Talk:Pakistan/Archive 8

message: I noticed that the population estimate for Pakistan is taken from http://www.world-gazetteer.com. How accurate is this website?
Personally, I dont trust websites that try to install spyware and adware on my computer, but I dont know in this case......... --Jibran1 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concerns are understandable but the World Gazetteer website was used because it has a recommendation from the GE Source website which is part of the Resource Discovery Network. Both of these latter websites are UK national websites based on collaboration by numerous academic organisations. However, if you can find an estimate from a more reliable source, feel free to change the figures but do remember to list the source. Green Giant 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. I know the Statpak website has a current population clock but this excludes Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas which are de facto parts of Pakistan even if de jure it is disputed. Green Giant 02:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estimated Population

message: Anyone object to moving all the citations to follow punctuation,[1] like this?[2]  That is way it's done in print sources, most FAs, and according to the Chicago Manual of Style. —Spangineer[es] (háblame) 07:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making a small but important point. Please feel free to change to the standard format. Green Giant 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's new citation tool, using reference/ ext link automatically does so, and putting a notes/refs section in the end with  tag automatically creates a nice looking reference section. Thanks. --Ragib 07:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually going to do so a few days ago, but with 30+ references, I dreaded the task and decided to leave well enough alone. Now that someone suggested doing so, I guess it probably should be done. I'll try to do so later if no one does so before I get around to it. The only advantage I see with the current system is that it looks more aesthetically pleasing in the text when looking at the source code. Pepsidrinka 07:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation tool is better, because it adds the automatic numbering, reuse of citations in different places, and many other functions. Also, you don't have to make the source code difficult to edit ... look at how the citations are done in Rabindranath Tagore. That's a great, compact way of achieving the same thing. --Ragib 08:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conversion is now complete. Incidently, the conversion removed 1 KB from the article size. I also acted upon the recommendation by Spangineer and moved the citations to follow the punctuation. Pepsidrinka 20:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citation location 

message: The article Military dictatorship mentions Pakistan to be the country currently under military rule.Should not therefore the article be categorised to Category :Military dictatorship.The serving army Chief is top excecutive of the government.Shyamsunder 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to point upwards to the comments I made under the "Pakistan is a Republic" heading above. Musharraf didn't plan a coup, it was kinda forced on him by the actions of Nawaz Sharif. Before the judges swore that oath, I am sure they ruled that his administration had three years (more or less) to restore civilian rule. In 2004, he gained a kind of legitimacy when the Electoral College of Pakistan voted him into office, which is what the Constitution requires to make him elected president. See Dawn.com and CBS News.com for details of that. Obviously your argument of him still being Army chief is the strongest indicator of a military dictatorship but I think Musharraf's regime doesn't bear all the hallmarks of other dictators. By the way I think Nawaz Sharif and Benzair Bhutto are banned because of their prior records. Doesn't Mrs Bhutto have some outstanding court cases against her about her secret Swiss bank accounts which might have had a lot of public funds diverted to them. Nawaz Sharif was a little unsavoury even as a democratically elected PM, with all that fuss about the Chief Justice ruling against him in a court case and then the court being invaded by Sharif supporters and the judge having to flee. It's difficult to decide whether Pakistan actually emerged from General Zia's dictatorship at all considering the kind of democrats that succeeded him? :P Green Giant 06:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military dictatorship 

message: I dont think it is good idea to have list of Prominent Personalities in main Pakistan page. Please look into it. --Spasage 09:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spasage, you must found this article within the 37 minutes the personalities section was around. It was added and subsequently removed by 9:51 UTC on the date in question. Pepsidrinka 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prominent Personalities 

message: the references cited after the notes section, what do they refer to? ie, where are they cited or used in the article? --Bob 21:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps someone else can explain, but from as far as I know, prior to about a month ago, nothing in this article was internally cited. All references belonged in a reference section at the bottom, which is the section you mentioned. Beginning with the push to get this article featured, the editors of this article realized that internal citations (aka inline citations) were neccessary and a push began to do so. Since most of the reference that were already there were added by past editors, most the current editors did not have access to them. So other sources were used. However, in order to preserve the actual references for the non-contentious issues, the reference section has been mainted, with an additional notes section for the inline citations. Pepsidrinka 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, we don't know what text these references support? They should be properly linked to and/or cited as well--Bob 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. As far as I understand, every fact does not need to be internally cited. It is usually only those contentious issues or those issues that are difficult to believe that require an inline citation. However, other facts, such as "Pakistan is part of the United Nations" would not require an immediate citation, but it by all means needs a reference. That is why general citations are found. Obviously no one is going to dispute that Pakistan is not apart of the United Nations, however, where did you get information from? It is good to provide references in general. I feel like I just repeated myself three times. Your thoughts? Pepsidrinka 02:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Pepsidrinka, there are some things that are simply indisputable like the UN membership, as almost every political entity is either a member or an observer. It might be better to rename that section as Further reading or some similar name. Green Giant 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this reference used for:Malik, Iftikhar H. "Religious Minorities in Pakistan". Minority Rights Group International. September 2002.   ? Why is it there? The others as well. --Bob 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Congratulations to everyone who has helped bring this article out of the Dark Ages and into the light of Featured Article. Green Giant 08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A requests has been made at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. I just set the lead as the portion to be displayed on the main page, though if someone has a better idea, please by all means make your voice heard on the linked talk page. Pepsidrinka 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Status 

message: * Spoken Article, as in Australia, India etc... --digitalSurgeon 12:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future track 

message: As for the mention of the claims to Kashmir, why no mention of this on the India page since Pakistan also claims Indian-held Kashmir just as India claims Pakistan held Kashmir? Kind of a double-standard. Tombseye 21:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm; it'a probably more a matter of getting around to it.  There is also a minor row about noting Kashmir among the list of territories in Southern Asia (which I support).  Anyhow, there you go! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't have a problem with that myself. Probably create more of a problem if I mention that much of its history and ties are Central Asian, but either way. I'm not sure it's a matter of getting around to it. One guy wanted to add that Azad Kashmir was Occupied and when I suggested we'd have to do the same for the article on the Indian controlled part, he basically objected and disappeared.  At any rate, at some point it would be logical to add this info. to both or delete here if it's going to just be mentioned  here. At any rate, the article looks great now.  Now if some of us could improve some of the other country articles that almost made it like Iran. Tombseye 03:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congrats on making this a featured article guys!

message: I am deleting the map of Pakistan 1947 to 1971 until somebody can put a correct map there. 
In 1947, Kashmir was neither a part of Pakistan or India. Revert if I am wrong.
Raswa 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of removing the map entirely you could have changed the displayed text. It now reads "Pakistan up to 1970". Green Giant 00:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

text: There are several references throughout the article that state clearly that Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir are de facto parts of Pakistan but not de jure. If you look at the map, it shows a clear border between Pakistan proper and the two disputed areas. If a reader reads the article and looks at the map, there should be no ambiguity about the issue. Green Giant 16:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Map

message: Hi,
Guys we need to start a communication medium, Wikipedia is missing a lot of stuff on Pakistan and there are some other issues as well.
I've started a #wikipedia-pakistan channel on irc.freenode.net we should start having discussions there, we can start with improving the Pakistan portal.
regards
--digitalSurgeon 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If others are going to actually enter the channel, I'll start to idle there from now on. I normally idle in #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, but this channel can be a good medium in place of talk pages. Pepsidrinka 22:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  irc channel on freenode 

message: hi. The webpage Pakistan, has the following lines " Although Bollywood movies are banned, pirated discs are easily available, so Indian film stars are popular in Pakistan as well" in the culture section. However, this is a baised statement and currently software piracy is being addressed in pakistan.. and to state such a fact is to diminish the reputation of a country ..
kindly either erase the page or change it to Although Bollywood movies are banned, Indian muslim film stars such as Shahrukh Khan and Aamir Khan are popular in Pakistan as well. This is the same effect that pakistani TV actors such as Moin Akhter and bands like Strings and Junoon have a vast popularity in India.
Regards, 
Imran Quadri
iquadri@gmail.com
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.228.35 (talk • contribs) 
:I rollbacked your edits because I was under the impression it was vandalism. Please use edit summaries in the future. I should have not used my rollback, however, I'm going to leave the article in its current state until more discussion regarding the sentence is held. I for one don't have a problem with it. The fact of the matter is, piracy is a huge problem in Pakistan. If you say that steps are being taking to counter it, please provide a reputable source that makes that claim and then a countering sentence can be added to the paragraph. Pepsidrinka 22:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with what Pepsidrinka did because at the time it was unsourced claims. The first link provided by Babil79 only shows that BSA is doing something, but it does not show that piracy has ended. The second link to PEMRA is just a homepage - is there anywhere in that site that mentions combatting piracy? From what I can see PEMRA was specifically formed to "induct the private sector into the field of electronic media" but can't see any mention of countering piracy. Oh and please sign your comments anon and Babil79. Green Giant 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  REMOVE THESE LINES 

message: DMG413 moved some of the images around for spacing - . However the effect was that the text was pushed into an awkward shape. Please leave the images right-aligned because left-aligning them does not improve the appearance of the article. Green Giant 23:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: While i agree with Ragib about the picture issue.. i think a compromise could be reached.. If you check India's website... there is no mention of Jinnah at all.. while Pakistan's page contains data and image on Gandhi.. while i dont believe that inferiority complex is the issue here as claimed by UTC, i somehow dont understand why the same treatment was not given to India's webpage... the same thing is with Jinnah's and Gandhi's webpage.. and Ragib.. you pointed out that since it is a neutral webpage.. neutrality must be preserved... so either add pictures of Jinnah on Gandhi's webpage and India's also.. to show both sides of the image or just place the pictures of Gandhi and Jinnah on Jinnah's personal webpage... i mean either provide resources that Gandhi was in favor of Pakistan as people here have claimed then it would be truly neutral...Iquadri
:You are welcome to edit Gandhi or India pages. However, as both are featured articles, it is an expected behaviour that you provide the rationale in those article's talk pages before you make any major changes. In fact I see you already have placed the image in Gandhi. I changed the position of the image there slightly and brought it under "Freedom and partition of India" section. The image looks nice there and quite befitting. Thank you.
:However, the image in India is ill-placed, as there is a congestion of images there. Please try to find out a better location to place the image. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture Issue

message: ::Red Tape, Bureaucracy, Corruption, Political corruption, Bribery, Extortion, Graft, Money Laundering all are part and parcel of Religon.   vkvora 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kashmir is byproduct of military corruption in India and Pakistan

message: i hope that we won't have to start another meaningless discussion..give it a rest kindly please No. Now that we have found out a rational man in you, ot's time to continue for more 1 or 2 posts. Good debate. Personal attack is to some extent acceptable in debate. So I do not think your comment was impolite  (I mean your last post).
Now. lets have some fun. I quote you,"the only issue was the neutral issue point.. we should have a balanced view.. thats why i thought that adding Gandhi's and Jinnah's picture on India's webpage was a tribute to history..". Kool.
 
However, again I quote you (from a past post), "If Gandhi and Jinnah picture is to be added.. kindly add it to Gandhi's own webpage and leave the Pakistan webpage only for things related to PAKISTAN.. I repeat.. its not out of disrespect or anything but i believe that the pakistan webpage must show things about pakistan and pakistani culture." And now you are saying , i dont have any problems with foreign issues and pictures in this article.???  Also you are saying, "i mean i didnt had any problem."???? That you had grave problem is evident from this post. And that you are self-contradicting (once you were not ready to accept anything foreign in Pakistan, while now you have become the torch-bearer of world-fraternity) is also evident. However, it is really welcome that you changed your thought. If that change in thought was due to being in Wikipedia, it's really great for Wikipedia. That you could understand the image was a tribute to history' is good.
By the way, you tell nearly 2/3rd of Pakitan is uneducated. The truth is something like this : Literacy rate in Pakistan is 
" total population: 45.7% (2003 est.); male: 59.8%; female: 30.6%"
Please be sure next time to be as accurate as possible in data, otherwise the fun in debate gets reduced. This is not related to the main theme, but it's funny to oppose every pitfall of your opponent in a debate. You had done similar data-pitfall in the past, when you said, "but after that jinnah left congress after conflicts with Gandhi's politics. So to add a picture without a good explaination is not sufficient, i mean , add something like, " Before the conflicts " or something,". The pic is of 1946, much later of the conflict. So plaese stick to available data.  
Now I am gonna quote some more. However, those may or may not be by you, as those posts were unsigned. If those were not made by you, I am sorry to quote those. Please do not read these in that case. "The top picture with Jinnah and Ghandi must be removed instantly, it is offensive, insensitive, and ill timed to have such images with hegemonic and deep seated politcally motivated contations to be placed on Paksitan or wiki altogether."
Also, "There is no need whatsoever to include the Ghandi terrorist in a picture with Jinnah, Ghandi is not the founding father of Pakistan and is a man responsible for riots and influencing them by emotional blackmail (ie starvation), The terrorist was always locked into prison by the British and this should give you an indication of Ghandis intolarable charachter. Jinnah on the otherhand was a seperate individual with different rational and morals, he was never once in prisoned, and he led a DEMOCRATIC move that was peaceful. There is no need to have Jinnah in a picture with Ghandi as there is with Churchill and Hitler on the Churchill webpage, churchill stood for peace and democracy likek jinnah, Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence. With utter disgust, A Pakistani." What do you call this post? Polite? However, I repeat, if this post was not by you, I am contracting my comment that you were impolite. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Iquadri, I am really sorry the last quotation did not belong to you. Anyway, I'll wait for your talks tomorrow. By the way, that the image was of 1944 was pointed out by me (in a past post). And in last post, I mistakenly made that 1946. Good point. In any case, that was much after the split (which was in 1920).--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: further

message: Hi! IQuadri, that was a really long discourse. Anyway, may I request you something? As Ragib said, please sign your post by clicking the third button from righjt side on the buttin panel above the edit box. Or you may type the sign ~~~~ (4 tildes). In that case, your signature along with name will be automatically placed after the comments.
Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Even further!

message: Pakistan is appearing in the main page as Today's Featured article on 29 May. It's a great news for the editors who toiled to make the article an FA. Congrats.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Great

message: This article says "At the 2006 Winter Olympics, Pakistan sent two participants in alpine skiing to the Winter Olympics for the first time.". According to Nations not competing at the 2006 Winter Olympics (which lacks a source), the two participants hoped to compete but did not qualify. Would someone be able to check this out before this article hits the main page? Andjam 03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: according to the 2006 Winter olympics web site @ http://www.torino2006.org/ENG/IDF/ATH/X01_ASI.html, Pakistan did not compete, so i guess the Pakistani atheletes might have not qualified. --digitalSurgeon 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pakistan at the Winter Olympics 

message: The reversion to the version by Hajiwaseem (as of 19:56, 18 May 2006) was done, as the changes following that version by 82.225.228.35 and Iquadri were major changes in an FA demanding prior discussion in the talk page. Also, the images introduced were placed in such a way that image of one section was pushed into another section (from the section "History" to the section "Government and Politics". Please discuss in the talk page before making any major changes, as this is a featured article going to be on the first page as Today's Featured Article very soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reversion

message: I replaced the picture with one that features Jinnah addressing the new state as it goes well with the history section which doesn't mention Gandhi. Tombseye 22:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes this image of Jinnah addressing to the nation is just perfect for the section. It's much mote historically trlevant than the Gandhi-Jinnah image, or, the solo image of Jinnah. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gandhi Jinnah picture replacement

message: Seems kind of superfluous information as the other sections go over what there is in the country in terms of sites and the provinces sections do likewise. The article's getting too long and probably any added info. should be really relevant and useful. Tombseye 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The description of the country provides the reader with information regarding many aspects of tourism. No need for a seperate tourism. A link to the devoted tourism project of wikitravel is sufficient. Being a general encyclopedia, wikipedia should not contain any brochure-like material. Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the article did not have a section when it was chosen as a featured article. That was added later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Most of these country articles tend to get overlong as people start to add superfluous information for no particular reason that I can fathom other than to promote their country I would imagine. The article is fine the way it is at this point. Thanks for the input. Tombseye 18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There is no need for a tourism section. Perhaps a Tourism in Pakistan can be created and any pertinent information can be placed there. Also, there was a tourism section during the peer review phase of this article and was removed after several comments arguing against it. Pepsidrinka 02:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that I think would be okay since there are lots of countries with tourism articles. Just not on this page which looks great as it is and should be tinkered with only when absolutely necessary. Or so one would hope. Tombseye 06:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does this page need a tourism section?

message: I am making an Asian repository of images. Please complete the Pakistan part as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al: 
Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia
I will be working on Iran's section. Thanx.--Zereshk 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pakistani repository of images

message: I have found a peculiar problem with the way this page appears on the Interiot's Edit Counter. The problem that I am observing is that while seeing user contributions of any person in main-space, this article appears as "APakistan". Clicking on it leads to the page saying that this article does not exist. If someone can confirm this error, then we should contact Interiot and request him to fix this problem.
Note: To understand this, go to your edit count page using Interiot's tool. There, click "Main". Browse down to find this article. You will see that it appears as "APakistan" instead of "Pakistan". -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. I have too seen this thing to happen!--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A peculiar problem 

message: Category:Pakistan was inappropriately in Category:Portmanteaus.  I was going to put Pakistan in the category in its place, but I can't find any evidence that Pakistan is actually a portmanteau.  If it is, please put it in Category:Geographic portmanteaus (and probably should mention it in the article too). ~ Booya Bazooka 08:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portmaneau 

message: Just wanted to say that it's great to see an article like Pakistan as FA, whereas other articles battle with controversy, POV, and other needless edit wars. Wikipedia wins!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Congrats editors

message: The is wrong.
Regardless of the Kashmir issue and YOUR position on it -
#7 - azad kashmir depicts an area that is controlled by India. That is NOT Azad kashmir.
#8 - depicted ad northern aras, is in fact 'azad' kashmir, the area of kashmir that Pakistan has illegally occupied since 1948.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.48.2 (talk • contribs) 
I wanted to check with those here wether there wold be objections to this India map for NPOV? It clearly shows the border claimed by both India and Pakistan and the area under its control. Should J&K be shaded different than the rest of India as with this one? -- PlaneMad|YakYak 10:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: In the course of the day, one of the years has been changed from 712 CE to AD 712 - what's Wikipedia policy here? MBlume 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's suggested that articles should remain consistent when using AD-BC/CE-BCE (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)). I've changed it back as per the Manual of Style. - Rudykog 08:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, thanks MBlume 21:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD/CE? 

message: The official sport of Pakistan is field hockey - official in just exactly which way? Is there a law? wonders--Janneman 16:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, almost every country declares some sport as its official sport. I'm not sure of the law, but these type of things are found in the constitution usually. --Ragib 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: frankly, I don't know of a single constitution that mentions a "national" pastime.--Janneman 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's official in the same sense (for now) that English is the US's official language. MBlume 19:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: it's not official sport, it's national sport, that was once popular with pakistanis --digitalSurgeon 14:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sports

message: There is not a good mention of Pak's squash achievements in the sports section, is some one up to the task ? --digitalSurgeon 00:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Squash 

message: Greetings,
I have made an Asian repository of images, similar to the one that exists for Europe. Please complete the part pertaining to this country as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:
Wikipedia:List of images/Places/Asia
Thanx.--Zereshk 14:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repository of images

message: Map of Pakistan is not the one used by the United Nations. There is a need to balance this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maakhter (talk • contribs) 
:Unless you clearly state which image is the one you do not like, and what exactly is your rationale (not your vaguely worded sentence above), I am going to revert the tag. Thanks you. --Ragib 03:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and  Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.
So, I have reverted your disputed tag. Thank you. --Ragib 03:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I agree with everything Maakhter said apart from his title of the section. This map shows Pakistan-administered Kashmir with the same color as the rest of Pakistan, and draws the provincial borders of Northern Areas in the same style as other provinces in Pakistan. This  map tends to convert the LoC into a permanent border, and fails to show the Northern Areas and Pakistan-administered Kashmir as disputed regions. See any Indian map on wikipedia for comparision. deeptrivia (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pro-Indian Bias

message: Please have a look at the following:
I have provided specific criticism for each and every article I tagged. In many articles wrong map is used. I cannot write an article about the use of incorrect maps. All I need to do is to tag and then raise the issue in the discussion.
Here is an example:
Article labeld ‘Terrorism in Kashmir’ is biased and represents pro-Indian View. 
For example “India says that over the last two years, a militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba has split into two factions: Al Mansurin and Al Nasirin. Another new militant group reported to have emerged is the Save Kashmir Movement. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (formerly known as Harkat-ul-Ansar) and Lashkar-e-Toiba are believed to be operating from Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir and Muridke, Pakistan respectively.[6] Other less well known groups are the Freedom Force and Farzandan-e-Milat. A smaller militant group, Al Badr, has been active in Kashmir for many years and is still believed to be functioning.”
How much space are you going to provide to explain Pakistani point of view?
There is also a huge list of anti-Pakistani films and books in this article as well.
Maakhter 03:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging of Articles by Maakhter

message: Here is what the United Nations thinks about this dispute. People who want to contribute should use facts. This is not a space to express personal opinion. 
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/docs.html
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/bnote.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/unmogip.pdf
Thanks.
Maakhter 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: United Nations

message: Same mistakes are committed in all of the articles I have tagged. It is not necessary to repeat same arguments in each tagging.
I have also posted the above to you in your talk page.
Maakhter 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Repetition of Same Mistakes

message: I have seen the map of Pakistan at the following web-page of United Nations.
http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/pakistan.pdf
The above web-page confirms my point of view. This map clearly shows line of control and does not show Azad (Independent) Kashmir (Pakistani controlled Kashmir) as a part of India.
Maakhter 05:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map of Pakistan

message: Majority of Pakistanis live in poverty and a big segment(25%) live in extreme poverty. After all poverty in Pakistan does not have the same meaning poverty in say the UK. I think that needs to be included in this article as well as some pictures. Currently the article presents too pretty a picture of Pakistan, and I think that is deceitful. 
Comment by user dargay(not logged in).
:According to the new World Bank figures, Pakistan's poverty rate is 17% and not 25% as complained by you. Pakistan is way better off than miserable India which has a poverty rate at exactly at 35%. We want to present a pretty picture of Pakistan. Thank you very much. Here is the link: Economic Report Card- Advil 1:52 am, 04 August 2006
::Why does almost every talk in or about Pakistan or its economy have to involve a reference or try to compare with India? The User:Dargay was trying to point out the flaws from his viewpoint and to the best of my knowledge he is a Pakistani, not an Indian. Just an observation on this; while Pakistan was economically slightly better off than India for several decades, the trend seems to have reversed and the source you provide will show that India has overtaken Pakistan in per capita income. --Idleguy 06:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way the Pakistani economy is running with the help of Middle East and US investments surely, Pakistan will overtake India in per capita income as well. God willing! --Advil 2:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I were you I wouldn't be trusting the US to help the nation in the long run. After all it was USA's crippling sanctions - among other major factors - that reduced Pakistan's once decent economy to the current state of affairs. Tomorrow if Musharaff goes then USA might very well do the same cuz US' foreign policy is designed only to help them not the others. Much as many people might not like him, he is akin to what Saddam was in Iraq, the moment he is thrown out of power all hell will break loose. And you could see a "coalition" led by USA trying to attack Pakistan. Who knew that Saddam's Iraq, which was once supported by USA would be attacked twice by them or that the Taliban and Mujahideen whom the Americans once proudly helped would be attacked by the very nation USA. With USA's forein policies, it's support today, gone tommorrow. Only God could save you then. --Idleguy 07:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: God only saves the stronge. And, we are building a stronge Pakistan. --Advil 3:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extreme Poverty 

message: how do you change the title of a wikipedia page? thanks.
--Saqib22 11:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title Change 

message: It sounds very funny that (na)pakistan wants to be like turkey-a 'SECULAR' muslim country.But far from it (na)pak's army is still forming it's foreign policy(shrinked to INDIA Policy only) by seeing through the prism of religion.Well whole World knows that (na)pakistan can never be a secular country.The coward army of (na)pakistan is of no use in front of any country(Remember 1971 - 90,000 of these rats dropped there pants in front of The INDIANS & The World) but brave enough to kill one individual after other & that too only in (na)pakistan with the help of American arms.
Do something Drop a bomb or 2 on INDIA & stop Begging Kashmir.But I can understand old habits (Begging for (na)pakistan in this case)Die Hard.
Writing here & there(that too only about INDIA) gives enough satisfaction to there the pseudo-intellectuals [intellectuals in (na)pak] that they are in a way conributing to the INDIA's ills.But stupids they don't understand that by spreading there vicious campaign of hatred they are only multiplying there pains.
'We know that the nature of genius is to provide idiots with ideas twenty years later - Louis Aragon'
May ALLAH gives (na)pakistan a peaceful death.Ameeeeeeeeen
::Please don't make these kinds of attacks. They detract from the purpose of wikipedia. Thanks.Hkelkar 08:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something Funny about (na)pakistan