Talk:History of Pakistan/Archive 3

message: This page is either always locked, or threatened to be locked.
Exactly which area is there bone of contention?
I haven't edited this page so I am clueless as to what this whole fight is about.
Please elaborate Mercenary2k 00:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the term ancient pakistan.--D-Boy 02:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the bone of contention here? 

message: Just a Question to all Indians here.  Why are you guys so obsessed with Pakistani related articles anyways?  Do we come to Indian articles and start changing things around? This Article certainly requires a lot of work and major re-structuring but your continual interference has shown that your sole purpose to edit Pakistani related articles is not to make them better but put in mis-information. Mercenary2k 21:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Posters 

message: Mercenary2k your question is valid and here is my perspective on it . 
Please appreciate that there is a very large living population of Indians who have been displaced from their traditional homelands in what is now Pakistan .While Pakistan has achieved an ethnic cleansing of unparalleled magnitude changing the religious and demographic composition to have a 1-2% non Muslims left , were you to look at census figure of 1921 ,1941 ,you may be amazed yourself .
 
Therefore while it may have been possible to ethnically  cleanse the Pakistan areas of Hindus and Sikhs, how are you going to ethnically cleanse the collective social , cultural , historical , consciousness and memory of this displaced population of Hindus and Sikhs .Please understand then that what you consider exclusively Pakistani , is erroneous .Indians are only dealing with their own   History .
Similarly refugees from India who now living in Pakistan have roots in India , this same rationale  applies to them as well . 
The road taken by many Pakistani posters on wikipedia is indicative , completely skip Hindu ,Sikh reference , or undermine it ,sometimes to ridiculous levels . Skip grom Indus valley to Islamic period ??!
On a different note Pakistani support for Palestinians right to their homeland seems contradictory and is a related issue here then considering the question you have raised . Pakistan is a country established with ethnic cleansing of its indigenous population, that denies a homeland to its own Pakistani Muslims stranded in Bangladesh for last 40 years .If Pakistani support to Palestinian homeland is based on principals, then let it first recognize the homeland rights of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan, or the Bihari Muslims stranded in Bangladesh first .  Please let me have your views on this because it relates to whom the historical heritage of what you refer to as Pakistani belongs. 
Articles must not be vandalized, but lets have some balance here my friend.Regards Intothefire 05:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercenary2k 21:09, 22 on Indian Posters

message: I am bloody sick and tired of this garbage is there anyway we can get these brats banned please? All the time I see things changed, without even posting anything in the talk section...talk about insecure.
::When people break up Pakistan, and then have a section on wikipedia that talks about its history as if it existed before they broke away from you, then you'll understand why some Indians are supposedly "vandalizing" 71.119.255.31 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Indians Are Vandalizing This Page

message: The article makes zero mention of the period 1947-1955. There were significant incidents during this period, like the 1954 election, the unstable democracy that saw a surprisingly high number of cabinets being organized and ousted. It also saw the big cultural movement : Language movment, that was the first rift between the West Pakistan and the East Pakistan. Considering the significance of the time period, it is surprising that the article mentions nothing about the time period. --Ragib 10:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. These are exactly the types of things this article needs more of. Tombseye 15:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "All common eras to the subcontinent such as the Indus civilization, Vedic India/Aryans, Alexander, maybe Achaemenids, Mauryans, Kushans, Guptas, and Muslim invasions, (minus Arab conquest of Sindh) should be rather brief and northwestern India-specific events should get more coverage." While this is very justifiable in terms of efficiency/economy, it will be quite misleading for any reader who hasn't much of an idea about the history of the region, since many less important events will be given more prominence than major events. Almost all of the most important events of the region are common to atleast the entire Indo-Gangetic region.  E.g., most inhabitants in the region are Indo-Aryans, and speak Indo-Aryan languages, yet Iron-age Aryan culture will not be adequately covered. Delhi sultanate and Mughal empire are definitely more important to the history of this region than Arab invasion of Sindh. Mauryans and Kushans have ruled almost the entire region for longer periods than perhaps any other single dynasty. Attempts to focus on events specific to northwest of the subcontinent (a) cannot be neatly done, (b) would be misleading since it gives relatively minor events too much importance at the cost of events that have really shaped the culture, language, religion, etc. of the region. In fact, the entire exercise of coming up with a separate ancient and medieval history of Pakistan is a POV not accepted by many outside those educated on textbooks shaped by a political agenda like the Two Nation Theory in mind. deeptrivia (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1947 to 1956 and the [[Language movment]] 

message: I've added a paragraph on early proto-dentistry in Mehrgarh.  I've also added the link to the announcement—a one-page pdf—in the journal Nature (April 2006).  The Nature article is fascinating and well worth reading.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dentistry in [[History_of_Pakistan#Mehrgarh|Mehrgarh]]

message: Because of the blitz of edit warring, I have protected the page. Thanks. --Ragib 19:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is confusing to explain such things at the top and then talk of "Ancient Pakistan" in the rest of the text.  — Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 21:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You say there was no land on the face of this planet called India until 1850. I assume this map was made post-1850.  — Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 22:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice job Unre4L. I don't know why Indians are so obsessed with Pakistani related articles. Its not like we go to their articles and edit it. Mercenary2k 00:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: No one is trying to 'mislead or confuse people'. The first sentence mentions that Pakistan was founded in 1947. Why is their a need to mention modern day or present day every single time? Should we change the aticle of Lahore, and mention that it is located in modern day Pakistan? More on this later. IP198 16:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found the qualification "what is now the land area comprising modern-day (Pakistan)" inserted in the narrative! Come on, guys, if "ancient Pakistan" has to go, then so do these ridiculous and redundant characterizations.  Either use "what is now" or "present-day," but not both.  Also, it is fine to use such qualifiers in the introduction and in the first section, but, really, there's no need to keep repeating it again and again. If you insist on doing this again and again, we will have to have an RfC at the Village Pump.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Fowler that mentioning the fact (what is now, present day) early in the article is good enough. Repeating it every time a mention is made makes the prose awful, and ridiculous. Good writing practices would involve mentioning it at the start of the article, and later use just "Pakistan". Similar examples can be seen in History of Germany. For example, it talks about "Around the beginning of the 16th century there was much discontent in Germany with abuses in the Catholic Church and a desire for reform." There was no single country named Germany back in the 16th century, the article is clearly referring to the region that is modern Germany. Unless the article is written exclusively for kindergarten students, there is no practical need to repeat the phrase "what is now" every time a mention of Pakistan is made. Thanks. --Ragib 23:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What exactly is the problem? 

message: The lead is too detailed, but also omits the quite important post 1947 event summaries. --Ragib 12:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  Will work on that and add some comments here.  Thanks!  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: After discussions with user:Deeptrivia, I added a clarification in first sentence of the article: "The history of Pakistan—which for the period preceding the nation's founding in 1947 is (presented here as) the history of the region that is now Pakistan and therefore overlaps with the histories of Afghanistan, India, and Iran—traces back to the beginnings of human life in South Asia."Jalal, Ayesha. "Pakistan." World Book Online Reference Center. 2007.  <http://www.worldbook.com/wb/Article?id=ar410880>  However, that was reverted by user:Bakasuprman with an edit summary, "(Pakistan cant have a history so long if the word was not coined up until 1933. nadirali-esque edits are not appreciated)."  Since I had discussed some of these issues with user:Deeptrivia, I will (if he doesn't mind) post part of that earlier discussion here.
First, is there precedence for such a history?  Yes, there is.  Of the four large encyclopedias, three—Encarta, Columbia Encyclopedia, and World Book Encyclopedia—do have a histories of Pakistan, more or less along the lines of the Wikipedia article (although less detailed).  The Encarta article, written by Saeed Shafqat, full professor at Columbia University, begins with: 
The World Book Encyclopedia article on Pakistan, written by Ayesha Jalal, Professor at Tufts and author of The Sole Spokesman, begins with, 
Similarly, the Columbia Encyclopedia (6th edition, 2001-2005) has a History of Pakistan which begins with: 
These articles are written by people in mainstream scholarship, tenured professors at major American universities.   The point is that it doesn't matter that Pakistan or Bangladesh were not even a gleam in anyone's eyes before the 20th century, the histories of the regions now occupied by these countries can nonetheless be written, and will necessarily be different—not by POV, but by their focus—from a larger history of (historical) India or South Asia.  That has already begun to happen with new sub-topics like Mehrgarh, which were excavated in the 1970s and 80s, long after the partition, and whose current archaeological expertise is either in Pakistan or in France, but not in India.  The emerging historiography is already focusing (and will likely focus even more) on links to other contemporaneous Neolithic cultures in Iran and Central Asia rather than later cultures in the region of current-day India.  
The History of Pakistan can be written by focusing on all the histories that intersect in the region that is now Pakistan.  That means that sometimes that history will be a part of the History of Punjab.  Other times, that history might be part of a history of Iran or Aghanistan.  For example, Mehrgarh was a part of the History of Neolithic Iran in its early phase, but became a part of the History of the Indus Civilization (as a precursor) in its later phase.  The problem arises when someone tries to impute a historical or cultural imperative to the region that is now Pakistan and looks for seeds of Pakistan in events of long ago.  That is not what we are doing on this page.  We are simply presenting the history of the region.  Lastly, as pointed out perceptively to me by user:Deeptrivia, we are not making any false connections, or providing an artificial unity to the history, just because the region later became a country.  
I am therefore undoing Bakasuprman's reversion.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point.  I forgot about the "overlap."  I have now changed the first disclaimer sentence to: "The history of Pakistan—which for the period preceding the nation's founding in 1947 is presented here as the history of the region that is now Pakistan and therefore part of the histories of Afghanistan, India, and Iran—traces back to the beginnings of human life in South Asia."  How does that sound?  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks better. Let's see if we can put this into better perspective. The current population of Pakistan is 170 million,  of which about 30 million (18%) live in Baluchistan and NWFP and 82 % live in Punjab and Sind. However, this has been very different in past. For example, the population of Baluchistan has increased by a whopping 900% in the last 50 years -- it was just over a million in 1951.  It seems we know little about the History of Baluchistan at wikipedia anyway. This article mentions nothing, and the article on it starts on the day of the British conquest. We see the same thing in all encyclopedias. At any rate, Balochistan has been more of a buffer zone between India and Persia rather than a part of either. On the other hand, Punjab and Sind (currently over 80% of the population, and historically a much higher share of population of the region) have been parts of India proper, in fact, perhaps the only "India" known to most Persians and Greeks. If all these things could be made clearer in the lead without complicating it too much, that would be great. deeptrivia (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification in the first sentence

message: Aparently, we have had this tag at the top of the page since December. And there is only one missing citation in the whole of article. So, can't we just remove the disputed text and the annoying template altogether? --IslesCapeTalk 20:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree. I can't see any ongoing discussions about unreferenced material or neutrality, and the article looks fine to me on those accounts. deeptrivia (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS: Except that I just noticed that some things that were changed by agreement after much discussion are back again, probably by accident. deeptrivia (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  It should have been obvious :) We've been talking about words like "overlaps", and the whole tone in the lead that leaves a misleading impression . deeptrivia (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Unref tag 

message: In the Golden Age section of the article there is a paragraph:
The cited paper compares the allele frequencies of four genes (which although popular in recent anthropological studies are but four out of the 25,000+ genes in the human genome): HLA-A, -B, -DQB1, and -DRB1 and showed that for those genes the Baloch of Iran are very similar to Baloch and Brahui of Pakistan, and concluded, "This may reflect an admixture of Brahui and Baloch ethnic groups of Pakistan in the Balochistan province of Iran."  It says nothing about Caucasoid which is not a molecular-biological term, but rather a much older physical-anthropological notion.  The paragraph above claims that "this makes the Baloch region distinct from the rest of South Asia."  The paper in fact makes exactly the opposite point, that the Baloch of Iran have an admixture of South Asia.  I am therefore removing that entire paragraph which is full of bogus surmising.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The (featured) article on Pashtun people makes references to Herodotus and even Rig Veda in this context. That article mentions that these people were in eastern Afghanistan, but remember that there's no clear line dividing the region. The A in Pakistan is for Afghania, and that most Afghan governments have declared the line invalid. I don't have much information about the Baloch region. Let's see if we can find references for this, but it doesn't look like information that should be removed straightaway. deeptrivia (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the text I removed sounds like late 19th-century anthropology.  The point is that we have a neolithic culture in Mehrgarh, Baluchistan (c 7000 BCE) with links and contacts with similar neolithic cultures in Iran and Central Asia, which later gives rise to the Indus Valley Civilization.  In other words, we have a late neolithic/chalcolithic culture 30 miles south in Nausharo, Pakistan, with knowledge of pottery (c. 4000 BCE), and we a string of coastal sites from the Makran coast in Baluchistan to the Indus delta with shell-work bangles (dating 7000-4000 BCE).  I quote from the chapter on Mehrgarh in my copy of The Ancient South Asian World by Kenoyer and Heuston (OUP, 2005), "By 2800 CE these trading centers would grow into South Asia's first cities." In addition, later, you see IVC sites in Sutkagen Dor in Western coastal Baluchistan.   To say, as the text does, that Balochi tribes did not arrive at least until the first millennium CE and expand as far as Sindh until the second millennium doesn't make any sense.  There may have been a later migration, but human migrations and movement are built layer upon layer.   Baluchistan is a part of Pakistan, therefore the history of the region that is now Baluchistan is a part of the history of Pakistan.  It may or may not be a part of the History of (historical) India or even that of Indian subcontinent (if you think of the Indian subcontinent only in geophysical terms and identify it with the continental crust of the Indian plate), but it is part of the history of the region that is now Pakistan.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS And according to Jean-Francois Jarrige, "For the first time in the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent, a continuous sequence of dwelling-sites has been established from 7000 – 500 BCE, (as a result of the) explorations in Pirak from 1968 to 1974; in Mehrgarh from 1975 to 1985; and of Nausharo from 1985 to 1996."  That speaks to continuity not disjunction between Baluchistan (or at least the Bolan River Valley) and the Indus Valley.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, Fowler, not doubts about any of this. There is evidence of continuity between Mehrgarh and IVC, and that obviously links Mehrgarh with Indian history too, regardless of whether the site was excavated before or after 1947, or whether Mehrgarh lies on the Indian plate or the Iranian plateau ((Uttaranchal, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir do not lie on the Indian plate either. Indian subcontinent lies predominantly on the Indian plate, but that is not the defining criterion for it. ) My question is, how are all these obviously true statements related to removing the mention of Pashtun people by Herodotus et al, material that survived FAC on Pashtun people? How do these facts contradict with any of the following: "Iranian tribes existed in western Pakistan during a very early age and that Pakhtun tribes were inhabitants around the area of Peshawar prior to the period of Alexander the Great as Herodotus refers to the local peoples as the "Paktui" and as a fearsome pagan tribe similar to the Bactrians. Iranian Balochi tribes did not arrive at least until the first millennium CE and would not expand as far as Sindh until the 2nd millennium." ?  All that is being refered to here is the fact that the Balochi people migrated into the subcontinent in the 11th century due to the Seljuk invasion of Kerman. This is regardless of the Mehrgarh culture that existed 6000 years before that.  deeptrivia (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, I get it now. So you are saying that since 7000 years ago there was a settlement in Mehrgarh that is strongly related to IVC refutes the fact that the region's history is overwhelmingly related to the rest of the subcontinent. Or, maybe, the evidence that people lived there 7000 years ago on a 500-acre settlement refutes the fact that Balochistan was always sparsely populated, despite census figures showing that even 50 years ago the population in that region was just over a million. I agree there must have been strong contacts between neolithic and chalcolithic civilizations in West Asia and South Asia. It is also obvious, regardless of Mehrgarh, that human beings did not evolve in South Asia, so they must have migrated from West Asia. Well, why go 7000 years back when even today there is strong influence of Persian culture in the region. However, let's remember that the influence is the same all over north India, and in fact, the nodal centers from which this Persian influence spread into regions like Punjab and Sind were not Isfahan or Herat or Quetta, but the Persianized courts and sultanates of Delhi, Lucknow and Agra. Are we, then to say that "the History of India overlaps with the History of India, History of Iran, and History of Afghanistan"? Adding Iran and Afghanistan is completely redundant as far as Punjab and Sind are concerned. Histories of NWFP and Balochistan, on the other hand, are directly related to Afghanistan and Iran respectively in a way that the history of rest of the subcontinent is not. My point was, that when those two regions just have 18% of the country's population now, and it's known that historically it was an even lower share, and also that these regions were added to the British empire barely over a century ago (1890s), then why give a sweeping impression of overlap of entire Pakistan's history with Afghanistan and Iran. A more extreme version of this will be to open the article on History of India by saying that the History of India overlaps with that of China, because Ladakh or Sikkim are in India and Tibet is now under Chinese administration. It seems like even the word "overlaps" is not going to be removed now. deeptrivia (talk) 05:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, Mehrgarh is an interesting word, that combines the Persian word for Sun "Mehr", with the Sanskrit suffix for hill fort "garh", the same word that you find all the way up to Chhattisgarh. deeptrivia (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Caucasoid]] Mumbo-Jumbo

message: I'd like to get various editors' opinion (especially the ones who have worked on this page like Tombseye and IP198) of the following idea.  Since this article includes both the history of the Pakistan region until 1947 and that of the republic(s) of Pakistan thereafter, and since it is beginning to burgeon, I thought it might be a good idea to split the page into two pages:  History of the Pakistan region (which would have the history of the region until 1947) and History of the (Islamic) Republic of Pakistan, which would have the history from 1947 onwards, but with (and this is important), the History of Pakistan page redirecting to History of the Pakistan region.  In addition, the History of the Pakistan region page would have a dab note at the top saying, "For the history of the region after 1947, please refer to History of the (Islamic) Republic of Pakistan".  
I'd also like to know what you feel about having a History of South Asia page, which would include more histories and be written along the lines of Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. South Asia: A Timeline In Art History 8000BC-Present.   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I've created a sample page, History of the Pakistan region, for your viewing.  It is 64 KB and with copy editing and pruning could be reduced to 40-45 KB, making it eminently readable.  Note that it is quite different from the History of India (approx. 67 KB), and more focused on the region of current-day Pakistan.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Isn't Muhammad bin Qasims "liberation" of Sindh too recent an event in Pakistan's long history. I suggest we would have to start with the Big Bang to explain why Pakistan was created. :) Jokes apart, I too am impressed by the quality work Fowler&fowler is putting into this article. deeptrivia (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two Pages?

message: Great work so far Fowler! You've clearly put in a lot of work and I'll help when I can and time allows. The Pashtuns article took a lot of out me in terms of free time and I was going to work on the Persians and help with History of Azerbaijan and this article as well I guess! I'd recommend not making two articles as that will confuse laypersons and I think anyone with any semblance of comprehension will understand that the modern nation called Pakistan has inherited a history that is both its own and is often shared with various neighbors, which is probably universally true. Great lead by the way. Very complete. So far the article is really shaping up and I guess at some point will constitute a good article at this rate! I'll check in from time to time and help out and if there's anything specific you need help with let me know. Probably more citations would be cool as well. I added the bibliography at the end as I consulted many of those books when I wrote some of the previous versions of this article. If possible, citing from them and other sources could help matters further. I like your neutral academic rendition and wording. Good job! Tombseye 17:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fowler's work and other matters

message: I've added a few tags on the article to make readers aware that there's an ongoing discussion related to the content of the article. I hope that we all atleast agree that that there is a discussion. deeptrivia (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: Technically, Pakistan was created in just 1947, so its history should start from then or from the Pakistan movement. To lay claim to ancient Indian history as exclusively Pakistani history is patently absurd, but also understandable. Everyone wishes their nation had a past - and a glorious one too. (Jvalant 09:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stated that to EXCLUSIVELY term it Pakistani history is absurd. I agree to your point that Pakistan is nothing but a part of the Greater Indic civilization, and hence the history can be SHARED as part of the Ancient Indian history. To say that half of relevant Indian history happened in what is now pakistan is also just a way of making pakistanis feel better about pakistan. Absurd, but understandable. Jvalant 19:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with User:Jvalant. I think that half of this article should be moved or merged with the history of the India and Pakistan or history of South Asia, or History of the Indian subcontinent. Let us confine the history of Pakistan to the time when it started i.e. in the thoughts negotiations about independence from Britain. Distinguishing the history of India and the history of Pakistan before that time is highly artificial and meaningless Andries 18:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not beholden to the Government of Pakistan or any other government.  This is the history of the region that is now Pakistan.  The history of the region began long before Muhammad bin Qasim turned up.  South Asia is too large an area to cover in one WP article.  The History of India page, which I recently help edit and revise, observes the following tacit guidelines (see their talk page):
# Give more importance to events that were wholly centered within India's current day boundaries, or had a majority control of Indian territory. (eg Hoysala Kingdom, Mughal dynasty)
# Give less of an importance to kingdoms that overlapped into India and had less of a bearing (eg Indo-Greek Kingdom)
The History of Pakistan, by the same token, gives more importance to to topics like Mehrgarh, the Indo-Greek kingdoms, the Parthians, ..., Ahmad Shah Durrani, Anglo-Afghan Wars.  There is plenty of room for both histories, as has been observed countless times above by countless people in countless discussions.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understandable 

message: This article is a justification for Pakistan Theory, an entity that never existed before 1930, rather than History of Pakistan. Only rewrinting it on unbiased terms would be the solution.
~rAGU
:India didnt exist prior to 1947 either. You just took the former name of the sub continent.
:While neither country existed, the people did, therefore this history belongs to the Pakistani people. Which takes Indias right away :from claiming Indus Valley for themselves, and thats why you cant tolerate this article.
:Comment by [User:Unre4l]
::India didnt officially exists, but it was still known as bharat or India anyway. I mean the people were united in a sense that they knew they were part of the same land just like the native americans on north america. I mean just because theres no offical country, doesnt mean its not a land of people living together.....Paksitan on the other hand is a made up nation that came out of India for Muslims because they didnt want to live side by side. 71.119.255.31 20:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistry of Pakistan

message: Maybe this is the wrong place to bring it up but the indus civilization also had colonies in Turkmenistan so we can bring it up.--Vmrgrsergr 04:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  turkmenistan 

message: Deeptrivia,  Don't know what your act is dude, but it seems (from the history of this page) you've been repeating the same tired arguments for the last two years.  Why don't you go bark up the History of India tree instead?  As I have mentioned above, on the History of India page, they observe the following guidelines:
#Give more importance to events that were wholly centered within India's current-day boundaries, or had a majority control of Indian territory. (eg Hoysala Kingdom, Mughal dynasty)
#Give less importance to kingdoms that overlapped into India and had less of a bearing (eg Indo-Greek Kingdom)
The History of Pakistan, by the same token, gives more importance to to topics like Mehrgarh, the Indo-Greek kingdoms, the Parthians, ..., Ahmad Shah Durrani, Anglo-Afghan Wars, as well at the history of the various republics of Pakistan. There is plenty of room for both histories of India and the region that is now Pakistan.  So, my advice is that stop wreaking mischief on this page.  If you are obsessed with this issue, bring it up on the Village Pump etc.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not my language.  It is the History of India talk page language.  I'm not saying that there is nothing to discuss here, but that everyone, including you, is just repeating themselves.  And, when I looked at the history of the article, I realized that this has been going on for 2 or 3 years, with you as an active initiator of the same discussion.  You must know (as a Wikipedia veteran) that there are better ways to deal with the issue than periodically slapping on a tag.  Sorry, I should have been less impatient, and my apologies for the language, but this is just not very productive, in my opinion, that is.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, perhaps it doesn't matter, but in fact this discussion was started by User:Dbachmann almost exactly 2 years ago . I, at that time, was in fact adding and copyediting stuff to ancient history e.g., , , . I have become aware of how absurd this is only recently after taking some (online) history courses from UC Berkeley. In case you think we are repeating ourselves not finding a way out, it's all the more reason to have a tag informing others to know about it so that they can provide some input.  Removing the tag and calling it trolling doesn't quite indicate that you want any discussion to happen on this, but rather maintain things the way they are by brute force. Phrases like "slapping a tag" also indicate that you're takiing the presence of a tag on the article much more negatively that it actually is. Well, sorry again for this rather straight language :) deeptrivia (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Also,  this tag, perhaps the only other tag from me, was for an entirely different reason. The article already had a POV tag at that point due to serious problems with the content. If you read that version (which has since then been almost completely rewritten), probably you'd agree. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  You're right about the India thing, about which I've been saying the same thing on History of India article (PS: My latest comment on that page was before I read your reply). As far as why the content of this article shouldn't be discussed on this talk page, I can't be so sure about it, but I agree that a wider discussion would help. I still can't understand the problem with a tag that says the article may be off-topic. deeptrivia (talk) 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Off Topic Tag

message: I thought pakistani punjab was the cradle of the vedic civilization. I am surprised that there is no mention of it at all in the history of pakistan. The Indo-Greeks come suddenly after the Indus Valley Civilization, and there's a gap of a couple of thousand years.
==> Please remove this after reading.
I have page at http://www.travel-culture.com/pakistan/history.shtml which is chronology of Pakistan history with all dates. The Vedas (Ragveda) were written in Indus valley by Aryans and Punjab has no relation to it. Todays so called Punjab is in no way region that was in the past It was all Sindh in those days.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.143.113.212 (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vedic Civilization