Talk:Pakistan/Archive 5

message: I would agree that this wording creates a lot of ambiguities about the ancient past that are largely speculative and needs to be reworded. It also some sort of power relations that are too connected to the present. Lastly, Pakistan does have an identity crisis as it has an Indo Muslim east and an Afghan-Iranian west with religion being the only component that unites them. That and borders drawn up by the British. As for searching for a nation, every country on earth does that. Pakistan does have a regional history as the historical currents of its region are theirs. That's how it is for every country on earth. Tombseye 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original title lost 

message: I feel Pak should better be moved into Middle-east rather than South Asia. It is obvious that Pak is the odd man out in South Asia whereas it gels with Middle-east in all matters comfortably...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labakkudas (talk • contribs) 
:IMHO, Pakistan is far more similar to other South Asian countries than Middle Eastern countries. Anyhow, it's not up to us to "move" countries into regions. We're describing the geographical categorization that exists in the real world: geographers consider Pakistan to be in South Asia. If in the future the consensus-opinion among geography scholars changes then the article can be changed to reflect that. FactNTact 05:36, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
::Definitely, jus because it is Muslim does not mean it belongs in the ME.  Would that also make Bangladesh in the ME, and the Muslims of India and Sri Lanka Middle Eastern?  Pakistan is in the Indan subcontinent and in common with other S Asian nations does not benefit from natural resources as its main source of income.  It's economy is based in agriculture and has a strong industrial base in Karachi.  How exactly is it like any Middle Eastern country, besides religion?  Only people who have very little knowledge of Pakistan would make a statement like that. Fkh82 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More realistically, Pakistan is both Middle Eastern and South Asian as well as Central Asian.  It can be broken into three parts:  the NWFP can be either Mideastern or Central Asian, the northern Areas Central Asian, the Punjab and Sindh are South Asian, but have had shared thousands of years of history with the Mideast and Central Asia, while Baluchistan is pretty much Mideastern.  These regions all overlap in Pakistan in ways similar to Turkey's situation or that of the Caucasus where it is European culturally and Asiatic in some ways as well such as geographically although the line between Europe and Asia is clearly artificial.  As for being the birthplace of Indian civilization, that is true to some extent, but a lot of activity and civilization formation took place along the Ganges rather than the Indus which was constantly coming under western attacks starting with the Aryans onwards.  Culturally, Pakistan is Iranian in the west and North Indian in the east and nationally the two overlap in various capacities although the Iranian influence is more considerable in the east as opposed to Indian influence in the west, although Indian movies are popular.  Also, academics often put Pakistan in two or more regions without worry as that is what is realistic.  Tombseye 09:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not claiming Pakistan was the birthplace of Indian civilization. Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote to better understand what I wrote. Secondly, 'Indians' is a British term from the 19th century. Lots of Indian historians relate this fact. This is the case with a lot similar examples all over the world. Modern nation-states have all changed. Indians in this case would, I assume, mean people who spoke Indo-Aryan languages and that's true in eastern Pakistan, while western Pakistan is at the very least a border-land of Iranian and Indo-Iranian origins. I'm not Pakistani so I'd appreciate it if you'd try to not get personal. well, the good sources you're referring to neglect to mention the millennia of history that for example engulfed where Pakistan now exists and not India such as the Durrani Empire, the various Persian Empires, the Ilkhans, Greeks, etc. It's a regional history we're talking about, not a national one. Tombseye 08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm not off. The Punjab was ruled as Hindush, which in modern translation was applied by the British to all of South Asia through the Greek as India. Secondly, Pakistan is a border-land like Turkey, while the eastern provinces share the closest relationship with corresponding adjacent regions. There is no national identity. It all comes later. the same is true with modern Iran and its relationship with ancient Persia. everyone was not a Persian in Iran then and they aren't today. The Baloch are recent, but the Pashtuns are not actually. In addition, the languages in many of these western areas are Indo-Iranian and thus show a gradiation point. Greco-Indian is a modern term as well. A more accurate view would be Graeco-indo-iranian in terms of languages and cultures in the region. The 4 entities you mentioned constitute over nearly 1000 years. I'm not sure that's inconsequential. The Indian subcontinent geologically ends at the Indus river and the brink of the Hindu Kush mountains. Also attaching Indo to everything misleads people into thinking the Scythians were Indian when they were actually Iranic and the Kushans were Tocharians and the Hindu Shahi kingdom was based in Kabul where the majority population was Iranic and buddhist. Lastly, you have to ask yourself why is this region different and a nation-state? The easy answer is that its political events of the 20th century, but the other view is that nation-states form because of history. The region is different enough that people wanted to have a country and if its based upon religion or language then that's the way it is. Yeah, you're the 'Afghan' history who seems to talk more about the Kambojas than about Afghans I know just like the other guy. Tombseye 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from [[Special:Contributions/Labakkudas|Labakkudas]]

message: Sisodia reverted my contribution and added this comment:  
::02:45, 9 January 2006 Sisodia (→Arrival of Islam - Muhammad Bin Kasim's army went to Kashmir? Pakistani Bros this is Wikipedia, not the Quaid-e-Azam Govt Higher Secondary School of Faisalabad.)
I will also reply to him in the same language but first I want to give him an oppurtunity to rethink his statement. 
User:Siddiqui 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: be cool man, not need to reply him in this manner.  had already been once block of this sort of behaviour. dnt get yourself blocked.Wisesabre 21:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sisodia's unprofessional comments 

message: I think it will be good to have a portal for discussions on Pakistan related articles . What do you guys say ? F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: are you talking about this Portal:Pakistan or Wikipedia:Notice board for Pakistan-related topicsWisesabre 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup . Thanks . F.a.y.تبادله خيال /c 21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal Pakistan???

message: I suggest that a common ancient histroy page be created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberwizmj (talk • contribs) 
History section in this page is attempting to create a new history for Pakistan as a separate nation even before it was created in 1947.
Srinivasasha 13:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't add frivolous protected tags to the article. Thanks. --Ragib 17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much to edit. 

message: This section does not make any sense. The preceding sections tell of the Ancient History and the Arrival of Islam, but the Pre-Colonial History has some material that would be more appropraite at the start of the Ancient History and some material that would be more appropriate in a personal opinion piece. Gushing about such matters as the separateness of Indus and Gangetic civilisations is a POV. If you are going to write this, then at least write it properly, so it doesn't look like a high school essay. Prove your capability by recognising that English uses definite and indefinite articles and that it has a certain grammar without which sentences sound like gibberish. Prove your literary skills by using references and sourcing from genuine scholarly works and not the Geocities webpage your friend maintains. Most of the first paragraph (if you can call it that) and the second paragraph would be better placed in the Ancient History section. The final sentence of the first paragraph would make more sense in the Arrival of Islam section.  
:::The five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities. In fact, ancient Pakistan based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than Indian based governments have ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, ancient Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, commercial, as well as political with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that it became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by people of Pakistan. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the South Asia took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Indian based governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. Persian Achaemenian Empire conquered ancient Pakistan and it remained part of Persian empire for more than two hundred years. Alexander the Great also conquered Indus satrapy, modern Pakistan, and did briefly cross into India but returned after his army refused to advance further into India. Ancient Pakistan remained part of the Hellenic world for next hundred fifty years. During the Arab rule, the territories of Pakistan were known as 'Sindh' and Indian territories were known as 'Hind'. The Arab dynasties ruled Pakistan from Baghdad in Iraq and from Damascus in Syria for more than two hundred years.
:::Pakistan, a part of the Indus land, is the child of the Indus in the same way as Egypt is the gift of Nile. The Indus has provided unity, fertility, communication, direction and the entire landscape to the country. Its location marks it as a great divide as well as a link between Central Asia and South Asia. But the historical movements of the people from Central Asia and South Asia have given to it a character of its own and have established closer relation between the people of Pakistan and those of Iran, Afghanistan and Turkistan.
:If nobody objects, I'll merge the sections. 82.20.13.130 01:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello. Actually, I wrote much of the History of pakistan article with the original intent not to convey that there is no relationship with India, but to show that Pakistan had its own regional history that often did not involve what is today modern India. Modern nation-states try to relate common histories, but even Pakistan can be broken up into regional histories is my other point. There are numerous cultural interactions and the languages in eastern Pakistan correspond to northwestern India. On the one hand, I've had to defend my points against one extreme, that there is a historical India that subsumes the region, and then there is the other extreme, that Pakistan has a separate existence altogether. It's not even an in-between thing as both positions aren't accurate. Regional histories are just that, but do not exclude other variables. I think this now presents a bit more POV as what defines relations between people? Is it religion, history, language? If these are the factors, than Pakistan is, as I was contendign an overlapping Indo-Iranian region and stating that its ties are more substantive one way or the other is very subjective. Tombseye 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Tombseye, User:82.20.13.130 here (unless the IP has changed again). I agree with your point about Pakistan having a regional history. My original point was that one section didn't seem to flow with the rest of the History article. I suggested moving parts of the section to make a more readable article, which is pretty much what Idleguy has done (see below). 82.13.18.206 02:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'Pre-Colonial History' Section 

message: That picture of Jinnah shows him when he was a young man. Whilst it may be an appropriate picture in the article on the man himself, most people wouldn't recognise it as much as the picture at the top of the article about him. It's a bit like showing a picture of George W. Bush when he was at college rather than a more recent one which would be more relevant. 81.107.198.254 23:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jinnah's Picture 

message: The map a German one (East Pakistan is labelled as Ost-Pakistan). Whilst it might be easy to work out what the labels refer to, wouldn't it be better to have a map in English from the BBC for example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/south_asia/2002/india_pakistan/timeline/1971.stm
82.13.18.206 02:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That image isn't free so we'll see if we get a free licence one to replace this. Until then, I'm afraid this one might have to do the job. Idleguy 04:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map in the Post-Independence section 

message: Currently this section (Subdivisions of Pakistan) is languishing between sections on Ethnic Groups and Society and Culture. It would be better placed somewhere amongst the political sections, perhaps just after the section on Forms of Government. Any opinions? Green Giant 19:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subdivisions of Pakistan 

message: I know that bear-baiting is illegal in Pakistan, but still occurs.  What is the legal status of dog fighting?  Certainly dog fighting occurs in Pakistan, but what is it legal or illegal ?  I have googled for a citation, but I cannot find a decent one, such as the Pakistani criminal code on-line version.  Thank you in advance.  WritersCramp 19:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dog fighting legal?

message: Does anyone realise that the Map for East and West Pakistan has East Pakistan labelled as 'Ost' Pakistan? ...I find that just a tad weird since this 'is' the English Language Edition of Wikipedia. Perhaps if someone could get a better Map...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.155.23 (talk • contribs) 
:See section 29 above ("The map in the Post-Independence section"). --Ragib 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Ost' Pakistan?

message: "The Indus Valley Civilisation spanned much of what is today Pakistan, but suddenly went into decline just prior to the invasion of Indo-European Aryans. A branch of these tribes called the Indo-Aryans are believed to have founded the Vedic Civilization that may have existed somewhere between the Sarasvati River and Ganges river in modern India around 1500 BCE."
I've rewritten to read:
"The Indus Valley Civilization spanned much of what is today Pakistan, but suddenly went into decline just prior to the migration of Indo-Aryan tribes from Central Asia. Their introduced culture mingled with that of the natives to produce the Vedic Civilization that existed between the Sarasvati River and Ganges river in what is now modern India around 1500 BCE."
Because:
a) Labelling it an "invasion" is innacurate considering modern findings and views
b) Indo-Aryan is more accurate and specific than "Indo-European Aryan"
c) Evidence for a Dravidian substrate in Sanskrit, as well as genetic studies, show that the population of the North of the Indian subcontinent and it's associated culture is a mixture of native and Indo-Aryan influences.
that ok? good. --86.135.217.213 03:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair play to you, your changes are an improvement, but you'd get fewer reversions if you signed up for an account Green Giant 10:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do have an account (several infact) I can just never be bothered to use them. --86.135.217.213 12:21, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  re: description of Aryan migration