed, I didn't remove the entire thing and kept one of the images. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 21:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It is perfectly reasonable to have a small gallery, though there are rather too many mountains & not enough other types of landscape. You think one image is enough to represent Pakistan's landscapes? What do others think? Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The current gallery is definitely too much, and not so relevant. These images aren't even on Geography of Pakistan, and not that they all belong there. I support one of two choices: (a) having one or two pictures (most geography sections only include one or two images), or (b) a gallery with meaningful subtext intended to show a contrast, such as what's done here: Switzerland#Climate, but the images should be more meaningful and relevant than the current ones. (An image of Derawar Fort is probably not so relevant; there must exist better desert images to show the point.) ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 15:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. The gallery, with its emphasis on the himalayan region, is not even remotely representative of the geography of Pakistan. K2, Cold Desert are ok. If more pictures are necessary, perhaps we could add something from the central punjab region. --regentspark (comment) 15:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
So how about we put back Fitzcarmalan's edit, (possibly) until someone makes a gallery that's actually constrained and reasonable? ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 14:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Support that. Mid-page galleries are not a good idea anyway.--regentspark (comment) 15:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
That's a purely personal opinion, and one I think is the exact opposite of the correct approach! Many FAs have them, and they would be the most appropriate solution here, as the article is so long. Note that the example used in WP:IG is stuffed full of them. Johnbod (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Nothing against galleries. I just think they break up the flow of "content heavy" articles if they are embedded in the text. I don't really think we need a gallery to expand on geography, a couple of images should do the trick. Plonking an entire set of scenic images give the page (or section) a tourism brochure flavor. A gallery with images of iconographic things about Pakistan that go beyond geographical features would be a better idea (at the end of the article though). --regentspark (comment) 19:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
On the contrary, it is removing them from the relevant content and plonking them at the end that gives "a tourism brochure flavor". And "images of iconographic things about Pakistan" courts the same thing imo. But whatever. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Johnbod, feel free to create a gallery that's relevant and succinctly shows a contrast in geographic features. Then we could discuss its inclusion. But not the former gallery. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 18:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation. I would if I knew or cared enough about Pakistan, but I don't. Why don't you? Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I am inquiring about undoing the GA nomination

Talk:Pakistan/GA2 I am inquiring about undoing the GA nomination. Discussions are at my talk page and the GA nomination talk page. In short because it appears that nomination was out-of-process and premature. Any thoughts? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC) GA Reviewer

Result of review

Talk:Pakistan/GA2 (this is "repeated" here for when the review is no longer transcluded)

The is large article with an immense amount of material and references in it. It is also challenging for the editors because it must significantly cover some areas where there are current real-world disputes. The nomination was out-of process without discussion with the article's editors, and by an IP with a lifetime history of two edits, one to nominate this, and one to say that they did in a conversation that essentially said that this should be nominated because it is better than the India article. Just before that a lead editor expressed that much work was needed on the article and an intention to embark on that. Even a preliminary review spotted various areas that need work, a task too big to handle during a review process. Also, there was no response to my request to see if there was a person who intended to be involved in the review on behalf of the article. My only two choices are "pass" and "fail", and so for this article, my only only choice and result is the latter. This article shows an immense amount of excellent work, was nominated without discussion with the article's editors, and is simply not yet ready to be a GA. Keep up the good work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

More copied from my talk page: The CE & peer review sounds like a good idea. I thought about giving it a full GA review, but for such a huge, wide-ranging article, with 700 cites, and delving into some areas reflecting real-world tussles, I'm guessing that a real review might 10-20 hours of work. I just wasn't up to spending 10-20 hours on a review knowing ahead of time that I was going to fail it, and knowing ahead of time that it will have substantial changes in the near future, (making my reviewed work disappear) and most of all that no editor is willing to be involved in the GA review. Once the planned work is completed and if there are 1 or more editors involved in the process I'd be happy to participate in any way....helping on a peer review or doing a GA review right away knowing that that might involve a few weeks of mutual work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

HDI

I updated the HDI to be more modern, but I get a "line feed character in |title= at position 18 (help)" Anyway to fix that?FightersMegamix (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a lot of blue going on in parts of this article.

@Corinne:I'm working on Infrastructure, and wanted to get a sense for how much you care about blue link soup. If you look at the nuclear power section, a ton of the blue there isn't really what I'd consider worth having, but before I start chopping stuff out I'd like to get a sense of your style. Thanks, Jasphetamine (talk) 00:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jasphetamine First, thanks for pinging me. Second, I wonder how you can be working on the article since I am actively editing the article right now. Did you see the template I placed at the top of the article? I don't think we should be editing he article at the same time. Third, regarding wiki-links, I follow the guidelines at MOS:OVERLINK:
  • Link at first mention (first appearance in the article)
  • If the first mention is in the lead, it's all right to link again at the first mention after the lead, but not again unless the term is important for understanding a particular section (especially in science and technology articles); in that case I might leave the link at the third mention.
I have read something to the effect that it is not good to have too many links in the lead. You might want to read up on that. Let me know if you find anything.
In this article, I have found way too many links, many of them duplicates, and I've been removing the duplicates. When I am all finished copy-editing an article, I search for duplicate links, or something that should be linked that is not (i.e., a mention earlier than where it is linked). There are two ways to do this:
1) Use the search function (I use Google Chrome, so it is "Find" in the drop-down menu), and enter some terms you think might be linked more than once (I use this method even though it takes longer), or
2) use Visual Editor. You'll have to enable it in Preferences. There is a feature for highlighting duplicate links.  – Corinne (talk) 00:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I assumed that you told me to work on Infrastructure so that I would stay in that area and I would be able to edit without getting in your way anywhere else. Ill stop editing now. The issue with templates is they aren't super effective if someone is mid-edit. When you are done editing for the night leave a ping here clearing me to tag in. Sorry for the confusion. Jasphetamine (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Jasphetamine I already removed the GOCE in use tag, about 45 minutes ago. I looked in the revision history and saw that I had added the tag at 01:11 on 18 April, and you saved your edit at 00:29 on 18 April. See [3], so the tag was there before you started editing, but only a few minutes before, so that might explain why you didn't see it. But never mind. I'm glad you're working on the article.  – Corinne (talk) 02:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC) P.S. It does create a problem when two editors are editing the article at the same time. When you go to save your edits and get an edit conflict, you either have re-do all your edits or over-ride the other editor's edits and then explain afterward, and possibly re-do that editor's edits if they are minor or ask the editor to re-do his/her edits. That's why we place the "GOCE in use" tag at the top of the article, to avoid that kind of thing.  – Corinne (talk) 02:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
If I edit Infrastructure while you edit Demographics or whatever our edits won't conflict. That said, I get the impression you're more comfortable with working on an article solo, which is totally viable and common. How about I step back and let you crack on -- if you get burnt out ping me Ill take over for a day or two. I don't want to cramp your workflow @Corinne:. Jasphetamine (talk) 03:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Jasphetamine In my experience, when two editors try to save their edits at the same time, you get the edit conflict notice. Hasn't that happened to you yet? What do you do when that happens? If you don't copy the section containing your edits from the window way at the bottom to the window at the top, you will lose them. Are you saying that that will not be a problem (that no over-riding of the other editor's edits will occur) as long as the other editor has assured you that they're working on a different section? Normally, when you get the edit conflict notice, you have no way of knowing what section the other editor was working on. I'm really trying to understand your point of view and experience. I'm more comfortable working on an article solo only because of the problems that occur when you get an edit conflict.  – Corinne (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@Corinne: I didn't want to sound pushy or fighty before, but now that I know we're on the same frequency I'll elaborate: unless you are editing the article as a single item, which is a bad idea, then two editors working in separate sections at the same time can upload their respective edits willy nilly and no conflicts occur. Since you accepted the request, and I offered to help, I'd follow your lead. If you assign me to a specific section, I will only work there. We're both GOCE, and we are obviously comfortable keeping in touch, so if you want to try this work style just holler at me with where you want me to work. Jasphetamine (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Jasphetamine, thank you for explaining. I didn't know that two editors can work on different sections of an article at the same time without getting an edit conflict when they save their edits, so I'm glad to learn that. I guess I have gotten the edit conflict several times because I usually do work on an entire article at once, saving every so often. Usually, the "GOCE in use" tag keeps other editors from editing at the same time. Well, I already indicated the sections I thought you could work on, so go ahead and start working. I think you should put the "GOCE in use" tag there, though. Thanks again for your kind explanation. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 15:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That tag will update itself with the name of the editor who saved most recently, so it will bounce between us but probably dissuade other editors from mucking around. that said if you want me to hold off you're gonna want to ping me manually. So just to be clear , ill work exclusively on the Infrastructure section. Nothing before , nothing after, including templates. We can just leave the 24 hour GOCE in use on the page. Jasphetamine (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Jasphetamine On my talk page, I said you could start at Pakistan#Government and politics and go up to (and finish) the Pakistan#Transport section. Go ahead any time you want to start. By the way, why are you writing the contraction "I'll" as "Ill"? Is that just a time-saving version, perhaps from texting?  – Corinne (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Solid copy on what to work on. Im currently on a speed hike in a forest, hence these replies have the mis-en-scene of a 14 year old's facebook page. Do forgive me. Jasphetamine (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Oh, that explains it! I'm impressed that you can type into your cell phone at all. Have a great time! Hope it doesn't rain.  – Corinne (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Languages in Infobox

@Mfarazbaig:, Shall English remain as the official language of Pakistan since it has been scraped by the constitution.--Anandmoorti (talk) 06:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anandmoorti: - No, it hasn't been scraped at all. Following is the Article 251 of the 1973 Constitution. No such arrangements are in place thus in light of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling as it stands, both Urdu and English are co-official languages of Pakistan.

Article 251. National language.-(1) The National language of Pakistan is Urdu, and arrangements shall be made for its being used for official and other purposes within fifteen years from the commencing day.

(2) Subject to clause (1), the English language may be used for official purposes until arrangements are made for its replacement by Urdu. mfarazbaig--mfarazbaig 14:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

MSCI upgrades Pakistan to Emerging Markets Index

Request addition to article.

Sources: https://tribune.com.pk/story/1122910/pakistan-upgraded-emerging-markets-status/ http://pakobserver.net/pakistans-new-ranking-as-emerging-market/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askarian00 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on Pakistan. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2017

Pakistan National Antham name is Qaumi Trana only means National Antham. The name of Pakistan national in Urdu is "Pak-Sar-Zameen" meaning (Pure Land) or (Holy land) i hope you can correct it. 77.98.186.34 (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Per captia income

Per capita income and population value doesn't match official statistics, released by Govt. of Pakistan. Kindly update these two values as mentioned in official documents by Govt. of Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purepakistani212 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2017

202.142.178.213 (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. No request made. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan/Archive_18&oldid=1136249390"