Talk:Pakistan/Archive 3

message: Somebody can put me right, but has the decision to avoid all mention of the Kashmir issue and relations with India (along with a statement of charges and counter-charges) been taken after a revert war or something? I was looking for it, and to my shock, its not even mentioned, except for a single line. Or if it is, not too prominently, I couldnt find it. Surely theres some NPOV way of mentioning the charges that are thrown around about Kashmir? It certainly belongs in an encyclopaedia article on Pakistan. Hornplease 04:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a question

message: I removed Mr. Khalid Mahmood Bhatti Helsingor's comments or rather rants from here as the topic is totally irrelevant to the purpose of this page, that is, to talk about the wikipedia article Pakistan. This is not a message board or newsgroup, so please do not put inconsistent discussion in this page. Thanks. --Ragib 01:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed irrelevant text

message: I have listed the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I hope that will bring some neutral and "actual" users to the discussion. Thanks. --Ragib
It should never go into the section, let alone the first sentence, what a country is best know for. This is only a comment, and the facts should go first. In addition, the question by whom? comes to mind. Also for reasons of consistency of country articles, these should start with a semi-standardized intro, giving the basic facts. --Pjacobi 09:03, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)
I agree completely with Pjacobi. In addition, saying that Pakistan is known for terrorism shows US or, more generally, Western bias. Surely Indians, British people or the Pakistani themselves would also think of very different things. It's probably best to avoid mentioning such sensitive and subjective judgments in the lead paragraph. Imagine if we started the article Germany with 'Germany is best known for murdering six million Jews'! Even if it's true it doesn't belong in the intro. Of course you need a substantial section on terrorism, but as I understand it that's not the issue here. Junes 10:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - "Susan"/"Sam" appears to be a POV warrior. (Perhaps from India, Im guessing.) India by the way "is best known" for its curries, slums, and relgious extremism. :) -SV|t 21:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Having been asked to come give my opinion, I just want to second what Kmccoy said. While I suspect the assertion that is being put into this article is quite true, and could probably go into the article somewhere, it is not neutral to put it in the first sentence. Something like Australia's (The Commonwealth of Australia is the sixth-largest country in the world by area) or Canada's (Canada is a country in North America, the northern-most in the world and the second largest in area), I suspect would be more appropriate. Ambi 08:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, so I suppose that the United States article should note that the U.S. has recently become widely known internationally as a country widely regarded as being renegade and possessing a stockpile of WMD openly, has openly supported vicious dictatorships and violent terrorist groups, which has illegally invaded Iraq, has flouted the Geneva convention, including torturing prisoners, has instituted draconian domestic laws that run roughshod over human rights, and that it executes minors (I believe that Saudi Arabia does the same, so the U.S. isn't completely unique, it's true — but at least it's unique among Western states). No?  I assure that it is widely known for all those things, and more, and that they're all claims that can be and have been backed up by numerous citations.  Should they appear in the introduction?  Should they be emphasised in the article?  Or should we forget all this xenophobia and naive politicking, and get back to writing an encyclopædia? Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC:What should be in the top page of a country page? 

message: Can someone take a look at the correctness of a sentence this section,about the Sikh State of early 19th century being the first secular state in the modern world? The First French Republic was secular according to this, and also the United States was a secular republic according to the US Constitution. Any comments on this? Thanks. --Ragib 06:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that there is little harm in using less declarative language, like "the Sikh State has been called by some the first secular state in the modern world", or "the Sikh State was among the first secular states of the modern world." That retains the intention of the information while letting the reader know that there is some disagreement about that. kmccoy (talk) 06:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, how about rewording it as "The Sikh state was among the first secular states in modern world", as kmccoy has suggested? Anyone has objections to that? Thanks. --Ragib 07:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the wording as discussed here. Thanks. --Ragib 02:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sikh Raj section 

message: Hi guys, I have started a section on terrorist/militant outfits in Pakistan. The section is highly incomplete. Please contribute. It could give brief review of the topic that is so important in today's Pakistan. Thanks. King1 07:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This section of the talk page was deleted by , I have restored it because I believe all views, even POV need to be heard, and debated. Let truth take its own path rather than blanking. Thanks. --Ragib 10:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Lashkar is a outfit of freedom fighters. We Pakistanis give them full diplomatic moral and military support. But they are freedom fighters. OmerFa 10:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorist and militant outfits

message: Unbeleivably Pakistan article does not contain any reference to Kashmiri freedom struggle by FREEDOM FIGHTERS. The Martyars who gave their life for Pakistan and Kashmiri people deserver a honourable mention. Also the Kashmir issue should be written in detail. Not mentioning the Kashmir issue and calling the freedom fighters terrorists is exactly what indian want. Honest people should not fall pray to Indian propaganda. Indias state sponsored terrorism need to be written in India article. I have proposed to Pakistanis so that we can have a separate section in India article which gives details about atrocities by India in Kashmir. Please add content there. OmerFa 03:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kashmir!!!!!

message: Barely an hour after I unprotected the article, I've been asked to protect it again on account of continued edit warring.
This is sad, and reflects (I believe) immaturity on multiple sides of this dispute. I suggest everyone involved take three steps and 24 hours back from the issue to think about things with a level head before spinning into a frenzy again. This is an encyclopedia, not the end of the world. We have the luxury of taking time for congenial and civil discussion.
And for goodness sakes, listen to kmccoy when he says to stop edit warring. He knows what he's talking about. -- Seth Ilys 07:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected again. 

message: Let's find a way to solve this.  I think there's some confusion as to what everyone wants, so let's summarize.  Could the interested parties sum up what they feel is at issue here, and how they can solve it?  Let's put it in nice, pretty little boxes to make it easier to read, like this:
Please put your issues and solutions in a separate box for each user. Be sure to sign them. kmccoy (talk)
Okay, I've gone through the comments that people have made and decided to give an edit a try.  I copied the current (protected) version of the page into Talk:Pakistan/Temp, and then edited from there.  You can see what I changed at this diff.  Please edit that page if you feel that it needs changing, but I'd like to strongly suggest that we don't do any reverting.  If someone makes a change that you disagree with, find a way to compromise and incorporate that change in another way, perhaps by rewording or repositioning.  Please try to cite sources and keep the scope of this article in mind.  Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for "interpreting" my standpoint! Any wording devoid of bias and not treating a country in a different way is acceptable to me. You interpreted my points as "platitude", but I do not want to take sides, I have defended introduction of bias in both India and Pakistan related articles almost equally, probably that's why my stand point doesn't sound exciting to any of the hardliners. I'm fairly happy with my points and I believe Wikipedia's official policy is also to maintain neutrality and to be color/religion/nation-blind. Thanks. --Ragib 18:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Sam, I moved your box up with the others and put your name in it so that it's clear that it's your position, I hope that's not a problem. :) kmccoy (talk) 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with Sam's position (in my point of view), is that it is simply a long extensive and unverifiable history of the Taliban that does not belong in the Pakistan article. The history of the organization clearly does not belong in the Pakistan article, as it is already in the Taliban article. If it needs to be said that the US and Pakistan supported the Afghan defense and Mujahideen from the Soviet invasion, then that should be added in the soviet war section already found in the article in a brief, sourced, and verifiable manner to avoid POV. The Kashmiri militancy allegation is unverified and is a claim by India. That is all. I support what I said before on my post in the "controversial section" discussion on this user page.Thanks.   --Anonymous editor 21:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
Let's try to keep the boxes reserved for position statements -- one box per user, you can edit it if you need to.  If you want to respond, respond below the box.  This way, it'll be easy to understand what each user wants.  
Of course, this is just all my idea -- maybe I'm being too formal about this.  I'd just really like to see this page unprotected. :) kmccoy (talk) 01:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: It's an excellent idea Kmccoy. I might have to steal it :-) Dan100 (Talk) 10:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
OK, Sam has put his suggestions on the table. I guess it's now up to other editors to show what (if anything) is wrong with his suggested additions - but please provide links to relevant material to prove your points. A "he's wrong/I'm right" won't help anyone! Dan100 (Talk) 14:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
I've stuck a suggested solution in my box up above.  Please go take a look and comment.  Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 00:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, it deleted three sections, although the information in them was merged into the rest of the article.  Why don't you go and change the temp page to how you think a compromise could be reached? kmccoy (talk) 23:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary and solution 

message: These days there are talks all over Pakistan and Pakistani media about how cozy Pakistan's relationship is starting to get with India, or should I call it by its real name "Hindustan", which means 'Land of the Hindus'? 
But having read this page, it's clear to me that many Indians (such as our dear friend Sam and his countless sockpuppets), still have a visceral hatred and deep-seated contempt for Pakistan, the land of the pure. Pakistanis cannot rest easy for a minute and think that India will ever accept it as a successful, independent, sovereign nation, with powerful friends like the US and China. Luckily for Pakistan, it's not Pakistan's problem, what India thinks or doesn't think. That's only India's problem. Pakistan is here to stay, and there's nothing Sam, his cockpuppets, and any people of Sam's ilk can do about it.
It's funny, just prior to 9/11, India and US were getting so warm and fuzzy towards each other, since with the demise of the USSR, US didn't need Pakistan anymore, but it saw in India an obvious partner to counter an emerging China, a country that Pakistan held and still holds as one of its best friends. But then 9/11 happened and found US on its knees. It was an atrocity in which close to 200 Pakistanis also died, many of whom were waiters in the Windows to the world restaruant. I personally knew two people who died on one of the plane's that hit the WTC. 
As usual, when in trouble, the US again came knocking on little old Pakistan's door, for help in defeating the taliban and capturing Usama. And like a jilted lover, India was left standing like a bride at the altar, teary eyed, with the groom having eloped with Pakistan (to I'm sure, Sam's great dismay). Such is fate. 
The global tremor that was 9/11, left the world shaken - it changed Pakistan and most Pakistanis are somewhat different poeple today. They know that if the lone super power in the world can be humbled by a ragtag team of only 19 unarmed buffoons with murderous brainwashed minds, then their nuclear arsenal of less thant 500 atom bombs, which although can launch strikes on every Indian city, will not really protect them, since India has the same capability. Hence the desire to let bygones be bygones, and be friends. A point, apparently lost on Sam and the sockpuppets.
To Sam and sockpuppets, now that you know your country can never eat Pakistan, and live to tell about it, why not purge yourself of the hate and come to grips with the ground realites: 
* Pakistan will NEVER rejoin India. Please stop having wet dreams about this pal. Ain't gonna happen. Now now, not ever.
* Neither taliban, nor Pakistan had any direct role in Global Terrorism, the kind that happened on 9/11. If Pakistan did, the US would've invaded Pakistan alongwith Afghanistan. The US ONLY went after taliban, because they would't hand over Usama. Had those idiots handed him over, they would STILL be ruling Afghanistan and US wouldn't give a rat's ass about it. Musharraf tried to tell them dumb fu**ers that, but they didn't listen to him and paid the price.
* Pakistan is doing its best to fight Global Terrorism, for the betterment of the entire world, including India.
* Absulutely NO, country has played a bigger role in combating terrorism since 9/11, than Pakistan. And EVERYONE knows that.
* If Pakistani spies ever sold nuclear secrets, it was only PRIOR to 9/11 and was NOT for money - it was done to acquire technologies vital to Pakistani national  security - technologies like ballistic missiles to shower India with, in case it ever let its greed and avarice make it forget that Pakistan may be a pill that it can swallow, but it'll be a poison pill. 
* If the US hadn't shunned Pakistan and had instead fulfilled its ligitimate defence needs, like its doing now (keep those F16's coming baby, yeah!), the alleged proliferation may NEVER have occurred. The US refused shipment of F16's to Pakistan and like a hudd-haram, also kept Pakistan's US $ 650 million, which Pakistan had already paid in advance. Guess what happend to Pakistan's F16's? They were stored out in the open desert for years, until they were resold (the US kept some for its own use).
* The 9/11 commission report also advises the US to never desert Pakistan again. 
* Pakistan is vital to US national security now more than ever before.
* Regarding Kashmir - Kashmir case is one of a regional struggle for independence. And one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. Why doesn't your country get a hint and get out of Kashmir? Don't you understand that the Kashmiris want you to get out of their land, that you have been shamelessly occupying like a hudd-haram? Take a hint pal. Nobody in Kashmir wants you. Get out, NOW. 
So, there you have it - my two cents' worth.
Attitudes like Sam's sadden me, and make me feel quite pessimistic that Pakistan can ever count on India ever being its true friend.
If I've offended anyone with my remarks, I deeply and truly apologize. Please remember, it is just my own personal ever so humble opinion. And btw, I'm a 100% pure Pakistani and a thankful muslim (thankful that I was born a muslim). 
To Ragib: I'm sorry for the way your people were treated by west Pakistanis. How could they? It's shameful and frankly unislamic. And mega congrats on the Aussie win. Way to go Bangladesh!!!
Adios, amigos! And may peace be upon all you wikipedians.
Note: Hudd-haram is Urdu slang for someone who is totally shameless and guttless.
Note: The previous unsigned comment was left by 193.251.135.123 (talk • contribs).
I agree with you 100%.
I think Indians, Bangladeshi and american people have hijacked this discussion. Please contribute to my section on Kashmiri freedom struggle and let world hear pakistani standpoint. I agree with you, Pakistan will never rejoin India, but one day if they attack us, india will become part of Pakistan. OmerFa 04:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am ignoring your comment as you are obviously trying to add troll-fodder here. Your comments speak for themselves. Nothing further. Thanks. --Ragib 04:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OmerFa, stop trying to create conflict between different ethnicities of people. The fact that you change sides from anti-Bangladesh to pro-Bangladesh and anti-Muslim to pro-Muslim is further indication that you are not an actual editor but rather a sockpuppet. Thanks for showing us this. Btw, I think that the user who started this section with the message of the top was simply trying to be sincere in the end of his message. --Anonymous editor 04:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I urge all Pakistani/Kashmiri/muslim writers to contribute to the Kashmir section that I have created. Let us stop fighting among ourselves and show India in its true colours.  OmerFa 05:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Where exactly did you create this section? --Anonymous editor 05:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I created the section in India article but Indians revert it back. Please add it again if you care about thousands of muslim freedom fighters and martyars. OmerFa 05:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Just a little while back you didn't even think I converted to Islam. You didn't think I was Muslim. Also, why do you seem so keen on creating ethnic conflict between editors from South Asia? --Anonymous editor 05:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion as to what the point of this article is.  It is not to promote a point of view.  It is not to correct historic wrongs.  It is not to memorialize anyone.  It is not to provide a place for only Pakistanis to edit. It is to inform a reader about Pakistan in a carefully neutral way, presenting controversial topics without bias, and keeping within a reasonable scope of topics that are directly relevant to Pakistan.  It's very important to keep in mind that there are myriad articles that are dedicated to the very topics which are being discussed here, such as Kashmir, Taliban, or India.  It's also important to understand that we all should be working to create a good encyclopedia -- if that's not what you're here for, you should go to another project.  Editing this article isn't limited to Pakistanis or Bangladeshis or Americans.  The only real requirement to edit this article is to speak English (this is the English Wikipedia, after all).  This article needs to get unprotected, and ALL the discussion on this page should be focused on finding a way to resolve the dispute so that it can be unprotected, please.  Thank you. kmccoy (talk) 06:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I noticed in the history, "luckily I am not from the South Asian countries", which you then tried to hide. Being Singaporean, I must now ask, what kind of bigot are you? -- Natalinasmpf
YES, I too noticed that. SamTr014, you have proven your bigotist attitude. Evidence here . Please stop this now as it puts all your edits into the "spotlight" and does not ease the disputed matter. Lets find a way out of the dispute without resulting in bigotry and other "non-wikipedian" actions. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
This isn't going to help solve the dispute.  This isn't a "battle" that's going to be "won" by belittling the other person, or finding some character flaw, or whatever.  Settle down and be civil.  Sam posted what he wants included in the article above.  Instead of trying to attack Sam's character, why don't you guys go and respond to what he wants included, and see if we can find a way to compromise. kmccoy (talk) 23:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: But it does shed some light on the nature of his edits. I've been observing this neutrally for a while, but I don't think I can stand it any longer. -- Natalinasmpf 23:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Then come up to the previous section and help us find a solution with regard to the content of the article. :) kmccoy (talk) 00:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Please check above, or look at this edit.  I've tried to offer a suggested solution. kmccoy (talk) 04:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: OmerFa, you do not speak for all the Pakistanis, the Pakistani Govt, and similarly Sam does not speak for all the Indians (and he claims to be "lucky" that he is not from South Asia!!!). Raju1 clearly made a rational, neutral comment, which one of the most important factors if we are to make a good encyclopedia here. Please try not to write provocative gibberish, start by *actually* contributing something good. Thanks. --Ragib 05:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Again, Sam, you confuse me a lot!! Read the comment, you'd see clearly that the comment was clearly for OmerFa, and NOT for you, unless you and OmerFa are one and the same person. This is the second time when you responded to a comment for a different person. Let OmerFa reply himself for him, not you. Or are you OmerFa? Thanks. --Ragib 21:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow, I'm just amazed at the hatred towards Pakistan

message: Souldn't this section be treated as a separate article leading from Pakistan's Main Page?? (just a suggestion) Please let me know what you all think?--PrinceA 05:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the history section has grown too big, almost half to 1/3 of the whole article. --Ragib 05:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Prehistory and the dawn of civilization & Ancient Pakistan

message: I added the periods that appear to have been deleted including within the Islamic period that were completed ignored up until the Mughal Empire, which gets the same amount of mention as the short-lived Sikh Empire?!  The Durrani Empire lasted longer and covered the whole area by contrast.  In addition, the Vedic Aryan Invasion theory is contested by many academics, some of whom even believe the Vedic Indo-Aryans either were in Central Asia or Iran still or were somewhere in the Gangetic plains.  
Also, no mention of the Sassanian control of the southern western regions of Pakistan prior to Muslim invasions.  It's as if the western parts are being deliberately left out.  
All of my edits can be checked out and verified.  Just google Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud of Ghaznavi, Muhammad bin Qasim, Ahmad Shah Durrani and the rest.  And then check out the various views of ancient Pakistan.  
--Tombseye 01:29, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened to the period between the Central Asian Kushan invasions and the Mughal Empire?!