Talk:Pakistan/Archive 9

message: In the Pakistan entry it is asserted that Muhammad bin Qasim converted peacefully the local buddhist and hindu population to islam (if so, why the need to conquer and bring an army there), but in another entry this time with his name ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_qasim#Controversy ) it is admitted that there a two contradictory views about the way this initial conversion took place, and that these views are politically (religiously) influenced! Anyway, the fact that all what it is written about the conversion of subcontinent population to islam, is this short item of propaganda (supposing we accept that initial conversion took place as indicated by the author/editor of the entry, is of no doubt or contest that there was other instances when there was forced conversion to islam in history of the area, and that the population was subjected to mass murder!!!), is dangerous for the image of wikipedia!. It seems that letting a limited circle of people editing isn't functioning better in terms of objectivity . . .
Why is Britain not listed as one of the groups of people that have invaded? To list its occupation under rule of the British Empire as different to its previous invasions seems inconsistent. It wont let me edit it on the page. Alexmitchelmore (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete data 

message: :Image:Priest King of Indus.jpg has been listed in possibly-unfree images. The image has dubious copyright tags. Can anyone replace it with a properly licensed version? Thanks. --Ragib 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohenjodaro image 

message: This section added by  is nonstandard. Pakistan is a featured article, and should be treated as such. No need to introduce POV laden non-standard sections. Thank you. --Ragib 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  nonstandard 

message: Pakistan holds the 5th largest population of Hindus worldwide. must be mentioned. Hindus beat the population of Christians and Sikhs in Pakistan. and there seems to be some discrimination or vandalism in article. Hindus are more present in Sindh province, and also hold many functions in Pakistan. Pakistan also helped re-build many Mandirs in Paksitan. Pakistan has sacred and very holy reigons of Hinduism. Pakistan holds extremly holy historic reigons and evidence of Mahabarata and Ramayan.it must be added into Pakistan Article there are lots of Hindus in Pakistan specially in the Sindh Province. :99.237.253.131|talk]]) 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism in Pakistan 

message: Can someone please add a link to the Pakistani Nationalism article on this page?
I didnt want to make any edits to the page before consulting other members.
Thanks
S Seagal 02:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistani Nationalism 

message: Hi to all - I think this article is lacking in three major areas. As a reader I would like to learn more of what kind of media infrastructure Pakistan has - newspapers, publications, tv, radio, satellite, phone, internet, etc. I would also like to see a subsection describing education systems - universities, colleges, madrassas, primary and secondary schools throughout the country. Such sections are "usually" a part of country FAs - not necessary but yet a part. I also think that "Holidays" should be compressed into the "Culture" section.
I see that Islamic fundamentalism is conspiciously absent from both politics and culture. I think its a matter of great importance that this article should tackle candidly. Large segments of Pakistanis are deeply influenced by Islam and fundamentalism - there are large numbers of madrassas everywhere. Organisations like the Tableeghi Jamaat are attracting top Pakistani celebrities like Inzamam ul Haq, Saeed Anwar, Mushtaq Ahmed, Mohammad Yousuf and former president Rafiq Tarar. Islamic fundamentalism is particularly important to describe in reference to Balochistan and NWFP. The "Culture" section paints a glossy picture but fails to describe the various social practices such as honour killings, feudalism and tribalism. Rama's arrow 18:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Tableeghi Jamaat is mostly apolitical, and not at all fundamentalist. It is more of a missionary organization. I do think your other points are valid, and can be added to the article. --Ragib 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see Tabhligi Jamaat - many TJ leaders were involved in the Pakistan coup attempt of 1995. Additionally, the US is investigating this group for funding and supporting terrorist outfits. Rama's arrow 23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mr. Rama's Arrow, the problem with people like you is that you are extremely fond of generalization and simplification. What do you know, Rama's Arrow, about Tableeg Jamat? Just because some TJ people were involved with Pakistani coup attempt and because the US is investigating into the TJ (Big Deal!) cannot make the TJ as an organization guilty. Please stop meddling with what you have no ideas about, dear Rama's Arrow! User: Kazimostak
Islam and extremist fundamentalism is totally a different thing.. what i dont understand is your reasoning for mentioning the names of Pakistani famous people with that.. If they turned towars religion, that is not extremism, its a belief of faith.. Kindly keep that in mind when addressing these issues again..iquadri 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverage expansion - Media, Education and Islamic fundamentalism 

message: hi,
I'm in a process of creating a uniform system of creating articles on political parties across wikipedias of different languages. I need help with Urdu translations, please contribute at User:Soman/Lang-Help-ur. --Soman 14:10, 26 اکتوبر 2006 (UTC)
hey, I would like to help, but i cant type in urdu on the keyboard. Is there a way i can program my comp to let me use it? I have urdu script on my computer but....
I wouldnt mind doing Arabic either.MOI 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urdu translations 

message: Hello,
This page is being vandalized by the minute, somone its the same reapeat offenders, One that especially comes to mind keeps changing the countries name to 'Bast**d child of England' and others are adding weasel words.
I'm actually fairly happy with the way the page is at the moment, I think most would agree that we cant really make any more improvements to the article than has already been done.
let me know what you think. S Seagal 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as the page reached featured status some months ago, I can't see the need for drastic changes to the article in the short-term at least. I think a  semi-protected status would be useful in the face of this vandalism. 82.12.226.248 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: These are not really sufficient reasons to have any page semi-protected. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be locked down, unless of course there is rampant vandalism. The way people edit this article now is not rampant vandalism in any way. --Ragib 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting Page To Be Locked 

message: A couple of weeks ago, someone changed the area figure for Pakistan to about 905,000 km2 based on a misunderstanding of what water areas refer to. The same someone immediately reverted this and when questioned on his/her talkpage quoted the CIA factbook, despite the factbook giving a different figure altogether. On pointing this out I was shown a calculation based on area figures for the various provinces and territories taken from relevant Wikipedia articles. Since Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, I have changed the figure to match the CIA factbook exactly. The figure does not include Azad Kashmir or the Northern Areas, simply because these are disputed areas.
82.12.226.248 01:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area figures 

message: I went to Pakistan a few months ago, and Bollywood movies are available literally everywhere you go, and aswell as that, Devdas was aired in Geo Tv. Unless someone has reliable sources to prove this ridiculous claim, please delete it.
:Cinema halls across Pakistan are not allowed to screen Bollywood movies. --Incman|वार्ता 20:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bollywood Movies banned??? 

message: An ip and now a user insists that Pakistan's area is 880000 sq kms and not 803000 sq kms. The source cited here (CIA handbook) says its 803000. I have already reverted once and I usually try to hold myself to 1RR. And especially here because I am Indian by nationality. I have no bias either way but a mundane statistic like area should be decided for once and for all and not be an issue of a revert war. I leave this to a more neutral person. -- Lost(talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The area of  Pakistan proper (excluding Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas) is somewhere between 796,000 km² (according to the information ministry of Pakistan) and 803,000 km² (according to CIA factbook) depending on their definition of dry land area. The area expands to about 880,000 km² if we include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas. Since these are part of a disputed region it is questionable whether they should be included. I would err on the side of not including them for the following reasons. Irrespective of disputes, neither of them elects representatives to the Pakistani federal legislature and Azad Kashmir has a functioning government, which regards itself as a separate "Islamic Republic" from Pakistan (albeit subsidised by Pakistan). The only matters not controlled by Azad Kashmir are foreign affairs, defence and coinage/currency, which some people would argue are essential for separate countries. The counter-argument is that Azad Kashmir had it's own armed forces until they were fully incorporated into the Pakistani Army in 1971. The situation with the Northern Areas is that they are regarded as a federal dependency of Pakistan as a whole in much the same way that the Isle of Man is a Crown dependency but not actually part of the United Kingdom. Again Pakistan is responsible for foreign affairs, defence, coinage and currency. Equally however, the Northern Light Infantry was not incorporated into the Pakistani Army until 1999. Green Giant 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan's area and other statistics 

message: Where did this quote come from: Historian and geographer de Blij Muller characterized the historical embodiment of the land when he said, "If, as is so often said, Egypt is the gift of the Nile, then Pakistan is the gift of the Indus."   ???  There is no citation.
Svetlana Miljkovic 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  checking sources 

message: When English became as an official language of Pakistan besides Urdu? I tried to locate the source about but could not find one. Can someone quote some official documents backing my quesiton. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamspedia (talk • contribs).  at 21:25, 13 December 2006 
http://www.pak.gov.pk/BasicFacts.aspx is an official source for the above question regarding language. Apermal 09:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  checking sources 

message: I am removing line ", as well as the sixth most populous Hindu country" for following reasons
#First it creates confusion and to balance this, the paragraph will require rankings for all other religions
#The text belongs to Hinduism in Pakistan so I have moved it there
#Actually Pakistan is ranked 5th according to Hinduism by country
#Article Hinduism by country shows a  tag on factual acuracy.
--IsleScape 11:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The line was moved in anticipation of an edit war on a page which is already intensely vandalised. Also, continuing from above points, first the ranking was inaccurate, secondly the Hinduism in Pakistan page did not have this information which was duly copied there. And finally, irrespective of tags, there are 3.35 million Hindus (see Hinduism by country) and 3.5 million Christians in Pakistan (see Christianity by country) who would deserve an equal mention for NPOV. I propose to either add a small section on 'Religious minorities in Pakistan' or improve Status of minorities in Pakistan to sort this out. --IsleScape 20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Fair enough. Additionally, would recommend to add such information to other related articles as Religion in Pakistan and Demographics of Pakistan etc. --IsleScape 11:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no way that there are 15 million Christians in Pakistan; it is more like one-eighth that number.  The Pakistan Christian Congress is a political organization and it is in its interests to inflate the numbers.  Please see Christianity in Pakistan, and please don't change the numbers there to justify your proposed edits.  Christianity in Pakistan is of recent vintage (late 19th and 20th centuries for the most part).  India, with a much longer history of Christianity (see Christianity in India), has only 24 million Christians; so, 15 million in Pakistan is a bit of a stretch.  Wikipedia goes by official country census numbers.  The latest Census of Pakistan on its Population by Religion Page says that Christians comprise 1.59% of the population and Hindus 1.60% of the population; in addition, there are 0.25% schedule castes in the population.  Even if you include all the schedule castes in the Hindus, it makes a total of 1.85%.  The latest total population figures from the latest 1998 census are 132,352,000, which gives a Christian population of 2,104,400, a Hindu population ("Jati" Hindus in the census terminology) of 2,117,632 for "Jati" Hindus, and 2,448,512 for Hindus + schedule castes.  So, unless you are looking for pointless and enervating edit wars, I suggest you don't go ahead with your proposed edits.  Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking at the contradictory figures, I support Fowler&fowler«Talk» and suggest to refrain from any such edits. If someone is really keen on adding religious data, feel free to contribute to the articles I mentioned earlier as they need more attention. Given the status of this article, no such edits are necessary.--IsleScape 21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the Hindu ranking is probably OK.  In other words, with approximately 2 million (and change) Hindus, Pakistan would be the sixth largest Hindu country.  As for the second largest Muslim country, that might be problematic as well, (I'm not sure yet).  I will examine the census data from India and Pakistan and write something on this page soon.  But I agree with Islescape that the Religion in Pakistan and Demographics in Pakistan pages need more attention.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello all. IsleScape, by your argument, the line stating that Pakistan contains the world's second largest Muslim population should also be removed. The Islam by country article also contains a disputed tag and many sources claim India to have the second largest Muslim population. S Seagal has provided a reliable source regarding the Hindu population in Pakistan. If one religion is mentioned, the other must be as well or both should be deleted. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont understand Islescapes aversion to adding the Hinduism ranking? I've provided a reliable source besides I agree that the religion in pakistan articles need alot more work, some of them are very obtuse but to say that we remove the Hinduism part and leave the Islamic part is in flagrant violation of NPOV, We can not allow arbitrariness on the part of one single religion. I can understand why the Christianity figure may be disputable but the Hinduism ranking and for historical reasons it should not be difficult to fathom why there is a large Hindu populace in Pakistan S Seagal 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Since I have been personally addressed here, I should clarify that before jumping into an argument, one should go through the whole discussion, not to sideline the progress on issue. I have actually agreed to the amendment as long as it doesn't contradict other articles on Wikipedia. In this case, it is recommended that instead of trying on FA, the issue be discussed on relevant articles, as in this case Hinduism by country etc. But for NPOV I would agree with Fowler&fowler --IsleScape 12:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, sixth largest Hindu population is fine.  And you can mention that there are over 2 million Christians, but I wouldn't bother with comparing it with Belgium which has a population of over 10 million.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hinduism ranking 

message: Since this is an issue that has vexed the Pakistan and India pages for some time, I thought I'd clarify the numbers by examining the census figures put out by the Governments of Pakistan, India, and the CIA fact book (rather than quote a Wikipedia page that has a "disputed" tag on it!).  Here is what I found.  (I am adding this to the talk pages of both Pakistan and India).  Please read the data and analysis carefully before you write angry or impatient rejoinders.
Data:
* The government of Pakistan did its last census in 1998, but did not include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in the final census numbers, although at least for the Northern Areas, the census was taken (as far as I can tell).
* The government of India did its last census in 2001 and did include Jammu and Kashmir (i.e. Indian administered Kashmir, but not Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas) in the census.
* The CIA factbook is made up of projections from these census figures, using the rates of growth of each population and religious group.
Assumptions:
The most pragmatic approach to evaluate the 2006 (end of the year) numbers would be to:
* Include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in the Pakistan numbers
* Include Jammu and Kashmir in the India numbers.
* Use the rates of growth for each religious community in the census to compute the end of year 2006 numbers. 
Note: I know that various Wikipedians will dispute the above assumptions, but in light of current day reality, they seem to be the best assumptions.  So here are the statistics.
Pakistan:
According to the 1998 census, the population was 132,352,000.  (See 1998 numbers here).  For normalizing the computation for both countries, let us assume that these numbers did not include the year 1998 itself.  Therefore, in order to estimate the numbers of end of 2006, we will count 1998, 1999, ..., 2006, a total of 9 years.  The average annual growth rate for population in Pakistan for the period 1981-1998 according to the government census page is 2.69%.  The Pakistani government end of the year figure for 2006 of is 158,946,500 (see bottom of this page), or and the Wikipedia Pakistan#Demographics page number is of 165,803,560 (based on the US Government Census estimates, see also: CIA Factbook Pakistan Page).  We will use the larger number.  Now what about the populations of Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas.  According to the Wikipedia Northern Areas#Demographics page the numbers for the 1998 census were 870,347.  Let us give the Northern Areas an average population growth rate of 6% (more than double the Pakistani rate of 2.69%, since it is sparsely populated).  Then the end of year 2006 population for the Northern Areas is:
 870347\left(1+6/100\right)^9= 1470400 
What about Azad Kashmir?  Well, no census was taken recently, but according to the Wikipedia Azad Kashmir: Demographics page, it has approximately 4 million inhabitants today.  So, the total end of 2006 population of Pakistan is:
 165803560 + 1470400 + 4000000 = 171273960
i.e. 171 million 273 thousand 960.  Now, according to the Pakistan Census Organisation: Population by Religion Page, 96.28% of Pakistanis are Muslim (the Wikpedia Pakistan: Demographics page shows 96%), so the total end of 2006 Muslim population of Pakistan is:
 173540400\times 96.28/100 = 164900000 
i.e. 164 million, 900 thousand at the end of 2006.
India:
According to the Government of India 2001 Data by Religion], the total Muslim population of India at the end of 2000 was 138,188,220 (See here for the numbers) for 13.4% of the population.  However, the rates of growth of population for different communities in India are quite different.  According to the 2001 India census Growth Rates by Religious Communities Page, the ten-yearly growth rate for Muslims during 1981-1990 was 34.5 and during 1991-2000 was 36.0.  (See: here),   This gives an average ten-year Muslim community growth rate (for the period 1981-2000) of:
 (34.5+36.0)/2 = 35.25 
This gives a yearly growth rate of approximately 3.05% since:
 100\left(1+3.05/100\right)^{10} = 135.05 
Since the 2001 census give the end of 2000 figures, as in the Pakistan case, we will count 2001, i.e. we will have 2001, 2002, ..., 2006, a total of six years.  Therefore, the end of 2006 Muslim population of India is: 
 138188220 \left(1+3.05/100\right)^6 = 165490000 
i.e. 165 million 490 thousand
This also means that although, Muslims comprised 13.4% of India's population at the end of 2000, they now constitute over 15% of the population.
Conclusion:
The numbers for the two countries are more or less equal.  These are the projections from the best sources I can get.  I know some Pakistanis will say, what about the Afghan refugees in Pakistan that number approximately 3 million, to which I am sure some Indians will say, what about the Bangladeshi undocumented immigrants in India, etc.  These seem to be the official numbers.  From my point of view the numbers are close enough that neither country can say with absolute confidence that it has the second largest Muslim population in the world and the other doesn't.  Maybe we can say they tie for second place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS. I should add that I am not trying to violate WP:NOR here, but just saying that the credible sources out there, like the Government censuses, don't make a clear cut case for either country (exclusively) being the second most populous Muslim country in 2006.  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Largest Muslim Population

message: Hello. I read this article a while back ago and I noticed that since then some parts of the Etymology section were removed. The current content there is 100% correct, however some of the material from before was erased. The part that was erased mentioned what the letters in Pakistan stand for. So in addition to the current etymology, I think the other part of the etymology should be brought back. After all that was from documents from the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. -- Behnam 05:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  parts of the "Etymology section" were removed. 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pak-Afghan_Relations--Bk2006 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan - Afgan Relations - What is this non-sense? 

message: Can someone remove this line "sari is regional dress that is worn by many women in Sindh and parts of Pakistan." This is not true, as it is viewed as an Indian dress, and is rarely worn in Pakistan. IP198 21:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sari 

message: People is the flag of Pakistan inspired by the flag of Turkey? as evident here National flags inspired by the flag of Turkey. Just out of curiosity. Thanks Aristovoul0s 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi 

message: Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.
Thanks
Atulsnischal 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wildlife of Pakistan]]

message: is adding a whole section regarding "apartheid". While the matter is quite POV by the very name, and the contents, that's not the main problem. The article is a featured one, and has to adhere to specific criteria. New materials should go to sub-articles with a very brief mention in this main country level page. Also, country level pages has specific structures about sections, the new material does not fit into any. Thanks. --Ragib 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yahya01's edits  

message: I've just noticed that somebody has managed to edit the description of the map of Pakistan.  When you hover over it, it says, 'Location of Pakistan (goat shaggers) '  Could someone please correct this?  I'm not sure how.--Shaliron 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. Thanks for pointing out this. --Ragib 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: The Demographics section should only include the demographics of Pakistan, not include a debate on whether Urdu should be spoken in Pakistan or not. The so called resentment against Urdu does not have one reliable source. The entire section begining from "It should be noted that the continued use of Urdu as the national language" to "as Persia, Afghanistan and Turco-Persian Central Asia", should be removed as it is original research. IP198 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics 

message: Still waiting........ rgrds
I am trying .. to find out about a village / town called Dhirki north of Lahore possibly in Gujrat District of Pakistan can some one help.... rgrds
.......................................................................................
Sanjeev.rattan 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was really surprising to me as well. However, I found out that on November 29, someone blanked several sections including the following two sections: geography/climate, and flora/fauna. The next person to revert the vandalism didn't restore these two blanked sections. I've restored them. --Ragib 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before the article went for peer review, we specifically included several sections that were thought necessary including the two that Ragib mentions. It seems some people are just interested in childish behaviour. Thanks fore sections Ragib. Green Giant 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: Why are money amounts in the article given in US dollars instead of local currency? Jimp 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Currency 

message: Since the message from Wali26 concerns the large scale edits made by him in this article, I'm posting it here:
 
:Since this concerns a large scale change in the article, I invite others to discuss it here. (Wali, please use this talk page to discuss your points rather than sending personal emails to me.) Thanks. --Ragib 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you and *when* did I send you an email? Feel completely free to raise an issue at the Administrator's noticeboard or any other noticeboard in wikipedia. Thank you. --Ragib 07:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

text: There is actually no problem at adding something with a consensus. The only problem was Wali's large scale and potentially controversial edits without any discussion. That's why we have this thread open so we can discuss this here and reach a consensus. Thanks. --Ragib 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues raised by [[User:Wali26|Wali26]] 

message: Someone has slipped this in "There is persecution of Christians in Pakistan.[66]" This is not appropriate, it is there to defame Pakistan. I tried to remove it but it returned. Also for some reason I kept on delete other parts of the text when i know i only deleted that.Regarding first point I believe it is semi protected so cannot edit, thus someone please change. Eliteforce 00:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inappropriate Comment on Society and Culture section.

message: The knowledge of A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Globalization Index 2006 is at
http://www.atkearney.com/main.taf?p=5,4,1,116
Wiki admin, please create the main article for the index at this website, if the index is a validated measure.
To my view, the index only partially measures the globalization from economic , tourist and telecommunication aspects.  What about cultural exchange? --- such as movie - foreign box office, art expos, music exchange - music bands' inflow and outflow, TV channels for or TV shows with imported programs etc?  The measurement sport exchange many not be that significant, as this field have already been globalized by Olympic spirit. 
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.15.34.251 (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please high light it.... 

message: Someone has made some malicious edits. The 'Flora and Fauna' heading has been changed to 'Florer and Forner' and the first word in the 'Economy' section is Pakiland!!
Brigidhj 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the vandalism. Thank you for pointing out. --Webkami 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad edits 

message: This is the official stance of the government as well as all CIA WFB maps.
Also see 
Shinas 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When it comes to geography, Wikipedia isn't dictated by "official" Government "stances". --Ragib 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pakistan is a West Asian republic

message: I wonder if someone with a knowledge of the subject could take a look at Nagar Valley that is badly in need of a clean-up, please? TerriersFan 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nagar Valley 

message: Is the A Q Khan nuclear proliferation scandal really so important in the long term as to deserve a mention in a high-level article? deeptrivia (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest wait probably for a while. I've noticed that editors generally tend to disagree on most reasonable of things when it comes to these parts. deeptrivia (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Q Khan 

message: Kk loach 09:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salaam to every one here  

message: The Music of Pakistan needs major work done on it. I was wondering if a few members would help in fixing the page up.
-Bk2006 11:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music of Pakistan 

message: ...PzZz... actually ah'm on it.Lil'Khan 15:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can ah help 

message: For me, this term appearing in the first sentence of this article is a clear case of WP:UNDUE. The Greater Middle East article informs us that this is a political term invented by the Bush administration for its preparatory work for the G8 summit of 2004. The question of how much weight should this term have doesn't need a debate. It definitely shouldn't be used as a fact on the first sentence of this article.  Articles on none of the other designated countries (Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Somalia, etc.) do it. Most of them make no mention of this term anywhere. Even U.S. government seems to have only used it on just a few occasions, and most of their publications, like CIA factbook article on Pakistan, just uses Southern Asia. We should just do away with this term on the article, or mention it somewhere in the middle of the article. deeptrivia (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue first arose when this article was in its Peer Review and FAC phase. The discussion can be found in Archive 6 here . Also, the point you made about the article stating that it was a Bush administration creation is an uncited statement in that article. Anyhow, I'm up to discuss the issue again. Pepsidrinka 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can have a discussion again, but hopefully it would not be of the type we had at . We don't need essays justifying whether or not Pakistan is in the (Greater) Middle East. A comparison of how most introductory articles on the country from reliable sources like britannica, Columbia, Encarta, CIA factbook, etc. choose to treat this matter would be a more appropriate discussion. deeptrivia (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  PS: BTW, I posted a  reference which describes the " ambitious game of concocting a "Greater Middle East", quoting Le Monde on how "The expression spread like a wild fire". The article quotes several people who reject this idea, for example, Mohammad Sid-Ahmad, one of Egypt's most influential commentators, "The question is, however, whether there is such a thing as a Greater Middle East extending beyond the traditional geographical boundaries of the region. And, if so, what are the common features shared by the different countries now identified as parts of a body that would extend from Pakistan in the east to Morocco in the west? [...]"  deeptrivia (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know much on the topic, so I can't say with any confidence whether I'm persuaded by the Greater Middle East argument. If I recall correctly, someone added the geographic location of Pakistan as the Middle East and the result of the ensuing discussion was that Pakistan was a part of the Greater Middle East, supported by the fact that the article on the Greater Middle East said so. Now, in retrospect, that is pretty much self-referencing. Anyhow, if your only contention is to remove it from the lead and to put the information somewhere in the article, I for one don't have a problem. If your contention is that the point of it being in the Greater Middle East (or whether it is or not), I'm not persuaded. I think more discussion is needed. Pepsidrinka 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Obviously all references point out that Pakistan is indeed in "Greater Middle East", which is apparently a controversial term defined by the US government a couple of years ago. We can mention it somewhere in the recent history section where it might be relevant. deeptrivia (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: The latest version hopefully takes care of it satisfactorily. deeptrivia (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think everything's okay. I added a slight variation so as to avoid the wording being too similar to any one reference. Tombseye 13:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Greater Middle East]] 

message: Pick up the latest issue of National Geographic and read "Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan" and tell me the wikipedia article here isn't missing something.  Don Belt depicts a militaristic country, cut in two by political and social ideologies.  Planted by Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Islamic radicalism continues to grow.  Military spending accounts for one quarter of the national budget while less than three percent is spent on education, health, and public welfare.  Amidst this is a man who founded a non profit organization filling needs not met by the government, schools, orphanages, hospitals and ambulances, who faces constant harrassment simply because he has no separate policy for infidels.  A professor teaches a graduate-level physics class and is retorted against by his students telling him he's wrong, and that God is responsible. Is this a flagrantly biased viewpoint I'm getting?  Is none of it true?  Because if any is, this wikipedia article needs massive restructing and an intro that reflects this.--Loodog 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instability and divide 

message: Since you brought up the formatting, I will explain those formatting changes though. The history section of this is difficult to follow, particularly if you are looking for a particular event, or are unfamiliar with Asian history. Considering the article includes some 4500 years of events, I thought 5 headings would help the casual & uninformed reader to process and scan that. I added the following headers at the appropriate places: Ancient History (~3000 years of time), Middle Age (1000 years), Modern Period (~200 years), Dominion of Pakistan (10 years), and Islamic Republic of Pakistan (current period). Do those 10 years warrant their own period? Perhaps not, since merging those wouldn't much impact readability. However, it happens to be very different from the period before it and also different government from the current Republic. Also, for all these header titles, I used the same wording as in the larger history article. I don't really care about this. I was just reading the article and wanted to make it easier for the next person to read. I have no expertise in or commitment to this article, so it's more yours than mine; you can decide how well you want people to understand it, and how to accomplish this. 
In addition, in that same edit, I also put in bold-face the dates for key events in the current period (Islamic Republic) at the front of each line. This was to improve the readability for someone scanning for certain time frame or reading quickly (i.e., most people). In retrospect, I should have done that in a separate edit from adding the sections, so that the two changes could be considered independently.
If you like, you may see the visual affect of these formatting changes in my revision dated 08:24, 4 September 2007 Ajobin 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting and Readability 

message: From my point of view, this experience has been ridiculous. Reverting ***all 3*** of my edits **with no explanation** or discussion, is completely against the collaborative culture of Wikipedia. They weren't that important, so I just ignored it, and continued in good faith to try to come up with and explain the need for wording on two specific phrases. However, now you (IP198) are justifying your behavior, so I will please ask you to refer to [Wikipedia:Revert#Explain_reverts].  I understand that this article gets more than its fair share of vandalism, but this was in no way vandalism. First of all, I am a registered user. Second, I made 3 separate changes with some explanation. Third, none of them was negative. There was just no basis for reverting *all* of my changes without any explanation or discussion. The formatting I can understand reverting without much to say, if the "caretakers" had perhaps come to some agreement on the subject before. If you had, then you could quite easily say so in the revert, though.
Anyway, I have already spent more than enough of my time taking an interest in your article. It would have been a much more pleasant time if there had been a little more communication and good faith shown. It is very important that my fellow Americans understand Pakistan, and on Wikipedia, that is in your hands. I wish you the best. Ajobin 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoiding Disputes and Reverting changes

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_pakistani
I started the article, please add on anything and fix any mistakes which I may have made. Cheers.
BK2006, October 06, 2007 (15:12 UTC)  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas Pakistanis Article Created 

message: ↑↑ Just wondering. I would change 'em, but this is a FA. Thanks. Rocket000 09:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are the references underlined? 

message: Does anyone else think that the holidays section should be merged into the culture? Other FA's such as India, Bangladesh dont have a section on holidays, as their culture sections mention holidays. i cant see the point why every holiday in Pakistan must be mentioned IP198 20:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with merging into the Culture section but I would point out that when the article became a FA, it included holidays as a separate section. Green Giant 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I completely agree - just because it is featured doesn't mean it can't be edited ever again. Its just that someone is bound to bring up that as an argument against merging the two sections. Green Giant 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Holiday section

message: I have readded information regarding the sari in Pakistan that has again been removed by the same user who claims that it is worn by a small minority. The multiple sources I have added state that it is becoming popular there as formal attire it is worn by some women in cities such as Karachi. Perhaps the opinions of others might be beneficial here. Looking at the conversation above regarding this topic, there were Pakistani users who supported the inclusion of the sentence. I have reinserted the sentence in an altered format, which says that it is only worn as formal-wear until a consensus is reached. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment. I can understand your point. If saris are included then other garments such as the sherwani also need to be mentioned. Thanks for moving the sentences and references to the main article of the culture section. Nevertheless I felt starting a discussion was the best way to approach this issue. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sari 

message: Some idiot is routinely placing fake data on the Pakistan page. He is inflating the Per capita incomes and deflating poverty rates. I am a proud Pakistani, and wish these stats are the case, but as yet they are not. Can we please stick to IMF/CIA stats for instance. Each time I edit this, this clown replaces the accurate data with his nonsense.
Thanks,
Applepie
Applepie 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: False data

message: I suggest changing entry for the form of government to Military Dictatorship. CuriousOliver 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It pretty much has been a military dictatorship for few years now.  Last night's events prove that.  --213.84.19.170 09:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Given the fluid state of affairs (e.g. there were rumours of Musharraf's house arrest just hours ago, which he seems to be denying) I would suggest waiting a day or so to see how things pan out. Green Giant 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that a few days have passed, the form of government should probably be changed to reflect the current reality. --64.142.82.28 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Form of Government to Military Dictatorship 

message: The introduction jumps from the Indus Valley Civilization to the "conquest" by Persians and Greeks. It skips, perhaps deliberately, the entire period of Indian/Hindu and Buddhist civilizations. Witness the Buddhas that are being destroyed to this day, not to mention that Lahore derives its name from Luv, the son of Rama. Though Alexander brought his army to the Indus, there was hardly any Greek conquest and this region was never a part of a sustained Greek empire. It was a part of Hindu and Buddhist empires for most of its history--though unfortunately not the history that is taught in Pakistan currently. (This wasn't always the case, history books before Zia-ul-haq had different accounts). In this "new" history, post-Zia, the history of Pakistan begins with its conquerors like Mahmud of Ghazni rather than the history of its own people -- the epitome of colonization when people forget their own histories and identify simply with their conquerors. Puck42 07:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone reverted factual changes to history introduction without comment. Puck42 07:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the second time user Noor Aalam has reverted my edits without any comment on this topic in the discussion page. It appears Noor Aalam is simply trying to exclusively control the article by reverting any changes he doesn't agree with without any attempt at discussion. Please suggest ways to deal with this kind of behavior that violates the colloborative nature of wikipedia.Puck42 22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Interesting particularly when Encarta's article on Pakistan is written by someone occupying a chair sponsored by the Pakistani government. There is no problem in including Mughals--they are part of history. But to claim that Guptas and Mauryas should not be included that were empires that lasted for centuries in that region and whose artifacts (Ashoka pillars, various Buddhas) are still found while the Greeks are (hmm what exactly is the influence of Greeks on modern day Pakistan, if that is the criteria) should be seems like an ideological slant rather than a factual one. Puck42 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other interesting thing is that the list of influences mentioned Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Afghans, Turks, and Mongols .. are all from the West. This is living in denial of the influence from the East that is at least as much as the influence from the West. The culture of Pakistan has more in common with the rest of the Indian subcontinent than it does with the Middle East. A denial of this is part of the schizophrenic identity that Pakistan has created for itself--denying all Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh influences on its culture and a shared history with the rest of India.Puck42 12:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction is skewed in its history 

message: ::On 3rd November, 2007 BBC opened debate on Emergency and more than 10,000 comments received many against emergency rule of President Mushraf.
:::http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3776&edition=2&ttl=20071107170824
::::vkvora2001 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emergency rule in Pakistan: Your reaction 

message: I have some difficulty finding the numbers the article currently gives for population by religion in the referenced sources, especially after the last edit by Paki90. "96% of the population are Muslims" corresponds to the referenced data from the Population Census Organization of Pakistan, but I cannot find the percentage of Sunni and Shi'a in their table, and the survey from the Ministry of Finance has no mention of religion. The CIA World Factbook, which is probably the source that  the reference here is meant to point to (note 38 or 45, not 3), says "Religions: Muslim 97% (Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%), other (includes Christian and Hindu) 3%" Which source is the basis for changing the Sunni and Shi'a percentages from "nearly 77%" and "20%" respectively, to "nearly 66%" and "34%"? The article also says that "Minority religions include Hinduism (1.85%), Christianity (1.6%) ...", while in the table from the Population Census Organization we find Christian: 1.59%, Hindu: 1.60%.  Gokirie (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics of religion 

message: The article is semi-protected, so I can't do so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan&oldid=179339204 appears to be the last good version. Since then, all of the changes have been by one user, ARCoolGuy, who has replaced one large section with "Yo" and added a new section consisting of the sentence "The president is evil."
This user's contributions seem to all be focused on the love lives of cartoon and video game characters, until today he vandalised this article and United States. --75.36.142.34 (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please revert the vandalism by ARCoolGuy 

message: Quote: "It is also a member of the UN, WTO, G33, G77 and is a nuclear power." - Can you say that? "and is a nuclear power" just sounds wrong in my ears. --Kirjapan (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "... and is a nuclear power." 

message: There is a difference in numbers: the german wikipedia states 167.806.000 inhabitants in Pakistan. Regards 77.11.202.4 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population