Talk:Pakistan Zindabad

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greater Kashmir[edit]

I have removed the Greater Kashmir sources as its biased non reliable self published source. Also one section was solely supported by it, so I have removed it too. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss before taking such bold actions, esp when you make a pattern of appearing on different articles I edit which is hounding. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't make baseless accusations. Also the source is a non WP:RS and a WP:SPS. I am removing it again, please discuss here before reverting it again. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To start with stop edit warring. Why do you think it is not a reliable source? --lTopGunl (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See this. Even Wikinews is more reliable then this site. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Every news paper has a letters to editor service, that doesn't mean there are no checks on the publications or that it is a wiki. Also, take a look at WP:BRD for future. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-interpretation of information[edit]

I had copy edited the section India. The information in the section was generalized and was giving mis-interpretation of regularly usage of the slogan. As per the attached source; There were only two instances, that to it was reported by the media, any way these sort of mis-reporting was sometime denied by Maulana Azad.

Suggestion: * Try to collect the information on when the slogan was used first time, * Provide the information on official status of the slogan, * Areas of usage Ex: During army parades, etc and when and where it is used by government, * Is it a national slogan?? etc, * Create an IPA for non native users to pronounce it properly.
  • Please do not generalize the news with common persons. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for apprising us of your concerns, but where do the sources say that "Since the independence, media only reported two cases". If we have sources for only two incidents we can also not generalize it to over a period of more than 60 years. --SMS Talk 06:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted this per WP:BRD unless a source is pointed out as saying that there have only been two instances. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for jumping in, but I think that the current revision is just misinterpreting the information. Consulting a experienced copy editor would be a good option. What say? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know on one side there is an argument that every single issue must not be mentioned it will take article to coatcrack. And here argument is to add every single instance. Why is it necessary to use each incident occurred in India and why it is general when some rapists used it?--Vyom25 (talk) 09:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is for usage in India and not each instance in India. That would be undue too stating it that way. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will again repeat my words, lets take this to WP:DRN or open a WP:RfC for this, so that we can get more opinion on this. Discussing it here has been to no benefit till now. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't see why a DRN is needed, the discussion is not deadlocked and pretty civil. An RFC would be useful and I'd favour it if the points to be raised or in conflict are pointed out.. but for now, the main point is a slogan in favour of Pakistan in India is notable enough to get a section. So is the use of it by rapists. But the latter case is a part of a larger issue of riots during the partition which are due in history. The history section is starting to expand and I'll add that there soon. What is it that you object on ? --lTopGunl (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay I thought you forgot to add.--Vyom25 (talk) 10:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can add the usage by the rapists now, it will effect the NPOV much. However we can add an expansion tag on the article. What say? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it in the general context as discussed in section above. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding it, but please explain how it was used. A of now it needs a {{clarify}} template. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that is a point of discussion as presented in section above... it has found different negative usages including rape and murder.. that is what I said was undue. "Riots" clarify it. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It will be due, there were not any other negative usage, so clarifying will not harm. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree... the slogans were involved in all the riots which included murder etc. That's common knowledge and many sources must be there for all... bringing sources for each separate use will be moot. Adding a general context covers it all in proper weight. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then please provide sources for that. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 11:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will add the sources when I expand that content, don't worry... I don't usually add content without having sources along with it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed generalizing quotes from my previous work and restored it, I hope that its okay with you guys now. :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you addressed the concerns raised by me and SMS.. you just editwarred it back in without participating in this discussion. The source does not say that there have been only two instances. That is a misleading context... you might want to change it to, "two of the instances where it was reported by..." ...see the difference? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am not much convinced by the rephrase, I think the way TopGun recommended is the best one till we have a good source which can clarify the doubts. And as of the negative usage thing, in my opinion RfC is the best option since we have being unable to have a consensus on whether its due or undue. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
kindly correct the phrases rather than reverting it completely or generalizing the work to the entire community. :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My edit[edit]

  • My edit summary went wrong,I have stated there that how you justify and figure out your edit is correct, while here word "who" itself perfectly means, not all Kashmiries.What is need to changing the text, are you better than others.Justice007 (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edits should be in encyclopedic way, not in a poor manner or wording.Justice007 (talk) 14:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The both cited sources do not support the wording pro-Pakistani, "who" is very accurate and giving the correct meaning too, the link you mention, that is very different than in this article.I leave your choice Jammu and Kashmir to other editors to discuss,but I still disagree on other point.Justice007 (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pakistan Occupied Kashmir is referred to as Azad Kashmir on wiki articles for the same reason. Show me an article where it is referred as Pakistan Administered Azad Kashmir--DBigXray 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a wikipedia not a political ground, throw out such questions from your mind, you know the things very well.Be a fair and discuss only relevant things relating to the dispute in accurate way. I hope we will not pretend to be the political leaders here. We are just contritubtors of WP, nothing els.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed so please throw the Administration/ occupation shit out of the mind and use Neutral names as one is expected--DBigXray 17:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok,I admire your knowledge and NPOV, you asked me, "Show me an article where it is referred as Pakistan Administered Azad Kashmir". Here is crystal clear, Jammu and Kashmir, take a look at thoroughly.Cheers.Justice007 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to point article where Jammu Kashmir is referred to as Indian administered/occupied Kashmir. The article Jammu and Kashmir is expected to use them as it has to explain the full context with history. In any other article it is simple referred to as Jammu and Kashmir or Azad Kashmir wherever needed--DBigXray 18:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually our discussion was your first revertion edited by TopGun this, in which you did not change that as you want now, that can be discussed with other editors,I disagree on removing of the word "who", which is accurate in my concept of the meaning.I hope this helps.Justice007 (talk) 19:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion is on both of these issues, both the J&K link and the introduction phrase, I was taking one at a time for clarity. As we have discussed the J&K link and i hope you now agree with it. include this and tehn we can discuss the introduction phrase--DBigXray 20:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say that I agree on any point with you in this regard, introduction phrase is not only beyond any doubts but it is accurate and it meets the WP:NPOV policy. When Pakistan-administered Azad Kashmir,in any article can be explained the full context with history, why Indian-administered Kashmir or Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir cannot be mentioned to explain the context with history?, isn't that reality and fact?.There are miltiple sources which support that. Why do you think this is not NPOV?. The readers are not illiterate, they know much and very well the histroy of Indo-Pak than us?. I am not going to change and add what you like and desire, for that editors should reach WP:consensus,nor I have said any compromise on introduction phrase that is correct in its meaning. Justice007 (talk) 22:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My comments
The current wordings are highly misleading. It convey that the whole Kashmiri community is pro-Pakistani, which is completely false.
I believe Jammu and Kashmir is better, as per WP:COMMONNAME
I have left a note on User:Stfg's talk page, who is the Lead Coordinator of GOCE. He can tell which is the better option. I will also advice Justice007 to stay on the topic. If the discussion will go off-topic or will result to no consensus, I will open a RfC. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to Indian-administered Kashmir is needed for context, common name does not apply here, as that specific name is being used also article title is per WP:COMMONNAME, so it is ok. As for the sentence, me and vibhijain fixed it some time back, no need to dig out a dispute in it's wording again and waste every one's time.. it was pretty fine till now. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No its not fine. Please do not comment if you cannot contribute positively to a discussion and think its a waste of time.--DBigXray 14:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually if you take a look, I created the article and added much of the content, so to speak of positive contribution. And yes, the dispute was settled with vibhijain's edit... you're digging it... that is a waste of time. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I help you?[edit]

Sorry to butt in on this discussion, but Vaibhav asked me to take a look. Sorry also to seem pedantic, but sometimes commas really matter (see paragraph 4 of that section). So:

  • "The club members, who played football together, enjoyed the game." and
  • "The club members who played football together enjoyed the game."

mean different things. The first of these means that all the club members played football and enjoyed it. The second means that those club members who played football together enjoyed it (but there may have been other club members who didn't play, and we're saying nothing about whether they enjoyed it or not).

Now in the article as you have it at the moment, there is "The slogan has also been used by Kashmiris, who support Kashmir's accession to Pakistan, in the Indian-administered Kashmir." That does state that all Kashmiris support accession to Pakistan. Oh, and by the way, it's ambiguous because it's not clear what "in the Indian-administered Kashmir" refers back to.

Do you mean "The slogan has also been used by those Kashmiris in Indian-administered Kashmir who support Kashmir's accession to Pakistan."?

Hope this helped. --Stfg (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Yes, the slogan is also used by Kashmiris in Indian-administered Kashmir, so I used that link instead of "Jammu and Kashmir" which is ambiguous to the whole disputed area as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stfg, you are right and have hit the nail on the head. The article should say The slogan has also been used by pro-Pakistani Kashmiris, in Jammu and Kashmir. this is what the given source say and what the reader should get from the phrase. --DBigXray 14:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You just repeated what you wanted to add. I've clarified the ambiguity as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked the sources and the claim of the article is not even supported by the references. its just another example of WP:SYNTHESIS this being a controversial claim needs to be properly sourced.--DBigXray 12:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :

  • I beleive generalizing the slogan cry, with all the kashmiri's should be avoided.
  • The section name in the article is itself Jammu and Kashmir then why to use name Indian administered Kashmir? and the link Indian-administered Kashmir is directed to Jammu and Kashmir.
  • Among the attested 6 sources (actually 5 because this source is repeated twice); 3 sources this, this and this refers the place as Jammu and Kashmir. I beleive it is actually up to the uderstanding of the editors, though there are multiple WP:policies, but still WP gives the opportunity and allows the changes to be done with the editors concensus, I think both The lord's of the ring ( lTopGunl and ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ) should speak up and finalize the concensus, I am sure you both are mature enough to finalize the concensus.:)
  • Sample if you both consider in some way: The slogan has also been used sometimes by those Kashmiris from India who supports Kashmir's accession to Pakistan. Best wishes and Regards :) --Omer123hussain (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC) ____________________[reply]

My note

  • I follow the NPOV, and on Wikipedia all my edits based on good faith, I have not personal choices, this should be or that should be, I just try to defend the wiki rules. I do not mention the policies that I don't know. Neither I added to and nor removed any word from the content, I just restore the version which was reverted without discussion, and that is happing till now,rather than taking part in the discussion and reaching consensus, I do not Gaming the system. We must not think that every IP contributor's edits fall under vandalism, They can be good and right too. I have edited old version as suggested Stfg, I have removed the commas from that passage,and for "Indian-administered Kashmi", I have added most reliable sources and cited.Later I will fix the references perWP:linkrot. I hope this hepls to solve the matter. Justice007 (talk) 20:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vibhijain reported this,but result is no violation. I hope next time policies will be refer properly, after paying close attention to- not in a hasty way. Justice007 (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So far the controversial claim is still unsourced and your recent references does not claim that content. please read WP:SYNTHESIS before you reply.--DBigXray 12:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please clarify which content,there are some more changes, that I did not look and check. Which one you talking about?.Justice007 (talk) 13:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:ICANTHEARYOU and check out your last edit on the article, Thats is what I am talking about.--DBigXray 13:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Try being clear in your comments and do not provoke editors by calling them out on asking for explanations. There are many sources which support this content.. but I suspect that you will revert them on addition as "citation overkill" like you did at another article when sources were provided upon challenge. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • DBigXray, I just asked for clarity because of this and that. You and Vibhijain seem to be confused, look at here, one is admiring and other is advising.Justice007 (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So? Everyone has different opinions. Please be on-topic and don't mislead the discussion. Can you quote the source you added that supported the claim? ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, if opinions meet the wiki rules, but not personal choices.Justice007 (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A last try[edit]

I'm sorry my attempt to help before was not so helpful. I had not seen all the issues before that I now see. Let me try one more time. The sentence is just an introductory sentence saying that the slogan has been used in J&K. Actual incidents of its use are described not in this sentence, but in the rest of the paragraph. So the sense would be conveyed by saying simply "The slogan has also been used by Kashmiris in Jammu and Kashmir." Period. No citations needed, because it's just an introduction, amplified in the next sentences.

a) How about the phrase "Indian-administered Kashmir"? But why not call it by its name? When something has a name but people call it by a circumlocution instead, people are entitled to wonder why. People will wonder all the more if citations are used, not to support facts, but to excuse circumlocutions. Justice007, I accept your good faith and am not accusing you of deliberate POV-pushing, but that phrase "Indian-administered Kashmir" does slightly suggest a reluctance to acknowledge that J&K is an Indian state rather than merely a territory temporarily under Indian administration. That is a POV. Why not just call it by its name?

(But I'll withdraw all that if there's an up-to-date source showing that the UN still refers to it as Indian-administered Kashmir. <sigh>) --Stfg (talk) 21:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are searches on the UN web site for Jammu and Kashmir, and for Indian administered Kashmir (unhyphenated). As you see, they are about equal. The one for Indian-administered Kashmir (hyphenated) adds a few more. Seems to me there are enough of each that they cannot be accidental, and that this means both terms are valid. Thanks DBigXray for pointing me in that direction. --Stfg (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

b) How to refer to the people who use that phrase in Kashmir? Well, why refer to them at all? It's obvious that anyone who speaks words meaning "long live Pakistan" is favourable to Pakistan. Someone hostile to Pakistan would not say them, right? So why state the obvious?

As the sentence is merely a lead-in to the specific facts that follow, it could even be omitted. But it's good for sections to have lead-ins. So I suggest "The slogan has also been used by Kashmiris in Jammu and Kashmir." Period. --Stfg (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial Usage[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to include the use of the slogan during the violence/rapes --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why TopGun removed this section. As per WP:UNDUE,"in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." This fact has a lot of coverage ([1][2][3][4][5][6], and many more). I think this should be included in the article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The slogan is used in many many notable political speeches, events and incidents. How is this any different from that? If we start mentioning each incident we'll turn this article to a list. Better categorize this in the independence related slogans and add one of these sources to it. That's how it is undue. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact is an usage of this slogan received a lot of coverage, and its completely WP:DUE. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 16:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point. It receives and equal load of coverage for a political speech for Pakistani elections, doesn't mean we start creating sections for those too. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whats the problem in having a section for its usage in political speeches? This slogan was highly used at the time of partition, and its usage by the rapists is definitely WP:DUE. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've asked the right question, see WP:COATRACK. :) --lTopGunl (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TG, how can you compare a political rally usage to this kind of usage by rapists. It is natural that 'Pakistan Zindabad' is used in most of the political rallies, nationalist rallies and demonstrations etc. It must be used day to day in Pakistan. But I don't think this usage as tattoo by rapists is day to day.--Vyom25 (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many murders would have been done with such slogans too during the partition riots, what WP:COATRACK means is, that's not what the article is about... it is about the slogan itself and there would have been many many incidents involving negative usages of these slogans, a single incidence is undue on this article. And by that I don't mean to censor this, if there is an article about the partition riots, or even the partition of India article can have it (and linked to the slogans) as it tells about slogans of both sides. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that it tells about slogans with both sides; same source says that both the sides used slogans in this manner. But my point is when article can have a section where it is said that "The slogan has also been used by Kashmiris, who support Kashmir's accession to Pakistan, in the Indian-administered Kashmir. Supporters are also detained by local police for raising such slogans." then why not this? The Kashmiri point is also one of the countless instances of use.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to answer your own question. The section about Kashmiris is a general use, this one is about a single thing. We can however state that this was used during the partition riots as a whole and that would not come under controversial usage rather in general history. This single statement of fact is suited under the partition or partition riot article. It is about how much relevance it has to the slogans rather than the event (and this goes for the same section in the Hindustan Zindabad article too). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't think I have answered my own question, Kashmir is also a single point and use of slogan in partition riots is also a single point so on the grounds that we are not adding any single incident either add both or remove both. But as you say same goes for both the slogans I agree because ref. say the same. So in this article we can mention it in a single sentence instead of adding a section. A sentence or at least mention is due I think.--Vyom25 (talk) 03:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a paragraph about the general history of usage during the partition. in that it might get some place only per WP:WEIGHT. The use in Kashmir is like the use in partition, both being general topics, the use in these incidents is specific and comes under the use in partition.. that is why it does not have enough weight to be mentioned alone in a separate section. To get a consideration to begin with, there should be a section about usage in partition or we'll be taking these two slogan articles to coatrack. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary to have a seperate section for this only. Change the section name of Kashmir section to general use or usage and add this. No need for seperate section for partition. We can add it with kashmir section only. Drop this name also Controversial Usage--Vyom25 (talk) 04:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A separate section for partition would be defacto due, so would be usage in Kashmir as it is partition related, maybe on a third level heading under that would be fine by me too. Agree with dropping the word controversial usage as the usage is not controversial, just the act is negative. This would at most get a passing mention among other description at max when that is present. For now we should wait for the article to attain the rest of the usage and history of the slogan during 1940s. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay but What exactly we have to wait for? Because already a section is there for notable usages, though they are more general in nature as you say. Initial usage is also already there. I think you are suggesting about origin or first usage. Pakistan khappay article states something like that. What do you say?--Vyom25 (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is, I just created this article, and it didn't get much content... see the history section is empty... the origins could get an "etymology" section, the history can separately have quite some content. I suggest let's see how the article improves over the info about the slogan itself and it's usage (maybe put the suggested content here in discussion) and then when we have a running history section, we can add a mention of the fact that the slogans of both sides were also used during such acts of violence among others. Having just this will be a move towards coatrack as there will be no context of general coverage. See what I mean? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair enough. I will also try if I can get anything on it's initial usages and all that. Mentioning just that is non starter.--Vyom25 (talk) 12:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How do you support something like used in Muharram processions. How is it not a general usage and different from use in a political rally, nationalist rallies etc?--Vyom25 (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you see me support it? ...though I see why I should - usage in India is something notable for the use in India and not why it was used per se. Obviously controversial and would be separately notable. Also this is current, and not historical.. isn't it? --lTopGunl (talk) 11:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know it was not added by you but I thought that the user who added it also has this page watchlisted so I stated it generally. I can't see the ref as of now because it says I have limited views so I will not be able to comment on whether it's current or past because the book was written in 1988. As far as I know it is not widely reported or used. Initial use that we used is far more widely reported and used. But as I said I can't see the book and don't know the author.--Vyom25 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for jumping in, but I am surprised to see that something like usage in Muharram Processions is due, but something like usage by rapists, which gained a lot of coverage, is undue. I think this discussion is just getting off track, and we should take this to WP:DRN. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is welcome in this discussion. Use by rapists must be and will be mentioned but in the mean time this was added by another user that is why I brought it up. I also would like to add here that adding section for each and every usage is not good for the article so put each and every usage under a single title. Because I don't see there is a difference between a political rally and a religious procession both are general and both must not be mentioned.--Vyom25 (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You missed reading my comment, it is due because of usage in India. Also, if you read the discussion above... the use as you mentioned is also to be included in the history section. But it is a part of a general topic of riots. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please all of you stop investing your energy in non-profitable cause and try to divert your all efforts to develop some thing good. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 22:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The slogan "Pakistan Zindabad" was used during Partition and the crime against women (the edit) needs to be mentioned in the article, since it was well sourced ([7][8][9][10][11][12], and many more) and thus passes WP:DUE. Please respond as support or oppose giving rationale. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment[edit]

  • Include It's well-sourced and contextualized information of significant historical value and meets the requirements for both WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability on all essential points. Nor do I see how its inclusion, if handled in the appropriate manner, would be in conflict with WP:NPOV in general or WP:UNDUE in particular. Snow (talk) 14:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include, in both this article and Hindustan Zindabad. Ideally, a section or article about sexual violence during Partition should be created to give more background (as of now, in the main article, there is only this section, and sources you provided here seem excellent to expand it or give it its own article), but mentioning this here as suggested passes all the usual tests IMHO. I would advice in favour of a single historical section rather than many 1-sentence sections as it looks now, as a "negative usage" seems both vague and oriented: let the facts speak for themselves.--Susuman77 (talk) 12:54, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include - There is enough coverage in the sources which are reliable. Surely that thing is notable and it has to be included. Any incident which is this intense and notable should be included without any doubt. →TSU tp* 13:55, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the specific details: it is already included per WP:DUE and further inclusion will not be in appropriate weight. If there is more expansion in the history section we might be able to get some details in subject to a discussion then. Talk:Pakistan Zindabad#Controversial Usage section has detailed discussion and reasoning for it and because we are not counting votes here, this RFC should be closed as inclusive of that discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The specific use of this slogan in incidents of sexual violence, which is what is developed in the many scholarly sources brought by Vaibhav Jain, is still missing from the article. A single mention of unspecified "negative usage" is definitely not enough, when you have other incidents (cricket match, shop utensils) given much more article space. I don't see which part of WP:DUE would bar from reporting the exact facts reported by sources instead of the vague formulation currently used. Also, the article has already seen a lot of expansion lately, which means that mentioning the rape incidents as such would be far from disproportionate. Last, WP:NOTAVOTE does not mean that you should ignore the fact that all new commenting editors favor inclusion.--Susuman77 (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've already addressed your concerns in the section pointed out and that is inclusive of the consensus. I don't believe in editors dropping in and "voting" in favour or against the inclusion or anything... discussion is necessary and that's what I said here... the discussion in above section means more than this. Read that... I oppose the inclusion in both this and Hindustan Zindabad as it is not due as an independent section and not controversial per se. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • RfCs are not votes, for sure, but they are useful for discussions; uninvolved editors have as much right to contribute as the ones who have been discussing the situation for long already, and reached no resolution. I've read the sections above you keep pointing to, and I see a dispute, not a consensus. Then, you must have misread what I had to say: I do not support an independent section for the rape incidents. They however have as many rights to be exposed here as other incidents that were recently added, and with a factual description of what the sources say happened (tattooing of rape victims), not the current understatement "negative usage".--Susuman77 (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then you are right, you've misread. I do not oppose their inclusion... but this is not the right article to have a dedicated section for them.. an article about partition riots would be the right one as they are more related to that. I'll not restate every thing as the closing admin will be wise enough to read that section too as I've already pointed it out. Also, what I meant was, a single or few comment(s) by uninvovled does not over ride the much detailed discussion anyway, that's a moot discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see we're in agreement then. No specific section but you wouldn't object to replacing the current formulation with one which really says what happened, if I understand correctly. For further details, I also think the place would not be this article (or Hindustan Zindabad) but a dedicated section or article about sexual violence during partition, as I already explained above.--Susuman77 (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The norms are that we let every one comment, let this complete and do according to closure (WP:BRD). Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem with a BRD approach. Just to make it rest for now, my suggested solution, which is still a single sentence, but makes explicit what the "negative usage" was, is this diff: [13] --Susuman77 (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's almost how it was previously added other than being in a section and was objected. The thing is that it is undue to go in details of partition riots in the article about a slogan so as not to go WP:COATRACK. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concern, but seriously, you think a single sentence in what is now a 15kb article is derailing the article? You agreed that this historical fact deserved mention - I agreed that this mention should not occupy a disproportionate place - as such, I only expanded the existing sentence to explain what was this "negative usage" mentioned in the current version: I haven't heard arguments from you specifically addressing that point: that "negative usage" is just much too vague to describe those incidents, and that a short but factual sentence would be better than what stands now.--Susuman77 (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article has just started and the history section should be expanded much more. That will cover even the riots in a mention... how will it be due to mention about specific riot incidents while covering the riot themselves briefly... and if we go into detail of riots, it will be WP:COATRACK. That's why it belongs to it's own article. Here it can only have a general mention. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict): The subject is Pakistan Zindabad,not the history of India,if it is so, then there are hundreds of facts and realities that have been addressed in separate articles. TopGun has explained in the exact way and proper direction, only need is to understand the policies which have been mentioned in the discussion by him. We should not make mountain of a molehill. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 18:03, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the partition riots article can very well cover this fact (the statement says that it was from both sides so it would be ok for that article). Here the topic is different. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one question I would like to put "What is the negative use of a slogan?" or if I can put it other way "How can a slogan be used negatively?" Current statement says both the slogans were also used in negative manner. But how? another sentence must also be added for the capacity in which they were used. I am not saying add the whole riot issue. I am also not saying to add the background of that particular usage. But we can certainly add the manner in which they were used. Add one more line to it.--Vyom25 (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well that depends, if you're going to add some content about independence, then independence riots, and then go on with saying that the slogans from both sides were common in the riots etc, it would be in context. And then we can link it to the partition or riot article. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that can be the one line we can take.--Vyom25 (talk) 14:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer Ooops, I am sorry I did not notice the RfC is going on. I inadvertently added the information back to the article. Sorry again.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Try a self rv, so that the closure finds it easier to know the status quo in case of a "no consensus". --lTopGunl (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include The negative use of the slogan should also be mentioned besides the usual use (since the negative use has also been too brutal and widespread to not be notable). I have not gone through the references, but surely there will be references documenting the use of Pakistan Zindabad an Hindustan Zindabad as war cries during partition riot. This particular instance exemplifies one such unfortunate use (tattooing the slogans in the body of rape victims), and should be included, along side other examples that can be referenced. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Include I agree with the other users that this should be included. That is all I have to say on the matter. United States Man (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include - for the reasons clearly and cogently explained by Snow at the start of this discussion. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include (if the article survives AfD) The content is reliably sourced, historical, WP:DUE. The opposition of the content is by WP:IDONTLIKEIT by the creator. --DBigXray 15:17, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the article itself is coming under WP:COATRACK. It just means "long live Pakistan" and every country in this world has slogans like this with little encyclopedic importance. Delete it (Afd), along with India Zindabad. Valuable non-redundant info in these articles may be shifted appropriately.-AshLey Msg 13:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit protected[edit]

Please add {{subst:afd1|Pakistan Zindabad}} --DBigXray 15:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad exists, so Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of all sections.[edit]

  • Fowler&fowler, I am not saying you are wrong, there are sources that can be discussed, while you have already templated those poor sourced passages,I disagreed removal of all sections,most of that are being discussed. Your search is not ignorable, but please it will be more appropriate if we discuss before someone's whole work deleted.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, let Mr Fowler work on this article independently for a while, then re-assess the article, and then decide on whether all those sections were needed in the first place. It is much more important for the article to have truly significant events rather than random, sometimes trivial, events noted. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And also the work is not deleted. It can be restored later. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant removal, because he did which I reverted, no problem, now he is on his way.Justice007 (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fowler&fowler it was better if you discuss the issues on talk before putting tags/deleting content. Some of the points you raised are already discussed on the talkpage so it is recommended that you participate in the discussion. --SMS Talk 15:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, can someone tell me why I shouldn't remove trash, especially when it seems that the editors inserting it were either delusional or less than honest with us. Consider the Kashmir section. Not a single one of the 8 footnotes have passed verification. Why should I be wasting my time reading these bogus footnotes, and then adding the inline-tags here? Tell me why I shouldn't simply remove the garbage. Besides, many of the sources themselves are bogus. Compare them with the solid ones in Pakistan Murdabad. I haven't even got to the more obvious point: what is the logic of having a list of unconnected examples of the slogan's use in Kashmir. Why is that notable? Do you have a source that suggests that raising the slogan in Kashmir itself is notable and why? Clearly not yet. Why in the interim should the rest of the world have to put up with an irredeemably subpar text? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)* Yes you are wasting your time to templating the sources for verification in the section of Jammu and Kashmir. You do even not understand that the sources are not for verification of the slogan but for the Indian-administered Kashmir, see discussion about it here, and please remove templates yourself wasting a bit more time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice007 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a lead in, as Stfg (who I greatly respect) suggests, then what is "accession to Pakistan" doing there. This nothing in the sources that verifies that. That is why I had added the failed-verification tags, not for use of Indian-administered Kashmir. I've now removed the "accession to Pakistan" garbage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Kashmir related content has been added for a reason. The reason is to push longstanding Pakistani POV regarding Kashmir that Kashmiris want to Join Pakistan. I had noticed these issues and tried to discuss but the result can be seen above. I agree with the analysis of sources by Fowler and support an altogether removal of these irrelevant content that were added for pretty obvious POV pushing and WP:BOMBARDing refs--DBigXray 22:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, do not waste your precious energy in debating on trivial issues in the talk page. You have already tagged with appropriate tags the sentences in some sections. However, the very important part of the article is the history. Please go on improving that part with your sources. Meanwhile, we can wait to see if your concerns for the rest of the article is met. If not, they can be dealth with slightly later, after an exemplary history section/lead is built.
The slogan is a very important one, and bears a lot of significance in the history of the subcontinent. So, we need to improve the article to a standard one, rather than letting it be one more example of unfortunate mud-slinging arena. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested quote[edit]

Here is the quote requested by User:Fowler&fowler:


--SMS Talk 16:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issues identified by addition of tags[edit]

I think tagging of the article is complete, so I am adding replies to the tags in this section and request clarifications. I welcome editors to participate in a healthy discussion. I value editors' energies/efforts but trust me that won't be wasted and the discussion will be fruitful.

  1. This issue is already discussed in the RFC above, so its better to discuss it there, rather to overide that discussion.
  2. The tag and edit summary are not consistent here. The source used is good, I don't know why it was tagged and how is it humorous.
  3. The Victoria Shield's book was added as a source to support the incident only after a discussion at its DYK entry.
  4. The author of this source is an expert on Sports, and as this content is also related to sports, it is a good source, I don't see how it is unreliable. If you want your interpretaion of it to be included, you are welcome. This event of history is covered by many source but most of them don't mention exactly what slogan was raised rather just say that pro_Pakistani/anti-Indian slogans. And do cover other details.
  5. How is this a primary source?
  6. This event is verified by multiple secondary sources but not in this much detail like Sen covered it. So I don't think the primary source hurts much here.
  7. How this source lacks in quality or insufficient to support the text (I am talking about the {{Better source}} tag added in history section in this edit). The quotation requested in this edit has already been provided in the section above.

--SMS Talk 21:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed the WP:TAGBOMB as issues have been addressed. Further issues should be raised here instead of tag bombing the article. PS. the "vandalism" tagged revert was a mistaken click [14]. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But they are obviously not addressed are they? Given the amount of tags within the article those maintenance templates should stay until all the inline tags are remove. Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are... many of them are even baseless. One seemed to be on the content added by the RFC above. Adding the templates started thjs discussion, that has served their purpose. Maintained templates are not "tags of shame" to degrade reliability of an article. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If, as you say most of the inline tags are "baseless" perhaps you ought to ask the chap who put them there? I am sorry you feel these maintenance templates are a "badge of shame" but as I said, until such a time as all the inline tags are dealt with the templates really need to remain. Facts, not fiction (talk) 20:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Massive tagging is often interpreted as that and I'm not the only one who feels it if you read WP:TAGBOMB. And yes, the editor who added them was asked... right above. So if you could stop making this more TLDR for him, he'll find it easier to reply. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)-* Actually those were not legitimate,anyhow issues are addressed. Sources are there?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice007 (talk • contribs)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://thewire.in/rights/karnataka-amulya-leona-pakistan-zindabad. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MaterialWorks (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan_Zindabad&oldid=1203573713"