Talk:Pakistan/Archive 14

Faisal Mosque
Shouldn't there be a picture of Faisal Mosque in this article? It is, I think one of the most notable features of Pakistan. --Inlandmamba (talk) 11:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We had those, but it was replaced with Badshahi Mosque in one section and with Lahore fort on the architecture section during the over haul. We added some pictures which rotate at the same place... maybe it can be added to rotate with one of these. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about rotating Faisal Mosque and Badshahi Mosque in the 'religion' section? Both mosques are notable (one is historical, while the other is modern and is a national symbol). Mar4d (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good with me... add a switch to it with any good image (didn't we add one before?). Though this will create some overlaping with adjusting content discussed in above section. Will have to do manual reverts to the POV then. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

✅. Added (in switch mode) a panorama to get some skyline. Replace image from Faisal Mosque if needed. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Question Does Pakistan have Freedom of panorama? Darkness Shines (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Freedom of panorama it does. Huon (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, that panorama of the mosque is really nice, it would have been a shame to lose it. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Bangladesh
Article makes no mention of Bangladesh genocide. Compare to Germany or Sudan. JCAla (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is regularly disputed content... it'll only make the article less stable for what it's worth. And I would oppose adding such content anyway disputing its merits of WP:UNDUE and how correct it already is in that article. This would be as bad as the above suggestion. -- lTopGunl (talk) 21:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Economic grievances and political dissent in East Pakistan led to violent political tension and military repression that escalated into a civil war." Already in the article. -- S M S  Talk 21:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that much is impartial enough and covers it (that article is linked too). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A democratic election and its results is not "political dissent" and scholars wouldn't simply describe the Holocaust as "military repression". Also, East Pakistan subsequently became a separate state. JCAla (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Secession is mentioned too. Military repression is a neutral word, actually an implying one. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 21:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "In 1971, the West Pakistan establishment refused to honour the results of the first ever democratic elections held since the independence of Pakistan in which the East Pakistan Awami League had won. The West Pakistan establishment's refusal to abide to the election results and further economic grievances let to calls for secession on the part of East Pakistan which West Pakistan tried to counter with military repression which escalated into a civil war. Forces fighting on the side of West Pakistan have been accused by many international scholars of committing a genocide in East Pakistan." That is what happened. JCAla (talk) 22:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weasel words like "establishment" and "many", a single POV on the genocide (which will even be more long in balance) and the redundancy are all undue. This is already covered currently in an impartial way. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, replace "establishment" with "military administrator and former president Khan, PPP and Jamaat-i Islami". Actually, the current version is not impartial but elusive. There is no such thing as a "single POV" with regards to the genocide, it's the majority description among the most reliable sources such as Time Magazine or The Guardian. But it's not really about the term "genocide", it's about describing more appropriately what happened there. You have more sentences for some Pakistani air planes involved in the Israel wars than for what happened in Bangladesh, back then Pakistan proper. JCAla (talk) 22:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with TopGun and SMSarmad that "military repression", while an euphemism, is evocative enough. I don't think anybody suggests the Pakistan Army tried to wage a campaign of extermination against the entire population of East Pakistan, so comparisons to the Holocaust are not appropriate. On the other hand, the Awami League's election victory should be mentioned as the catalyst for the military repression. How about "Economic grievances and political dissent following the East Pakistani Awami League's victory in the 1970 general election led to..."? Huon (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, mention of that would be appropriate. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We have this, both in the history and the lede, as due. There's no more weight left for it to include more details. The main article is linked... a reader can go to that to read about it, the country has much more to include in the main article than this. And then we'll need to all the atrocities during the partition of India first, which are actually more relevant to Pakistan than these what might be more suitable in Bangladesh article (that too just with a little more detail). What happened there can easily be termed under "military repression" which is not an apologia either. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I have added the Awami League electoral victory per my suggestion above. I have also reverted our coverage of the Bangladesh Liberation War in the lead. We link to the article anyway, but I believe the sentence reads better when not mentioning the war's name. It becomes rather redundant otherwise. Huon (talk) 23:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * @Huon, according to different genocide scholars there was a determination to find a solution to the "problem" that East Pakistan's population constituted a majority of 54 %. The West Pak military commander was quoted as saying that he'd kill 4 million people in 48 hours to find a "final" solution. JCAla (talk) 07:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't change content when you've already asked and got no consensus. Changing first is useful when you don't know if some one will oppose or not. Huon reverted your change on the term "armed conflict". Change that after discussion. Any changes related to secession should also be made after getting a consensus now that you know you are being opposed by three editors. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * JCAla, you are on 3RR now. You were reverted... it means the onus of discussion is on you. Don't editwar. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I restored the non-controversial changes which really are only a rephrasing of what Huon had agreed to. Huon didn't want the term "Bangladesh Liberation War" and replaced it with "armed conflict". "Civil war" (another term), however, is the right description, so it's a totally different term I introduced here. If you don't agree, we can take it to an impartial noticeboard. Rephrasing was more than necessary. JCAla (talk) 08:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The term is not a big deal, Houn reverted it, so he can reply to that... but the rephrasing was specifically opposed here. You say it is non controversial but you just added borderline content on what was just opposed above by three editors. I opposed more details + your changes. This is not NPOV and against consensus. There was only consensus for adding the name of the party and elections. The rest is extra detail with an implying tone. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the version without rephrasing is elusive and a gross mispresentation of what actually happened. You want to write Khan "faced a bitter civil war" when really he started it? Do you really think what was written represents the reliable sources? I think my rephrasing is actually quite mild compared to what is actually written in and by reliable sources:


 * "The genocide in Bangladesh caught the outside observers as well as the Bengali nationalists by surprise. After all, the Bengali nationalists were essentially waging a constitutional peaceful movements for democracy and autonomy. Their only crime, as U.S. Senator Edward Kennedy observed, appeared to have been to win an election. Perhaps, the main reason behind the atrocities was to terrorize the population into submission. The military commander in charge of the Dhaka operations reportedly claimed that he would kill four million people in 48 hours and thus have a "final" solution of the Bengali problem. .... But the reason behind the genocide were not simply to terrorize the people and punish them for resistance; there were also elements of racism in this act of genocide. The Pakistan army, consisting of mainly Punjabis and Pathans, had always looked on the Bengalis as racially inferior (a non-martial, physically weak race, not interested or able to serve in the army)."
 * (Teaching about genocide: issues, approaches, and resources by Samuel Totten pp. 147 ff)


 * "Pakistani Lieutenant-General A.A.K. Niazi referred to the Ganges river plain - home to the majority of Bengalis and the largest city, Dhaka, as a "low-lying land of low, lying people." According to R.J. Rummel, "Bengalis were often compared with monkeys and chickens. ... The [minority] Hindus among the Bengalis were as Jews to the Nazis: scum and vermin that [had] to be exterminated." [...] The spark for the conflagaration came in December 1970, with national elections held to pave the way for a transition from military rule. The [East Pakistan] Awami League won a crushing victory [...] This gave the League a majority in the Pakistani parliament as a whole, and the right to form the next government. West Pakistani rulers, led by General Yahya Khan, saw this as a direct threat to their power and interests. After negotiations failed to resolve the impasse, Khan met with four senior generals on February 22, 1971, and issued orders to annihilate the Awami League and its popular base. From the outset, they planned a campaign of genocide. "Kill three millon [Bengalis]," said Khan, " and the rest will eat out of our hands." On March 25, the genocide was launched. [...] Working from prepared lists, death squads roamed the streets. Perhaps 7,000 people died in a single night, 30,000 over the course of a week. The terror sparked an epic flight: "it was estimated that in April some thirty milllion people [!] were wandering helplessly across East Pakistan to escape the grasp of the military".
 * (Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction by Adam Jones)

JCAla (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * When it comes to POV, we take the consensus into consideration more than the sources... the detail is WP:UNDUE and WP:POV. West Pakistan was a single unit, you stated Punjabi rule or something? And this one is highly POV filled / cherry picked statement:
 * "After a Pakistani air attack on Indian military bases in India and subsequent Indian intervention in East Pakistan the war escalated into the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and ultimately to the secession of East Pakistan as the independent state of Bangladesh."
 * Why would Pakistan attack another country when it is facing civil war? There was a reason... it was a 'preemptive strike' as said by the sources related to the war as India was funding the liberation side, that is not mentioned. See the issues now? Another POV is "Instead they tried to impose West Pakistan's rule"... it was actually that elite's rule given that "West Pakistan" is still faces similar issues with military rule etc. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia, according to its policy, should reflect the majority position among reliable sources. And as of yet, there is no community consensus. This is the whole rephrased part as of now:


 * "In 1970, Pakistan held its first ever democratic elections since the independence of Pakistan which were meant to mark a transition from military rule to democracy. After the East Pakistan Awami League won a "crushing victory", Yahya Khan and the West Pakistan ruling elite, however, refused to hand over power. On March 25, 1971, West Pakistan's Armed Forces launched a full-scale operation targeting civilians in East Pakistan to impose the West Pakistan's military rule through military repression.  This escalated into a civil war known as the Bangladesh Liberation War.   The East Pakistan Bengali Mukti Bahini forces, receiving support from India, fought against the West Pakistani military. After a West Pakistani air attack on Indian military bases in India and subsequent Indian intervention in East Pakistan the war escalated into the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, and ultimately led to the secession of East Pakistan as the independent state of Bangladesh. "

Replaced West Pakistan with West Pakistan's military, and mentioned Indian support, which was actually because West Pakistan's forces and militias were conducting a genocide of Pakistani Bengali Hindus (as described in the sources above). JCAla (talk) 09:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How many editors opposing you will it take to convince you that you don't have to ram in the content. There's no consensus, you stated that yourself just now. That content is for the main articles where all aspects can be explained in detail. And the issues I raised are still unaddressed. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The number of deaths (at least the range) should be mentioned in the above paragraph. The death counts range from 1 million to 3 million by most sources, and that is a huge number by any means. --Ragib (talk) 09:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Are death tolls of world war II mentioned in country articles like USA, UK etc? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Did the US Army fight its own citizens in WWII? Did the United States lose half of its territory and more than half of its citizens to an independent country in WWII? Perhaps I slept in history class while these were being taught there? :). Jokes apart, the information is significant because Pakistan lost half of its territory and half+ of its population as a result of the war. And the genocide was unique in that unlike most other genocides, the Army was targeting the country's own citizens. Hard to find another such event in history. --Ragib (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was talking about number of deaths. The rest is uncalled for. And as SMS said, facts already have been mentioned. Total number of deaths from the civil war and 71 war combined can be mentioned probably. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 10:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * @TopGun, well, we can take the sources and the rephrasing and bring it to the noticeboards anytime. There is not really too much content in here. How come you think the first ever democratic elections are not notable? Also, I addressed your issues. Indian support is now mentioned. And it no longer says West Pakistan's rule but instead the military's rule which is the "elite" as you mentioned. BTW, Ragib is right. JCAla (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll wait for others to comment... but you've clearly been opposed on this. The burden is on you here to get a consensus to include the content. On a side note, the military forces were "Pakistani" and not "West Pakistani" (though they consisted of them, but it was Pakistan Army that fought the war). -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The genocidal campaign carried out against the people of Bangladesh warrants more than a line or two. Not only were 3million people killed there were 200,000 to 400,000 women raped. This is recognized under international as attempted genocide. I believe what JCAla has written needs to be expanded upon, not cut down. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For the record, an article on a country like India does not go into details of the notorious human rights abuses in the state of Jammu and Kashmir committed by law enforcement agencies (as reported in numerous international reliable sources; there are informative articles on some of these, check out Category:Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir). Applying the same rule, whatever is going to be added in this article should be added in consideration with WP:WEIGHT and WP:DUE. This means something that states the facts and is concise, so I don't agree with your idea of "expanding" it. Mar4d (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Some has already gotten in without due consensus. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not recall India declaring war on it's own people, carrying out a genocidal campaign, getting their asses handed to them and losing half of their country. There are a bit of a difference there really. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * RegentsPark's copy editing has made it much better now. I think this much is enough. Maybe fresh eyes on it from FAC will do some good. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's much too detailed: We have more on the events of 1970/71 than on the decades before or after, and that includes the war of 1965 which gets half a sentence. In this article we need not mention events such as the Pakistani air strikes against India or the name "Bangladesh Liberation War"; details of that kind are covered by links. Huon (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree to reverting to the stable version before this discussion started the one cited by SMS. I think that is covering it... a country article has much more content to cover. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

(od) I apologize. I've been editing the article but should have looked at this discussion first. My opinion is that the creation of Bangladesh is an important event, perhaps the single most important in Pakistan's history, and deserves more than a couple of lines, perhaps, but not necessarily, even a small section of its own. On the other hand, things like genocide and details of the repression in the East are best left to sub-articles. Other than that, I agree with Huon's comment above that the entire 'Republic' section is too long. --regentspark (comment) 16:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreement on section being too long and Support on reverting to stable version before this discussion started. September88 (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Opposed content reintroduced
Why has this been added? There's no consensus to add the genocide. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The content was never in the article in the first place, so it is not "REINTRODUCED". Further, I didn't mention the term genocide, which is a joke in itself and an act of censorship. But when up to three million people get deliberately killed, that deserves a mention like the user Rajib and DS also said. JCAla (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, reintroduced because your previous edits were weaseling around the same... only this one having a stronger POV. SMS, regentspark, me, Mar4d and Houn have specifically opposed this with good reasons here but you only seem to be counting the two editors that agree with you. This is your fifth revert today. You should self revert and try to get a consensus here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I repeat, the content was never in that article before - so it was not reintroduced. I won't even bother commenting on what you think are "reverts" which in fact aren't. I will also hold my tongue on your accusations of "weaseling" but advise you to keep this on content. These are internationally agreed numbers. Again, I offer everyone to take this issue to the boards. JCAla (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the content. I was referring to the WP:WEASEL words. It was not directed at you, it was for the content.... edits? Take a breath. You've been reverted by yet another user. Are you convinced now that you are being opposed and there's no consensus? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * JCLA what part of conciseness and not adding anymore material on controversial topics in previous discussions did you not understand? Especially without consensus. September88 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you guys are unable to discuss in a civil manner, please spare me the time. I rephrased (not impacting conciseness). And the notability of 3 million people killed I will introduce to the noticeboards if you can't keep the discussion on topic. JCAla (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

1) You added +402 text. This is not conciseness.

2) The edit is clearly pov issue, hence so many editors are debating on this and there were reverts.

So in order to avoid edit wars and conflicts lets be clear about this again. Discuss and get consensus here before adding anymore pov material, no matter how notable or neutral one editor personally think the material is. This is a fair, reasonable and useful suggestion that goes for all including me. Ok? September88 (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The +402 edit was about the casualties (which are notable) as I said above. The +12 characters (what is it? one-two words maybe) in the rephrasing edit are not something to be reverted based on the pretext of "conciseness". And kindly answer at only one subsection because otherwise it is all getting mixed up. Thank you. Unfortunately, many editors here very easily proclaim POV, but in the case of the casualty number, yes we can discuss here first. I think regentspark already addressed many issues appropriately however. JCAla (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hate to be broken record but my point is simply don't make pov edits without consensus. And if you want to nitpick, I said "conciseness" and "controversial material", +402 comes in conciseness and +12 in controversial material. Plus you shouldn't have made a separate section for me if you can't keep up because both subsections are about your similar edits. Anyway glad that you somewhat got the point about consensus. September88 (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If you want to "nitpick", then I have to tell you that your whole theory is flawed as the actual number of characters added by me where exactly +162 (the rest of the characters were part of the reference I provided) - what a threat to conciseness. And wow, what a pov issue when someone rephrases "The commencement of military rule was followed by a declaration of independence in the East on 26 March 1971 and Bengali Mukti Bahini forces, supported by India, began an armed struggle for independence." to "The East reacted with a declaration of independence on 26 March 1971 and Bengali Mukti Bahini forces, supported by India, began an armed struggle for independence in what became known as the Bangladesh Liberation War." The "peaceful demonstrations" are in the sources, the "civil unrest" isn't.


 * Also, you certainly meant to say, what you consider pov edits and controversial, right. And, no editors don't need to ask for permission from certain editors to edit articles, not even Pakistan-related ones. If there is discontent with the edits, then discussions take place (as it is the case here currently) and then consensus can be sorted out. So, thanks but no thanks, I got the point about consensus long before you even typed the word. Answering in the appropriate section in a chronological order should be a given so abandon the separate section name if it confuses you. JCAla (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

to September
Kindly keep to what is being said in and by the reliable sources and do not revert peaceful demonstrations to civil unrest. Reliable sources say the following:


 * "The genocide in Bangladesh caught the outside observers as well as the Bengali nationalists by surprise. After all, the Bengali nationalists were essentially waging a constitutional peaceful movements for democracy and autonomy."
 * (Teaching about genocide: issues, approaches, and resources by Samuel Totten pp. 147 ff)

JCAla (talk) 18:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That has POV issues. Stop beating the dead horse. If you have a suggestion or a reword, that might be some progress on this discussion. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah? What issues exactly? Do you have a source that backs up your claim? Still waiting for September to address this herself. JCAla (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See my reply in above topic. September88 (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That's your reply for changing the term "peaceful demonstrations" (as desribed by reliable sources) - actually a strike - into "civil unrest"? Are you sure you want to stick to the above as an answer? JCAla (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thats my reply to your +402 and +12 without consensus text additions and . Kindly don't give the false impression that you only changed a single word. September88 (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * This about the -12 revert only. The +402 were about the casualties as I said in the subsection above, and yes +12 chracters in rephrasing are not something to be reverted based on the pretext of "conciseness". And kindly answer at only one subsection because otherwise it is all getting mixed up. Thank you. JCAla (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the term 'genocide' or even the extent of what Pakistan did in Bangladesh belongs in this article, which is, after all a summary article about Pakistan. The correct place for all that is in Bangladesh Liberation War and various other Bangladesh related articles. Let's try to stick to the main points - that East Pakistan broke away, why it broke away, and that India was involved in the process. If there were international proceedings for war crimes or genocide against the country, that would be a different matter. But, I don't think that ever happened. --regentspark (comment) 19:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

With regards to my discussion with September, it is about this revert of her. Sources describe a peaceful strike and peaceful protest. That should be reflected and not replaced by civil unrest for which sources have yet to be presented. Also, the declaration of independence was a "reaction". So the minor rephrasing should be restored. What's your take, regents? JCAla (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're getting at. "Civil unrest" covers a lot of ground but does not include armed rebellion so do we really need to underscore things with a peaceful? Gandhi's various campaigns were, for example, a type of civil unrest. The declaration of independence was in reaction to military repression. The current phrasing is actually not quite accurate since military rule was in place for quite a while. Let me take another pass at it. --regentspark (comment) 20:03, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it needs clarification as the peaceful strike and peaceful protest are not really fitting into the common definition of civil unrest which is often associated with some sort of illegality. If it is desribed as "peaceful protest" why not use that term instead of putting it in some sort of unlucky category? Yes the declaration of independence was indeed in reaction to the military repression, and that should be pointed out as I did. Can you rephrase that more appropriately? JCAla (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for rephrasing, much more appropriate now. JCAla (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the strikes and protests were illegal :) which is why civil unrest is a valid term. I think we will need a very good reference if we are to use "peaceful protests" rather than "civil unrest". I've modified the text a little to better include the causality following the military operation and the included a specific reference to atrocities. More that that would be undue in this article.  --regentspark (comment) 20:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * How were they illegal when they were ordered by the then legally elected government. See above source which explicitly states the peaceful nature of the movement. Are you ok with my last minor rephrasing? I wrote "West Pakistan's elite" since it is controversial who was "Pakistan" (in the sense of the government) since the ones had the power but the other the legal election result. West Pakistan's elite is defined as military administrator Khan, the PPP, Jaamat-i Islami and military generals. JCAla (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to revert the second edit of yours for a couple of reasons. First, it is not West Pakistan elite but the legitimate government of Pakistan that ordered the military operation. Negotiations were ongoing between Mujibur Rehman, Bhutto, and Yahya Khan as to what sort of government would finally rule but the body that ordered the military operation was a legitimate government. The fact that it was controlled by West Pakistani 'elite' is included in the previous sentence. Second, military rule was already in effect in both East and West Pakistan therefore the purpose was not to impose military rule. The purpose of the military operation was to end the unrest and to take complete control of the province. --regentspark (comment) 20:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it was no longer the legal government, as the elections had given the Awami League the right to form a government. Repression of legal democratic results is not legal. How about "to maintain military rule" as a compromise? JCAla (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The Awami League may have been the moral government of the country but they were not the legal government because they were not allowed to take power. The legal government of Pakistan was still the one headed by Yahya Khan. (A parallel is the NLD party which won the 1990 elections in Burma but never formed a legal government.) That makes the protests technically illegal, though for the wrong reasons. Which is why you can't say West Pakistan elite either since these decisions came from what was the legitimate (and recognized) government of Pakistan. --regentspark (comment) 20:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't agree. Legal maybe a topic of discussion but legitimate is truly wrong. As for the other points ... can you agree that it should say "to maintain military rule"? And the source above explicitly says "peaceful". So it should at least be "peaceful civil unrest" although that sounds quite strange, better "peaceful protest and strike" - abiding to what the sources write. Samuel Totten i. e. explicitly writes "constitutional, peaceful movement". JCAla (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the context of governments, legitimate means recognized. In the Pakistan case, the government continued to be recognized internationally and it was actively negotiating a transfer of power with Mujibur Rehman (though probably not in good faith as later events show). Using 'West Pakistan elite' indicates that there was a breakdown in the government, which was not the case. There is almost no question of it being less than legitimate. I believe 'civil unrest' is the correct term here because it covers strikes and work stoppages which were the dominant characteristic of the protests in Bangladesh but why don't we let others weigh in on that. Bear in mind that the section is already way too long, so concise terms will be preferable. --regentspark (comment) 21:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

@ regentspark, thanks for trying to keep article neutral. As its past midnight here, I'll review the subsection again tomorrow or so and comes with reliable sources to further discuss and rephrase atrocities and so part of it, if deemed necessary for further balance to me. Cheers. September88 (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Casualties
I have severe doubts about the casualty figures. Firstly, I don't think we should mention casualty numbers at all in this article. There is a wide range of estimates, and explaining that range would be undue weight (also per regentspark: The casualties are much more relevant to Bangladesh than to Pakistan). Even the high estimates are on the low end of the spectrum of civil war casualties given in country articles (compare for example China, which gives casualty figures for some (civil) wars and omits them for others). Secondly, the numbers given by JCAla seem lopsided. He gives the casualties as 1 to 3 millions when the Bangladesh Liberation War article has a reference which collects various estimates from 269,000 to 3 million. The number of refugees is even worse: 30 million is more than 40% of the entire population of Bangladesh in 1971. The Liberation War article once again points to an entire list of estimates ranging from 8 to 12 million (and Pakistan's claim of less than 3 million). If we should give casualty figures at all, we should follow the sources given at the Liberation War article and not use JCAla's inflated estimates. Huon (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These are not my estimates, these are the estimates of the reliable and academic sources given. Whether the sources cited at the other wikipedia article are truly reliable needs to be yet determined. With regards to the refugees 8 to 10 million is the number of refugees fleeing to other countries, 30 million is the number for internal refugees according to leading scholars Totten and Rummel. JCAla (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Had a look at some used at the wikipedia article. Far from anything close to reliable. You want to abide to sources such as this one, Huon? JCAla (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. That link redirects to this website which in turn provides references such as these:
 * Obermeyer, Ziad. "Fifty Years of Violent War Deaths from Vietnam to Bosnia." British Medical Journal (2008), estimate 269,000.
 * The World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators by Charles Lewis Taylor, estimate 307,013.
 * Small, Melvin & Joel David Singer, Resort to Arms : International and Civil Wars 1816-1980 (1982), estimate 500,000.
 * Obermeyer actually underwent peer review, unlike most other references. When estimates differ this much, providing a range of estimates as that website does seems much better than pointing to any single one. Regarding the refugees, the number of 8 to 12 million is actually from Rummel's book, Statistics of democide: genocide and mass murder since 1900 (p. 162). All I found by Totten only mentions the 10 million refugees to India, too. I could not find a reference supporting the 30 million number. Huon (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Necrometics is run by a librarian, it is not a reliable source. The World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators Which issue? This has been in print since 1963. Rummel's book is not peer reviewed and his figures and methods are heavily critiqued. I will look at Obermeyer now, majority of sources I have read on this say 3million killed. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Obermeyer says Overall, we think that the estimates presented here should be viewed as conservative Hardly a good sold number then. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

It says "thirty million" internal refugees (it means they were wandering inside East Pakistan) in the source I already provided further above in another subsection of this topic. The ten million is for those who fled to India. Adam Jones is the author of the leading textbook in the field. See the quantity of academic reviews he received here. Will check your sources with regards to the casualty numbers. JCAla (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "The terror sparked an epic flight: "it was estimated that in April some thirty milllion people [!] were wandering helplessly across East Pakistan to escape the grasp of the military". (Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction by Adam Jones)
 * There are no shortage of sources which say 30 million were displaced, Century of genocide: critical essays and eyewitness accounts p245 Teaching about genocide: issues, approaches, and resources p143 Defining the horrific: readings on genocide and Holocaust in the 20th century p287 Field administration and rural development in Bangladesh p116 Undermining development: the absence of power among local NGOs in Africa p39 Darkness Shines (talk) 10:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this very reliable source provides an informative and accurate oversight over all the major sources. It is run by the leading scholar Adam Jones:


 * "The number of dead in Bangladesh in 1971 was almost certainly well into seven figures. It was one of the worst genocides of the World War II era, outstripping Rwanda (800,000 killed) and probably surpassing even Indonesia (1 million to 1.5 million killed in 1965-66)."

Even Rummel writes:
 * "Some estimates of the democide [Rummel's "death by government"] are much lower -- one is of 300,000 dead -- but most range from 1 million to 3 million."

JCAla (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "For month after month in all the regions of East Pakistan the massacres went on," writes Robert Payne. "They were not the small casual killings of young officers who wanted to demonstrate their efficiency, but organized massacres conducted by sophisticated staff officers, who knew exactly what they were doing. ... Not since Hitler invaded Russia had there been so vast a massacre." (Payne, Massacre, p. 29.) There is no doubt that the mass killing in Bangladesh was among the most carefully and centrally planned of modern genocides. A cabal of five Pakistani generals orchestrated the events: President Yahya Khan, General Tikka Khan, chief of staff General Pirzada, security chief General Umar Khan, and intelligence chief General Akbar Khan."

Overlinking/incorrect linking
"The targeting of civilians and other atrocities during this operation led to..." ← The sentence has some overlinking (FAC review suggests to remove any overlinking Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1)... the current link from "atrocities" should be removed which is pointing to the wrong article and the wikilink from "civilians" should be moved to "atrocities" which points to the right article. Watch for other repeated links too. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's overlinked. Also, as a friendly hint, you might have noticed that you are in violation of your IBAN as the content and links you are referring to were added by Darkness Shines. JCAla (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, there's no ban on discussing content - has brought that up once and been explained to. I have not referred to anything including actions or edits. I said the sentence is overlinked currently in the article. Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War is not discussed anywhere in the article. Wrong wikilink. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not sure, but I think you two shall not react to each other or to each others edits. You are reacting to DS's edit and just termed his inclusion of the wikilink to Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War as WP:COATRACK. Just saying. Rape is a form of atrocity. JCAla (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We both know it's wrongly placed.. there's already an article for atrocities. Saying "Rape is a form of atrocity" is not a justification for wikilinking that article to the word atrocities. I know the IBAN limits... IBANs are only for interaction, not content. And this is not a reaction, I'm an active participant of FAC, so let's stick to the content and not waste time and effort over the useless. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree on the overlinking. The rape article should be a subtopic of the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities article, and we need not link to both. Rather obviously the link at "atrocities" should point to the atrocities article. Linking "civilians" serves comparatively little purpose. Huon (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely what I meant. It already is a subtopic of that article. Just these links needs fixing. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Who removed this internal? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody, as of yet. TopGun reacted on your inclusion of the wikilink Rape during the Bangladesh Liberation War to "atrocities" and asked it to be removed and to instead move the wikilink "1971 Bangladesh atrocities" from "civilians" to "atrocities". Now you, of course, want to react to the reaction to your inclusion. As I pointed out to TopGun above, it's an unlucky situation with regards to your IBAN. Remember what happened last time and if you have possible doubts what to do ask an admin you trust before you do it. JCAla (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * JCAla, here is a proper explanation by ANI on this. So please stop implying this as a reaction. Everyone is free to discuss any content regardless. It is being done at many other articles without any objection. You can read WP:IBAN and then this thread at ANI about this. Stop dragging me into this. If you have issues based on its own merits then present them here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, in your link I can't find where Pseudof says anything close to what you insinuate. I see you directly asking for the removal of a link added by Darkness Shines. Look, I don't really care, but I review DS's article and want to continue working on it with him, but you reacting might provoke a reaction which might lead to blocks which is disturbing the review and work on other articles. JCAla (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See the discussion on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment and other such articles, content added by me is still being discussed. It is not a ban violation to discuss any content in the article. And it is not even remotely related to other article reviews although when you started this section right after I nominated for FAC, there's been some hindrance here. I will not comment further on the IBAN discussion because it is hindering the original content discussion here, which is disruptive. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * These links have yet to be fixed, some body please fix the linking. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:01, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Since no one explained why "atrocities" should not link to the atrocities article and why we needed a separate link to the rape sub-article, I have changed that. Huon (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Marked this as resolved as now it points to the atrocities article. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 22:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan has been characterized as "failed state" from last 4 years
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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.
 * The result of the discussion was that this particular fact does not belong in this article. Listing it in a subsidiary article, along with the criticisms of the rating, however, would probably enjoy consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan has been characterized as a failed state and has ranked number 12 on a list of the “Most Failed States”, according to an 2011 annual report published in the Foreign Policy Magazine. In both 2009 and 2010, Pakistan took the number 10 spot on this index, whereas in 2008 it was ranked number nine. references: 1) http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/17/2011_failed_states_index_interactive_map_and_rankings 2)  http://tribune.com.pk/story/193321/pakistan-ranks-12th-on-failed-states-index-report/

if anyone is still having some doubts, feel free to discuss here.

--Morsecoder (talk) 12:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Morsecoder (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * It should be mentioned, there are quite a few hits on both Gnews & Gbooks for this. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a WP:WEIGHT issue. There is no mainstream consensus on this to warrant inclusion in the WP:LEAD. However, if the report by Foreign Policy has been covered by other sources deemed WP:RS, this claim can be inserted into an appropriate section of the article. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  12:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't think this can be added here, adding a report by an American magazine about failed states is some thing completely undue to be mentioned in a country article. I don't think such reports are even being mentioned in war affected countries. It would still need proper discussion before adding it to an article about such a discussion about Pakistan. Please do not edit war to add this to the article, you are on the brink of WP:3RR. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think this finds a place here; it would have been a different case if an overwhelmingly large number of sources mentioned this, but a single report..I don't think so.  Lynch 7  13:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets see shall we, Seems to have been mentioned a great deal worldwide. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of them related to the same report. Mention in the lead? Definitely not. Somewhere else? Has a better chance IMO.  Lynch 7  13:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was not of the opinion it belongs in the lede. Bit it certainly warrants a mention in the article. In fact a news search for "Pakistan"+ "failed state" gets you 3,970 hits. And 2,660 on books. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There is even an entire book from Yale University Press on it The search for peace in Afghanistan: from buffer state to failed state Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To back MikeLynch's point, "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the AP. Each single story must only count as being one source." from WP:NEWSORG. As far as the book is concerned, it is not the majority view either. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the reported news stories are not simply re-publications, but independent analyses and reports. I think this may warrant a mention in the article, but that should be done while clearly specifying the "Foreign Policy" report and also the fact that this report has been disputed or critiqued (with sources).  The weight of this assertion has to be carefully considered and should not be more than one sentence, in my opinion. (See also: List of countries by Failed States Index) —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That should be a good compromise.  Lynch 7  13:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree, probably best placed in the Modern era section. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, here we go. It already has been mentioned where it belonged. To mention here we don't only have to see that List of countries by Failed States Index is a dedicated article for this purpose and as such comes lower in hierarchy of coverage if we consider that (so the content already has due coverage) but also that is this index being mentioned in all the country articles? (esp. the top 20 or so?) Don't think so. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Somalia actually has it in the lede. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That will be something like a reiteration of 3 previous sections started by you. Comparing with Somalia? Do you see there's a marked difference? I remember this point being raised by you and rebutted before by another editor. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. The list is a main article documenting research by two different organizations (Foreign Policy and the other is the reputable Fund for Peace). At the same time, pertinent content can also be included in the article on the subject of their works (which is Pakistan, in this case), while keeping WP:WEIGHT issues in consideration. Other countries may or may not receive attention due to these works because they don't figure in the extremes of their report. So, due consideration to WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS is required at all times. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  13:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A mere observation The person who inserted this piece of information into the lead also seems to have edited many India-related articles. Considering the fact that this is not the first time a "failed states" mentioning proposal has been put forward on this talk page, and also considering the fact that whenever these proposals do come around, they always tend to have a connection to this particular part of the world, I hear a rather loud deafening voice in my ears screaming out "conflict of interest!" :) Mar4d (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest? :) I wouldn't be so quick to judge. An Indian editing Pakistani articles (who also edits Indian articles) should not be immediately deemed to have a COI. Let's be a bit rational here and keep this on topic.  Lynch 7  14:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We might have to set up an FAQ subpage under this talk soon for recurring rejected proposals. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * On a side note and more on-topic, I think the failed states list is more relevant to perhaps Foreign relations of Pakistan article. Mar4d (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I see four people saying this warrants a line in the article, why are you calling it a failed propsal? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Something like WP:NOTVOTE? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Something which has been mentioned in multiple reliable sources warrants a line in the article, as it is WP:NOTABLE. apart from the fact you do not like it what rational do you have against it;s inclusion? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've given my reasons above. Let's stay away from assuming rationale of others. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If this line is included, it should be brief, accompanied by any critique of the report; that way, it will be neutral.  Lynch 7  14:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think every one agrees with that (incase it is included), but the dispute seems to be about inclusion in the first place. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Listing out previous discussions on the subject for context: — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk:Pakistan/Archive 8
 * Talk:Pakistan/Archive 13
 * Talk:Pakistan/Archive 12
 * As the above archives show, this topic is clearly controversial and has been discussed passionately at length by many other editors (both supporting and opposing). It is also noteworthy to point out that no overwhelming consensus was achieved at the end of any of these threads despite the lengthy discussions that took place. An obvious point of contention is that if it is WP:DUE to make a mention of the 'failed state' index in this article at all. I am inclined to believe that two or three editors do not make a consensus (if that's what is happening here) and that taking a look at the old archives, many other people would still have diverse opinions and views of this subject. I would recommend calling in an RfC for this topic to get more input from different people and perhaps notify other editors who edit articles pertaining to Pakistan (or have expertise/are knowledgeable in this area) and listen in to what they may have to say about including this information in the article. This is required to form a consensus. Mar4d (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. I am starting an RfC here.  Lynch 7  14:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There has been discussion on whether mentioning of Pakistan as a "failed state" is undue. Past discussions show one prominent report that describes it as such. Prior discussions have been inconclusive, and the issue is up for discussion again.  Lynch 7  15:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Link to Index: Failed States Index 2011 - Foreign Policy
 * Links to coverage:, , , , ,


 * Why are there sources presented that don't even have the word "Pakistan" in it, I.e. aljazeera.com, www.isn.ethz.ch and the two German one's? And why the "Failed States Index 2011" article when it doesn't mention Pakistan either?TMCk (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Some editors were of the opinion that the failed states index were not notable, the links were given to show it was widely cited Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying, My response here for not cluttering up the heading.TMCk (talk) 05:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support Per my sources in the section above. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Support mentioning it in the "modern era" section. Not important enough to be mentioned in the lead. A single sentence should suffice. Huon (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Whether it merits mention in the lede is disputable. However, it is an issue which clearly needs mention in the article, as does its perception as a terrorist state and global attitudes towards Pakistan. There is a great need for a section on foreign relations of Pakistan since Indepence, keeping in mind its affiliation with SEATO, CENTO, Islamic nations, China, War on Terror etc. The perceptions can come in this section too. AshLin (talk) 16:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Conditional support First of all, this definitely does not belong anywhere close to the lead. Public perception of a failed state is Somalia, and as noted in this conversation that is an extreme to which Pakistan, and in fact no other nation, is quite comparable to. That would be highly undue. I would also think it incorrect to state somewhere "Pakistan is a failed state", or something similar. A blatant statement of fact is probably incorrect, as even the index describes each case. What I would support is somewhere in the article "This factor is like so and this factor is like so, and due to this Pakistan has been noted by Foreign Policy journal to almost be a failed state." I don't think its position in a list should be given, as that depends as much on other countries as it does on Pakistan, and at least for the past four years Pakistan has not slipped downwards. Note that Pakistan is not at a Somalia level. CMD (talk) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support It should be included in the article. Eventhough some of the natives of that country are arguing for non inclusion but due to dozens of references and support, this fact cannot be neglected under any conditions and is worth mentioning in the intro of the article. --Morsecoder (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC) — Morsecoder (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. #Support kinda Undue in the lede. Necessary in the body. Hipocrite (talk) 14:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak support - Lead is undue. It seems like it is at least a notable minority view point and should be given brief mention that ''an organization lists it #12 on its failed state index (keep in mind that every country is on the list).Gsonnenf (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: "Sherepunjab" and "Gabrupunjabi" are the same person. See Sockpuppet investigations/Sherepunjab. Mar4d (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: I've removed two more confirmed sock comments from and  posted in this revision . Interestingly both these and the above mentioned socks are all confirmed socks of  (the initiator of this topic who was trying to editwar this content into the article). A detailed report can be seen here: Sockpuppet investigations/Morsecoder. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose Per my comments in the section below. Having looked at past discussions in the archives, I think this is a complex matter and as such is not WP:DUE for this article. It may be worth having WP:WEIGHT on the Foreign relations of Pakistan article. There are too many reasons that can be debated upon why this is not appropriate, though I believe two particular arguments are that this has too much of WP:RECENTISM (just back in 2005, this same list was ranking Pakistan at 34th position. It is therefore accurate to say that the latest rankings are taking into account events only in the recent five or six years). And secondly, there is ample WP:RS coverage which is critical of this index's assessment of Pakistan (for various reasons), suggesting in many cases how Pakistan being featured on this list is something to be taken with a pinch of salt. I would be willing to put up some of those sources and works over here (which are a mix of both Pakistani and foreign authors), whenever I get the opportunity to buy time. Mar4d (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: This already has due coverage in the dedicated article, List of countries by Failed States Index. As such this is not relevant to this article per WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. Other country articles (top 20 on the list or so?) also do not include mention of this index or any such thing. An example given of Somalia by a user is self explanatory about how extreme the case has to be for this to be mentioned. This is highly controversial while not as much notable to get enough weight in the main country article. Also, republications of the same report should not count as 'more' references which would be against WP:NEWSORG. Edit war and aggressive behaviour by the adding user also raises a red flag (not to mention it proves it only invites more editwar). This should go into a sub article, may be to the foreign relations article for Pakistan (to make it topical of which countries do such reports come from). This reference mentioned by the adding User:Morsecoder itself states this in context to foreign relations (especially with USA) and we should not apply any WP:SYNTH here to strip the context. Coming to the analytical side, details of why Pakistan is claimed to be a failed state (or even suggested to be one) are not provided by the user adding content (or any other supporting users) and then we'll be having grounds for adding the index and the report's analysis to all the other country articles? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Very contentious label. The salient criteria to Pakistan may be mentioned in the lead, but not the term itself. In fact, the lead already says: "Since gaining independence, Pakistan's history has been characterised by periods of military rule, political instability and conflicts with neighbouring India. The country continues to face challenging problems including terrorism, poverty, illiteracy and corruption." So, I don't see what would be added by the addition of the "failed state" pejorative. Shrigley (talk) 16:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose The usual criteria points for calling a country a failed state are already well written in the article. If some points related to this criteria are not present they can be added but calling a country failed state will be undue. And I would like to quote some text from Fund for Peace's report on Pakistan (2011) based on this Index (this index was also created by FFP) to show how much research they did for calling Pakistan 12th most failed state:
 * Former President Musharraf declared rule by martial law in 2007, and this is yet to be rescinded by current President Zardari., Fund for Peace, Country Profile Pakistan
 * Pakistan is transitioning back to democracy after nearly twenty years of military and authoritarian rule by former President Musharraf., Fund for Peace,Country Profile Pakistan
 * Furthermore the mechanism for finding this index ranking is dubious itself as it is based on a software which processes news items to find this. And no source is presented by the publisher and FFP for the news sources, so reliability of these news items is also questionable.-- S M S  Talk 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose I think a link to this report could have been provided in the RFC question, however assuming it's a single report, even if produced by a reliable source, doesn't make the mention notable enough to mention in the country article, IMO. I might change my opinion if I saw the report. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC) Edit: Having now seen the report and coverage, I think that the challenges that were the reason Pakistan wound up number 12 on that list should be discussed in the article, but I'm not sure the term "failed state" needs to be used explicitly. The list doesn't seem to mention, how low the rank needs to be in order for the state to be "failed" so rather than labeling Pakistan "failed", it looks like what the list does is highlight problems Pakistan is experiencing. --Dailycare (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) oppose controversial, contentious and undue.--  altetendekrabbe   21:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose The term is too loaded to apply to a country for which it's not clearly true, and it's obvious from this discussion that it's controversial and not consensus. The criteria which the sources used to call it "failed" seem vague and arbitrary.  --Sam (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE and WP:RECENTISM. To expand a little, lead already signifies the problems that country is facing overall, illiteracy, poverty, terrorism etc, which have been expanded in the body as well, so now on basis of balance adding such a controversial term which is clearly making way for npv issues and has no clear consensus is unnecessary. September88 (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I am responding to a request for comment and have not previously edited this article. It seems to me that the term failed state is both a new term and also a political comment.  I do not think that political comment should appear on the pape for a country,i.e. Pakistan.  I have come across the blog of William Easterly, Professor of Economics at New York University where discusses the failed state concept. http://aidwatchers.com/2010/01/top-5-reasons-why-%E2%80%9Cfailed-state%E2%80%9D-is-a-failed-concept/  Rather than deciding whether to use the term it might be useful to describe the more relevant factors such as infant mortality over time, inflation over time, GDP over time and whether there is cicvil war. Isthisuseful (talk) 10:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Belongs in an article on the politics of Pakistan, not on the country article. Pseudofusulina (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose per WP:SNOW. Given the active editors committed to pro-Pakistan position (I don't judge on its grounds, just declare the fact) this is not going to happen; thus I see no sense in arguing over neutrality of the statement. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Pseudofusulina and others above. To avoid overweighting the recent, this belongs in a subsidiary article. Tom Harrison Talk 15:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Extended discussion
Response to Mar4d: Recent-ism will not really work here. Discussion of Pakistan as a failed or failing state has been ongoing for years. Barnett Rubin (1995) The Search for Peace in Afghanistan: From Buffer State to Failed State Yale University Press ISBN 978-0300063769 Darkness Shines (talk) 15:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The book you mention above (The Search for Peace in Afghanistan: From Buffer State to Failed State) seems to be about Afghanistan, which being called a failed state in 1995 wouldn't be a stretch in my opinion. The index listing of Pakistan is relatively recentism. Mar4d (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had that one open as well. I ought to have put Stuart Elden(2009) Terror and Territory: The Spatial Extent of Sovereignty University of Minnesota Press ISBN 978-0816654840 The point of course being that it has been discussed for quite some time, and as such really needs a line in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * (Sigh) A book published in 2009 is not "quite some time" ago. This really has WP:RECENTISM written all over it in big capital letters, from top to bottom. Mar4d (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So for at least three years people have been discussing Pakistan as a failed state and you say this is recent? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to TopGun: Tg says Also, republications of the same report should not count as 'more' references which would be against WP:NEWSORG. It has already been pointed out to him by NHN To be fair, the reported news stories are not simply re-publications, but independent analyses and reports. So this rational is flawed. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I did not say which references my comment referred to, so your response is loosely aimed. It only points to the ones which are or would be republications. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to TopGun: This has coverage in Failed State but in one of the most disputed of failed state candidates, it is pertinent to have a brief mention, with proper referencing, neutrally worded etc. AshLin (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It already has been as mentioned in terms of actual issues by Shrigley. Which is an excellent point, since those are the point of focus for a country. This index and such reports do not belong here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Shrigley: Agreed to its not appearing in the lede, but why should the term not come up in the main text, properly referenced, weighted correctly in neutral language? AshLin (talk) 16:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it comes up in the context of international perceptions of Pakistan, as you suggested, then it's fine. But Wikipedia itself should not judge Pakistan to be a "failed state". Shrigley (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Pakistan is not a failed state (at least not yet) but the term recurs in relation to Pakistan in academic literature and a brief, NOPV, reliably referenced mention would be suitably encyclopedic. AshLin (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "International perceptions of Pakistan" would then mean foreign relations... hence that article would be the place to add it terming it as perceptions of so and so. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * By your own logic, anything presented in the international media or foreign press about the state of Pakistan would qualify for the article on its foreign relations and not Pakistan? — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  16:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said in my oppose comment, we should not strip the context out of it. The reference is talking all about its relations and how, for example US, perceives Pakistan's condition. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Two general comments on the proper location of this information: Firstly, I don't see why the foreign relations article should be considered a good location for such information. Pakistan is not considered a failed state because its foreign relations are so bad, but because of its domestic problems. Secondly, while it should of course be mentioned in the list of countries by Failed States Index, that does not preclude mention in this article. Otherwise, it would be rather well-hidden. On the other hand, TopGun's argument from precedent is somewhat persuasive; for all I can tell, only Somalia and Chad, nos. 1 and 2 by Failed State Index, mention it in the articles. Huon (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I hear you, Huon. It's true that Chad and Somalia are the only two countries on which this term features, but at the same time, the question is not why it only appears on Chad and Somalia articles, but whether Pakistan was a subject of significant coverage by independent and reliable sources that would qualify such claims to appear on the Pakistan article? — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  16:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the point about the foreign relations was not because of the foreign relations being bad but about how other countries perceive Pakistan's condition on the issues it is facing. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 16:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing the old discussions you listed, a point raised there is worth a re-mention that this will also make grounds for things like state terrorism accusations in other country articles, especially the contentious event related ones like USA. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There again, it will be an issue of WP:WEIGHT. I am still sitting on the fence for this one, and will make a decision based on the representations made here in sometime. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  20:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Precisely the point I wanted to make about WP:WEIGHT. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Morsecoder: Your claimed 'dozens' of references are not what are being rejected here. You seem to be making it a simple question of whether you provided reliable sources or not. Your sources do not constitute a majority view, or even a minority view due enough to be added to the country article. For the prejudice you made in your comment, Mar4d has put forward an equally suitable one for you in the main section referring to COI. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 18:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to TopGun:Please select your words carefully, it's not a prejudice, it's a well known and well published fact. And by dozens of references, i was refering to the references given by the supporters of this fact. For your reference, i am giving the links again.But next time i expect some decency and politeness from your side. --Morsecoder (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Read my comment again and then read WP:BATTLE. The prejudice I referred to was the one you took against opposing users. Don't think you get my point here. Adding more and more references isn't the problem. It is who these views are coming from. Certainly not a majority view. And I think you can hardly prove it to be a minority view enough for a mention. We have millions of sources that accuse USA of terrorism on different accounts, do they get to go in to the country article? See WP:COATRACK. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to SMS: Thanks for point out the instances. Those are factual inaccuracies in the report. But the current discussion is whether the coverage of the publication Foreign Policy (magazine) report qualifies for a mention on this article. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  19:22, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong but what I get is that this Failed State Index is prepared by The Fund for Peace in collaboration with Foreign Policy. -- S M S  Talk 19:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears that the agreement only extends up to publication of the index, and not the reports (see 2011 report on Pakistan). Also, this report does not seem to be a part of the same project (The Failed States Index 2011). A claim, if inserted in to the article, should not mention Pakistan as a "failed state", but instead say something in this respect: In the Failed States Index 2011 published by the Foreign Policy magazine in collaboration with Fund for Peace, Pakistan was ranked <#RANK> out of <NOS>. This is simply a suggestion. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  20:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And which section do you suggest this text should go to? If it is added I think there is also a need to have background of this index, like (addition to your suggestion) ..... based on these indicators .... Also if anyone has missed reading the Indicators for this index, content related to most of the indicators is already present in the article. And I hope everyone here knows that this index is generated by a software which is fed news items related to that country. -- S M S  Talk 20:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a separate issue. Can you please amend your opinion above to reflect that this report is not a part of "The Failed States Index 2011" published by FP? This is so that new users participating in the discussion are not misled. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  21:02, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This Index is prepared by The Fund for Peace and the article by Foreign Policy based on the index was written by both in collaboration.. The report on Pakistan is written by FFP and is based entirely on the index. I have corrected my opinion above per my understanding of this issue. -- S M S  Talk 21:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The relevant link for the Failed State Index is 2011 Failed State Index grid. The discussion has veered away from the topic under focus. There are several reliable sources which classify Pakistan as a Failed State Pakistan and just as many disagreeing. Many of these give scholarly analysis of their viewpoints and include RS in the form of websites, books & academic papers. It is also clear that there is scope for Pakistan to be considered amongst the category of FS and that there is good sources to justify stating it has not reached that state f affairs. Are editors who oppose denying this?
 * Editors are trying to take apart the reliability of a web company based on some factually incorrect data on their web site. Do they want a listing of reliable sources for this issue?
 * I hd suggested that this is correct for body but not lede. Are the opposing editors desiring the complete non-mention of this issue?
 * I had earlier mentioned that the issue be discussed under foreign relations - a completely new section required to be created for this article. That is where it should come. AshLin (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The foreign relations are covered appropriately in the article blended carefully over last two months during and after the peer review. Suggesting to create a separate section and then re-organizing all that content will be counter productive to those efforts and against that consensus. If you are in support of mentioning this, you can still keep your points up by adding it without altering any other content. But then again, this is undue to be added in this article. Don't think any one has yet outright rejected a source as 'unreliable' per se, reliable sources actually can be unreliable for certain things. For example, the index might be published by RS but the instability, the methods it is calculated by (a comment above says through a software?), lack of technical details, contentious contradiction by other sources etc can even account to the complete unreliability for this matter. Editors who are asking for this to be added to the lede (esp the initiator) are completely off the track on this issue or understanding of WP:WEIGHT, WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 07:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * My review of this issue is strictly based on the statement of this RFC, if anyone wants to present some other source for calling Pakistan a "failed state", please first amend this RFC. I doubt the reliability of FFP's index (related to Pakistan only) based on the method they employ to find the index and on their report about Pakistan (that basically explains Pakistan's standing on the index). And as Mar4d stated, is 12th position that much important to be mentioned? Rather what I feel more important is describing the indicators which I see already well mentioned in the article. -- S M S  Talk 19:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Dailycare: Thanks for the addendum. I think that has been the issue since the framing of the RfC. The question is not the determination of whether Pakistan is a failed state (that should never have been the issue), but whether the Foreign Policy and Fund for Peace Index (both of them have only published the index together) has received enough coverage from independent and reliable sources to warrant an inclusion of the fact that the Foreign Policy magazine has ranked Pakistan No. 12 on its index of failed states 2011 (or since <YEAR>). — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  21:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment As looking at the index throughout the years will tell, Pakistan was not in the top 12 failed states list in 2005. In fact, it was ranked all the way down at 34th. Then in 2006, it jumped up 25 places into ninth position. The 2007 listing shows it at number 12 while from 2008 to 2010, it moved between number 9 and number 10. The most recent listing (2011) listing shows that it dropped from number 10 to number 12. As these figures reveal, this list is unstable and fluctuates year by year and this is true especially for Pakistan's inclusion. So coming to the question, should the numbers for Pakistan be taken at face value? Can this list be mentioned in the article keeping in mind that the figures will not necessarily be the same each year? What doesn't stop the possibility that in 2012, Pakistan may drop down even further from number 12? Realistically, Pakistan can not go up any further, since the only states above are countries like Iraq and Afghanistan or certain countries in Africa. To those supporting inclusion, how crucial and important is this list to deserve a mention in the article? What makes "number 12" special? Is it WP:DUE and WP:WEIGHT-worthy for getting a mention? And lastly, to reiterate my main argument: considering that Pakistan was ranked 34th in 2005 (just a few years ago), doesn't this have WP:RECENTISM written all over it? Mar4d (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please dont misquote Wikipedia Policy. BTW WP:RECENTISM is an essay not an accepted guideline. Even if we accept its validity, WP:RECENTISM is for articles created as a result of sudden news interest and dominated by a single temporal POV. Obviously, article Pakistan does not suffer from such a point of view. Denying the inclusion of a relevant fact by claiming WP:RECENTISM is a Red herring on your part. See Ten Year test. The facts when neutrally stated and properly referenced pass the ten-year test keeping in mind that Pakistan has been considered as a Failed State from 2005 onward. AshLin (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't agree to recentism because it is an essay, here's a policy for you: WP:NOTNEWS. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 19:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, which says Wikipedia does have many encyclopedia articles on topics of historical significance that are currently in the news, and can be updated with recently verified information. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Top Gun, your pointing to this policy indicates your lack of understanding of it. This issue of Pakistan buing debated as a failed state with its antagonists and protagonists has refs ranging from web cites, books, scholarly articles and news. These are RS & over a period of time. How does it give you the impression that WP:NOT NEWS is relevant here? AshLin (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I fully understand the policy. Haven't you read the arguments above by Mar4d about how unstable the index is? -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to AshLin: This RFC is not about a new section in the article which will need everything carefully weighed and placed to be re-adjusted into the section (which is a counter productive effort). See the peer review and the overhaul section above. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:47, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I voted Reject and I am not from or have ever visited Pakistan, so I would appreciate if those voting Support do not insinuate that all opposing viewpoints are some unreasonable local patriotism. Personally, I do not see how adding such a mention increases the reader's understanding of the nation of Pakistan. It would be inflammatory and unhelpful, and is a non-consensus opinion which is, IMHO, unencyclopedic. --Sam (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved here from the support section: Support The issue is well referenced, relevant and deserves brief but accurate mention. A new section entitled "Foreign relations" needs to be created here. AshLin (talk) 19:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have already voted (see vote number 3). Mar4d (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to Sherepunjab: Every one is adding a reason sardarjee, dont just say it is worth it. --Repitile1 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Request to close: its time this gets a closure, clearly no consensus for adding the phrase anywhere in the article. I've requested one at AN/RFC but that seems backlogged. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

POV tag, why
Apart from the fact hat the internal links I had added have been removed why on earth has the entire Bangladesh section been relegated to few lines? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have explained above why I thought one of the internal links was redundant to the other, and I have no idea what you mean about the shortening of the "Bangladesh section". It is one of the longest paragraphs of the history section, more detailed than any other event including the formation of Pakistan itself. Was it even longer? I don't think so (at least not significantly so), and I don't think it should be, either. It could probably even be shortened a bit without losing significant details. If there is a particular edit you object to, could you please provide a diff? Do you think relevant facts are not sufficiently covered by the current version? Which ones? Huon (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed the tag. Insufficient coverage in one section should be handled with a tag rather than putting a neutrality template. Also, it may be better to take this up at the FAC than here, so FAC voters can be brought up to speed on potential issues. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is this the correct page to discuss it? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would be best. I have not been following any of the discussions about this page and I don't have an opinion on this coverage, but WP:WIAFA does require pages to be "comprehensive". Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)