Talk:History of Pakistan/Archive 1

message: I've fixed the BBC poll results that somebody added so they tally with http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2017631.stm - if there is some other survey which matches the figures which were given here, then a source should be given for it. I also have very severe doubts about some other changes recently made by the same user (see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=439956&oldid=439933 ) - unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to fix this up myself. --Camembert 03:28 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)
----
UserPakAtheist removed:
India defeated Pakistan in all the three wars that it launched.    
A recent survey conducted by Mori for the BBC, found that 61% of Kashmiris would prefer Indian citizenship, 6% would prefer Pakistani, with 33% undecided . 
--
I disagree. While all surveys are inherently biased, it is still useful information. It should up to the reader to beware the potential for error. I think the BBC can be trusted enough to not further any political purpose. Are there any other surveys by different organizations supporting or debunking these results? Those would help...
And what's wrong with that general statement? Isnt it true?
--Jiang 21:44, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  2002/3 Talks 

message: see Talk:History of India; the pre-1947 material should be merged in History of the Indian subcontinent. The division into Pakistan vs. Indian Republic is only aged 60 years, and it is inappropriate to organize articles about early history guided by it. Before the RoI and Pakistan, there was the British Raj. Before that, it was just a collection of shifting kingdoms anyway, so the only thing that unites it are geographical criteria. dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: all I mean is that the same topic is covered several times. Both History of India and History of Pakistan have sections on the IVC,  Vedic civilization etc. dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No it doesn't.  There are in-depth articles and then there are brief summaries.  What part of the History of India talks about the Durrani Empire or the Mongols controlling Pakistan west of the Indus?  The reality is that there is cursory mention because while on thing takes place in what is today Pakistan, another takes place in India.  The Vedic section is short at any rate as are the other sections, while overall one gets the real sense that there is a regional history, which is the point as opposed to promoting the idea that Bengal and Baluchistan had the same history which is absurd.  
Tombseye 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: article focus

message: surely, the acronym is a backronym, and the word was not "also captured in the Persian language", but rather built on it? dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: acronym

message: The article has been listed for a peer review by the History Wikiproject. Green Giant (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review

message: I see that the article is locked, but the following meaning does not make sense.
The Indo-Greek Menander I (reigned 155-130 BCE) drove the Greco-Bactrians out of Gandhara and beyond the Hindu Kush, becoming a king shortly after his victory
Menander was a Greco-Bactrian himself, though ruling in the Indian provinces of their short-lived empire. He surely did not drive out any Greco-Bactrians; what he did was to take control of some territories that were previously ruled from Bactria. And these territories were most likely mainly in south-eastern Afghanistan, not Pakistan. And this is supposed to have happened at the end of his reign. The paragraph about Heliocles I is also outdated; since 50 years, scholars agree that a separate king named Heliocles II ruled in Pakistan.
I request a temporary unlocking so I can re-write the Indo-Greek sequence in accordance with the main article. (To which I am one of the main contributors). Kindly, Sponsianus (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is only semi-protected, which means that established users like yourself can edit. However, at the present time I am considering removing most of the pre-20th century history because it is not really as relevant to the history of Pakistan itself as the 20th and 21st century history is. Green Giant (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Menander

message: Pakistan got the first..?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.148.129 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pakistan 

message: Because the article is locked, I couldn't figure out how to make copyedits, but I noticed a few things that should be changed in the last few paragraphs.  maybe someone else can can make them?  Thanks!
"A General Election was held in Pakistan" . . . should be "general election" uncapitalized.  
"On August 7 The deadlock between ruling parties ended when the coalition government of Pakistan decided to move for the impeachment of the President and then head for the restoration of the deposed judiciary. moreover they have decided that the President of Pakistan now faces charges of weakening the federation, creating economic impasse and violating the constitution.[101]"
"The" is capitalized unnecessarily, and the first sentence is too long and should be broken up.  "Moreover" should be capitalized.
"Also He had been required to seek the vote of confidence from the senate and parliament"
"He" shouldn't be capitalized, and there should be a period at the end.
--72.93.0.112 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --GDibyendu (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: copy edits

message: I was looking for some information on why Dominion Status prolonged till 1956, but this article did not help: only thing it said is the date when it ended in 'First military era (1958-1971)' section. Main articles listed in the section are 2 biographies and one on Bangladesh Independence War.--GDibyendu (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dominion Status 

message: I put it there, because its one of the most important images representing the Indus Civilization followed by the dancing here. Since the article contains the Indus Valley era, it's important to keep the priest image here.03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indus priest image 

message: I've went ahead and changed the setup of the article, and added some early history to the introduction page. I would request everyone to please look over my edits because I may have made a few mistakes (which I think I may have). I think this set up is much easier to read and more organized. I hope we can further add to the article from this point onwards. There are still many spelling mistakes and errors I've noticed throughout the article so I request everyone to please look into them. Thank you.
--MirNaveed (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate your efforts MN. Pre-partition history of the Pakistan-specific and very adjoining regions is needed here. Good Job! But, it will be nice if more information is highlighted by competent Wikipedians on the local kings and sons of the soil, who faced the invasions and their aftermaths. Only a few, like Porus, Dahir, Rai kings and the 'Sikhs' find some mention; some have been dismissed as anonymous 'petty kings' in the narrative, perhaps inadvertently. Making Pakistan region central to the historical account will make this article very informative; it is now mostly an 'exocentric' account, highlighting the invaders from the West and the East, great may be their feats, though. This is my humble opinion. Personally, I contribute mainly copy edits here.Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed The Article Setup 

message: http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/01/arts/arts-artifacts-textiles-as-rich-and-varied-as-the-history-of-pakistan.html?pagewanted=1 Mughalnz (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  more info 

message: Please mention Sapta Sindhu which was Pakistan's original name. It is from Sapta Sindhu the names Indus and Hind were derived from.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sapta Sindhu needs to be mentioned  

message: Are some people trying to be exceptionally smart by removing half of the information as "irrelevant"? This has to be the most vandalised page on Wikipedia. I urge moderators to take action. Certain people with blatant bias insist on removing large parts they dont "like". Truly pathetic. --Xinjao (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  For crying out loud, what is the problem!!!! 

message: I suggest you get back in your taxi indian and concentrate on making ends meet instead of wasting your precious time on Pakistani Wiki articles. The region of Babylon was never called Iraq shall we assume Iran has claims to it now? You indians are ridiculous!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHPak (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: =get back in your taxi

message: I came onto this page hoping to find some information on my native Sindh, but could find absolutely nothing, It came to my attention that another article has been made on this matter. Pages on the History of Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab, and so on and so forth need to be merged with this please, remember the Indigenous people of these regions are the ones who are currently tagged as Pakistani, most of the peoples whos ancestors contributed to this history are also tagged as Pakistani therefore we have a right our ancient history be merged with the history of our country, Also there seems to be an Anti-Pakistan presence in all Pak related discussions on wikipedia, as with most other sites, Id kindly like to remind you this isn't the website for bias so please step out and stick to your anonymous forums, people who actually come from within Pakistan should be given responsibility to look after this page and edit it as the readers demand.thanks.Bye.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yassinbaloch091 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge INDIGENOUS PAKISTANI history with this article

message: This article, as also other articles on Pakistan, are modified so often reflecting some nationalistic 'ajenda' against them. It harms the articles as well as the reliability of Wikipedia. I wish editors could appoint a group to monitor Pakistan-related articles regularly for such biased edits. Is it Possible?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.100.114 (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a mechanism here to check  the edits? 

message: "Ordinance XX was introduced to limit the idolatrous Ahmadis from misrepresenting themselves as Muslims."
This is an opinon, not a fact. Who is the writer to say Ahmadi's are idolatrous and are misrepresenting themselves by calling themselves Muslims? 30 July, 2011  — Preceding unsigned comment added by InaniloquentES (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Point of view is not neutral. 

message: This article is incomplete.  It does not include the foundation and eventual establishment of the Afghan empire to which Pakistan was an integral part.  Infact, the founder is believed to have come from a city in modern day Pakistan.  This important component of Pakistan's history needs to be included.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.132.39 (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Afghan Empire

message: My ancestors are Hindus from Sindh, Pakistan. Why is there no mention of Hindus?
25% of Sindh's population was Hindu at time of partition in 1947. Even though there was no violence in the streets, it only started when the mohajirs started to pour into Sindh. They started looting the homes of Hindus and we lost everything. They took our homes and businesses. It is a horrible crime and it should be acknowledged and respected in this article. 
There should be respect for Hindus there is common ancestry between Muslims of Pakistan and Hindus of Pakistan.
what you write may be true however this is not the appropriate place for it. Political history needs to be kept out of scientific and anthropological history-99.227.90.213 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why no mention of Hindus? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Zia ul haq.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Marathas 1758.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: *The IP started this section on the top, I've moved it to the bottom as it would probably have been left unnoticed like before. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is not your rewrite, your version included removal of whole chunks of content without a given rationale. Kindly stop edit warring please and discuss here what you have objections to, and what for. Mar4d (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

text: You've many unexplained removals under the edit summary of doing a rewrite. That amounts to vandalism. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Thank you guys for your intervention. Everything about the present revert is objectionable as it is all factually incorrect. Lets start with the satraps:
* Media_(Persian_province) - This is the most absurd inclusion in the present edition. Media was located in northwest Iran, over a 1000 miles away from modern Pakistan. Its own article here on wikipedia is self-explanatory on its geographical location: Media_(Persian_province)#Achaemenid_Persia.
* Saka - Saka is not the name of an Achaemenid satrap. If the reverters would just click on the link to that article they would already know that Saka (Scythians) is the given name for a conferation of nomadic tribes of Iranic orign. Hence, why the non-existent satrap of 'Saka' was removed from this article.
* Taxila_(satrapy) - Taxila was not the name of an Achaemenid satrap. Taxila was the name of a city located in an Indian kingdom called "Hindush" by the Persians according the very source which that article cites as a reference - "Taxila was the capital of a kingdom that was called Hinduš (or Indus-country)" - http://www.livius.org/ta-td/taxila/taxila.htm - This is why this section was removed. Additionaly, the wikipedia article Taxila_(satrapy) itself should be deleted as it is factually incorrect.
* The rest of my edits and removals are all explained in the article http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdf as my edits were based primarily on that source, in addition to an article published in the book http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_World_of_Achaemenid_Persia.html?id=wckVQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y. The articles state that the Darius I inscriptions list only 3 Indian satraps, - Gandhara, Sattagydia/Thatagus and Hindush.
* Finally, i have removed Zoroastrianism from this article as this religion is wholly foreign to Pakistan. This is attested to in Achaemenid and Sassanid sources (see Aniran) which list the lands of the Zoroastrians and Iranians, which modern Pakistan is not apart of, and also Greek sources such as Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander which clearly states that the religion and priests the Greeks encountered in what is now Pakistan during Alexander's invasion were Brahmans, not Zoroastrians like the Persians. Furthermore, its removal from this article needs no real explanation if the reverters would only read about the establishment of the first Zoroastrians anywhere in South Asia / Indian subcontinent which is documented in the Persian-Zoroastrian book Qissa-i_Sanjan which i mentioned in an edit summary. In brief, the first Zoroastrians arrived in the subcontinent in the 10th century CE, and that was to western India. There were no Zoroastrian communities anywhere in South Asia prior to their arrival. 92.4.179.188 (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was not the Achaemenid Empire's mainstream religion Zoroastrianism that was totally destroyed by Alexander, including its scriptures? Was not the religion resurrected and remnants of its scriptures put together by later rulers in what is now the Parsi religion that reached Sanjan, India centuries later? Can any scholar of this great faith's history enlighten us on these points that I read in some books I do not remember now? Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

text: No, you are mistaken. Zoroastrianism had no written scriptures during the Achaemenid period as every sacred hymn was learnt by heart and transmitted orally by the Zoroastrian priesthood. Also, Zoroastrianism was not destroyed by Alexander, but yes it was dealt a severe blow in Iran that took a century or more to recover (at which point aspects of the faith were no longer the same as it had been before Alexander's invasion of Iran). The many Zoroastrian texts that make-up the Zend-Avesta were committed to writing only during the Sassanid period. But that has nothing to do with this page/topic as Zoroastrian history is not shared by Pakistan which was never inhabited by Zoroastrians. Anyway i have made an account as requested and am still waiting for a response to my revision of the Achaemenid section to this article. Thanks. اردیبهشت (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I note this dispute has been listed for a Third Opinion — but I'm not sure it's suitable for the 3O process, because it appears that more than two editors are already involved in the dispute.  It also looks to me like the issues involved are way more complicated than a typical random 3O commentator would be able to sift through.  In addition to the other dispute resolution procedures, I would urge everyone to work carefully through the points in dispute — giving others the benefit of the doubt, and if others insist on disagreeing with what you are convinced is the plain and obvious truth, consider the possibility that you may not have explained your position adequately (or that you may not be fully understanding what they are trying to say to you).  — Richwales 00:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With regret, I removed the 3O request because more than two editors are already involved in this dispute.  This is not intended as an evaluation of Ordibehesht's desire for dispute resolution — only a recognition that the dispute fails to satisfy the requirements for this particular dispute resolution forum.  I hope people will continue to try to deal with this content dispute in other ways — such as, perhaps, dealing with individual pieces of the overall dispute one at a time rather than trying to handle the whole thing at once.  Also, please try to concentrate on content, not the perceived conduct of other editors; the fact that others disagree with you does not necessarily mean that they are acting uncivilly.  — Richwales 06:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Ok thanks. The issue is not complicated at all though as i have clearly explained the problems with the present version in bullet-points. All it takes is a brief glance by a neutral 3rd party over the issues ive raised and the sources/references i have provided. I will revert to my version if the points ive raised above go unanswered. اردیبهشت (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Bogus and factually incorrect Achaemenid section

message: I have changed the line "prevented Ahmadis from misrepresenting themselves as Muslims" to "calling themselves Muslims" since i believe the previous line was blatantly POV. Hope nobody minds 120.56.163.227 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahmadi Change 

message: was this region ever known by the name of Pakistan before 1947? If not then this article is not in tune with wikipedia's ideas. the title of the article should be changed immediately. All history textbooks give the name as Indian Subcontinent and that will be the right article to include this information. What some authors here are trying to do is spinning their notion of being an ancient country to others. The information being conveyed is totally inaccurate at the moment.
:Appeal to "before 1947" commentator: Information is always welcome, even at the cost of duplication, if any. It does not hurt any one if pre-partition history is presented here with more emphasis on the region and nation of Pakistan. Please remember that, this region has been the battle ground, or the backyard, of neighbouring kingdoms and mighty empires since ancient times; it can be considered a part of Greater India, Greater Iran or Greater Central Asia, with equal justification, on that count. It is after nearly two and a half thousand years of subjugation to outsiders, that the sons of the soil are ruling their motherland for any length of time as per their ethos, in spite of all odds. Let the world know that these people exist and have existed all these year, and know their chequered history too. Do not bury it under the megalith of Indian Subcontinent. Your wellwisher.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.219.54 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: before 1947 

message: I think these Dynasties  deserve to get some space separately in the article (maybe as  sub heading under Major heading of Dehli sultanate). Period comprising of these dynasties was very important one as  Science and Literature was thriving in the area during that time, and played major role in forming the modern day Pakistani culture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhayb.Manzer (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghauri, Mamluk, Tughlak, Khilji and Sayyid Dynasties. 

message: tida pati  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.185.189 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  nony moshen 

message: According to the current reference http://www.webcitation.org/5kwqOxl5F, the empire stretched upto Indian Punjab and  Rajasthan. There is no point Gupta Empire" getting a long section in History of Pakistan. So should be the section be completely removed or there should a mention of states that paid tributes to Gupta Empire? --Fasi100 (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should Gupta Empire section be in the article? 

message: Pakistan was made in 1947.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.151.214 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if we consider your personal analysis for a minute (which is unfortunately not the source of wikipedia), Republic of India is no more historical India than Pakistan is. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Republic of India / Modern day India adopted the name of ancient India as its name as a country after the Independence of British India to signify its cultural connections. Although Ovesk is right about the history of modern day Pakistan starting from Pakistan Movement, civilizations like Indus valley civilization have existed in the region as distinct civilizations from any other Indian civilizations. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120203203510/http://www.pas.gov.pk/first-las.htm to http://www.pas.gov.pk/first-las.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080823011004/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/updates.asp?id=52487 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=52487
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :History of Pakistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Ferishta":
From Sabuktigin: 
From Pashtuns: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:History of Pakistan]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on History of 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928044049/http://www.guimet.fr/Indus-and-Mehrgarh-archaeological to http://www.guimet.fr/Indus-and-Mehrgarh-archaeological
*Added  tag to http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pd
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830031416/http://www.aisk.org/aisk/NHDAHGTK05.php to http://www.aisk.org/aisk/NHDAHGTK05.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571624/gupta_dynasty.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204082030/http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ANCINDIA/GUPTA.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ANCINDIA/GUPTA.HTM
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606120407/https://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=2179&order_by=year&showdescription=1 to http://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=2179&order_by=year&showdescription=1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927121217/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/mughals/ to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/mughals/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616183117/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-2-2004_pg3_6 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-2-2004_pg3_6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419012150/http://www.chaudhryrahmatali.com/now%20or%20never/index.htm to http://www.chaudhryrahmatali.com/now%20or%20never/index.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616183117/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-2-2004_pg3_6 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-2-2004_pg3_6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304115412/http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/june/loveaffair.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/june/loveaffair.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402133212/http://dawn.com/2013/03/28/times-of-the-signs/ to http://dawn.com/2013/03/28/times-of-the-signs/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104121828/http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A091&Pg=2 to http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A091&Pg=2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906000514/http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0%2C%2C30200-1298932%2C00.html to http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0%2C%2C30200-1298932%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828034546/http://www.angus-reid.com/tracker/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=15363 to http://www.angus-reid.com/tracker/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=15363
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610120218/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130516/news-world/article/nawaz-sharif-be-nuclear-pm to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130516/news-world/article/nawaz-sharif-be-nuclear-pm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024151850/http://www.marymount.k12.ny.us/marynet/stwbwk05/05vm/earrings/html/emanalysis.html to http://www.marymount.k12.ny.us/marynet/stwbwk05/05vm/earrings/html/emanalysis.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225094623/http://www.quaid.gov.pk/politician2.htm to http://www.quaid.gov.pk/politician2.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211132925/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS085.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS085.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722001847/http://www.mhhdc.org/html/system_blame.htm to http://www.mhhdc.org/html/system_blame.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: has been removing content from the article without providing a clear and proper explanation. When I reverted the edits back to the official last edit, I was told Don't create empty irrelevant sections, get consensus for your edits. As I have mentioned earlier, and for those who are unaware, I have taken a break from editing the History of Pakistan to avoid confrontation and to avoid getting banned. I made it clear that I would begin editing again sometime in December. I added many sections which I would eventually come around to and added an "expand section" template. Without any explanations these sections were removed. Also, within the context of removing these empty section, small edits were made to the top note whereby the part that reads "this is about the history of the Indus Valley" was replaced with "this is about the history of Pakistan". Also, the first sentence "The history of Pakistan () encompasses the history of the Indus Valley" was edited to "The history of Pakistan () the history of the region constituting modern-day Pakistan." once again with providing an explanation. Could Capitals00 please provide a reason for the last two edits. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet you are exactly doing the things that will lead to ban. Your treatment of the word "Indus Valley" as synonym for Pakistan is itself meaningless because Indus Valley refers to mature Indus Valley Civilization which covered large amount of North Western India and North Eastern Afghanistan and it didn't covered a lot of territories that constitute present Pakistan. When you can't expand the section right at the time when you are making them, you have to just back off from creating them. And what you are creating? Don't need any sections for princely states since they that lacked total power in administrating the regions. You are trying to claim that princely states ruled Pakistan along with British raj, but none of these claims are correct and you are only engaging in revisionism. Lorstaking (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You've made a mistake in confusing the term Indus Valley (or Indus River basin) with Indus Valley Civilization. These two terms are NOT the same. The Indus River basin, as seen in these maps      covers much of what is today Pakistan...almost 85% of the territory falls within the Indus River basin (ie. Indus Valley). Just because some territory of the Indus basin lies in northwestern India and parts of north eastern Afghanistan (which barely makes up 5% of there territory and has negligible affect on there history) shouldn't negate the fact that Pakistan prior to 1947 was essentially the Indus Valley. Moving on to your second point, which princely states are you referring to exactly? Dir State, Chitral State and Hunza State are far from "princely states"...all three were established in the mid 1700s, well before any British misadventure in the region occurred. Yes, they were ABSORBED into the British Raj, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to British rule. The first instance of British rule in the Indus Valley (what it today Pakistan) is the Fall of Sindh in 1842 (Battle of Miani). Kindly explain how Dir State (established in the mid 1600s) is a Princely State then? This would be akin to saying that Poland today is a German satellite state because it was occupied by Nazi Germany in World War 2. Doesn't make much sense at all. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by User:Capitals00

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on History of 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120093649/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/Ancient/Other/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE3NDIyOQ%3D%3D to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/Ancient/Other/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE3NDIyOQ==
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519044446/http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdf to http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219222201/http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/23march2007/index.html to http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/23march2007/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603004232/http://www.borobudur.tv/avadana_07.htm to http://www.borobudur.tv/avadana_07.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216052138/http://www.aspr.ac.at/epu/research/rp_0807.pdf to http://www.aspr.ac.at/epu/research/rp_0807.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am trying to improve this article by amending the 1st paragraph which isn't very inspiring. The first paragraph starts by saying Pakistan has a shared history with its neighbours. This is a very weak start to another wise good article – I mean can you name any country on the planet that doesn’t have a shared history over the centuries with other countries which share a border? This sentence about shared history is so general as to render it meaningless. 
Can I sugggest the opening paragraph later on in the first paragraph when it states: 'The region of present-day Pakistan served both as the fertile ground of a major civilization and as the gateway of South Asia to Central Asia and the Near East.[2][3]'
Thanks Za1255 (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it was improved. Then deleted for no reason whatsoever. This obsession with removing any mention of the Indus Valley in relation to Pakistan is slightly concerning. It's almost as if an agenda is being sought after. The original intro read as The history of Pakistan encompasses the region of the Indus Valley, which spans the northwestern expanse of the Indian subcontinent and the eastern Iranian plateau. The region served both as the fertile ground of a major civilisation and as the gateway of South Asia to Central Asia and the Near East. Quote: "Numerous passageways through the western frontiers of the Indian subcontinent in modern Pakistan and Afghanistan served as migration routes to South Asia from the Iranian plateau and the Central Asian steppes. Prehistoric and protohistoric exchanges across the Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and Himalaya ranges demonstrate earlier precedents for routes through the high mountain passes and river valleys in later historical periods. Typological similarities between Northern Neolithic sites in Kashmir and Swat and sites in the Tibetan plateau and northern China show that 'Mountain chains have often integrated rather than isolated peoples.' Ties between the trading post of Shortughai in Badakhshan (northeastern Afghanistan) and the lower Indus valley provide evidence for long-distance commercial networks and 'polymorphous relations' across the Hindu Kush until c. 1800 B.C.' The Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) may have functioned as a 'filter' for the introduction of Indo-Iranian languages to the northwestern Indian subcontinent, although routes and chronologies remain hypothetical. (page 55)" Quote: "Here also, in ancient days, was the meeting-place of three great trade-routes, one, from Hindustan and Eastern India, which was to become the 'royal highway' described by Megasthenes as running from Pataliputra to the north-west of the Maurya empire; the second from Western Asia through Bactria, Kapisi and Pushkalavati and so across the Indus at Ohind to Taxila; and the third from Kashmir and Central Asia by way of the Srinagar valley and Baramula to Mansehra and so down the Haripur valley. These three trade-routes, which carried the bulk of the traffic passing by land between India and Central and Western Asia, played an all-important part in the history of Taxila. (page 1)". I don't see what the issue here is. --199.71.174.200 (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The version in place is a longstanding one of dozen-odd years.  The history of Pakistan is not just the history of the Indus Valley (the broad alluvial plain of the Indus); Baluchistan, for one, lies outside this alluvium and more properly on the Iranian plateau as does NWFP (Taxila, Takht-i-Bahi)  Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: NWFP hasn't existed since 2006. You know nothing about the history of Pakistan. --2607:FEA8:A380:789:8052:5A1B:4F6C:B40F (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not 2006, but 2010.  See North-West Frontier Province.  I obviously know that; it was an abbreviation used for an edit summary to save time.  Neither Peshawar, nor Taxila, are in the Indus Plain.  Your racist edit summary besides is not helpful.  Notifying some admins ,   Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph of this article 

message: Please stop trying to insert references to Riwat 55 into the lead or Palaeolithic section. Nobody is disputing that the site is ~50k years old, but this is utterly unremarkable: there are many, many Palaeolithic sites in Pakistan, and many that are much older. This is already stated in the article, right after the sentences you are trying to insert. It makes no sense to say that the prehistory of Pakistan "started" with Riwat 55. It's not even the oldest site at Riwat... – Joe (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Riwat 55 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: , ,  Fowler reverted some recent edits because of "too much WP:UNDUE material". My question is why my contributions got deleted. I believe I literally improved the page with my contributions. Could someone explain to me how my edits were wrong? Jamal047 (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have opened a thread above.  Please don't disrespect Wikipedia policy by starting a new thread.  State what you need to in the thread above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content removal 

message: This one. Firstly, the article was already too long at  the 180K raw bytes version that F&F reverted to, and now is 218K, which is just far too long.  As far as I can see, the bulk of the difference is a series of edits by User:Jamal047 and User:Sutyarashi in August and September, mostly copying over material from satellite articles such as those on various medieval kingdoms. Some of this may be a good idea, but there is too much of it.  At the least the material needs to be thinned out.   Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, my main issue is with the indiscriminate reverting. If there is some undue material, someone could at least have the courtesy to go and edit the content accordingly. 6 months worth of contributions cannot be all wrong (usually...). Best पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I wasn't paying attention to the article size reverted to, only the lead.  I agree that there is too much extraneous material, and I'm happy to revert it farther back.  The new material is mostly India-POV history being applied Pakistan-related geography. It is the result of Pakistani editors disappearing from Wikipedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

text: I've reduced it further.  Despite my reduction, it still remains in very poor state.  It seems that long and biases histories are being written here about empires that would not be possible on the empire's own pages because those are being better monitored for UNDUE Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

text: The page's prose size was 14,371 words.  The most obscure Indian kingdoms which are not mentioned anywhere in India#History make their appearance here.  I have removed the UNDUE additions and brought the size down to 11,507 words.  It needs to be reduced further to 10,000 words. The size of the Indai page, for example, is 10,662 words Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent big reversion 

message: *I (finally) looked at History of the Republic of India which contains only the history post-1947. History of Pakistan, on the other hand, is overloaded with pre-1947 history. Almost to the extent that it duplicates the History of India article. This doesn't make much sense, shouldn't this article, like the analogous India one, contain only post-partition history or am I missing something?--RegentsPark (comment) 21:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mainly what you suggested I think, especially the period between the Gupta Empire and the first Islamic invasions, ie the "Rai Dynasty, Brahman dynasty etc..." , as well as the Alchon Huns, who have totally vanished in the mass-blanking. Also the whole part about the Sassanian Empire (Kushano-Sasanian Kingdom, Hind (Sasanian province)) has disappeared... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: TrangaBellam said in the link you have provided, "There was too much detail about Rai Dynasty, Brahman dynasty etc. but they do need to be mentioned probably compressed to a couple of lines (at most)."  Please suggest a couple of sentences, without illustrative spam. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also suggest two sentences for Kushano-Sasanian Kingdom and Hind (Sasanian province) without illustrations of coins and we can discuss if they are notable for Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Prima facie, those pages, are dubious gray-zone histories, what Ms Sarah Welch had termed POV-y histories.  No content of due weight, only illustrations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Section break

message: If an editor has made changes you don't like remove them, don't disruptively mass revert articles and reintroduce errors and unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued mass reverting of the article