Talk:Pakistan/Archive 1

Issues
--

The National Sport of Pakistan is Field Hockey and not the widely expected Cricket. I know this is right. You might get different opinions from elsewhere but I'm absolutely sure. Also, the only official languages are Urdu and English while urdu is the only national language. The other languages written are all popular in their areas (Like Punjabi in the province of Punjab) but they are not the official languages. I'm not aware of any new laws that would change this. I apologize if I'm wrong. Ghanchi

/Temp - Please help out in getting this page up to template standard if you have the time. Thanks, Metz 18:09, 26 Dec 2002

Moved lots of history stuff to History of Pakistan, removed and edited a bit for NPOV. The article was strangely negative to Pakistan, compare to India, which was much more positive... Guppie

---

Removed:


 * A full 205% of the government's revenue comes from foreign aid, but all of this and more is needed to pay off the interest on previous loans.

This probably belongs on bad jokes and nonsense. You can't have more than 100% of the government's revenue coming from *any* source.

This article is rather down on Pakistan, to be honest. Yes, the place has got some severe problems, but the problems aren't the whole country, presumably. --Robert Merkel

Removed, this needs better attribution of exactly who says these things. who are the "many in the world community" and which Muslums is this talking about?

Many in the world community view Pakistan as a failed state along the lines of Somalia,FYugoslavia and the FSoviet Union. Pakistan is viewed as a western lackey in the Islamic world toeing the line of the United States of America. Post 9-11, the Pakistani government has received billions of dollars in aid from the US and in return has ceded some vital military bases as well as 1/3rd of it's airspace to the US as part of Operation Anaconda.

Muslums, interesting choice of words...Anyway, I believe I have transliterated the motto of Pakistan, but I may be incorrect. It is hard for me to read the Urdu script on the image files of the National Emblem of Pakistan. If anyone can fix it, that would be good. And if anyone can put it into Urdu text, that would be better. They can use the National Emblem of Pakistan as a guide since the bottom scroll contains the national motto.

DigiBullet 07:47, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ive transferred the page from the temp to the regular page. I believe it is complete.

DigiBullet 21:50, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Pakistan's Name
(P for Punjab, A for the Afghan areas of the region, K for Kashmir, S for Sindh and the TAN for BalochisTAN, thus forming 'Pakstan.' An 'i' was later added to the English rendition of the name to ease of pronunciation, producing Pakistan.) It's all False Pakistan Stands for Punjabistan Because When pakistan was made Banladesh was Also a Part, No room for representing the Bangalies. Nor any room for Balochies. istan means Land, and in pakistan Pak Mean Punjabies. dats all

There doesnt seem to be any verifiable corroboration for Pakistan's name being derived from an acronym of its states names. "A for afghan areas" seems highly ambiguous so does "TAN for BalochisTAN". "-istan" eg. is a commonly used urdu suffix meaning "- land of". Crude example : "Americanistan" would mean land of the Americans, Afghanistan means "land of the Afghans", "Uzbekistan" means land of the Uzbeks and so on.. "Pak" in urdu means "pure", "Paki" means "a person who is pure" and therefore "Pakistan" would mean "land of the pure" or "land of the Pakis".

Avataran 21:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What kind of "verifiable corroboration" are you looking for? We even have a link to the full text of the document that first proposed&mdash;or mentioned, if you want&mdash;the word. And until we find an example or historical mention of the word that pre-dates that document, we're stuck with that as the origin, no? Here's the para I am talking about:


 * The name was coined by Cambridge student and Muslim nationalist Choudhary Rahmat Ali. He devised the word and first published it on January 28, 1933 in the pamphlet Now or Never. He saw it as an acronym formed from the names of the "homelands" of Muslims in South Asia. (P for Punjab, A for the Afghan areas of the region, K for Kashmir, and S for Sindh, thus forming 'Pakstan.' An 'i' was later added to the English rendition of the name to ease pronunciation, producing Pakistan.) The word also captured the concepts of "Pak" meaning "Pure" and "stan" for "land" or "home" (as in the names of Central Asian countries in the region; Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, etc), thus giving it the meaning "Land of the Pure". Some critics express doubts concerning the name being an acronym comprising portions of the names of what they think would have had to be its constituent provinces. When Pakistan came into existence, it included not just regions in the northwestern part of South Asia, which were what Choudhary Rahmat Ali was thinking about, but also Muslim majority areas in the northeastern part.


 * Chaudary Rahmat Ali's logic might have been flawed linguisticly, etymologically, or even not have made any sense, but the name stuck and is now part of the official name of the state. What do we do about it? &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 23:21, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Removed text
An anonymous user removed the following, stating that it was POV and used weasel words:
 * Terrorism was a factor in Musharraf's rise to power. As head of the army, he worked with Pakistan's ISI to allegedly foment rebellion in neighboring India. This seems to have subsided in the post-9/11 world, partly because of increased world attention on Pakistani affairs, and partly because of a more aggressive stance on the part of India in the 1990s

Does anyone know if the info is accurate? Is there a way to put this info in in a NPOV way? – Quadell (talk) (help)  18:45, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Musharraf still is the head of the Pakistan Army (official title Chief of Army Staff). But as far as the removed text is concerned there is no way to corroborate such information. I work in a magazine that is actively non-Musharraf friendly and even we wouldn't go so far as to claim something that ludicrous. I can't see an NPOV way of posting it and am under the impression that it is probably best left out. Hulleye 21:55, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and removed some POV text from the side column. (accidentally wrote in the Edit summary that i removed an NPOV statement... sorry) "National motto: Iman, Ittehad, Tanzeem, and Pakistan Lack all three of the Characteristics" Hulleye 22:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

BalochVoice
Would appreciate it if you could discuss whether a link should be removed. AmeriDesi (Talk) (News links - removed links added by 203.170.77.254, because BalochVoice appears to be a supporter of the terrorist Baloch Liberation Army)

BalochVoice happens to contain a listing of violent attacks that have taken place within Balochistan over the last few years. It's one of the very few places on the web where such information is available. Please do not arbitrarily remove material from an article based on your own point of view. Hulleye 11:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok. Maybe I was a little impulsive in removing the links. I'm willing to discuss it. I felt the links were added in bad faith by the same anonymous user who added the POV text that you removed. 1) The other news links were for well-known, widely read, real newspapers with phone numbers and known physical addresses. Does BV belong in that list? 2) Its information appears to be specific to Baluchistan, so does it belong on the main Pakistan page? AmeriDesi 11:59, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, i feel you're right in one thing. this is a very Baloch-centric website and thus is probably more appropriate as an external link in the Balochistan article. However, it was your statement that the "BalochVoice appears to be a supporter of the terrorist Baloch Liberation Army" that chafed me. This site is quite obviously a pro-separatist website but to automatically declare it as supporting terrorism is a bit harsh. the kind of detailed information that is available on that website is quite invaluable (for one thing no pakistan government website is going to list the number of attacks that have occurred and are continuing to occur in that province.) and no, it's not an established newspaper... it's an online webjournal that collects news items regarding Balochistan in an attempt to promote Baloch nationalism. it displays its bias openly and makes no bones about it.

in my opinion it should at least be included as a link in the Balochistan article. Hulleye 08:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

-- Hey just wanted to give you guys a pat on the back. You have a done a good job on giving a very fair and balanced view of Pakistan and improving it from its past iterations.

i for Islam
I cannot find any sources for the revision by Abdulhaseeb86 in which he changed the line

"An 'i' was later added to the English rendition of the name to ease pronunciation, producing Pakistan.)"

to

"An 'i' was added for Islam.) "

I am reverting it back to the original unless someone can definitively prove otherwise. Hulleye 20:32, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Good move. &mdash;iFaqeer | Talk to me! 22:05, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Economy section
A recent edit by 69.196.113.86 replaced the previous text with an outdated, inaccurate paragraph from the CIA World Factbook, about which I'd like to comment. Firstly, Pakistan is a developing country with a growing economy and a society that is, in many ways, being transformed. Analyses relating to Pakistan need continual updating and quantitative grounding. Let me go through some of the parts that struck me as inaccurate and/or outdated:
 * GDP growth is heavily dependent on rain-fed crops. Agriculture is now only 23% of the GDP. Pakistan's crops have three major sources of water: 1) rivers, which are mostly fed by meltwater from the snows and glaciers of the northern mountains; 2) wells, which increasingly are electrically-powered tubewells rather than the old traditional wells; and 3) rain. The canal de-silting of 2000 increased river-water throughput in the extensive irrigation system. The electrification of the majority of the villages has facilitated the installation and use of tubewells. So the severe 4-year drought did not affect the economy as much as it might have in earlier years. Not only did it not destroy the economy or cause a depression, there was not even a recession during the drought years. The World Bank and other global financial institutions praised the country for its increased resilience.
 * impoverished. Definition: reduced to poverty. Looking at the use of the word in the Factbook, I found only two other instances where impoverished could be construed to apply to the current economic condition of a whole country: Rwanda ("The 1994 genocide decimated Rwanda's fragile economic base, severely impoverished the population, ..") and Haiti ("Extensive civil strife in early 2004, marked by the flight of President Aristide, further impoverished Haiti.") In both Rwanda and Haiti the economy actually shrank - GDP growth was negative - so it would be accurate to say that they became impoverished. Pakistan, on the other hand, started out poor but has not had a single year of negative GDP growth since the recession of 1951. The characterization of Pakistan as impoverished is thus questionable.
 * costly, ongoing confrontation with neighboring India. Pakistan spends 4.6% of its GDP on defence. That is indeed a cost, but not an exceptional one. The world average is 3.64% . Pakistan spends 1% more than the average, but many other countries spend much more, both in absolute terms and as a percentage of their GDP. Without context, this phrase seems to imply exceptionally high costs, which is debatable.
 * IMF-approved government policies. The IMF's role in the developing world has been criticized - for example, by Joseph Stiglitz, winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics - for advocating economic measures that were, according to him, counterproductive. Suffice it to say, it could be said that Pakistan's economic growth accelerated in spite of, and not because of, IMF involvement. Pakistan booted the IMF out this year, ending 15 years of unwelcome meddling. (Pakistan ends 15-year ties with IMF; Daily Times, September 7, 2004)
 * renewed access to global markets since late 2001 [led to] macroeconomic recovery. The beginning of Pakistan's economic acceleration predates 9/11, and economic growth continued to trend upward despite adverse post-9/11 factors such as the U.S. invasion of neighboring Afghanistan and war-surcharges on insurance for shipping. Also, Pakistan never lost its access to global markets in general, so perhaps "renewed access to global markets" should have been "renewed access to global capital markets."
 * energy sector reforms. The text fails to convey the actual progress of the energy-sector reforms, and even the IMF's own report paints a more positive picture. 68.20.34.28 11:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Impact of the Internet
This section gives the impression that the Internet is being adopted in Pakistan relatively late. That is wrong. Will see what I can do about updating it. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:57, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Habib R. Sulemani
This Habib R. Sulemani reeks of self-promotion...
 * I agree. I'm starting the Talk:Habib R. Sulemani page. Maybe we can persuade him to delete it or tone it down.

Don't be judgmental and biased
You guys seem judgmental and biased... The discussion about Habib R. Sulemani is useless here so please see the Talk:Habib R. Sulemani page.

POV? (Recent History)
Isn't:


 * Though he is widely expected to remain in effective control of Pakistan as its president until 2007 given the support of the Pakistani Army and the United States, his authority will be significantly diminished once he does doff the mantle of army chief.

a POV? &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:33, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * I was responsible for wording it that way (and am still not happy with it) but i think the entire paragraph needs to be rephrased. The reasoning behind making that statement is that once Musharraf steps down as COAS, his authority and subsequently his power over the Pakistan Army is finished. (Technical fact rather than POV). The Pakistan Army is currently a far more powerful institution than any civilian government that could be elected. Let me do a little bit of research to help justify my claims. In the meanwhile if you feel like removing that para or rewording it, go ahead. Hulleye 10:39, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

non-Muslims in Pakistan
If anyone thinks the title of the article Discrimination against non-Muslims in Pakistan is not neutral .. please go there and vote OneGuy 00:57, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Population Size
I have corrected the misinformation regarding Pakistan's standing in terms of population in the muslim world. Current standings of Pakistan's population is between 145-159 million. Indian muslim population is 120-125 million. omerlivesOmerlives 12:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) According to the following webpage there are more muslims in India than Pakistan. --24.30.75.0 03:01, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are more Muslims in India than there are in paksitan, please accept the fact. Here is the proof.

No, the Indian population on that website (islamicpopulation.com) is wrong. They don't use the most reliable source, the Census of India, for the actual count of Muslims in India. Instead, islamicpopulation.com does it backwards, multiplying a "guesstimated" 14% by India's total population. That is not the correct method: the percentage should be calculated using the count of Muslims, not the other way around. Below, I have also pasted text from the other section. 68.20.222.41

Pakistan is the second largest muslim country
Why is Pakistan said to be the third largest muslim country in the world? According to CIA.gov figures, the muslim population of Pakistan is 0.97 x	159,196,336 = 154,420,446, which puts it behind Indonesia. India's muslim population is much smaller than Pakistan's: 0.12 x 1,065,070,607 = 127,808,473.

India may have had a greater muslim population 10 years ago, but the latest figures indicate that Pakistan has 27 million more muslims, a substantial difference. --Hausa 22:55, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True. Pakistan has more Muslims than India, according to the Census of India and CIA Factbook data
Here are the links for the CIA Factbook data for Pakistan and India.

2001 Census of India estimates from Milli Gazette, an Indian Muslim newspaper.

It's clear that Pakistan has a much larger population of Muslims than India. The persistence of this opposite claim is surprising and IMHO ideologically/politically motivated. Criticforaday 18:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, India isn't a Muslim-majority country, so the claim "Pakistan is the 2nd largest Muslim country" is true even if you believe that India has more Muslims. 68.20.222.41 16:27, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Book "Muslim World after 9/11" clearly states that India is the second largest muslim country. In fact India is the world's largest hindu country & also the second largest muslim coutry.

If you have more reliable sources that would be really helpful.


 * While I am not a party in this tug-of-war between Indian and Pakistani supporters, I would like to point out that census data are facts, books (e.g. "Muslim World after 9/11") cannot always be assumed to be facts. Anyone can write a book without proving a point (I do not say anything for or against the aforementioned book, though), whereas census data can be considered scientific tools for comparing the ranks of countries in terms of population. And that is what should be considered instead of continuing this endless Edit war. Let the facts win, not anyones POV. --Ragib 07:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the section claiming pakistan is the second largest muslim nation. This is not true. The CIA fact book is outdated & linking to a newspaper which clearly states that the data is before the 2001 census is not the smartest thing to do. We need the facts. Please provide the link to the official pakistan census.

To the anonymous editor above, Pakistan is the second largest muslim nation in the world, and you were unjustified in removing it from the section. CIA figures are by far the most up to date, figures we have on the populations of Pakistan and India. All the latest data points to Pakistan with a larger muslim population, and by a margin of at least 20 million people. If you have solid evidence that would make us believe the CIA are wrong in their analysis, then please let us know. --Hausa 19:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Independence Topic
It is seen that the User Ragib is strongly against Pakistan and is writing his opinions and his version of history in this text with references to a Bangali website.This is unsubstatiated and besides not reliabley sourced.Also This is just and intro to Pakistan not were you may edit historically inaccurate and unsupported info and not the proper place to put it.At the same time you suggest vandalism by another member to this article where as you yourself have been doing this all along.Also I see you have voiced your opinion (Anti -Pakistan) on the Bangladesh Article in wikipedia again you sway from neutrality to anti pakistani sentiments in that article.I can understand your greviances but history has two sides of the story and you constantly want only yours to be heard.You should refrain from that as a Bengladesh citizen and a member of wikipedia.My suggestion to you is to refrain from touching articles in this portion plus try to have less animosity towards Pakistan in writing if you cant I suggest you not edit anything on wikipedia at all,its an encyclopedia not a newspaper.Otherwise I will have all articles and work written by you checked and removed if appropriate.--Herst1 22:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since you mention me specifically, I'd be more than happy to counter your allegations. Let's face them one by one: "Vandalism is indisputable bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content, made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The largest quantity of vandalism consists of replacement of prominent articles with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." If any user had any problem with any wordings that prompted them to delete complete paragraphs, they were free to discuss this in the Talk page (i.e. here).
 * I am Anti-Pakistani: No I am not, and I do not have anything against the Republic of Pakistan and/or the Pakistani people as a whole. I have a lot of Pakistani friends with whom I have had a good discussion on these topics, and none of them had anything to say about my being "Anti-pakistani". Let's face it, just because some one attributes the Holocaust on Hitler, would you term that person Anti-German?
 * I put my version of history, which is unsubstantiated: I invite you to go read the Bangladeshi newspapers (you can read the English ones) on some specific dates, March 26, December 14/16. If you still say those newspapers carry "my version" (which would, definitely, be quite flattering to me), please go ahead and read about the 1971 war from some neutral sources. What exactly do you claim as unsubstantiated? Fact: There was a war between March 25 and December 16, 1971. Fact: A large number (may be not 3 million, but definitely between 200,000-1 million) Bengali people died during that time Fact: Pakistani Army Generals initiated the war to prevent handing over power to an elected Govt. What do you find irrelevant/false here? Ok, I'm not the final authority, and don't claim so, therefore, please point out the things you feel as false, and let us discuss them first. I'm totally open to discussion in a logical manner.
 * This is not an intro to Pakistan: Fine, get rid of the history section completely. Forget that between 1947 and 1971, there was another 54% people in East Pakistan. Giving a sentence that in 1971 East Pakistan seceeded doesn't make any sense, nor provide any "intro".
 * suggesting Vandalism is wrong: Please visit [vandalism definition in wikipedia] to learn the meaning of the word. FYI,
 * I provide anti-pakistani opinions in Bangladesh: Again, the opinion is, "Anti-pakistani-rulers-who-committed genocide-in-1971". If anyone wants to write a history of Bangladesh, the info that it became independent after a 9 month independence war is definitely the first information to put there. I am not expressing any POV, just bare mention of the facts.


 * "Otherwise I will have all articles and work written by you checked and removed if appropriate": Dude, get a life. You are acting like a child and giving funny threats. Please go ahead and check all my articles. Wikipedia is a public forum, and any article I write, initiate is not my property. Anyone is free to edit anything, the community constantly checks any vandalisms (which is exactly what you threaten me with). If you have anything to discuss/dispute, please do it in a civilized manner conforming to Wikipedia standards and etiquette. Please don't issue "Threats" and any other illogical dialogs.

Finally, anyone is free to discuss anything with me. I stand by my edits (also my edits, not text written by anyone else, so please check that) and would be happy to provide appropriate references.

P.S. Should I assume that you deleted/blanked my User page? The coincidence between your outburst and blanking of my page is uncanny. --Ragib 04:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to provide the following links in connection with the allegations presented above regarding the facts I presented, and that which were viciously disputed by Herst1


 * Source 1: [United States Library of Congress: Country Studies - Bangladesh. More specifically, please refer to the section on [The War for Bangladeshi Independence, 1971], and [The Liberation War].


 * Source 2: [BBC Country Profile: Bangladesh]


 * Source 3: [The India-Pakistan War Of 1971: A Modern War], by KYLE, R.G., Major, Royal Canadian Artillery, Marine Corps Command and Staff College.

Please come up with any proof or references that refute my claims for which I have provided some references above.

Thanks.

--Ragib 05:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting for discussion on this topic, would anyone at least initiate any view/opinion on this? Discussion is always healthy for progressing towards a neutral point of view. So, lets talk!! --Ragib 05:24, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello folks. Well, I'm afraid the points Ragib makes are actually correct. The massacres perpetrated by Paksitan's military in what would become Bengladesh are pretty well documented and yet largely ignored. And before everybody jumps on me, I'm of Pakistani descent and Pashtun origin, but American born and raised, but I've studied the history quite extensively. Read a book called Genocide by Leo Kuper and you'll find a lot of info. regarding this very dark chapter in Pakistan's history. I think it's a good idea not to think of Pakistan's history as something that must always be presented in a "positive" light. And it's not as if Bangladesh hasn't had human rights problems of its own during its short history. It's just life. And I'm not knocking Pakistan at all, but I'm being realistic I think. --Tombseye

Cleaning up history section
After putting the proposal for discussion here, I am dismayed by the lack of response, except one from Tombseye. Anyway, the history section of the article is imbalanced and full of different types of POV. So here are some changes I propose:
 * Pakistan Movement: The following lines seem to be quite unimportant and somewhat a POV. "The cause found a leader in Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who became known as the Father of the Nation. On Auguest 16th 1946, He launched an offensive jihad called Direct-Action. He thundered at a rally in Calcutta "We have placed gun on India's temple and are ready to fire it....". Next day more than ten-thousand people were murdered on the streets of Calcutta. This event is called Great Calcutta Killing." I propose to clear this out and instead write some lines on the referendum that took place in Bengal and Punjab and the guy who drew the borders (Some British official). Also the roles of Suhrawardy, Jinnah, Gandhiji etc need to be clarified.
 * The info on Iskandar Mirza, Ayub Khan, Yahyia Khan, Bhutto, Zia. It is surprising that the history section is very vague about the chain of succession among the rulers. I want to clearly specify the transfer of power from Elected civilian govt in 1954 to Army (Mirza, Ayub, Yahia) and so on.
 * The East Pakistan/Bangladesh question: The history section would be totally unfair and biased if half of the country until 1971 is given only 1 sentence. Besides, East Pakistan, by its own right, deserves more mention before 1971 (when it earned more than 50% of GDP). So, I want to add subsections on that part.
 * Bhutto-Zia-Benzir ... : No mention of the links in the article.
 * Relationship with China : In the 60s, Pakistan, China had a very close relation...this definitely needs to be mentioned here.

So there goes my proposal. Please assist me on this and have a discussion here before someone starts flaming me over any parts. --Ragib 20:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I have done an edit. I hope it is NPOV enough. I am open to suggestion. Painting Jinnah, about the only South Asian leader never to join so much as a demonsttration, as a blood-thirsty rabble-rouser is a bit much.
 * And yes, we need to add the stuff you talk about; I was just cleaning things up a bit. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:43, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * I added some sub-sections in the history section, including info on Ayub Khan's rule, 1970 election and results, and 1971 war. Before someone goes on and puts any POV accusations, please have a discussion here on what everyone thinks of those changes and any possible modifications. --Ragib 22:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Cleaning up-a few points
Sounds good. Your take on the Pakistan movement revision sounds good. A little more objective writing wouldn't hurt. The transfer of power section could also use some work. Do what you can on that and I'll add whatever I can, but will let folks know what I want to add as well. The East Pakistan/Bangladesh deserves more, but not too much more and here's why, there is a Bangladesh page so it'd be kind of pointless to write more than a few paragraphs in a section, but there should be something more than a few sentences I agree. Might be worth mentioning the controversy regarding the genocide as well, which will undoubtedly rub some people the wrong way, but I don't see why it should. not like the people of Pakistan are all directly responsible, except for those who took part in the atrocities.

The China relations are very important I agree and I would also mention the Baghdad Pact that ran from Pakistan to Turkey as part of an envisioned defense pact that would prevent Soviet aggression towards the Mideast. Also relevant would be the relations with Afghanistan that were really up and down. The cooperation between Pakistan and Iran in crushing the Baluchi rebellion might be worth mentioning as well. I mostly did some work on the History of Pakistan under the Ancient section. It sure needed some work and I hope people are cool with the additions as I thought they were relevant and the last writer kind of glossed over centuries of history.

Tombseye 03:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ideas. You are right that the history section should be balanced and not focus on just EP/Bangladesh too much. Also, there are plenty of stuff already in Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, Bangladesh etc on those topics, so reiterating stuff should not be done. I'd try to add summary information ... definitely not just a line, but at least equal to other parts of history. I also think that some info has to be there about the Mass Migration following the Partition of 1947, and at least a couple of sentences on the effects of it (Mohajer etc). I will add whatever I can, and try to stick to facts as much as possible.--Ragib 03:52, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ragib, your proposal sounds like a great plan to me. You have my full support. 00:01, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * See my comments to previous heading above. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 19:44, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Urdu name at the top of the box is wrong.&#1623;&#1623;
"جمحوریت" (Jamhooriyath) is wrong. The correct name is "Islami Jamhooriya-e-Pakistan". (I am putting the mistake down to someone trying to get it right in Arabic, when the langugage the name is in is Urdu). My keyboard is acting up a wee. I will put in the right one as soon as I can. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:43, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Edit Summary
There have been many edits in recent days without any summaries, and from anon users. Please leave edit summaries when editing pages. It takes a second to write a brief sentence, but benefits others as to why you made the edit. Also, please sign up for an account. Thanks. --Ragib 02:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Terrorism
Plz consider the fallowing passage:
 * "The women chosen by the BBC on its web page are special people... the common Saudi women are living a life beyond our imagination... Under the global pressure, if the Saudi regime is opening the doors of freedom of thought, speech and expression in that conservative society, it will not only benefit the common people but will nip the roots of terrorism around the world as well. We the common Muslims in Pakistan are directly affected by the traditional conservative policies of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian regimes... Both Saudi Arabia and Iran have been financially supporting their agents in Pakistan and thus sectarianism and terrorism has been nourished in our land. These terrorists never let us common Pakistani women to walk around freely and try to through acid on our faces or stop marathon races by force and they want to show us the model of Saudi Arabia and Iran... (Sick). If Saudi Arabia and Iran are motivated by the world community to be a part of the world community then the world can get rid of terrorism and extremism.


 * The Saudi man has all the privilege...they can have 4 wives at a time... many trips around the world, especially 'moral holidays' in the West but their women live a life less than human beings...it should change now!


 * Just 4000 princes (from the King to the police officer) of a family are ruling the poor Saudi people with tyranny and it is not only affecting them but every one in the region, especially in the Muslim world…


 * These things should be included in the main article of Wikipedia in a balanced way!"


 * The above message was posted by anonymous user from IP 203.82.48.54

Dear Anonymous poster, please sign your messages before you hit save. I also want to add that wikipedia is aimed at removing PoV, and your view seem quite extreme and quite full of PoV. An encyclopedia needs to be full of facts, not any sort of activism, rhetoric and racial/national bias. So, please stick to the facts and not any kind of opinions.

PS: I am not a Pakistani, but the above message is quite disgusting to any neutral person as well. Besides, it seems to be about Saudi Arabia and not about Pakistan ... more of a Islamophobic reaction. I just hope people become more tolerant of others. --Ragib 17:23, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the nature of misinformation about Pakistan
It is our common goal here to build articles about Pakistan that are neutral, well-informed and objective. In these times, however, much of what is said about about Pakistan is not neutral, well-informed, or objective. I am starting a section here to discuss the prevalent misinformation and possible remedies that may be adopted. Here is a very brief outline of the types of misinformation. This is intended only as a beginning. MartinGardnerFan 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uninformed, and unaware of it
Some of the contributers remind me of an article I read in the American Psychological Association's Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, titled Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments. Before anyone chews my head off for being insulting, let me say here that it is only mentioned here to provide objective evidence in support of something we all know: that people who are woefully uninformed are often also blissfully unaware of the depth of their deficit. (to be continued later) MartinGardnerFan 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sensationalism or "good news is no news"
(to be added) MartinGardnerFan 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sytematic bias - the demographics of the editors
(to be added) MartinGardnerFan 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misinformed by biased information sources
(to be added) MartinGardnerFan 17:00, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Commonwealth acknowledges democracy
User:24.126.17.155 commented in a recent edit, "No evidence that commonwealth acknowledges progress towards democracy."

Here's evidence:
 * 8. CMAG noted the adoption by Parliament of the Legal Framework Orders, thus bringing them into Pakistan's Constitution. The Group welcomed the progress made in restoring democracy and rebuilding democratic institutions in Pakistan as well as the restoration of the 1973 Constitution, as amended by the 17th Amendment, and decided therefore that Pakistan should no longer remain suspended from the Councils of the Commonwealth.

This user has made many changes, and I suspect his knowledge of the subject matter leaves much to be desired. 68.20.223.178 17:22, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan in the Middle Ages
User:24.126.17.155 changed the following,
 * Qalandars (wandering Sufi saints) from Central Asia preached a mystical form of Islam that appealed to the Buddhist population of Pakistan, and the orders they established gradually converted the majority of the population to Islam.

to the POV
 * Turkish, Afghan and Arab aggressors converted the majority of the Hindu population to Islam.

Let's discuss it. I'm restoring the original for now. Pakistanist 17:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Pakistan
in a recent edit, User:24.126.17.155 commented, "The claim that ancient pakistan was not Hindu is disputed at best." AFAIK, nobody here claimed that ancient pakistan was not Hindu before the Greco-Buddhist period, only that it was predominantly Buddhist from the Greco-Buddhist period to the early Middle Ages. There is an enormous weight of evidence to support the latter assertion. Pakistanist 18:17, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Greco-Buddhist period
User:24.126.17.155 deleted the history section titled, "Greco-Buddhist period" with the comment, "no evidence for any such time period." He's not adhering to the "make it better, don't delete it" rule. I've restored all his deletions. 68.20.35.67 06:33, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear User:24.126.17.155/User:Whiteking, I really want to understand your point of view. You said in your edit, "there is no evidence of any such period." Do you mean that you think there was no period of Greco-Buddhist syncretism in ancient Pakistan? Or are you disputing the historicity of specific events in the section. As far as I know, everything is supported by well-documented scholarship, but I have an open mind, and am willing to listen, and give due consideration to any differing point of view. Cogitor 17:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe History of India and Greece is well documented. There is no mention of Greco Buddhism in either of them. Historically some interaction took place during Alexander invasion but didn't last. There are proponents of this theory but not many. whiteking

Actually, the Greek script was still being used in ancient Pakistan several centuries after Alexander's conquest. The Greek influence was not short-lived. So I don't know what you mean by "didn't last." Quantiphile 11:40, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Whiteking, you reverted to a version more than 150 edits old, overwriting the hard work and good contributions of many editors, many unrelated to the Greco-Buddhist issue. Quantiphile 12:14, May 15, 2005 (UTC)


 * User:24.126.17.155 has re-deleted this information among others. Please finish the discussion here rather than deleting the information. I have restored it for the time being. ESkog 01:10, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs) -->'s lack of interest in discussing this matter is interesting. Also, the derogatory comments in the edit summary are unfortunate. Without being a party to any disputes (I'm not from, for or anti-Pakistan), I do think that wikipedia contributors from India or any other country would rise up against petty nationalism and value facts more rather than falling prey to rhetoric. Also, further blanking by the user 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs) --> should be reported to Vandalism in progress Page. --Ragib 01:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Technology and the Internet
User:24.126.17.155 deleted an entire section, "Technology and the Internet", without discussion here. I have restored the section. I think it is about 95% good, and only minor changes are required. Don't delete it, improve it. Pakistanist 19:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Recent Changes
I added a section, but someone removed that section citing possible flame war. Well, why don't we be civil and discuss it here? User IP: 24.126.17.155 has repeatedly removed some sections. While the objections may or may not be valid, there is no justification in removing sections without any discussion here. Over the last hour, User IP: 24.126.17.155 has reverted more than twice. Wikipedia has this little rule called 3RR rule which definitely prohibits more than 3 reverts on a single day by a user. I would again call for a discussion on this page about the disputed sections. Please come forward here instead of reverting again and again. Thanks. --Ragib 05:24, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would also request Whiteking to come discuss the whole thing here rather than leaving some objectionable remarks in the Vandalism in progress page. Come on, I am not commenting on authenticity or fallacy of the user's edits. I just want the user to follow proper procedures while editing. Discussing the edits can't hurt the user. Let truth stand out for itself. And please, please uphold the spirit of wikipedia. Thanks. --Ragib 06:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I want to suggest that this article be cleaned up, there is too much history on the front page of the article "Pakistan", it should be assimilated into the subpage of "History of Pakistan" so that it follows the template of other countries. DigiBullet 17:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technology section deletions
Hello iFaqeer, a user has repeatedly deleted sections of the Pakistan article, including a section largely written by you, "Technology and the Internet" with the (unjustified) comment, "needs to be rewritten since most of the information is incorrect." He has not responded positively to requests for discussion on Talk:Pakistan. User:Ragib has complained on the Vandalism in progress page. Can we talk about what to do next on the Talk:Pakistan page?
 * I didn't actually originate a lot of that; just edited to bring it closer to reality as I saw it. And I disagreed with most of the original content. That's why I didn't revert to bring it back--I thought maybe we could start afresh. &mdash;iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 20:35, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Blanking of sections, please show restraint
King1 (talk · contribs) blanked a section, I think such blanking needs to be justified more in the talk page before doing so. A brief comment in the Edit summary is really not enough to justify drastic blanking. I would revert the section, until the discussion is done on this from all sides. --Ragib 21:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Alright, but seemed reliable info. Any way lets discuss it here. King1 21:52, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Inaccurate info !!!
Seemed like a reliable independent source. Though it is 2-3 years old, its unlikely that it increased by 25 million in 2-3 years. So the claim that it is 30 million and hance is large is doubious. King1 22:04, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Pakistan is not 3rd largets country with english as official language. Brazil,India,US are larger in terms of population. In terms of area, US,IND,AUS,CAN are bigger.
 * Info about land area is inaccurate France+UK land areas > land area of Pak.
 * Middle class is <6.9 million according to www.farmfoundation.org/documents/ Ben-Senauerpaper2--10--3-13-03_000.pdf
 * GDP growth rate is 6.1% which is the official figure. (CIA world fact book). This was also on documents given to the journalists when Pakistani PM gave his speech declaring it to be 8% which seems odd.


 * Hmm, can you please check Brazil? It states that Brazil's official language is Portuguese. Also according to this, offical langauge of Brazil is portuguese. English is widely spoken.


 * In case of land area, please check List of countries by area. France's area is 547,030 sq km and United Kingdom's area is 244,820 sq km. Add that, you'd get 791,850 sq km. Check the entry for Pakistan there. 803,940 sq km. It;s about 12,090 sq km larger that France+UK combined. Unless Britain has drained of 12 K sq km of North sea, you information is definitely incorrect.


 * For middle class information, please consult Official Census of Pakistan. That should give you a solid info based on scientific data rather than any other sources.


 * I don't comment on GDP, I leave it to the Pakistani contributors to discuss on that.


 * In the end, please just don't go on deleting or blanking statistical information without citing valid sources. See how good the discussion makes you feel? We now have solid data and references, rather than data-to-please-pakistani's or data-to-please-Indians. Let the truth and statistical information prevail. Thanks. --Ragib 22:51, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Check CIA factbook for land areas. Land Areas: France 545,630 sq km, UK 241,590 sq km Pakistan :778,720 sq km Hence inaccuare to say land areas of france + UK < land area of Pakistan.

I didn't find any info on Official Census of Pakistan the site which says middle class is 30 million. Note that in the article, this middle class is said to have income > $8000. The site I mentioned defines middle class as with income $6000 and says it was less than 6.9 million.

Check CIA world fact book. Brazil has English as official language. We are not talking about national language. King1 23:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC) I take that back.;) King1 23:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

List of countries by area gives total area, not just land area. King1 23:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

According to total areas also, the info is inaccurate according to world fct book. If you compare areas to france/UK why not compare other things like economic and other indicators too? Seems very convenient to me. I think it would be totally fair if I add these comparisons in the article. Especially since non-technical audiance cannot comprehend the figures easily. So those comparisons should help too. Also lets to this for all asian countries. SamTr014 19:08, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Somebody removed references to the comparison of areas, which is good since the information was wrong. Now why not add comparisons of economies, society, techonlogy, military, etc.? I am all for comparisons since figures don't mean much to general audience. Pleople were supporting land comparisons, and nobody opposed it, so nobody should oppose these too. SamTr014 22:41, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Status of religious minorities and women
Inaccuracy & POV. A recent edit by Gandolf (talk · contribs) --> --> --> created a non-standard section, in which the preponderance of assertions are &dash; Appropriateness. The above issues aside, should something like this even be on the main page? The main pages for most countries don't talk about sensitive topics. The India page, for example, doesn't talk about the Gujarat massacre, or even mention ethnic and religous violence or the several seccesionist movements, or any crime whatsoever. Most unpleasant issues are simply avoided. I don't mean to offend any Indians by mentioning this. I simply want to raise the issue of whether we should look the main pages other countries as examples to be emulated here.
 * false, fabricated or inaccurate
 * prejudiced, biased, or non-neutral
 * unreferenced, unverifiable, or attributed to unnamed sources.

I have moved the non-standard section to the Domestic politics subsection on the same page. and divided it into Status of religious minorities and Status of women, and am using those titles for the purpose of organizing discussion here.AnalyticHistorian 19:34, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Status of religious minorities
The block of text inserted by Gandolf (talk · contribs) --> --> --> has numerous errors and prejudicial statements - For example, he says -
 * According to Pakistan Government census figures, the population of non-Muslim minorities in Pakistan has fallen from 18% of the population after Partition in 1947, to 0.1% today.

This is untrue, as even casual examination of the evidence shows. At the time of partition, large numbers of people moved both ways. East Pakistan had the vast majority of Pakistan's Hindus. When it seceded, Pakistan lost over nine-tenths of its Hindu population. In West Pakistan, the only Hindu-majority district was Tharparkar. When the Indian army withdrew from Tharparkar, it took most of the Hindu population with it. Today, religious minorities make up about 3% of the population of Pakistan, not 0.1% as Gandolf incorrectly states. He goes on to say,
 * According to reports, non-Muslim minorities, especially Hindus, are subject to kidnapping, extortion, robbery, and murder on a regular basis. A lot of Hindu families report that their daughters have been kidnapped, converted to Islam by force, and kept as wives or concubines by Pakistani Muslim men.

No authoritative source is quoted, or any source at all. AnalyticHistorian 19:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

The information should be kept since there is no reason mentioned to exclude it. The sources? there are many! Just google 'minorities in Pakistan'. These are authentic sources. SamTr014 22:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Excessive sectioning and information

 * Without agreeing or disagreeing on the content of the disputed section on status of minorities, I would like to point out that this section is not a part of the standard sections according to Wikiproject Countries. According to that, the main article on a country should include brief information, and should have the following sections:

-
 * Lead section


 * The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).


 * If the etymology of a country's name is too long to explain in the lead section, split it out into a separate section (titled "Name" or similar). Naming disputes can also be handled in separate sections.


 * Facts table


 * Next, there is a table with quick facts about the country. A template for the table can be found at the bottom of this page.


 * The contents are as follows:


 * The official full name of the country in the local language is to go on top as the caption. If there are several official names (languages), list all.
 * The name of the country as it is recognised by the majority of the English speaking world, should ideally be used for the name of the article.
 * A picture of the national flag. You can find flags at the List of flags. A smaller version should be included in the table itself, a larger-sized version in a page titled Flag of, linked to via the "In Detail" cell. Instead of two different images, use the autothumbnail function that wiki offers.
 * A picture of the national coat of arms. A good source is required for this, but not yet available. It should be no more than 125 pixels in width.
 * Below the flag and coat of arms is room for the national motto, often displayed on the coat of arms (with translation, if necessary).
 * The official language(s) of the country.
 * The political status. Specify if it is a sovereign state or a dependent territory.
 * The capital city, or cities. Explain the differences if there are multiple capital cities using a footnote (see example at the Netherlands).
 * If the data on the population is recent and reliable, add the largest city of the country.
 * Land area: The area of the country in sq km (km²) and the world-ranking of this country. Also add the % of water, which can be calculated from the data in the Geography article (make it Negligable if ~0%).
 * Population: The number of inhabitants and the world-ranking; also include a year for this estimate (should be 2000 for now, as that is the date of the ranking). For the population density you can use the numbers now available.
 * GDP: The amount of the gross domestic product on ppp base and the world ranking. also include the amount total and per head.
 * Currency; the name of the local currency. Use the pipe if the currency name is also used in other countries: dollar.
 * Time zone(s); the time zone or zones in which the country is relative to UTC
 * National anthem; the name of the National anthem and a link to the article about it.
 * Internet TLD; the top-level domain code for this country.
 * Calling Code; the international Calling Code used for dialing this country.


 * Sections


 * The rest of the article should consist of a few short paragraphs. These paragraphs should give an outline of the history/politics/etc. of the country and link to a full article on them. Many of the CIA World Factbook subpages can be used as a starter for these full articles.


 * The heading should look like:


 * == Politics ==
 * Main article: Politics of the Netherlands


 * The sections are:


 * History - A brief outline of the major events in the country's history (about 4 to 6 paragraphs should do), including at least a paragraph on the current events going on there. Link to "History of X".
 * Politics - Short overview of the current governmental system, possibly previous forms, some short notes on the parliament. Link to article "Politics of X", and also to "Foreign relations of X".
 * (Subdivisions) - Quick overview of the administrative subdivisions of the country. Name the section after the first level of subdivisions (e.g. provinces, states, departments, etc.) and give the English name. Also include overseas possesions. Link to "(subdivisions) of X". This section could also include an overview map of the country. The CIA World Factbook Maps could be used here, but other sources are available.
 * Geography - Quick description of the country's main features, climate, . Include link to "Geography of X".
 * Economy - Something brief about the country's economy, major industries, bit of economic history, major trade partners, a tad comparison etc. Link to "Economy of X".
 * Demographics - Mention the languages spoken, the major religions, some well known properties of the people of X, by which they are known. Link to article "Demographics of X".
 * Culture - Give a short summary of the country's specific forms of art (anything from painting to film) and its best known artists. Link to article "Culture of X".
 * Miscellaneous topics - a list of links to all the other topics closely related to the country. The four other default CIA subpages should be listed here (communications, transportation, military, foreign relations)
 * External links - Links to (official) websites about the country.

- In view of these standards, the current page on Pakistan is gradually becoming a big mess. This should be quick references, not almost a book length article. Sure Pakistan may or may not have persecuted religion X. But putting a huge section/many subsections on it would make this article unreadable. So, take the content and just start a new article titled "Status of Minorities in Pakistan" and put a reference to it in this article, possibly with a See also tag. Many countries of the world have done injustice in the name of religion, but messing up the main page of the country with a huge list of references just muddle the wikipedia. So, please discuss the possibility of moving content to a new article and cleaning up the politics section. --Ragib 01:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think removing or making these sections obscure is recommended. Pakistan has long history and has rich culture as said in the article. So obviously the article needs to have more content than the countries you mentioned. I strongly believe that the section on christians be maintained which gives a side of pakistani culture that is well known. There is no reason to hide it or move it since it is an integral part of Pakistani politics. Google "minorities in pakistan" and see how many hits you get. After doing google, I am in favor of making a separate section not just a subsection. SamTr014 02:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Which returns us to the subject of POV. I am not sure why you claim it to be an "integral" part of the culture. You can definitely mention the persecution on minorities in the politics, allot that a para, with a see also link to the minority-persecution article. I am really surprised to see the antagonism here, many other countries in the region has such problems, but that doesn't mean you make 20% of the main article on the country talking about that. And before you jump over to claim my pro-pakistani attitude, I'd like to point out that I am not from Pakistan, and my only intention is to restrain excessive clutter here. The strong belief you claim in the above paragraph is interesting, do you want the whole article to be filled with just one aspect? I'm sure minorities of Pakistan are not well treated, but making that a whole section here is not really a good idea, unless you want to make it a biased article. A country's profile needs brief information, and not just pages and pages of reports on its political activities. Wikipedia standards suggest (see above) making a separate article for that sort of content, and providing a link to it. There is no "hiding" of content in that way. And finally, please take a neutral attitude, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a campaign speech!!! So, I again call for moving the content to a new article and adding references to it instead of the plethora of sections/subsections cluttering the main article. --Ragib 02:27, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think you will find as many articles on google about ill treatment of muslims or any other minorities in Holland since you mention. On the other hand there is tons of informative articles on about the subject "minorities of Pakistan". What does it tell you? On the other hand there are hardly any articles about Technology in Pakistan. or IT industry in pakistan. or Internet in Pakistan. (The sections are full of misinformation by the way as pointed out by somebody).  So to sum it up, your accusation of my being biased is regrettable.
 * The sections should stay since it is widely known, veryfiable and a huge part of contemporary culture/politics in the country. I would not mind you 'cleaning up' IT internet economy sections.

SamTr014 02:54, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I suggest you take a cue from the article on India. That is a very good example of a top level country article. There are many accusations that can be found about persecution on minorities in India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. But putting a whole section on that topic in the top page is not done usually. See India for example. The article is clean, concise and points to references appropriately. I am just saying that what is the problem in following standards and putting the section in a separate article, as in the case of India? I also agree about the content of the IT section, which should also be moved elsewhere. In any case, your logic that Google returns X number of articles on subject Y doesnt mean you should put a section on it on the toplevel country page. Just to give an example, "religious persecution of minorities in India" returns 236,000 hits in google while "religious persecution of minorities in Pakistan" returns 151,000 hits. Do you see a big section on that topic in India? So, your logic on google hits is not valid in this case. Thanks. --Ragib 03:06, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't mind you doing whatever you want to India article, infact I may contribute too. I am not saying that google hits is a criteria. Did I say that? I said very clearly that it only indicates you which parts are important to the country and which are not. That should be clear to anybody.
 * SamTr014 03:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I have no intention whatsoever to add to the India article, because at its current state, it is in very good shape. My argument was that we should follow standards and not make exceptions just because google returns many hits on a topic. Right now the Pakistan article is in serious disarray. Put yourself into the shoes of a person who wants to get information on Pakistan and looks it up in wikipedia. Isn't the current page just too much of information? The history section is yet another part that has grown exponentially.... that too could be merged with the History of Pakistan article. I have no affiliation with India, Pakistan, Pro/Anti-India, Pro/Anti-Pakistan etc groups of people, my only concern here is that a top level article should have concise, brief info and not a huge section on every single topic that someone thought was important. And that's why I liked the India article, which gives brief overview on everything and redirects the user to go to other pages on different topics. That should be done in case of Pakistan too. --Ragib 03:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)


 * PS, you claim that Google hits show what is important to be in the first page. I can show that many other topics return more than a million hits in google, yet not mentioned in Pakistan. Look for "space aliens in Pakistan", you'd get 133,000 hits. Does that mean we should make a section titled "Space alien/UFO visits in Pakistan"? No way!! --Ragib 03:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Status of women
The block of text inserted by Gandolf (talk · contribs) --> --> --> has numerous errors and prejudicial statements - AnalyticHistorian 19:54, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Status of Christians
A section and block of text inserted by SamTr014 (talk · contribs) is POV and non-neutral, and contains factual errors, Factually inaccurate is the statement, "Christians account for 2.5% of the population" however, Census data, puts the percentage at 1.59%.

The following statement is non-NPOV and uses weasel words: "However, there have been numerous allegations that Christians in Pakistan have been subject to systematic persecution." 68.20.214.76 12:46, 23 May 2005 (UTC) No one is saying that Christians do not face challenges in a society that is over 96% Muslim. But there are no laws or policies whose purpose is to persecute Christians. The elite of the country is sympathetic to Christians, having been mostly educated in CHristian schools - both the President and the Prime Minister attended Christian schools and colleges. Most of Pakistan's nurses are Christian. The general population is not much aware of Christian-related issues, except when Christians are attacked by terrorists. When there was an attack on nurses in the northern Punjab, for example, there was a huge outpouring of sympathy from the local population there. Many thousands came to offer their condolences. People in Pakistan mostly have a fovorable view of these dedicated educationists and health workers, and because of them, Christians in general. That is why I would say there is no systematic persecution of Christians. 68.20.214.76 13:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Form of government
A recent edit by Gandolf (talk · contribs) --> --> --> has inserted statements that are inaccurate, prejudicial, POV, non-neutral. Even the true statements need context and perspective. I'll work on a revision later. If someone else wants to do it sooner, please go ahead. AnalyticHistorian 19:33, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Moving the status of religious minorities and women page to new
I am moving it to a new page and putting a reference to it in the Politics section. Right now, the issue has boiled down to the point that a large amount of material, unverified news etc are just copied off the web and being posted here. The whole article looks a huge mess, and needs to be cleaned up. Please comment on my proposal on moving the page here, (see also the discussion on this above). Thanks. --Ragib 07:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Material that is not just biased & inaccurate, but inflammatory hate-mongering as well, should be rapidly removed
As the recent Newsweek story illustrates, inflammatory material can have real-world effects. If it is something that tends to increase hatred and prejudice between groups, or serves as an incitement to "revenge" for real or imagined wrongs, then I think it should be removed first and discussed later. For many sensitive subjects, it takes time to put up a balanced and well-researched essay. Fabricating sensationalist hate speech, on the other hand, seem to come easily to many people. Often they can just copy it off the internet. Let's give the upper hand to goodwill, sound evidence, reasoned discourse, and civilized speech. 68.20.17.95 12:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, whoever removed the statements I added about he number of Christians in Pakistan, please explain this removal. I gave a range of figures, the census data and three sources for what I wrote. I may add that, under the circumstances, it would not be surprising if the census figures for the number of Christians were too low. DJ Clayworth 04:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's restate the figures and sources:


 * "The most recent census pegs the number of Christians in Pakistan at 2.09 million, while the community puts the total figure at four million. "
 * "There is no clear figure for the number of Christians in Pakistan. according to the country's church records, there are closer to 10 million."
 * "According to the most recent census, taken in 1998, an estimated 96 percent of the population are Muslim; 1.69 percent are Christian; 2.02 percent are Hindu; and 0.35 percent are “other” (including Ahmadis)." (that gives a figure of 2.41m) US department of state

DJ Clayworth 04:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The last statement is the most correct; the others are misleading. While there was some room for statistical error before, in the last few years, the government set up the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) and the numbers are much firmer. Everybody now has a National ID Card from NADRA, and in the application process, NADRA collects personal data, including religion. The most recent information should therefore be quite accurate. 68.20.31.13 13:03, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Copyrighted text
I had to remove the section on "Status of Christians". No, I have no opinions on the content's veracity. The text is copyrighted, and it was simply cut and pasted from a website. I have removed the text and listed the source in the copy vio tag, according to standard wikipedia copyright violation procedures (see copyvio). Thanks. --Ragib 06:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

You may as well remove the copyright tag if you remove the text, otherwise it doesn't make sense. DJ Clayworth 06:27, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the 'disputed section' tag on the 'persecution of Christians' section. The section reads, in entirety: ''According to the the most recent (1998) census conducted by the Government of Pakistan, Christians make up 1.59% of the population, or around 2.3 million people. Other estimates put the number higher. However, there have been numerous allegations that Christians in Pakistan have been subject to systematic persecution.''

There has been no indication on the talk page of how this might be disputed. DJ Clayworth 00:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The 'disputed' tag was placed there when there was a lot of copyrigthed and somewhat dubious content placed there. At the current state of it, the information there is confirmed fact, and I do not think there is much POV there except for the last sentence, which probably needs a few references. In any case, I think this small content of the subsection doesn't really deserve a subsection by itself and may be moved/merged with other sections. Thanks. --Ragib 01:30, 24 May 2005 (UTC)