Talk:Pakistan/Archive 4

message: Does any one agree with me that this article has too many external links? Many of the links seem to be pointing to completely commercial websites. I propose to remove all but the Government website links. Thanks. --Ragib 4 July 2005 17:13 (UTC)
Not particularly excessive for an article about a country. For example, the article global warming has way more. They are relevant to be included somewhere, so if they could be for example moved to some article concerning the media in Pakistan, that would be okay, (as long as this article links to it and mentions it). -- Natalinasmpf 4 July 2005 17:26 (UTC)
:I understand that too many external links may be bothersome atleast in appearance but it depends on other users whoo look up this article for information and reference and might find certain external links useful which you may not and if you remove them,then searching is made a little bit more difficult.Remember its an encyclopedia and it helps to find resources right from one place.--Usmanreddy 21:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, see WP:NOT, which states Wikipedia is NOT Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding to an article a list of content-relevant links; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, an encyclopedia is not a repository for all links, search engines like Google are available for the links/directories. Wikipedia is never meant to be the one-stop-shop for external links on any topic. --Ragib 21:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many external links? 

message: I removed the caption of the location map, which commented on the view of the Government of India on the map's inclusion of Kashmir. Adding non-standard comments like this can start edit wars on both India and Pakistan's top level country pages, because both sides can add similar comments to each other's location maps. Also the issue is well discussed in the article on Kashmir. Thanks. --Ragib 19:19, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the comment removal has been reverted by Hemanshu, would you care to discuss it rather than reverting it? Thanks --Ragib 19:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

text: As a temporary compromise, I have converted the caption in question to a footnote, and placed the footnote-reference beside the map. --Ragib 20:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map caption 

message: Maybe one reason why this article seems to come short in some aspects (and sometimes controversial) is probably attributable to the fact that there are no sources. I suggest that editors who have been working on this add them to improve the credibility aspect for future readers. Idleguy 12:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree that the article comes up short.  It may have some key points of weakness which we can discuss and research, but overall it is fairly accurate.  I think the main reason for "controversy", frankly, is because many Indians prefer to see Pakistan's history as written subordinate to or as a part of "India" which according to an interesting article written by an Indian historian in a book I recently read called 'Religion and Peacekeeping' (ed. by Harold Coward, but can't remember individual writers names) arguable did not exist as a "nation" until modern times.  That's just one guy.  Arnold Toynbee believes the same and considers Pakistan an overlapping region similar to Turkey.  We're all writing from the vantage point of modern-nation states and how they came to be as they are today.  The sources are the other articles that corroborate, otherwise the article would come-up "short."  In fact, read each linked word and see if what the history article claims is true or false.  We might as well hold a higher standard to every single history article at wikipedia since most do not reference much of anything.  In addition, there aren't many citations at the History of India article that I can discern, which seems to view the 8 centuries of Muslim rule as worthy of a scant paragraph while every other period receives in-depth analysis.  Not to mention treating the Rigveda as history, which is kind of liking using the Bible for the same purpose even though for example there is no archaeological evidence that Moses existed.  How about you explain what parts you don't think are correct and we can go from there?  Tombseye 09:41, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See why Wikipedia:Cite sources is relevant? I've not been editing this article until very recently and there seems to have been issues with this article in the past. I was merely pointing that the best way of resolving them forever is to have credible sources. There were some glaring errors like stating in the History section that Hyderabad Deccan is still disputed. And the economy section would reveal that there are few sources for figures and facts. Infact the reference section was started days ago by me just so that there can be a greater amount of credibility instead of believing it to be up to the mark or otherwise. And if the article were truly not coming up short, it should have been a Featured article. It has a long way to go there and I thought I could do something to make it FA considering India, Nepal and Bhutan already are in the English language Wikipedia (Sri Lanka is a FA in Tamil language edition. --Idleguy 10:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, you make a very good point regarding Hyderabad for example.  I have no idea who would insert that it is still disputed as that's just nuts.  I misunderstood where you were coming from and I now think you have a valid argument.  It gets difficult to keep track of the edits.  I'm going to go over the history section again and add some references as well and make sure glaring mistakes such as the one you pointed out do not creep back in.  The Featured articles sometimes leave something to be desired in my opinion, but again you make a good case.  I apologize for any misunderstanding.  Tombseye 11:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of References 

message: Can someone please find me any written record of death toll (combined) of Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims to match the idiotic total of 5 million. The total death toll of WW2 in 8 million direct and indirect casulties included.
The commucal roits in India lasted for week. During the week of 14th August all trains were directed to run in bound to Pakistan to bring in Muslims of India to Pakistan - and the official british death toll of the incidents of MUSLIM CASULTIES is 470,000 - where as the Pakistan government claims it to be over a million on the basis of those left behind.
The official british and Indian figures of Hindu casulties is in tens of thousands. So I do not understand where does the Vendalistic mis-statement of fact comes from that 1 to 5 million Muslims Hindus and Sikhs died.
Secondly, why do our fellow Indian friends are so interested in the Pakistan page they are more than welcome to go and mis-state death counts on their own countries page.
:If you don't mind can you stop rewriting history? Hyderabad Deccan is still disputed? Are you in the 1950s? :) And Udampur is just one of hundreds of places in the Indian Kashmir and when Kashmir the region is mentioned, there is no reason to dwell on each and every village, hamlet and town of Kashmir as disputed.
:The casualties of the partition vary. People claim from as low as 250,000 to 5 million. Actually there's been little data on the exact casualties of each religion, and the line clearly states estimates from 1- 5 million accordingly. It does not matter which page in Wikipedia, but the facts remain the same. Tx Idleguy 16:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 million Hindu, Sikhs Muslims killed in Pakistan's creation? 

message: There is the History of Pakistan which covers the history in-depth and then there is the lead-up page that is now being expanded for some reason I cannot fathom!  I'm going to shorten it back as it's absurd to retread as the History of Pakistan section is already accused of repeating information.  Tombseye 06:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reviewed the section and re-added some information that was removed. Not much has changed, but it is definitely longer in ancient history section and a lot shorter in information about political systems. I would like all users who are thinking of making so many major edits to please discuss this first.--a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, let's discuss this.  The links provided can be accessed to attain more information about various events in the history overview section.  the Partition of British india refers to the communal riots in detail for example.  Mentioning things without massive explanation is preferable as this article is already much longer than most country articles.  A lot of it is superfluous and repeated information too.  For example saying at the beginning caption that Pakistan is a centre of ancient history events is again repeated in the history overview section and then in the History of Pakistan article.  The top caption is to give an overview of the modern state and not superfluous info. that is repeated ad nauseum later. It would help to stream-line things and leave those who want to know more with links to other articles.  The history of Pakistan section discusses everything and more that the short overview does so what's the point?  Also, the pictures of forts etc. has little to do with context or history and why are minor tribes like the Ghakars important to mention since they are largely a regional group?  These are all problems with this article that make it unappealing and too cumbersome.  Many people will simply gloss over it anyway, whereas if it was shorter and written better, people would get the gist of much more information and also have the opportunity to check out linked items.  These are my main points of contention here as I don't see why information has to be repeated over and over again.  There needs to be clear delineation. Tombseye 20:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. However, most info was added yesterday by a new user. Also I think it is fine for now as long as it doesn't get any longer. I will try to shorten it later. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Thanks for backing me up here Ragib.  Also, regarding the addition of images, how about people limit them and possibly add more to related articles which often need a lot of work instead?  For example, some of the images selected are really bland and random, whereas if there was one spectacular image chosen and limited to one or two sections, the article would look much better.  Also, I believe the section on Pakistan's mass media probably should have its own article at this rate as the massive number of external links further dilutes the overall presentation as Ragib correctly points out.  I could be wrong, but this article may be longer than the one on the United States and is definitely bigger than the article on China at this point!  And not in a good way either.  Tombseye 21:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I agree with you tombseye in most things, and I agree with Ragib about links. I will work on cutting down the links sections later. About pictures, however, I think that we should try to have more images as possible in the needed areas, but yes they should be limited to certain sections. So the Derawar fort picture should stay until we can find better ones. Btw, I wasn't arguing with you I was actually agreeing that anon IPs and new users who have edited this article, should discuss their edits. Thanks --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 22:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Anonym.  The main problem is presentation.  The article still looks too disparate and sloppy.  The pictures should be relevant (forts are fine, but how are they relevant to the say the historic events discussed?) and better than some of the selections we've seen lately.  Also, what's interesting is that while people are adding to the main article on Pakistan, no one wants to add to the connecting articles, which, theoretically, should be where you can find in-depth information.  We need to compare this article to the presentation of articles like the one on the United States or the United Kingdom for example which are much more presentable and accessible while having as much information as possible.  The wording could be re-done, but people just seem to want analysis which, frankly, reduces the article's quality in my opinion as there should be overviews and links to in-depth articles in a useful encyclopedia.  Less is more in this case I'd say.  Thanks.  Tombseye 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The History section is supposed to be a brief overview 

message: The section titled "Recent economic history and trends" had the following  table:
Sectoral contribution to GDP Growth (in % point)	Sectoral contribution to GDP Growth (in % point)	Sectoral contribution to GDP Growth (in % point)	Sectoral contribution to GDP Growth (in % point)	Sectoral contribution to GDP Growth (in % point)
Sector                                          	2001-02                                         	2002-03                                         	2003-04                                         	2004-05
Agriculture                                     	0.03                                            	1.01                                            	0.53                                            	1.74
Industry  -Manufacturing                        	0.61  1.71                                      	1.08  1.11                                      	2.74  2.31                                      	2.46  2.19
Service                                         	2.47                                            	2.75                                            	3.16                                            	4.16
Real GDP (fc)                                   	3.1 %                                           	4.8 %                                           	6.4 %                                           	8.4 %
Source: Economic Survey of Pakistan 2005        	Source: Economic Survey of Pakistan 2005        	Source: Economic Survey of Pakistan 2005        	Source: Economic Survey of Pakistan 2005        	Source: Economic Survey of Pakistan 2005
I have a good understanding of economics and statistics, but it wasn't immediately obvious to me what this table was saying. I had to go to the source, read it in context, and then figure it out. The table shows that - unlike the usual developing-country growth spurts, which are basically a matter of luck, being driven by bumper crops as a result of good weather - Pakistan's extraordinary 8.4% growth was largely non-agricultural. The source document doesn't say this explicitly - you would have to have some knowledge of developmental economics to get it.
Although it makes a good point, I removed the table because I think the vast majority of readers wouldn't understand it - it's wasted space here. How about using a graphic (pie chart) instead? 68.252.207.111 17:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  I briefly checked out the link to the table and gotta agree with your assessment.  Hopefully it won't get re-added as so often happens even when you make valid deletions here.Tombseye 19:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic History - table probably confusing for most

message: Now this has become just a directory page of all things vaguely related to Pakistan. With so many external links, taking up almost 20% of the article page, the whole article looks like a list of pages, along with some content at the top. I propose getting rid of all the links, except the Government of Pakistan pages. Thanks. --Ragib 07:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there can be a separate page made for extra links. Some of the links like the ones to university websites can be useful. Thanks. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the university website links, those are appropriate for the article Universities in Pakistan (if that article exists) or Education in Pakistan. The main page should not point to each and every university webpage. Thanks. --Ragib 18:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am fine with moving the links. --a.n.o.n.y.m   t 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I very much agree. The sheer number of links makes the article looking like spammer's paradise. Pavel Vozenilek 03:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link explosion!! 

message: I was under the impression that Pakistan translated as "Pure Land" rather than "Land of the Pure" as stated in the article.  Am I mistaken, or is the article incorrect? Nik42 06:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of Name