Talk:Separatist movements of Pakistan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pakistan (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Speedy Delete[edit]

This article is a complete joke, most likey made to counter the Indian seperatist movements. I never knew provinces wanting to rename themselves was equated to wanting a seperate state, or provinces that wanted more autonomy were infact wanting to seperate. It's hilarious to see just how patethic and low these indians can really get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I always imagined that after 16 - 12 - 1971, separation would be taken with utmost seriousness in Pakistan. I don't claim that the article after the header is well written, it needs to be worked on. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
One cannot give Hippler qualifiers like critic, that would be wp:or, I have merely quoted the said source, which is according to good practice. Please do not make changes unless backed by wp:rs. Why cannot the tag be just expert on the subject? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Eoguy for correcting spelling mistakes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
The article is in general accurate. I was in the zone a year ago and I speak about many nationalist militants. Unafortunately lack the seraikis amb kashmiris between the main separatist groups.-- (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


This article is POV, it gives the idea that Pakistan's breakup is a given, see Wikipedia:Undue. It also says that Pakistan is "held together by the common cause of hatred of Hindu India" and also of the two nation theory "this theory was exposed as false". Whether or not the nation is or is not held together in this manner, - you need to cite sources for this, otherwise you just presenting your own opinion. If you look at the intro for the TNT article is says according to theory "Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations by every definition, and therefore Muslims should have an autonomous homeland in the Muslim majority areas of British India for the safeguard of their political, cultural, and social rights, within or without a United India." Which is somewhat different to what you have written, thus I am tagging this as POV. Pahari Sahib 07:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have restored most of the articles former neutral version before the blatant pov attacks by User Yogesh SupraTomas23 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
My edits are as true representations of the quoted sources as possible, without infringing copyright issues. There is not a word of my own, every line I have added is based on what is written in the articles quoted. Neither of the two are written by Indians. Please read the sources carefully and then edit. Another important point is that this article is about separatist movements in Pakistan and sources are bound to be uncomplimentary to Pakistan, editors cannot help it as they do not create content. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
That's not true, the issue is not that you are writing uncomplimentary articles about Pakistan, rather you are quoting sources and then doing a bit of original research, your assertion that Pakistan is held together by hatred is not anywhere stated in your source. Pahari Sahib 10:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The allegation of wp:or is false, an excerpt of the article follows:

now an editor cannot use the source verbatim for copyright issues and ofcourse for economy, he has to paraphrase, the article uses the words,

  1. emphasis of India as a threat
  2. hostility
  3. anti-Hindu sentiments as a tool to legitimise Pakistan.

If that cannot be summarised as hatred of Hindu India, what can it be as? I am not asserting that the glue that binds Pakistan together is hatred of India, others have done that. Next time before making charges please read the articles quoted carefully and discuss clarifications before making wild accucations and edits. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The source does not actually use the word hatred, it does speak of viewing India as an external threat - but as you have noted mentions "anti-Hindu sentiments". This is not quite the same as hatred of Hindu India. I object to the assertion that I have made wild edits, if you look here for example, there has been a certain play with words going on. Pahari Sahib 12:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag.[edit]

This is what wikipedia on neutrality says:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

Who has stopped any body from bringing conflicting perspectives as evidenced by reliable sources? Go ahead. Just be careful about sources. Removing tag. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As noted above "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly" - this does not mean it is okay to remove the POV tag if one point of view presented. Pahari Sahib 12:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


Next time editors rearrange text, kindly carry references to where the text is, or the material may seem to convey the impression of being unsourced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at History of North-West Frontier Province and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), each para shows where the text comes from - so if you move paras you also take the associated refs with them. This was not the case with this article. The article needed to be re-arranged as the lead contained historical info which needed to be in a history section. Pahari Sahib 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


I have added back the tag removed without any discussion by POV user Yogesh (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)