Talk:Pakistan/Archive 9

Restored material that was removed from lead section
I've reverted the removal of the following statements from the lead section:
 * Pakistan was a founding member of the OIC, SAARC, D8 and ECO. It is also a member of the United Nations, World Trade Organization, G33, G77 and is a nuclear power.

There doesn't seem to me, at first sight, to be anything wrong with those statements, which are all significant statements and assert a nation's importance in regional and global affairs. Is there a reason for removal? --Tony Sidaway 18:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably should change the nuclear power link to link to List of states with nuclear weapons. As it is it links to electrical generation. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 01:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - Green Giant (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Of the 16 country FAs (other than Pakistan), 11 (Australia, Cambodia, Canada, Cameroon, Chad, Indonesia, Israel, Libya, South Africa, Peru, and Turkey) do not mention "foreign relations"
 * WikiProject Countries doesn't say anything about mentioning foreign relations, nuclear, military, etc. in the lead
 * 135 out of 184 country pages do not mention foreign relations, G-8, NATO, WTO, G20, UN, nuclear power etc. in their leads. This list of these nations is given below.  (In it, a handful of European nations mention EU in the context of having no border controls (under the Schengen agreement) and a common currency; two CIS countries mention the UN in the context of their former soviet republic's history; a handful of ex-British colonies mention independence under the Commonwealth in describing their history.)  In any case, the total number of such countries in 11 and indicated in parentheses below.  Even without them, a substantial majority of the country pages do not have any mention of foreign relations.

Canada, Spain (mentions EU/Schengen), Brazil, India, Australia, Turkey, Sweden (hosts Red Cross and WTO), Taiwan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Norway, South Africa, Ireland, Argentina, Thailand, Venezuala, United Arab Emirates, Chile, Israel, Colombia, Singapore, Philippines, Nigeria, Egypt, Ukraine (Ukrainian SSR founding member of UN in history), New Zealand, Kuwait, Peru, Kazhakstan, Vietnam, Qatar, Libya, Angola, Ecuador, Sudan, Belarus (Bylorussian SSR founding member of UN, in history), Oman, Syria, Serbia, Dominican Republic, Tunisia, Guatemala, Lithuania (EU/Schengen), Sri Lanka, Kenya, Lebanon, Turkmenistan, Costa Rica, Latvia (EU/Schengen), Yemen, Uruguay, El Salvador, Cameroon, Cyprus (EU/Schengen; independence within Commonwealth), Zimbabwe, Madagascar, Nicaragua, Benin, Niger, Laos, Barbados, Fiji, Malawi, Mongolia, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Mauritania, Swaziland, Rwanda (independence within Commonwealth), Togo, Suriname, Lesotho, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Eritrea, Cape Verde, Antigua and Barbuda, Bhutan, Gabon, Paraguay, Uganda, Senegal, Honduras, Nepal, Equitorial Guinea, Afghanistan, Mozambique, Republic of Congo, Cambodia, Chad, Mauritius, The Bahamas, Mali, Burkina Faso, Papua New Guinea, Trinidad and Tobago (Port of Spain candidate for ...), Ivory Coast, Panama, Uzbekistan, Bahrain, Jordan, Myanmar, Ghana, Tanzania, Brunei, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bolivia, Zambia, Botswana (independence within Commonwealth), Jamaica, Saint Lucia (independence within Commonwealth), Burundi, Maldives, Guyana, Seychelles, Djibuti, Liberia, Grenada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Vanuatu, East Timor, The Gambia, Solomon Islands, Guinea Bissau, Dominica, Tonga, São Tomé and Príncipe, Kiribati, Somalia, Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq.

This list does not included small states in Europe (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Vatican City) and the Pacific (Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Tuvalu) or dependencies (Greenland, none of which mention foreign relations, etc. in their respective leads. If those are included as well, then 146 out of 195 national pages do not mention foreign relations in their leads.  - In the words of User:Fowler&Fowler


 * If most country articles do not include foreign relations, then this article should not as well. This is an encyclopedia; everything should be uniform. Nikkul (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't see any reason why this has been removed from the lead section as noted above by Tony Sidaway these "are all significant statements and assert a nation's importance in regional and global affairs". I agree that this is encyclopaedia, and of course there needs to be rules that govern the way things are done - and there needs to be a degree of uniformity. However all countries are different, Pakistan wasn't the only country that featured foreign relations. Admittedly a majority of featured articles do not have foreign relations in the lead section - but so what?, does this mean now that all other articles that mention foreign relations should be purged? - Are moves being made to ensure that the other featured articles now conform to this uniformity?


 * All countries are different, have different histories etc, and consequently you cannot expect every article to confirm to exactly the same template or format. There needs to be a degree of flexibility, as long as the article confirms to NPOV and other core policies of wikipedia - I cannot see the rational for this being removed.


 * Pahari Sahib, 23:24, 3 January 2008 (GMT)

The fact that Pakistan is a member of the g33 does not have a huge impact on pakistan. I mean, the country has been there for more than 1000 years (its been inhabited). The fact that it joined the g33 or some other organization has not made it different. Wikipedia is not anyone myspace. It is an encyclopedia. And an overwhelming majority of articles on the site do not have foreign relations in the intro. Almost all country articles do not. There are guidelines set on wikipedia. We should look at featured articles and see that almost all of them do not. Nikkul (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nikkul, there is no strict format to be followed for country articles on Wikipedia. As you can see the Pakistan article does not mention the military as a separete section, yet a lot of country articles do. Not all country articles follow the same format. Also, you can see that Pakistan is a featured article itself, so there is no need to compare it with other country articles. Each country's geopolitical situation dictates what must be in the opening paragraphs.Zaindy87 (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I have been quoted above by, I thought I should weigh in even though I am on vacation. I'd like to say that I agree with user:Pahari Sahib and user:Zaindy87.  Each country page has its own approach to writing the lead, determined by the consensus on such writing reached on that page.  user:Nikkul first tried to add some material to the India page lead, material whose inclusion is contrary to a long-standing consensus on the India page.  When user:Nikkul's edits were challenged and reversed, he then attempted editing the People's Republic of China and Pakistan pages and tried removing similar material from those pages (little realizing that consensuses on different country pages are different).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Fowler is such a hypocrite. He opposes having anything about foreign relations on the India page as shown above,but supports it on the Pakistan page. What bs? Nikkul (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nikkul, the consensus seems to favor the inclusion of the info. I myself removed this,, but once I saw that others wanted to keep it and that other countries had foreign organizations in the lead, I accepted it. I think you should as well. Noor Aalam (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Incomplete data
In the Pakistan entry it is asserted that Muhammad bin Qasim converted peacefully the local buddhist and hindu population to islam (if so, why the need to conquer and bring an army there), but in another entry this time with his name ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_qasim#Controversy ) it is admitted that there a two contradictory views about the way this initial conversion took place, and that these views are politically (religiously) influenced! Anyway, the fact that all what it is written about the conversion of subcontinent population to islam, is this short item of propaganda (supposing we accept that initial conversion took place as indicated by the author/editor of the entry, is of no doubt or contest that there was other instances when there was forced conversion to islam in history of the area, and that the population was subjected to mass murder!!!), is dangerous for the image of wikipedia!. It seems that letting a limited circle of people editing isn't functioning better in terms of objectivity. ..

Why is Britain not listed as one of the groups of people that have invaded? To list its occupation under rule of the British Empire as different to its previous invasions seems inconsistent. It wont let me edit it on the page. Alexmitchelmore (talk) 19:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Mohenjodaro image
Image:Priest King of Indus.jpg has been listed in possibly-unfree images. The image has dubious copyright tags. Can anyone replace it with a properly licensed version? Thanks. --Ragib 17:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

nonstandard
This section added by is nonstandard. Pakistan is a featured article, and should be treated as such. No need to introduce POV laden non-standard sections. Thank you. --Ragib 15:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC).

Religion
I find it astounding that, not only is there no article of religion in Pakistan, but there is not a single mention of it in the article at all! This astounds me because the relegion in Pakistan is such a major theme and element, as such, I would ask that someone kindly add something to this article about relegion in Pakistan.


 * Yes add religion and then start fight over it. Why do we have to ruin everything by bringing religion into everything? Isn't their enough religious hatred in Pakistan itself? Do you want o bring it here too? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Me Again Again (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Nope, wht you mean is that first create Islamic states (Islamic republic of Pakistan?) and then tell everybody that please don't talk about religion when you talk about those states? How the hell a person who came to this article to know a bit more about Pakistan will feel by seeing no entry about religion at all? He will get an impression that religion is not at all important in Pakistan?? So religion is not at all important in Islamic states, good joke on wikipedia and it was a featured article? What were the editors doing, how do they decide what is important for an ariticle and what is not, do they place dice to decide it?

Hinduism in Pakistan
Pakistan holds the 5th largest population of Hindus worldwide. must be mentioned. Hindus beat the population of Christians and Sikhs in Pakistan. and there seems to be some discrimination or vandalism in article. Hindus are more present in Sindh province, and also hold many functions in Pakistan. Pakistan also helped re-build many Mandirs in Paksitan. Pakistan has sacred and very holy reigons of Hinduism. Pakistan holds extremly holy historic reigons and evidence of Mahabarata and Ramayan.it must be added into Pakistan Article there are lots of Hindus in Pakistan specially in the Sindh Province. :99.237.253.131|talk]]) 00:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani Nationalism
Can someone please add a link to the Pakistani Nationalism article on this page?

I didnt want to make any edits to the page before consulting other members.

Thanks S Seagal 02:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal

Can someone take a look at the category and tell me how many of the articles included there are actually declared as part of National symbols of Pakistan? For example, is there any such thing as the "National reptile"? An anon user from various ips at 82.0.x.x have been adding various animals, flowers, fruits, khyber pass, a mountain, a crocodile, the Pakistani Military, Benazir Bhutto, Begum Liaquat Ali Khan and a host of other things as the "National symbol of Pakistan". The "Crocodile" sounds quite ridiculous, and so are the persons, so I'd like someone from Pakistan to verify the items added to this category. Also, please take a look at the article National symbols of Pakistan and remove the incorrect entries there.

Ideally, this cat, and the article should only contain items that have been declared by the Govt as national symbols (like flower, game, dress, fish, fruit etc.).

Thanks. --Ragib 00:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Several national symbols are listed on the Pakistani information ministry's website. I think it's fair to say that some of the symbols which aren't listed there, like the Minar-e-Pakistan, probably are national symbols but I can't find any official indications. I've removed the amusing but superflous ones by the anon user.
 * Green Giant 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for resolving this. The whole thing was quite frustrating ... as the anon was persistently adding one thing after another to the list and the category. Some of the things were obviously fake (like the "National crocodile"), but for other items, it was not possible for me as an outsider to verify the correctness. Thanks again for cleaning up the page. --Ragib 15:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The ramifications of a war in the Middle East for Pakistan
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061001&articleId=3361

Coverage expansion - Media, Education and Islamic fundamentalism
Hi to all - I think this article is lacking in three major areas. As a reader I would like to learn more of what kind of media infrastructure Pakistan has - newspapers, publications, tv, radio, satellite, phone, internet, etc. I would also like to see a subsection describing education systems - universities, colleges, madrassas, primary and secondary schools throughout the country. Such sections are "usually" a part of country FAs - not necessary but yet a part. I also think that "Holidays" should be compressed into the "Culture" section.

I see that Islamic fundamentalism is conspiciously absent from both politics and culture. I think its a matter of great importance that this article should tackle candidly. Large segments of Pakistanis are deeply influenced by Islam and fundamentalism - there are large numbers of madrassas everywhere. Organisations like the Tableeghi Jamaat are attracting top Pakistani celebrities like Inzamam ul Haq, Saeed Anwar, Mushtaq Ahmed, Mohammad Yousuf and former president Rafiq Tarar. Islamic fundamentalism is particularly important to describe in reference to Balochistan and NWFP. The "Culture" section paints a glossy picture but fails to describe the various social practices such as honour killings, feudalism and tribalism. Rama's arrow 18:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Tableeghi Jamaat is mostly apolitical, and not at all fundamentalist. It is more of a missionary organization. I do think your other points are valid, and can be added to the article. --Ragib 18:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Tabhligi Jamaat - many TJ leaders were involved in the Pakistan coup attempt of 1995. Additionally, the US is investigating this group for funding and supporting terrorist outfits. Rama's arrow  23:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Rama's Arrow, the problem with people like you is that you are extremely fond of generalization and simplification. What do you know, Rama's Arrow, about Tableeg Jamat? Just because some TJ people were involved with Pakistani coup attempt and because the US is investigating into the TJ (Big Deal!) cannot make the TJ as an organization guilty. Please stop meddling with what you have no ideas about, dear Rama's Arrow! User: Kazimostak

Islam and extremist fundamentalism is totally a different thing.. what i dont understand is your reasoning for mentioning the names of Pakistani famous people with that.. If they turned towars religion, that is not extremism, its a belief of faith.. Kindly keep that in mind when addressing these issues again..iquadri 19:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

-- Pakistans constitution has had an amendment made to it. It states women do not need witnesses for accusations of rape [they actually had that, the Sardars and Nawabs wouldnt let them do anything about it though]. Now if a person is found guilty of rape they are given the death penalty. Harsh but it may decrease the immense levels of rape cases that have never been bothered with before.MOI 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

--"Large segments of Pakistanis are deeply influenced by Islam and fundamentalism"- ramas arrow. I would like to say that i beleive this is really truely ridiculous. This is like saying that a Christian or Jewish Religous person is an extremist. I dont think you were trying to suggest that but that is wut it sounds like. And Madrassa means : Arabic= Islamic school of thought, and these are some of teh only forms of education provided to impoverished children. Please take that into consideration before you make any more assumptions.MOI 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

History Section Far To Compressed
Ive been looking at this article and found that Pakistans history ie from Independence till 2006 is highly compressed in just two paragraphs.

I think it would be best if we made seperate articles for each decade since Pakistan's indepedence:

1. 1947-1958: The Democratic Era I, Jinnah, L Ali Khan, Bogra, K nazimuddein

2. 1958-1969: The Ayub Khan Era, Robust economic growth etc

3. 1969-1979: Yayha Khan and the Bengali Independence, The return of democracy Z A Bhutto The Democratic Era II.

4. 1979-1989: Zia Ul Haq era, I note that there is an article already titled 'Zia Islamization', Plus the War in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union which had a profound affect in Pakistan which was involved.

5. 1989-1999: The Democratic Era III, Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Nuclear Tests

6. 1999-Present: The Musharraf Era, War on Terrorism, Economic growth, etc

Once these six seperate articles detailing each decade of Pakistan since independence is made we can add a link to the relevant articles here in the history section. I think this is good idea since it would provides a more indepth information.

What do you people think?

S Seagal 12:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal


 * It would be better to link them from History of Pakistan. The history section here is a concise summary of that article, and rightfully so, as per summary style. Adding 6 links would just clutter the page. So, make the links from the History of Pakistan page. Thanks. --Ragib 15:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure if you understand what I mean, Im not talking about adding it to the history of Pakistan page, Im talking about 6 seperate new articles describing each decade of pakistan since independence, as a opposed to a brief paragraph in the history section and two paragraphs for over half a century of history on this article.

Something like:
 * 'Pakistan in 1947-1957', Democracy I
 * 'Pakistan in 1957-1967', Ayub
 * 'Pakistan in 1967-1977', Bengali revolt, Z A Bhutto Democracy II
 * 'Pakistan in 1977-1987', Zia Ul Haq
 * 'Pakistan in 1987-1997', Democracy III
 * 'Pakistan in 1997-2007', Musharraf

Im talking seperate articles, in depth, talking about politics, culture, science, and everything of relevance or significance that took place in that decade.

S Seagal 17:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal


 * I understood precisely what you meant. My suggestion was to create these articles, and since there is already relevant sections in History of Pakistan article, add links to these articles at the appropriate sections there. For example, under History_of_Pakistan, there are subsections corresponding to the structure you are proposing. Let's say, we consider "9.1 Military coup and wars (1956-1968)". At the start of that section, add a link to Pakistan in 1957-1967 using main. This is the conventional way of forking details into new, detailed articles. Hope you understand my point now. Thanks. --Ragib 17:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Islamic states do not believe in history.

WikiProject Pakistan
I have created a proposal for a separate wiki project for Pakistan, so as to enable us to manage Pakistan related articles better. According to Wikipedia we need around 5-6 members atleast to create a new project. Please Join in if you are interested.
 * Hussain 14:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys we already have gotten 5 members for the project, just one more ( preferably two)    and we can  start the project
 * Hussain 06:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Urdu translations
hi,

I'm in a process of creating a uniform system of creating articles on political parties across wikipedias of different languages. I need help with Urdu translations, please contribute at User:Soman/Lang-Help-ur. --Soman 14:10, 26 اکتوبر 2006 (UTC)

hey, I would like to help, but i cant type in urdu on the keyboard. Is there a way i can program my comp to let me use it? I have urdu script on my computer but.... I wouldnt mind doing Arabic either.MOI 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Kk loach 08:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)hi I can help you.i can type urdu on keyboared and i have a urdu program too and if you tell me how to help i will sure do thatKk loach 08:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting Page To Be Locked
Hello,

This page is being vandalized by the minute, somone its the same reapeat offenders, One that especially comes to mind keeps changing the countries name to 'Bast**d child of England' and others are adding weasel words.

I'm actually fairly happy with the way the page is at the moment, I think most would agree that we cant really make any more improvements to the article than has already been done.

let me know what you think. S Seagal 18:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal


 * Seeing as the page reached featured status some months ago, I can't see the need for drastic changes to the article in the short-term at least. I think a semi-protected status would be useful in the face of this vandalism. 82.12.226.248 01:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * These are not really sufficient reasons to have any page semi-protected. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be locked down, unless of course there is rampant vandalism. The way people edit this article now is not rampant vandalism in any way. --Ragib 04:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Area figures
A couple of weeks ago, someone changed the area figure for Pakistan to about 905,000 km2 based on a misunderstanding of what water areas refer to. The same someone immediately reverted this and when questioned on his/her talkpage quoted the CIA factbook, despite the factbook giving a different figure altogether. On pointing this out I was shown a calculation based on area figures for the various provinces and territories taken from relevant Wikipedia articles. Since Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, I have changed the figure to match the CIA factbook exactly. The figure does not include Azad Kashmir or the Northern Areas, simply because these are disputed areas. 82.12.226.248 01:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (P.S. Yes I already have an account and sometimes I can't be bothered to log in :P )

Bollywood Movies banned???
I went to Pakistan a few months ago, and Bollywood movies are available literally everywhere you go, and aswell as that, Devdas was aired in Geo Tv. Unless someone has reliable sources to prove this ridiculous claim, please delete it.


 * Cinema halls across Pakistan are not allowed to screen Bollywood movies. --Incman|वार्ता 20:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

True Deepak, Although Bollywood movies are prohibited to be viewed in the cinemas, people still can buy them in stores on DVD's and VHS etc.-Sami Ullah

Please note that all the DVDs and VHS tapes of Bollywood movies in Pakistan are pirated. At no point in time have any Bollywood DVDs ever been released commercially for sale in Pakistan, and carrying such DVDs when entering the country is prohibited.

Correct, as are most (if not all) Hollywood movies; even though not banned I've yet to find/buy a legitimate one at a market. Fmehdi 18:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Help
I would need help with expanding 2006 Pakistan madrassa air strike. Thanks. --Striver 21:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC Bollyhood in Pakistan:-Inspite of all that is being done to crush the influence of Bollyhood in Pakistan,thousands of DVD's are available underground.Now can someone please tell me what would happen if the law against Bollyhood films was relaxed and Indians were allowed to market their films freely? NEERAJ

Pakistan's area and other statistics
An ip and now a user insists that Pakistan's area is 880000 sq kms and not 803000 sq kms. The source cited here (CIA handbook) says its 803000. I have already reverted once and I usually try to hold myself to 1RR. And especially here because I am Indian by nationality. I have no bias either way but a mundane statistic like area should be decided for once and for all and not be an issue of a revert war. I leave this to a more neutral person. -- Lost (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The area of Pakistan proper (excluding Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas) is somewhere between 796,000 km² (according to the information ministry of Pakistan) and 803,000 km² (according to CIA factbook) depending on their definition of dry land area. The area expands to about 880,000 km² if we include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas. Since these are part of a disputed region it is questionable whether they should be included. I would err on the side of not including them for the following reasons. Irrespective of disputes, neither of them elects representatives to the Pakistani federal legislature and Azad Kashmir has a functioning government, which regards itself as a separate "Islamic Republic" from Pakistan (albeit subsidised by Pakistan). The only matters not controlled by Azad Kashmir are foreign affairs, defence and coinage/currency, which some people would argue are essential for separate countries. The counter-argument is that Azad Kashmir had it's own armed forces until they were fully incorporated into the Pakistani Army in 1971. The situation with the Northern Areas is that they are regarded as a federal dependency of Pakistan as a whole in much the same way that the Isle of Man is a Crown dependency but not actually part of the United Kingdom. Again Pakistan is responsible for foreign affairs, defence, coinage and currency. Equally however, the Northern Light Infantry was not incorporated into the Pakistani Army until 1999. Green Giant 20:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

checking sources
Where did this quote come from: Historian and geographer de Blij Muller characterized the historical embodiment of the land when he said, "If, as is so often said, Egypt is the gift of the Nile, then Pakistan is the gift of the Indus." ??? There is no citation.

Svetlana Miljkovic 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

checking sources
When English became as an official language of Pakistan besides Urdu? I tried to locate the source about but could not find one. Can someone quote some official documents backing my quesiton. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamspedia (talk • contribs). at 21:25, 13 December 2006

http://www.pak.gov.pk/BasicFacts.aspx is an official source for the above question regarding language. Apermal 09:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Trying "too hard"
Sikhs are not allowed to hold any functions in Pakistan anymore. Taliban has threatned Sikhs. just recently Sikhs asked Permission to see Pakistan and was denied due to militants and Taliban threats towards Sikhs. There is more Hindus in Pakistan and they beat the population of Christians and Sikhs. Hindus are more reconisible in Pakistan and that is a strong base which cannot be broken. Pakistan holds over 6 million Hindus, the 5th largest country holding Hindus. Pakistani Hindus are not Indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.253.131 (talk) 10:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Indians try so hard to make Pakistani history,identity,heritage,culture etc. look invisible that at times they try "too hard" and end up contradicting themselves. I can provide 2 examples:

1)Indians claim that Pakistan simply "did not exist" prior to 1947.At the same time they claim that Pakistan was always "a part" of India prior to 1947.The contradiction here is that how can something that doesnt exist be "a part" of something that does exist?

2)Indians claim that Urdu(which is more Pakistani than Indian considering the fact that it's roots can be traced to west Punjab,Turkey,Persia,central asia) and Hindi are "the same" or "identical" as if Urdu is not a language of it's own.At the same time they claim that Urdu is "parcially consisted" of Hindi. This is a condratiction of their first claim that Urdu and Hindi are "the same" or "identical" If X=Y how can we say that X is "parcailly consisted" of Y while saying X=Y or saying that they are the same?Claiming that Urdu is Hindi while claiming that Urdu is "parcially consisted" of Hindi doesnt make sense at all.Nadirali 16:27, 23 November 2006 (UTC)Nadiral


 * Nadiral, I dont see anything contradictory in above two points: 1.Of-course there was no Pakistan pre-1947 and the region currently called Pakistan was part of India. 2.Linguistically Urdu is same as Hindi with a different script. Perhaps by 'urdu is partially hindi' one means that majority of Urdu (as a dialect of hindi) words are taken from its mother language while rest are from foreign ones (persian,arabic).
 * I think the only contradiction here is in your head due to cognitive dissonance between reality and your beliefs. Astavakra 21:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please carefully read what I have written before answering and see contradictory before using the word.Nadirali 23:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Nadirali


 * I don't agree with user:Astavakra. The mother language of Urdu is not Hindi any more than the mother language of Hindi is Urdu.  The mother language of both Urdu and Hindi is Hindustani or,  more accurately the register of Hindustani that was spoken in the Delhi and Western UP area from 1600 to 1800.  I also don't agree with user:Nadirali that Urdu's "...roots can be traced back to west Punjab, Turkey, Persia, etc ..."  Yes, it is true that Urdu borrows a lot of words from those languages, but not the grammar.  The grammar is the same as Hindustani.  Hindi borrows its grammar from Hindustani as well.  One proof of this is that if an Urdu speaker doesn't use fancy words, they can be perfectly understood by a Hindi speaker and vice-versa.  However, neither of them would be understood by a native Arabic, Turkish, or a central Asian language speaker.  I don't know what the big fight is about.  Urdu is a beautiful language.  It has speakers and fans in both Pakistan and India.  There will always be people trying to hijack the language for political ends.  Best to ignore them and think of Dagh Dehlavi's lines: "Urdu hai jiska naam, hum hee jaante hain Dagh Saare jahan main dhoom hamari jaban ki hai."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Take away the "fancy words" and most of Urdu is gone.Nadirali 06:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Nadirali


 * Take away all of urdu. it's better for the region!  one language increase unity.--D-Boy 08:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That D-Boy, is a typical baised phrase, shows ur crap mentality :):), ciaoiquadri 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

- Nadirali: I have to heartily disagree with you. Off the top of my head I can think of half a dozen examples of the masters' that don't have fancy words. Here are two:


 * Naahak yeh tukray chun chun kar, daaman pay sajaayay baithay ho
 * Sheeshon ka maseeha koi nahin, kya aas lagaayay baithay ho (Faiz Ahmad Faiz)


 * Hum vahan hain jahan ki humko bhi
 * Kuch hamari khabar nahin aatee
 * Aagay aatee thi haale-dil pay hansi
 * Ab kisi baat pay nahin aatee  (Ghalib)

Where are the fancy words?

Here are two more which have some "fancy words" in the first line, but it is the simple second line that gives them the poetic effect:


 * Jaatee hui mahyyat dekh ke bhi, lillah na tum milnay aaye
 * Do char kadam to dushman bhi taqlif gavaaran kartay hain. (Faraz?)


 * Ab yaaden raftagan ki bhi himmat nahin rahee
 * Yaaron ne kitnee door basaayin hain bastiyaan (Firaq Gorakhpuri)

Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  11:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous writes: I don't know why Indians spend so much of their time on Pakistan?!. And it's hilarious to see see some Indians talk about "unity" when in fact the whole world knows that the alien eastern neighbour dreams of hegemony over Pakistan. I simply ignore India and Indians and I wish one day my beloved Pakistan could do the same. Indians whether in India or whether they are "NRI's" (non-resident Indians) living overseas, no matter where in this world do their level best to malign Pakistan and harm its reputation: diplomats, civilians, soldiers, businessmen, athletes, you name it, each Indian will do his/her best to hurt and undermine Pakistan to the best of their capacity. Just read the comments Indians have to make about this article on Pakistan and you'll see how badly they are hurting, how frustrated and insecure they are! I mean they spend their life trying to make comparisons with Pakistan which has 10% of their population and roughly a third in size! It's hilarious and sad, but true. I personally don't care about Indians; I am indifferent to them until I see this side of theirs that perpetually tries to hurt Pakistan, and I see their real intentions masked by all this "cultural affinity" mumbo-jumbo! Hey Indians: NO ONE WANTS TO BE AN INDIAN - even Bangladeshis (its a smaller country than Pakistan) would rather die than to be seen as "Indians". In fact, if you check out the immigration statistics of any country today, you can bet top dollar that Indians are on the number 1 spot or in the top 3: largest single nationality consuming H1-B visas in US: Indians, highest number of applicants for UK immigration: Indians, and so on.....so all their claims that "India is great" are untrue because if it were true, then why do millions of Indians VOLUNTARILY abandon India? how come the lower and middle-class Indians dream of leaving India (and trust me that's 95% of the population!); and then go around the world telling the host country how India is this and that! Indians suffer from an inferiority complex: you see Aryans, Iranians, Arabs, Greeks, Afghans throughout history had such an EASY TIME conquering them, they now feel the urge to make noise by blowing their own trumpet and trying to lecture and interfere in neighbours like Bangladesh, Paksitan, etc.! It really is pathetic...they have a burning itch to prove themselves "superior" to the world. And that point made about Urdu language is very true: Hindi has been corrupted to "Hindustani" language where the vast majority of vocabulary is in fact from Urdu (which is a mixture of Arabic, Farsi, Turkish, and unfortunately for the verbs, hindi/sanskrit). This has been used in the Mollywood (it's Mumbai now, right? named after Mumba devi, the hindu goddess...and name was changed in secular India in the 21st century!) movies; if they were hindi movies then it would be incomprehensible to all of Pakistan (a VERY GOOD thing from my perspective) and a large part of India. I personally don't watch "Hindi" movies, Indian TV, etc. by choice - just not interested. The real problem with Pakistan is that its real identity keeps getting hindered due to the gullibility of Pakistanis: once Pakistan can overcome this internal problem, then the real crescent from Central Asia right down the Arabian sea can come to fruition. In the mean time its a ridiculous and unnecessary struggle between the real identity (culture) v/s love for or hangover from an alien eastern culture. To Indians: not all Pakistanis are gullible fools seduced by saris, spicy food and cricket matches! We know what you are all about. Your country started the nuclear arms race and we know why.....we also know that once Pakistan became a nuclear power (in response to yours) how you quickly made a U-turn from "trying to destroy us" to "hey, let's be friends"!! pathetic!

Finally, I would like Pakistanis to be careful of the alien eastern neighbour - acting probably comes naturally to them and here are a few pointers:

1. Indianized Muslims: there are Muslims in India who hate Pakistan and want it destroyed (so all I am saying is next time try to look at a person's deeds instead of names and titles..Khan this or Nawab that just doesn't cut it!). Try to read up on the deeds and speeches of India's Muslim President, try to realize that India is the ONLY country where Muslims voluntarily consummate marriages that are prohibited and then brag and boast about it, and remember Salman Rushdie is an Indian too! - you get the picture right?

2. "Unity": hilarious to see Indians chant this mantra! The India of today that was born in 1947 did not exist in the last 1,200 years: India was held by force by monotheists for 1,200 years: 1,000 years by Muslims and then 200 years by British Christians! So when an Indian says, "we are the same; or we should be united against some "common foes", this is nothing but foolishness. They give examples of "European Community" model ,etc. but the reality is that 80%+ population of the EU is Christian (and Indians should read up on how Europe became christian majority and what they did to non-Christians in the continent) so totally irrelevant example and another excuse that is used to guise their hegemonic designs.

3. History: don't forget history - remember 1971? I am amazed to see so many Pakistanis are "OK" with "secular Congress party in India"....hello? which party dominated in Indian politics during the wars of 1948, 1965 and 1971??? And just a reminder of what Indira Ghandi, an icon among "secular" Indians and the Congress party said when Bangladesh was born: "Today, we have avenged our 1,000 year defeat and sunk the two-nation theory in the Bay of Bengal". Dear Pakistanis: what "1000 year defeat" was she referring to? shows their true feelings towards Pakistan! Anyway, we all know what happened to her in the end.....her own bodyguards assasinated her....no they weren't Muslim bodyguards, but this time Sikhs! You may remember that in "retaliation" THOUSANDS of Sikhs were murdered by secular Hindu mobs as the police watched by! This is India's reality: 88% hindus who regularly lecture Christians, Muslims, Sikhs about "civility" but then once in a while kill thousands of these innocent people in "riots" while the police just watches quietly. To the adherents of "united India" and the Congress party: hey, as soon as the 2-nation theory sank in the Bay of Bengal, the 3-nation reality emerged in that very same Bay of Bengal. Try asking a Bangladeshi if he/she wants to be or wants to be considered "Indian"....trust me, you won't like the response you'll get. You know how Indian army interfered explicitly in 1971; during the 1962 Sino-Indian war, when incidentally China kicked India's can very rapidly and easily, Pakistan did not interfere as it was felt that it wasn't the nice neighbourly thing to do and what did we get in return? Pakistan could have easily opened another front while India was busy getting CRUSHED by China but Pakistan didn't.

So Indians, leave us alone and stop trying to act like the bully on the block; you are NOT what you think you are and you never will be. Leave us alone: go your way and we will go our way. I don't want war with India. But I also don't want my Pakistani identity to be undermined or diluted in the name of an alien culture, cricket matches, vulgar <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/?s=movies">movies</a>, spicy foods and saris!

I wish Pakistan foreign policy portfolio is realigned instead of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/search.php?q=present">present</a> pathetic state: 90% engery and resources wasted on one eastern alien country.....! hello, there are over 180 countries in the world!!.

PAKISTAN ZINDA-ABAD! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pakistani Knight (talk • contribs). at 21:25, 9 December 2006.


 * Glad you got that off your chest. BTW, it's not Mollywood, it's Mumblywood.  :)  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

--Urdu is derived from Persian and such languages. For example: persian [apple]: seeb Urdu[apple]: saib. Urdu is not from Hindi although there are similarities. This is just ridiclous, Its like saying that Italian came from French because they have many similarities.MOI 18:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

--also, maiz is persian for table and urdu for table, sabzi is urdu for a type of vegetable and the same with persian. Mumkin is Arabic for possible and urdu for possible, the arabic/persian alphabets are much more similar to Urdu than the Hindi alphabet. I think that should wrap it up. So we all agree, Urdu is a language in its own right???MOI 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem is that from a linguistic viewpoint, it is the grammar and the base vocabulary that make a language, not the larger vocabulary. For example, the English language has almost 80% words of Latin origin (imported mainly from French as a result of the Norman invasion); however, English is considered a Germanic language and not a Romance language, because its grammar and base vocabulary (20%) is Germanic.


 * Similarly with Hindi and Urdu. For example, let's say, I made a sentence (using your words), "Mumkin hai billi ne maize par sabzi aur saib khaa liyay." If I didn't know the Persian and Arabic-derived words of your example, I could get the gist of my message across with, "Ho sakta hai, billi ne "table" par phal aur khaana khaa liyaa," because the words, "ho, sakta, hai, ne, par, aur, phal, khaa, liyaa" are all shared by Hindi and Urdu and are not of Arabic/Persian origin. They come from Khariboli dialect of Hindustani language, which is the basis for Hindi as well as Urdu.  However, if you didn't know the base vocabulary, "ho, hai, ne, par, aur, liyaa," you'd be in deep trouble.  Can't do much with "mumkin," "maize," "sabzi," "saib," without the linking grammar.  One example of this is the language of children.  Four-year olds, for example, speak the base vocabulary and (usually) get the grammar right; however, foreigners speaking a language, at least initially, don't get the grammar right, although sometimes they know a lot of fancy words.  That's why four-year olds are more easily understood on the street than a foreigner.  By the same token, if you put four-year olds from Pakistan (Urdu speaking), North India (Hindi speaking), Iran (Persian speaking), and Egypt (Arabic speaking) in a room, the first two will have no problems communicating; however the latter two will have to smile a lot and use their hands.


 * As I said earlier, Urdu doesn't come from Hindi, nor Hindi from Urdu; rather, both are children of Hindustani. Unfortunately, post-partition political imperatives have created rift between the two language, when there should be none.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

--I see wut u mean. Sorry, I thought we were trying to prove that Urdu comes from different languages.MOI 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Posts inserted later by various editors (without time tag):


 * I congratulate Pakistani Knight upon his courage and his no-nonsense attitude with the Indians. I, as a Bangladeshi, would also like to tell the Indians: You are not as big as you try to show. I regularly see impoverished Indian people on your TV channels and murmur to myself: my God, still these people think they are a superpower!?! User:Kazimostak


 * It is really wonderful that User:Pakistani Knight had attempted to chide the Indians,

a) But I only see a knee jerk reaction from him for Mr.Rama's arrow's attempt to put the matter straight. Probably he is wrong. In which case the role of wikipedia's user is only to point it out and not to give a sermon.  This is not a forum for Indo-Pak argument.

b) The moment when you have come out with a valiant attempt to attack Indian attitudes you have contrdicted your self about your own statement of ignoring India and Indians

c)One thing I appreciate in you is that you have shown the fatiguness on the never ending feud. But we have to acknowledge the fact that we are siamese twins born with Kashmir attached, we can either sepreate with partioning Kashmir or learning to live togther.

d) What one has to understand is that India was never ruled by any soverign emperor as a whole nation, and the question of ruling India by monotheists or polytheists does not arise because India is the only country in the world where all the important positions of the country is held by people belonging to the minority religions or sects.
 * the President of the nation    - A Muslim  Scientist
 * the Prime Minister             - A Sikh
 * the Chief Justice              - A from oppressed community
 * the Speaker of the Parliament  - A Communist
 * the leader of Largest Party    - A Christian
 * the Army Chief                 - A Sikh

above all a functioning democracy. User:Sujith Prabu


 * I agree that it sounds great and looks great, but as in most of the times, statistics can be such damn lies! The real info: India's president is such a "secular" and "liberal" muslim that he regularly prays to hindu gods and goddesses! The 'Shikh' prime minister is nothing but the puppet of Sonia Gandhi! The leader of the largest party Sonia Gandhi is no longer a Christian, she has turned into a Hindu. She has not been practicing Christian faith for many many years. I am sure that if she just mentions that she is a christian, she will not enjoy the support she is having now! The Speaker is a communist, yes, but so what! Communism is not a religion, and he is still a Hindu. His name is Somnath Chaterjee. I know nothing about other two guyes, but in all probability they too will be people like the above mentioned. So much for Indian secularism!!!''' Kazimostak

Hinduism ranking
I am removing line  ", as well as the sixth most populous Hindu country"  for following reasons -- Isle  Scape  11:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) First it creates confusion and to balance this, the paragraph will require rankings for all other religions
 * 2) The text belongs to Hinduism in Pakistan so I have moved it there
 * 3) Actually Pakistan is ranked 5th according to Hinduism by country
 * 4) Article Hinduism by country shows a tag on factual acuracy.

So Pakistan has the fifth largest population of Hindus on the planet, around 4-5 million, surely this deserves mention? I added and you decided to remove it and leave the second most muslim population part. If you look at Islam by country you will see that it also has a tag on factual accuracy, infact India also claims to be the second most muslim populous country.

So if the Hinduism part goes, then so does the Muslim part. S Seagal 18:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The line was moved in anticipation of an edit war on a page which is already intensely vandalised. Also, continuing from above points, first the ranking was inaccurate, secondly the Hinduism in Pakistan page did not have this information which was duly copied there. And finally, irrespective of tags, there are 3.35 million Hindus (see Hinduism by country) and 3.5 million Christians in Pakistan (see Christianity by country) who would deserve an equal mention for NPOV. I propose to either add a small section on 'Religious minorities in Pakistan' or improve Status of minorities in Pakistan to sort this out. -- Isle  Scape  20:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I agree that this page is routinely vandalized so we should discuss this hinduism and other religious rankings here before making changes.

The current text of the opening second paragraph reads as follows:

Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world and is the second most populous Muslim country.

I propose:

Pakistan is home to the worlds sixth largest population,

Source To back Claim: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004391.html

it is the second most populous Muslim country,

Source to Back Claim: http://www.pakistanlink.com/nayyer/02152002.html

Pakistan has been historically the largest Muslim majority nation in the world especially when Bengaldesh was part of the country, It is also on path to over take Indonesia for the first position once again.

Source: http://www.pakistanlink.com/nayyer/02152002.html

Aswell as home to sixth largest Hindu population,

Source: http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_hindu.html

and has larger Christian population than some predominately Christian countries.

Source: http://www.pakistanchristiancongress.com/RPTP.php

(The Pakistan christian congress says there are 15 million Xtians in Pakistan, this is a population of Christians larger than Belgium or Austria, or most European countries)

S Seagal 11:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Additionally, would recommend to add such information to other related articles as Religion in Pakistan and Demographics of Pakistan etc. -- Isle  Scape  11:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no way that there are 15 million Christians in Pakistan; it is more like one-eighth that number. The Pakistan Christian Congress is a political organization and it is in its interests to inflate the numbers.  Please see Christianity in Pakistan, and please don't change the numbers there to justify your proposed edits.  Christianity in Pakistan is of recent vintage (late 19th and 20th centuries for the most part).  India, with a much longer history of Christianity (see Christianity in India), has only 24 million Christians; so, 15 million in Pakistan is a bit of a stretch.  Wikipedia goes by official country census numbers.  The latest Census of Pakistan on its Population by Religion Page says that Christians comprise 1.59% of the population and Hindus 1.60% of the population; in addition, there are 0.25% schedule castes in the population.  Even if you include all the schedule castes in the Hindus, it makes a total of 1.85%.  The latest total population figures from the latest 1998 census are 132,352,000, which gives a Christian population of 2,104,400, a Hindu population ("Jati" Hindus in the census terminology) of 2,117,632 for "Jati" Hindus, and 2,448,512 for Hindus + schedule castes.  So, unless you are looking for pointless and enervating edit wars, I suggest you don't go ahead with your proposed edits.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  15:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How about we add the Hinduism ranking ie Sixth largest population of Hindus in the world, and leave the Christian part out for now until we get better sources? The reason I added Hindus in the first place is because Hindus are a large part of the population and deserve mention or we could remove both the Hinduism ranking and the Islamic ranking, but we can not leave just one for NPOV reasons.

I have provided source from http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_hindu.html which clearly shows that Pakistan has the sixth largest population of Hindus in the world, I think the source is credible because unlike the Christian congress it is apolitical.

S Seagal 17:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)S Seagal


 * Looking at the contradictory figures, I support Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  and suggest to refrain from any such edits. If someone is really keen on adding religious data, feel free to contribute to the articles I mentioned earlier as they need more attention. Given the status of this article, no such edits are necessary.-- Isle  Scape  21:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Hindu ranking is probably OK. In other words, with approximately 2 million (and change) Hindus, Pakistan would be the sixth largest Hindu country.  As for the second largest Muslim country, that might be problematic as well, (I'm not sure yet).  I will examine the census data from India and Pakistan and write something on this page soon.  But I agree with Islescape that the Religion in Pakistan and Demographics in Pakistan pages need more attention.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello all.  Isle  Scape , by your argument, the line stating that Pakistan contains the world's second largest Muslim population should also be removed. The Islam by country article also contains a disputed tag and many sources claim India to have the second largest Muslim population. S Seagal has provided a reliable source regarding the Hindu population in Pakistan. If one religion is mentioned, the other must be as well or both should be deleted. Thanks, AnupamTalk 22:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont understand Islescapes aversion to adding the Hinduism ranking? I've provided a reliable source besides I agree that the religion in pakistan articles need alot more work, some of them are very obtuse but to say that we remove the Hinduism part and leave the Islamic part is in flagrant violation of NPOV, We can not allow arbitrariness on the part of one single religion. I can understand why the Christianity figure may be disputable but the Hinduism ranking and for historical reasons it should not be difficult to fathom why there is a large Hindu populace in Pakistan S Seagal 22:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Since I have been personally addressed here, I should clarify that before jumping into an argument, one should go through the whole discussion, not to sideline the progress on issue. I have actually agreed to the amendment as long as it doesn't contradict other articles on Wikipedia. In this case, it is recommended that instead of trying on FA, the issue be discussed on relevant articles, as in this case Hinduism by country etc. But for NPOV I would agree with Fowler&amp;fowler  -- Isle  Scape  12:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, sixth largest Hindu population is fine. And you can mention that there are over 2 million Christians, but I wouldn't bother with comparing it with Belgium which has a population of over 10 million.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi IsleScape, The citation you have for Pakistan being the "second most populous Muslim country" in the lead, in fact says that India is the second most populous Muslim country. Here is the website (amazon) for searching the book: Search:India-Pakistan War and Peace. Once there, type "second most populous Muslim country" in the search box, and it will take you to page 13, where the text says: "The Muslim homeland was supposed to become the homeland of all Muslims in pre-Partition India. This did not happen.  Nearly 50 per cent of the Muslim population remained in the Indian Republic, ultimately leading to an anticlimax where India today has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan and is the second most populous Muslim country in the world. The expectation and assessment of Pakistani and Indian leaders at Partition proved to be completely wrong."  Thought I'd let you know. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  19:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies. No offence intended. Am replacing with a neutral citation. Thanks anyway. -- Isle  Scape  21:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Second Largest Muslim Population
Since this is an issue that has vexed the Pakistan and India pages for some time, I thought I'd clarify the numbers by examining the census figures put out by the Governments of Pakistan, India, and the CIA fact book (rather than quote a Wikipedia page that has a "disputed" tag on it!). Here is what I found. (I am adding this to the talk pages of both Pakistan and India). Please read the data and analysis carefully before you write angry or impatient rejoinders.

Data:


 * The government of Pakistan did its last census in 1998, but did not include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in the final census numbers, although at least for the Northern Areas, the census was taken (as far as I can tell).
 * The government of India did its last census in 2001 and did include Jammu and Kashmir (i.e. Indian administered Kashmir, but not Azad Kashmir or Northern Areas) in the census.
 * The CIA factbook is made up of projections from these census figures, using the rates of growth of each population and religious group.

Assumptions:

The most pragmatic approach to evaluate the 2006 (end of the year) numbers would be to:
 * Include Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas in the Pakistan numbers
 * Include Jammu and Kashmir in the India numbers.
 * Use the rates of growth for each religious community in the census to compute the end of year 2006 numbers.

Note: I know that various Wikipedians will dispute the above assumptions, but in light of current day reality, they seem to be the best assumptions. So here are the statistics.

 Pakistan: 

According to the 1998 census, the population was 132,352,000. (See 1998 numbers here). For normalizing the computation for both countries, let us assume that these numbers did not include the year 1998 itself. Therefore, in order to estimate the numbers of end of 2006, we will count 1998, 1999, ..., 2006, a total of 9 years. The average annual growth rate for population in Pakistan for the period 1981-1998 according to the government census page is 2.69%. The Pakistani government end of the year figure for 2006 of is 158,946,500 (see bottom of this page), or and the Wikipedia Pakistan page number is of 165,803,560 (based on the US Government Census estimates, see also: CIA Factbook Pakistan Page). We will use the larger number. Now what about the populations of Azad Kashmir and the Northern Areas. According to the Wikipedia Northern Areas page the numbers for the 1998 census were 870,347. Let us give the Northern Areas an average population growth rate of 6% (more than double the Pakistani rate of 2.69%, since it is sparsely populated). Then the end of year 2006 population for the Northern Areas is:

$$ 870347\left(1+6/100\right)^9= 1470400 $$

What about Azad Kashmir? Well, no census was taken recently, but according to the Wikipedia Azad Kashmir: Demographics page, it has approximately 4 million inhabitants today. So, the total end of 2006 population of Pakistan is:

$$ 165803560 + 1470400 + 4000000 = 171273960$$

i.e. 171 million 273 thousand 960. Now, according to the Pakistan Census Organisation: Population by Religion Page, 96.28% of Pakistanis are Muslim (the Wikpedia Pakistan: Demographics page shows 96%), so the total end of 2006 Muslim population of Pakistan is:

$$ 173540400\times 96.28/100 = 164900000 $$

i.e. 164 million, 900 thousand at the end of 2006.

 India: 

According to the Government of India 2001 Data by Religion], the total Muslim population of India at the end of 2000 was 138,188,220 (See here for the numbers) for 13.4% of the population. However, the rates of growth of population for different communities in India are quite different. According to the 2001 India census Growth Rates by Religious Communities Page, the ten-yearly growth rate for Muslims during 1981-1990 was 34.5 and during 1991-2000 was 36.0. (See: here),  This gives an average ten-year Muslim community growth rate (for the period 1981-2000) of:

$$ (34.5+36.0)/2 = 35.25 $$

This gives a yearly growth rate of approximately 3.05% since:

$$ 100\left(1+3.05/100\right)^{10} = 135.05 $$

Since the 2001 census give the end of 2000 figures, as in the Pakistan case, we will count 2001, i.e. we will have 2001, 2002, ..., 2006, a total of six years. Therefore, the end of 2006 Muslim population of India is:

$$ 138188220 \left(1+3.05/100\right)^6 = 165490000 $$

i.e. 165 million 490 thousand

This also means that although, Muslims comprised 13.4% of India's population at the end of 2000, they now constitute over 15% of the population.

 Conclusion: 

The numbers for the two countries are more or less equal. These are the projections from the best sources I can get. I know some Pakistanis will say, what about the Afghan refugees in Pakistan that number approximately 3 million, to which I am sure some Indians will say, what about the Bangladeshi undocumented immigrants in India, etc. These seem to be the official numbers. From my point of view the numbers are close enough that neither country can say with absolute confidence that it has the second largest Muslim population in the world and the other doesn't. Maybe we can say they tie for second place.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. I should add that I am not trying to violate WP:NOR here, but just saying that the credible sources out there, like the Government censuses, don't make a clear cut case for either country (exclusively) being the second most populous Muslim country in 2006.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * yup violation of WP:NOR ---omerlivesOmerlives 01:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan Is Not in the Middle East
Pakistan is not in the middle east and should not be listed as being in the middle east. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.225.208.45 (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Western Pakistan is Middle Eastern as the people there speak Pashto, Baluchi and Persian. These are Middle Eastern languages and the Greater Middle East is a reflection of geographic continuity and these groups. Obviously, Sind and Punjab are South Asian so there is no reason not to accommodate both sections of the country as it is an overlapping country like Afghanistan which is Central Asian and Middle Eastern. Tombseye 21:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

What is Middle Eastern and what isn't is objective. The most common definition of the Middle East has Iran as the most eastern country. Afghanistan is not considered part of the Middle East most of the time. Tajikistan is also a Persian speaking country but it is never listed as Middle Eastern.


 * That's actually quite arbitrary and the Greater Middle East is a newer reference that is valid as it is used by the State Department, the EU and organizations such as the Middle East Institute. The reasons are obvious as the western portions are culturally, historically and ethnically NOT South Asian, but Middle eastern. Afghanistan is often included in the region as one can see at universities such as Columbia, Harvard, Univ. of Chicago and others. Thus, I will return the reference. Tombseye 05:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan may belong in the "Greater Middle East" but it does not belong in the Middle East proper. It's historically a separate region that has received some Semitic influence mostly through an Indo-Aryan and Iranian prism. There's no distinction between Iranian languages as being a part of a Middle Eastern or a Central Asian influence/heritage. While Balochistan probably fits the description of "Middle Eastern", as Persian and Balochi are both Middle Eastern languages (both prominent in Iran, at least the former), the rest of the area does not. The North West Frontier is very much more Central Asian. Afghanistan overlaps with Central Asia and the Middle East, with its eastern areas being apart of the Central Asian overlap. Likewise, the NWFP would be part of that Central Asian overlap, rather then the Middle Eastern one. Nevertheless, due to Balochistan and current socio-political trends that tend to foster connections, Pakistan is in the Greater Middle East. But, it does not lie in the Middle East proper, and therefore should not have that category of being a "Middle Eastern" country, as that is used for countries that lie in the proper region. Nations that lie in the Greater Middle East and not the proper region itself, such as the Maghreb states and Somalia, are not included. Why should Pakistan be included? Afghan Historian 17:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The regional aspects of Pakistan make it an overlapping state. The Greater Middle East is a continuation of what historian Arnold Toynbee referred to as a Middle East that exists concurrent with historical events of a major importance including: Persian empires, Hellenism, Arab rule, and early Turkic migrations. Pakistan falls under all of these events, BUT eastern Pakistan is definitely South Asian culturally and historically whereas western Pakistan is Middle Eastern/Central Asian (which in some respects is synynymous as only geography and Soviet annexation have altered the connections). Pakistan is like Turkey and even Afghanistan as it is not easily fit into surrounding regions, but is rather a country that phases from South Asia towards the Middle East/Central Asia. As for the whys, many thinktanks and universities list Pakistan as both South Asian and Middle Eastern, most likely b/c Pakistan's two regions show affinities in opposite directions. Also, the Maghrib is very much Middle Eastern despite the addage of being referred to as North African which is just a geographic term. For example, a Saudi can communicate with a Morrocan whereas he/she can't talk to a Turk or Iranian. Most universities link North Africa to the Middle East or just include it. Somalia however is outside geographic continuity and is part of a unique region, the Horn of Africa, which has received substantial middle eastern influences. It has not lived through the main historical events that have shaped the core region though and it lacks geographic continuity so I wouldn't include it for that reason and I would say the Middle East ends at Khartoum in the south and Morocco in the west (or is at least in the Greater Middle East, a term that makes sense in this regard). Tombseye 21:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Turkey has historically been linked to the Middle East. The Maghreb which has stronger links to the Middle East is increasingly being called North Africa. Pakistan's population is overwhelmingly concentrated in its eastern provinces. It should not be included in the Middle East. Like I said before Tajikistan is a country where Persian/Tajik is spoken by the majority of its population and is never included in the Middle East, so why should Pakistan be included. Pakistan is overwhelmingly South Asian. The majority of Pakistan is not Middle Eastern, so my edits should not be changed everytime. Pakistan is in South Asia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.181.71 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I have reverted the removal of 'Greater Middle East' from the introduction section. I felt that since the use of the term can be cited, it is appropriate for inclusion. Perhaps the inclusion of the term could be (or already is) elaborated on within the article itself, listing some of the arguments given above? →Ollie (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In the external links Pakistan is linked to Middle Eastern countries which it is not. Pakistan may be a part of the Bush Administration's idea of the "the Greater Middle East", but it is not part of the proper Middle East and should not be linked. As for the link to Middle East Institute, it lists countries such as Georgia, Turkmenistan , Azerbeijan and others that are either part of Central Asia or the Caucausus. These countries are almost never considered to be part of the Middle East. Pakistan is South Asian and should not be listed in the Middle East just because some organization says it is or some people want it to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.181.71 (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Unfortunately for you, this is exactly how wikipedia works. Verifiability states that The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Pakistan's being in the Greater Middle East is verifiable at two different sources and hence is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.
 * May I suggest that you provide a reliable source stating that Pakistan is not in the Greater Middle East to make your own opinion verifiable. Doing so would add considerable weight to your position. Even so, I would still say that it is important to include Pakistan being in the GME somewhere in the article (alongside your own opinion of course), as it is still a verifiable opinion of some significant organisations.
 * At this stage I have not reverted the edit again, as I do not intend on engaging in an edit war. I would ask that you discuss the issue further here so that Consensus can be reached on the issue. Thanks, →Ollie (talk • contribs) 00:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, besides the fact that most people do not consider Pakistan in the Middle East, textbooks do not either. I have never seen a textbook saying Pakistan is in the Middle East. BBC, CNN and other sources of newssdo not ever include Pakistan in the Middle East either. I guess you could state somewhere in the article that because of the Pashto and Baloch and their ties to recent events dealing with Al Qeada and Afghanistan, Pakistan is becoming more involved in International politics. You can also talk about the ties between Iran, Afghanistan and the Pashto and Baloch in Pakistan. You should not state the Pakistan in the Middle East or have it linked as middle eastern countries. You can have it linked to Indo Iranian speaking countries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.72.181.71 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC).


 * On the whole I agree with you. Having read the Greater Middle East article, my current thinking is that a compromise could be reached by including the sentence Pakistan is also defined by the G8 group of nations as part of the Greater Middle East. This can be cited with the two references used previously. Also, I don't think that the article belongs in the Middle Eastern countries category, as there is a difference between the Middle East and the Greater Middle East. How do you feel about this solution?


 * Also, don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end - this inserts your username (or IP address in your case) and the date and time so that everyone can keep track of who said what and when! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can agree to the compromise by →Ollie (talk • contribs) . Pakistan is overwhelming South Asian yes in that most people, 3/4, speak South Asian languages etc. and largely live in the east, BUT the west is overwhelming NOT South Asian. Some consideration for this large group has to be made which many academic departments and thinktanks do. Having it listed as an overlapping country shouldn't be a problem at all as we list its inclusion in South Asia first and then in the Greater Middle East, which the Bush administration borrowed from Toynbee and others who suggested a larger Middle East based upon what I stated previously. I linked it two different articles so its removal is not acceptable. Tombseye 02:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the compromise. You can include the part about the G8 including Pakistan in the Greater Middle East in the Politics section. It should not be included in the introduction to the country. Like I said also you could also link it to Indo Iranian countries because Pasto and Baloch are Indo Iranian languages.


 * Pashto and Balochi are Iranian languages, the Indo-Iranian link is more remote in this regard as we could then simply refer to Iran and Afghanistan as Indo-Iranian which is just confusing. The opening should have this as it explains the country's links in various directions. Tombseye 18:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I LOVE THIS COMPROMISE! It acknowledges Pakistan's status as an overall South Asian country, yet also acknowledges its Mideastern ties via its western areas, without making the mistake of giving it equal prominence as a mainstream "Middle Eastern" country, which it is not. This will settle any dispute. Afghan Historian 20:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

parts of the "Etymology section" were removed.
Hello. I read this article a while back ago and I noticed that since then some parts of the Etymology section were removed. The current content there is 100% correct, however some of the material from before was erased. The part that was erased mentioned what the letters in Pakistan stand for. So in addition to the current etymology, I think the other part of the etymology should be brought back. After all that was from documents from the founder of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah. -- Behnam 05:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan - Afgan Relations - What is this non-sense?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pak-Afghan_Relations--Bk2006 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Strayed too far from home? Maybe you're feeling homesick and calling Pakistan your home's name:-P Anthony Permal 09:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Sari
Can someone remove this line "sari is regional dress that is worn by many women in Sindh and parts of Pakistan." This is not true, as it is viewed as an Indian dress, and is rarely worn in Pakistan. IP198 21:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF are you talking about? Sindhi women do wear Saris...get your facts right. You indians claim shit, and then don't even bother proving 99% of it. SO typical!

Excuse me tht user is a Pakistani! --59.182.34.192 11:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

True, saris are worn all over pakistan by many women. There is a large community of Pakistanis of Indian origin (who are quite patriotic, thank you) who wear saris not because they're Indian ancestrally but because it IS regional clothing, just like many people in India wear shalwar kameez - men and women. Of course, the larger number of people wearing saris definitely come from the Christian and Hindu adherents in Pakistan, it is also common to see older Muslim women (aged 50 or above) wearing saris.


 * Why are you assuming the OP is Indian? I'm Indian, and from what I can tell, Pakistanis are more adamant in denying any link with India. Look at all the (sic) posts claiming that Urdu is a Persian/Afghan/Turkic etc language that has little in common with Hindi. It seems to me that some zealot freako wants to make up another divide about how Pakistani women wear only salwar kameez and Indian women wear only saris. My family is from North India, and the women probably wear salwar kameez more than they wear saris. Also, most black and white pictures of pre-partition Sindh show women wearing saris in what, to me, looks like the gujarati style (pallu goes in the back and up over the head).

Pakistanis do NOT WEAR SARIS!!! why is this written in the cultural section of Pakistan. This is totally innacurate and does not reflect the natural culture of Pakistan. The only people who were Sari's in Pakistan are a small number of the minority Muhajir community(HIndustani) <7% because they came from India. Even from amongst this group of 7%, I doubt that any of them wear sari's. The only people who wear sari's in Pakistan are illegal migrants and refugees from Sri Lanka, Hindustan(Indian Muslims) and Bangladesh which is what the Sari is associated with here in Pakistan. They are illegals in our country and do not carry any legal documents declairing them as being Pakistani. They do not constitute the basis or norm for the culture of Pakistan. Also, the few elders who wear saris are now mostly dead from amongst this community. In the 1970's people used to wear dresses and sari's even in Kabul, Afghanistan, but it doesnt mean its part of their culture! so why is it written here for Pakistan? Even the minority Hindus living in Sindh and Balochistan, though being Hindu, do not wear Sari! but rather traditional Baloch dresses. Please remove this innacurate piece of information.

Hi
People is the flag of Pakistan inspired by the flag of Turkey? as evident here National flags inspired by the flag of Turkey. Just out of curiosity. Thanks Aristovoul0s 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The Crescent on the Pakistani flag represents its identity as a homeland for South Asian Muslims. It does not arise from Ottoman influence. It may be of "Turkic" origin, coming with Turkish Muslims from Central Asia (Turkestan) but it does not come from Turkey. Afghan Historian 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to do with the flag. More like, look at the shape of Pakistan..just look. Does it remind you of anything? Perhaps a certain Japanese creature. Yes, Pakistan looks like Godzilla. --Xiggeh? 02:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wildlife of Pakistan
Kindly contribute to this article when you get time, and request others too.

Thanks

Atulsnischal 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yahya01's edits
is adding a whole section regarding "apartheid". While the matter is quite POV by the very name, and the contents, that's not the main problem. The article is a featured one, and has to adhere to specific criteria. New materials should go to sub-articles with a very brief mention in this main country level page. Also, country level pages has specific structures about sections, the new material does not fit into any. Thanks. --Ragib 01:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
I've just noticed that somebody has managed to edit the description of the map of Pakistan. When you hover over it, it says, 'Location of Pakistan (goat shaggers) ' Could someone please correct this? I'm not sure how.--Shaliron 23:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Thanks for pointing out this. --Ragib 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Demographics
The Demographics section should only include the demographics of Pakistan, not include a debate on whether Urdu should be spoken in Pakistan or not. The so called resentment against Urdu does not have one reliable source. The entire section begining from "It should be noted that the continued use of Urdu as the national language" to "as Persia, Afghanistan and Turco-Persian Central Asia", should be removed as it is original research. IP198 21:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the page history the entire section was put in by user 69.15.217.195. Of his 11 total contributions 7 were of the demographics section. He provided no reason for putting in this entire section, and I suspect that he could be the author of the geocites webpage which he/she used as a reference. If no one has any objections i will remove the entire section in a couple of days. IP198 22:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree... I think the issue of demographics and the use of the Urdu language (a language that represents the mother tongue of of only 7%) of the demographic population is something to discuss and a valid point. I remember seeing the said modifications, and while I dont know who the author was, he/she was justified and correct in making those changes and adding those very valid points. The fact that the language of a 'refugee' population/migrants was chosen as a national language is unprecedented and has caused much stir in Pakistan particularly vis-a-vis its national identity, its attempt to re-align itself with the middle east, persia and central asia but more importantly, to revert to its ancient cultural traditions and ancestral lingua franca which for all intent and purpose was Persian/Dari for several thousand years up until the end of the Sikh Empire. But more importantly, the manner and reasons it was imposed by the colonial british to undermine the influence and use of Persian in Pakistan, as well as in northern parts of India are clearly established facts that have and continue to play an important part in the development of Pakistan's identity and nationality. Also, many of Pakistan's other ethnic group have shown great apprehension at what they see as the dominance of a foreign language over their indigenous language and the loss of their original culture thats been associated with Urdu dominance. I ask that this section be re-written in light of this issue either in the demographic section or if this its a problem, then under a new heading perhaps labelled 'National Language Issue'. Regards

Still waiting.....Sanjeev.rattan 05:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Geography
Still waiting........ rgrds

I am trying .. to find out about a village / town called Dhirki north of Lahore possibly in Gujrat District of Pakistan can some one help.... rgrds ....................................................................................... Sanjeev.rattan 18:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Where is the section on Pakistan's geography? This article on a country was a featured article on the main page without any information about it's geographic nature? I have half a mind to start a section stub with the text: Pakistan is a country dominated by mountains and the Indus River. I think I came to this article to find out what the name of the mountains are the separate India from Iran (I don't think it's the Zagros or Himalayas, but maybe it is). Xaxafrad 20:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was really surprising to me as well. However, I found out that on November 29, someone blanked several sections including the following two sections: geography/climate, and flora/fauna. The next person to revert the vandalism didn't restore these two blanked sections. I've restored them. --Ragib 21:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Before the article went for peer review, we specifically included several sections that were thought necessary including the two that Ragib mentions. It seems some people are just interested in childish behaviour. Thanks fore sections Ragib. Green Giant 04:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

How bad it is. Kashmir is a disputed area. And you people are showing to the world that its offcial part of Pakistan. How much disgrace does it bring to democracy loving Indians, who actively advocate the freedom of information. Please edit the article and show the fact to the world.


 * Kashmir is a disputed region where the people are persecuted anddenied heir right of self determination. So much for freedom loving zealots in India who love to meddle in everyone's affairs instead of taking care of internal deterioration of first. Pakistan's media and paper press is noted to be much more fairminded and with journalisic integrity than the nationalist coerced soundbited from the oligarchy and false entity known as India. Please note. 69.231.169.43

Instead of fighting, please DISCUSS.
 * That's the effect of poor media and lack of information. For your information India is a nation of a billion souls ready to lanch themselves for the new era, not a false entity. This nation has been noted for its peace missions elsewhere in the world and its noted role in UN and NAM. India is democratic. The opposotion has the right to say anything against the government and leaders do not fled to other nations for asylum as it has happened in Pakistan.

Currency
Why are money amounts in the article given in US dollars instead of local currency? Jimp 07:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Issues raised by Wali26
Since the message from Wali26 concerns the large scale edits made by him in this article, I'm posting it here: Well, i'm not understanding one thing then. If you can write in the article that India claims part of Pakistani administered Kashmir, why can't I add that Pakistan claims part of Indian Kashmir. I just simply wanted to add that part to the discussion. I'm not starting propaganda. I have sources for what I want to write. This is not right what you are doing and I think you are being biased. If I had more time, I would appeal to the wikipedia administrators about your behavior and have you removed.

I'm not even allowed to convey proper changes. And, you never answered why the Indian territorial estimate INCLUDES Indian administered Kashmir and then they have a second estimate that includes Chinese and Pakistani administered Kashmir. While, Pakistan's EXCLUDES pakistani administered Kashmir. To the average person out there, they are going to deduce that Kashmir has more of a "right" to be Indian. In reality, the right is for a plebiscite and that is all I am trying to add to this article. A small bit of information on that.

But, if you want complete power so be it. I guess the enemies of Pakistan run this website. I'll stay pray for you as my friend and brother. (email from Wali26)


 * Since this concerns a large scale change in the article, I invite others to discuss it here. (Wali, please use this talk page to discuss your points rather than sending personal emails to me.) Thanks. --Ragib 00:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm already going to file a complaint about you and I have told the Pakistanidefenceforum website that you are very biased against Pakistan. So, we will see what happens. I have heard other Pakistani's complain about wikipedia because their policies are biased overall. I wish you guys could adopt a balanced viewpoint. And, I'll stop sending you e-mails when you stop sending me e-mails. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheen786 (talk • contribs)


 * Who are you and *when* did I send you an email? Feel completely free to raise an issue at the Administrator's noticeboard or any other noticeboard in wikipedia. Thank you. --Ragib 07:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with mentioning that Pakistan also claims the Indian part of Kashmir. This sentence states that "Pakistan exercises de facto jurisdiction over the western parts of the Kashmir region, organised as two separate political entities (Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas), which are also claimed by India." Why not also mention that Pakistan claims the Indian part of Kashmir. The image of the Kashmir region should also be shown. IP198 16:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There is actually no problem at adding something with a consensus. The only problem was Wali's large scale and potentially controversial edits without any discussion. That's why we have this thread open so we can discuss this here and reach a consensus. Thanks. --Ragib 19:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

btw Maheen 786, and Wali26, please dont attack Ragib. If you look at the archives of this article you will see that Ragib has spoken against other users, who shall not be named, bent on maliciously degrading Pakistan. IP198 16:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Dispute has been raised!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugamma1 (talk • contribs)

Okay i dont see what was "large scale an potentially controversial", however once it was reverted it should have been discussed by Wali26 on the talk pg. i think a simple soultion would be to include this image, and mention that Pakistan also claims the Indian administeded part of Kashmir. A simple sentence should suffice. IP198 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate Comment on Society and Culture section.
Someone has slipped this in "There is persecution of Christians in Pakistan.[66]" This is not appropriate, it is there to defame Pakistan. I tried to remove it but it returned. Also for some reason I kept on delete other parts of the text when i know i only deleted that.Regarding first point I believe it is semi protected so cannot edit, thus someone please change. Eliteforce 00:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comment. IP198 19:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please high light it....
The knowledge of A.T. Kearney/Foreign Policy Globalization Index 2006 is at

http://www.atkearney.com/main.taf?p=5,4,1,116

Wiki admin, please create the main article for the index at this website, if the index is a validated measure.

To my view, the index only partially measures the globalization from economic, tourist and telecommunication aspects. What about cultural exchange? --- such as movie - foreign box office, art expos, music exchange - music bands' inflow and outflow, TV channels for or TV shows with imported programs etc? The measurement sport exchange many not be that significant, as this field have already been globalized by Olympic spirit.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.15.34.251 (talk) 07:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

bad edits
Someone has made some malicious edits. The 'Flora and Fauna' heading has been changed to 'Florer and Forner' and the first word in the 'Economy' section is Pakiland!! Brigidhj 17:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the vandalism. Thank you for pointing out. --Webkami 17:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Formation of Pakistan
In the Infobox, the following non-Pakistani or even non-Indian Empires have been listed for the formation of Pakistan:
 * Abbasid dynasty (Arab dynasty - Baghdad)
 * Ghaznavid Empire (Turko-Persian - capital: Ghazni of Afghanistan)
 * Ghurids (Persian/Tajik - capital: Ghor of Afghanistan)
 * Delhi Sultanate (capital: Delhi)
 * Mughal Empire (Gurkani/Turko-Persian - capital: initially Kabul, then Delhi)
 * Durrani Empire (Afghan - capital: Kandahar, later Kabul)

I would like to know the reason for adding these empires for the formation of Pakistan, what the relation is between those empires and the nation of Pakistan. "Formation" of a government means the Establishment of a state by the same nation, people, ethnic and race.While they have nothing to do directly with today's Pakistan, neither linguistically nor ethnically. The Formation of Pakistan as a state and as a nation is in 1947. Being conquered and ruled by an Empire does not make it the real descendant and successor of that Empire. If so, then you have to list all the empires who ruled the current territories of Pakistan since 2000 BC, especially the Maurya and Gupta Empires who were the inhabitants of the region of India/Pakistan; Punjab. -Ariana310 13:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreover, a reliable source would be needed which would directly state that the Formation of Pakistan as a state, nation and government was since the 8th century CE by the Abbasid dynasty, or any other dynasty that you choose.Ariana310 13:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan was formed as a Muslim homeland in the subcontinent. Muslims first came to the subcontinent during the 8th century. Pakistan was not formed for a linguistic or ethnic group, but instead for a religion. I believe Encarta is a reliable source Pakistan’s cultural identity is traced to the centuries of Muslim rule in the region. In ad 711 Mohammad bin Qasim, an Arab general and nephew of Hajjaj, ruler of Iraq and Persia, conquered Sind and incorporated it into the Umayyad Caliphate. For these reasons i will put back the info you took out. IP198 16:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S This article became featured with this content, so their is really no reason to remove it. IP198 16:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * IP198 you got valid points. I agree the article should have content that was in featured status. We should try to improve the article and not remove any verified info. --Webkami 17:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to differentiate between "History of Pakistan's territory" and "Formation of Pakistan (as a nation and state)". The Pakistan's territory has a history of more than 50,000-year-old civilization, especially its Northern regions which were included in Gandhara. While "Pakistan" as a state and nation was formed in 1947. Can you cite me a single reliable source which says: "Pakistan as a state and nation was formed in 8th century" ? Or at least, show me a single old book before the 20th century in which the word "Pakistan" is mentioned. The source which you provided is empty, it only talks about how the people who lived in modern-day Pakistan's region converted to Islam, and it clearly says "and incorporated it into the Umayyad Caliphate.", it does not say that Umayyads made or created the Pakistan state. Providing a scholarly source is not playing by words!. Thank you. -Ariana310 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No where does it say that Pakistan was formed in the 8th century. It says that the Abbasid Dynasty was formed during that period. That is correct. The reference that i provided clearly states that Pakistanis cultural identity is traced back to Muslim rule. The difference between Gandhara is that its not Muslim, so their is no point in it being mentioned. Look at the Germany article(also a featured article), it shows that Germany was formed in 843, even though the nation did not exist until 1871 as unifed state. This is just more info. Pakistan was formed as a nation and state as a homeland for Muslims of the subcontinent, so its natural to include the Muslim rule as part of its history, and formation. I cant show you a "a single old book before the 20th century in which the word "Pakistan" is mentioned", as the name was coined in th 1930's. IP198 18:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * So you do admit that the word "Pakistan" and even Pakistan as a "nation and state" did not exist before the 1930's. Can you reply to the following questions:
 * Does being conquered and ruled by a foreign dynasty or empire make a country become its successor?
 * Can you tell me what "Formation or Creation of a country" means from a political viewpoint?
 * It is completely irrelevant to relate Abbasids, Ghaznavids, Ghorids, Mughols and others to Pakistan. They all had their capitals out side of Pakistan, different culture, different ethnicity or race, and different language. It would be totally absurd to call their empires or dynasties as the first formation of Pakistan's state. You can mention those empires under the History of Pakistan which is already mentioned, not under its formation/creation. About Germany, at least you should have looked through the article of Eastern Francia before providing it as an example. In fact, the ruler of Eastern Francia was called Louis the German, so Germany was named after it and it was the first creation of a state/country under that name. But is that such a thing with "Pakistan"?
 * You did not and cannot provide a single reliable source for what you say, but instead you play with the words of what is written in Encarta and other places. If you continue adding them again and again, I will be obliged to ask an Administrator to resolve the dispute. Thank you. -Ariana310 18:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that might be best, though you could be blocked for violating 3rr. I will respond to your questions, and if you still feel this way you should go ahead and ask an admin for dispute resolution. I think you should note that 3 editors have already disagred with you. Where did it say that Pakistan was a successor to any of those dynasties? How are all those dynasties foreign? the first one is, though Muhammad bin Qasim is viewed as hero in Pakistan. How far is Ghazni from Pakistans border? Muhammad Ghuri established Muslim rule all over North India, and is buried in Pakistan. The Delhi Sultanate, and the Mughals ruled the subcontinent, intermarried with the natives, and had their capital in the subcontinent - Agra, Delhi, Lahore. They might have been "foreign" at first, but they assimilated at formed a new culture. I think you are trying to divide shared history, on modern borders. For the second question, each country has their own view. Some countries view their formation as the first time a linguistic, or ethnic group was formed. However, Pakistan was created as a state for Muslims in the subcontinent. If Tamil Nadu had been Muslim it would have been included in Pakistan. When did Muslims first come into the subcontinent? Going back to the German example, the word Germany was not coined by Louis the German, but instead by the Romans who called it Germania. So why doesnt the Germany article say their formation occurred at this time? The reason is that they view their country history to begin from 843, even though Germans lived their before. The name doesnt make a difference, but if did the name Sindh has been used since ancient times. Pakistan stands for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Balochistan. btw is this necessary ? Instead of removing info from featured articles, you should try and make Afghanistan one.IP198 20:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is not a shared history. If that were the case, we can make the formation of Afghanistan since the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom (2nd century BCE) or from the Islamic Period we can put put it for Tahirid dynasty (the first independent Muslim dynasty in Greater Khorasan). But in fact, "formation" and "creation" of a state or a nation must be the independence by the people of the same culture, race/ethnic and the same territory. Umayyads and Abbasids conquered several countries, should all the Muslim countries claim to have been formed at that time? Just look at Iraq's article. Abbasids were centered in Baghdad, the same religion, the same culture, the same people and the same name of country; while their formation as a modern state is in 1919. Or Turkey, for example, the Ottoman Empire was an independent Turkish empire in Turkey who ruled from the 13th till the 10th century. While the formation of Turkey is recognized as of 1919. And when an article reaches to Featured Article, it does not mean that one cannot edit it or there is NO error in it. -Ariana310 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ariana310. This article is about the nation-state of Pakistan and hence it should be talked as its formation as a nation-state only. The History of Pakistan does an extremely thorough job going through the various empires and dynasties that occupied parts of Pakistan at one point. The infobox itself is not programmed to accept both "formation" and receiving "independence", implying the obvious.. it's either one or the other when it comes to a nation-state entity. Afinebalance 21:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at this link from the Pakistani goverment Pakistan emerged on the world map on August 14,1947. It has its roots into the remote past. Its establishment was the culmination of the struggle by Muslims of the South-Asian subcontinent for a separate homeland of their own and its foundation was laid when Muhammad bin Qasim subdued Sindh in 711 A.D. as a reprisal against sea pirates that had taken refuge in Raja Dahir's kingdom. IP198 21:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a romanticized perception of the idea of Pakistan. As a Pakistani of course I know the culture of my country goes back way before 1947, but this is an article about the nation-state of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The nation-state itself, like most nation-states in the world, formed within the last 150 years, and this is reflected on (I think) every country's Wikipedia article. It will always be removed because it doesn't fit into the infobox's parameters nor does it make academic sense. Afinebalance 21:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pakistan is a West Asian republic
This is the official stance of the government as well as all CIA WFB maps. Also see

Shinas 19:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * When it comes to geography, Wikipedia isn't dictated by "official" Government "stances". --Ragib 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nagar Valley
I wonder if someone with a knowledge of the subject could take a look at Nagar Valley that is badly in need of a clean-up, please? TerriersFan 20:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

A Q Khan
Is the A Q Khan nuclear proliferation scandal really so important in the long term as to deserve a mention in a high-level article? deeptrivia (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, so i will remove it from the article. Dilawar (t) 17:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest wait probably for a while. I've noticed that editors generally tend to disagree on most reasonable of things when it comes to these parts. deeptrivia (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Templates
Pakistan is not in the Middle East so why is the Middle East template listed on the page. No other refference source apart from a conservative US based source (quoting George Bush) considers Pakistan Middle East. Known Geography defies this definition.

Pakistani general election, 2007
I've expanded Pakistani general election, 2007 quite a bit. However, being Dutch and not knowing much about Pakistan, I'm not entirely sure it's entirely accurate or neutral. Perhaps people here could take a look. Cheers, JACO  PLANE  • 2007-07-12 22:41
 * anyone? JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-07-14 01:28
 * I have to say I'm rather worried that my expansion of the article of the article is rather unbalanced since I'm not from Pakistan (cheese head Dutchman here) and not aware of the developments in the political scene in Pakistan. Seeing as the next election in Pakistan will be such a monumental event in the history of Pakistan, I implore all people more informed than me to take a look at the article and correct any inaccuracies or biases in the article as it is currently. It reflects poorly on Wikipedia if this article is not up to shape and it gets picked up somewhere in the Pakistani media. Cheers, JACO  PLANE  &bull; 2007-08-9 01:12

Salaam to every one here
Kk loach 09:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Look you people you are Pakistani, Indian or you belong to any country in this world first of all you all will agree with me that we share the same earth. Plz stop fighting here on the discussion page of “PAKISTAN”. To Indians:Look, Pakistani Knight gives you the very detailed answer of your question and also your comments, so now do not spoil our discussion page. We do not say that you can not contribute or talk to us on this page but please contribute on the positive way and not to say that this thing belong to me and this thing belong to you. Now stop this all.

CONCLUTION Here we are representing Pakistan and Pakistani people and I m very confident to say that Pakistani people are very gracious and friendly to every one whether they belong to Pakistan, India or any country of this world. Now I hope the positive messages from both Pakistani and Indian people.Kk loach 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Music of Pakistan
The Music of Pakistan needs major work done on it. I was wondering if a few members would help in fixing the page up.

-Bk2006 11:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Can ah help
...PzZz... actually ah'm on it.Lil&#39;Khan 15:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Greater Middle East
For me, this term appearing in the first sentence of this article is a clear case of WP:UNDUE. The Greater Middle East article informs us that this is a political term invented by the Bush administration for its preparatory work for the G8 summit of 2004. The question of how much weight should this term have doesn't need a debate. It definitely shouldn't be used as a fact on the first sentence of this article. Articles on none of the other designated countries (Mauritania, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Somalia, etc.) do it. Most of them make no mention of this term anywhere. Even U.S. government seems to have only used it on just a few occasions, and most of their publications, like CIA factbook article on Pakistan, just uses Southern Asia. We should just do away with this term on the article, or mention it somewhere in the middle of the article. deeptrivia (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue first arose when this article was in its Peer Review and FAC phase. The discussion can be found in Archive 6 here . Also, the point you made about the article stating that it was a Bush administration creation is an uncited statement in that article. Anyhow, I'm up to discuss the issue again. Pepsidrinka 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We can have a discussion again, but hopefully it would not be of the type we had at . We don't need essays justifying whether or not Pakistan is in the (Greater) Middle East. A comparison of how most introductory articles on the country from reliable sources like britannica, Columbia, Encarta, CIA factbook, etc. choose to treat this matter would be a more appropriate discussion. deeptrivia (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * PS: BTW, I posted a reference which describes the " ambitious game of concocting a "Greater Middle East", quoting Le Monde on how "The expression spread like a wild fire". The article quotes several people who reject this idea, for example, Mohammad Sid-Ahmad, one of Egypt's most influential commentators, "The question is, however, whether there is such a thing as a Greater Middle East extending beyond the traditional geographical boundaries of the region. And, if so, what are the common features shared by the different countries now identified as parts of a body that would extend from Pakistan in the east to Morocco in the west? [...]"  deeptrivia (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't know much on the topic, so I can't say with any confidence whether I'm persuaded by the Greater Middle East argument. If I recall correctly, someone added the geographic location of Pakistan as the Middle East and the result of the ensuing discussion was that Pakistan was a part of the Greater Middle East, supported by the fact that the article on the Greater Middle East said so. Now, in retrospect, that is pretty much self-referencing. Anyhow, if your only contention is to remove it from the lead and to put the information somewhere in the article, I for one don't have a problem. If your contention is that the point of it being in the Greater Middle East (or whether it is or not), I'm not persuaded. I think more discussion is needed. Pepsidrinka 21:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously all references point out that Pakistan is indeed in "Greater Middle East", which is apparently a controversial term defined by the US government a couple of years ago. We can mention it somewhere in the recent history section where it might be relevant. deeptrivia (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, BUT the western areas of Pakistan are more Central Asian/Middle Eastern AND on many maps at least these western areas are shown as affiliated with the Middle East. There needs to be some mention of this so as to show that the country's western parts are transitional. Tombseye 13:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The latest version hopefully takes care of it satisfactorily. deeptrivia (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think everything's okay. I added a slight variation so as to avoid the wording being too similar to any one reference. Tombseye 13:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Regional Powers - Pakistan Deleted...by an indian user...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_power

I hope someone can please put Pakistan back into the Regional Power lists. At first Pakistan was in the list, but just recently was deleted, by those filthy mongrols. What can you expect from those animals?

'marking' the region'
Pakistan is sited between South Asia and Middle East region. It does not 'mark' that frontier. This is belittling and an insult and should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

Instability and divide
Pick up the latest issue of National Geographic and read "Struggle for the Soul of Pakistan" and tell me the wikipedia article here isn't missing something. Don Belt depicts a militaristic country, cut in two by political and social ideologies. Planted by Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq Islamic radicalism continues to grow. Military spending accounts for one quarter of the national budget while less than three percent is spent on education, health, and public welfare. Amidst this is a man who founded a non profit organization filling needs not met by the government, schools, orphanages, hospitals and ambulances, who faces constant harrassment simply because he has no separate policy for infidels. A professor teaches a graduate-level physics class and is retorted against by his students telling him he's wrong, and that God is responsible. Is this a flagrantly biased viewpoint I'm getting? Is none of it true? Because if any is, this wikipedia article needs massive restructing and an intro that reflects this.--Loodog 03:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Applepie 00:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

On the FSI index, no complains about it being here, but the way it is being displayed is misleading. Pak was 9th last year, its now 12. Thats progress (+3)-yet the arrow is red and going downwards. This is a ranking where the higher your score the better. It should be a green arrow, pointing upwards indicating that it is 3 places better placed then the previous ranking.

Thanks

Applepie x

Usage of term British India
For the second time, I am attempting to introduce an accurate and neutral phrasing for the paragraph on the partition. My previous change from "partition of British India" to "Partition of India" was reverted by user IP198. I don't wish to argue this, if the absence of the word British is somehow offensive. I don't know why the word British is necessary, but if it is then we can find an accurate way to use it.

However, the current usage is confusing, since the British ended their rule at the same time as the partition. I am just trying to come up with a phrasing that is not misleading to the uninformed. This time I have suggested "partition of the British Indian Empire". Although this is not the most common way of putting it, it is accurate, uses official names, and hopefully agreeable.

Simply using the restored phrase "partition of British India" is (1) not official and (2) misleading to the uninformed. So if the standard term "Partition of India" (my previous edit which was undone) is not descriptive enough, then how about this latest attempt at accuracy -- "the partition of the British Empire"? My edits are just a few minutes prior to the date and time in this signature. Ajobin 00:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (1) Prior to the partition, this territory was officially either "India" or the "Indian Empire". It was the "Indian Empire" that issued passports and "India" that was in the Summer Olympics and a founding member of the League of Nations. (See [British raj])
 * (2) "British India" implies that the territory of India was under British control. This is inaccurate since the partition is simultaneous with the end of British rule on the Indian subcontinent. This terminology is particularly confusing since India is the name for a country which continues to exist after the partition.


 * I have to say that you are quite incorrect in the official nomenclature. For one, the passport of pre-1947 British India clearly shows "British Indian Passport" . Thank you. --Ragib 02:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Ragib. Very useful image. I am not from India or Pakistan, so I am perfectly willing to be schooled. The passport also says simply "Indian Empire" at the bottom and does *not* simply say "British India". So, I think this just corroborates my edit to "British Indian Empire" in line with "British Indian Passport" and "Indian Empire" on the passport.
 * Anyway, all I really want is for this wording not to be misleading to my fellow Americans who may have no idea about when the British left India. "Partition of British India" implies that India is being divided under the British governance which is not precisely the case. On the other hand, "partition of the British Indian Empire" implies that Britain's empire is being divided, and one would be more likely to make the correct inference that this is marks the end of governance for Britain. The ideal wording for someone with no knowledge, would be something like "the partition of India (or "the Indian Empire") at the end of the British rule". But that is more wordy and I didn't want to take away from the focus. Indians would of course just prefer the simpler "partition of India", but would have no reason to dispute the accuracy of this wording. I am supposing that Pakistanis do not agree with "partition of India" because it is not agreed that the region of Pakistan was historically a part of India. This entire question can be avoided with the phrase "partition of the British Indian Empire." This is what I wrote since I have no interest in having this debate, and want only to improve the clarity a little. Is that more understandable & agreeable? Ajobin 03:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why i reverted your edits was due to the fact that you seperated the history section into numerous subsections, and it was easier to fix this by reverting. I dont have any problem with partition of India replacing partition of British India, in fact i think the former is more appropiate.IP198 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The "only" reason? Your actions rather speak to the contrary. I made three edits. Only *one* of these involved creating sections and formatting and it is *clearly* marked such. It is the entry on 08:24, 4 September 2007. So, you didn't even have to compare articles to figure this out. Laziness is not a constructive substitute for communication in a collaborative community.


 * As far as the wording, I agree that Partition of India is the simplest and most common form of reference, and the least confusing regarding the role of the British at that point. Ajobin 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Formatting and Readability
Since you brought up the formatting, I will explain those formatting changes though. The history section of this is difficult to follow, particularly if you are looking for a particular event, or are unfamiliar with Asian history. Considering the article includes some 4500 years of events, I thought 5 headings would help the casual & uninformed reader to process and scan that. I added the following headers at the appropriate places: Ancient History (~3000 years of time), Middle Age (1000 years), Modern Period (~200 years), Dominion of Pakistan (10 years), and Islamic Republic of Pakistan (current period). Do those 10 years warrant their own period? Perhaps not, since merging those wouldn't much impact readability. However, it happens to be very different from the period before it and also different government from the current Republic. Also, for all these header titles, I used the same wording as in the larger history article. I don't really care about this. I was just reading the article and wanted to make it easier for the next person to read. I have no expertise in or commitment to this article, so it's more yours than mine; you can decide how well you want people to understand it, and how to accomplish this. In addition, in that same edit, I also put in bold-face the dates for key events in the current period (Islamic Republic) at the front of each line. This was to improve the readability for someone scanning for certain time frame or reading quickly (i.e., most people). In retrospect, I should have done that in a separate edit from adding the sections, so that the two changes could be considered independently. If you like, you may see the visual affect of these formatting changes in my revision dated 08:24, 4 September 2007 Ajobin 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding Disputes and Reverting changes
From my point of view, this experience has been ridiculous. Reverting ***all 3*** of my edits **with no explanation** or discussion, is completely against the collaborative culture of Wikipedia. They weren't that important, so I just ignored it, and continued in good faith to try to come up with and explain the need for wording on two specific phrases. However, now you (IP198) are justifying your behavior, so I will please ask you to refer to [Wikipedia:Revert#Explain_reverts]. I understand that this article gets more than its fair share of vandalism, but this was in no way vandalism. First of all, I am a registered user. Second, I made 3 separate changes with some explanation. Third, none of them was negative. There was just no basis for reverting *all* of my changes without any explanation or discussion. The formatting I can understand reverting without much to say, if the "caretakers" had perhaps come to some agreement on the subject before. If you had, then you could quite easily say so in the revert, though. Anyway, I have already spent more than enough of my time taking an interest in your article. It would have been a much more pleasant time if there had been a little more communication and good faith shown. It is very important that my fellow Americans understand Pakistan, and on Wikipedia, that is in your hands. I wish you the best. Ajobin 21:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Overseas Pakistanis Article Created
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_pakistani

I started the article, please add on anything and fix any mistakes which I may have made. Cheers.

BK2006, October 06, 2007 (15:12 UTC) —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Why are the references underlined?
↑↑ Just wondering. I would change 'em, but this is a FA. Thanks. Rocket000 09:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Holiday section
Does anyone else think that the holidays section should be merged into the culture? Other FA's such as India, Bangladesh dont have a section on holidays, as their culture sections mention holidays. i cant see the point why every holiday in Pakistan must be mentioned IP198 20:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with merging into the Culture section but I would point out that when the article became a FA, it included holidays as a separate section. Green Giant 20:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

An article can always be improved after it is made into a Featured article. The culture section could also be expanded with info on Pakistani cusine and literature. IP198 22:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I completely agree - just because it is featured doesn't mean it can't be edited ever again. Its just that someone is bound to bring up that as an argument against merging the two sections. Green Giant 23:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sari
I have readded information regarding the sari in Pakistan that has again been removed by the same user who claims that it is worn by a small minority. The multiple sources I have added state that it is becoming popular there as formal attire it is worn by some women in cities such as Karachi. Perhaps the opinions of others might be beneficial here. Looking at the conversation above regarding this topic, there were Pakistani users who supported the inclusion of the sentence. I have reinserted the sentence in an altered format, which says that it is only worn as formal-wear until a consensus is reached. With regards, AnupamTalk 23:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Listen Anupam, i read your multiple sources and nowhere did it say that the sari is in the same league as the shalwar kameez and western dress. It is important to remember that this is a brief section on the culture of Pakistan, and we cannot include every dress that is worn there. Are we also going to add that men wear sherwanis, and some women do as well? Are we going to add that in weddings and holidays girls put on mendhi, and on weddings brides wear gharara? If we add sari, why not add that women wear the burkha and hijab as well? Is it because the sari is sophisticated, while hijab and burkha is backward? I have added your sentence on sari to the Culture of Pakistan pg, as that is the more appropiate location for it. IP198 15:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I can understand your point. If saris are included then other garments such as the sherwani also need to be mentioned. Thanks for moving the sentences and references to the main article of the culture section. Nevertheless I felt starting a discussion was the best way to approach this issue. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding, and apologies if i seemed rude, as that was not the intention. IP198 22:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

False data
Some idiot is routinely placing fake data on the Pakistan page. He is inflating the Per capita incomes and deflating poverty rates. I am a proud Pakistani, and wish these stats are the case, but as yet they are not. Can we please stick to IMF/CIA stats for instance. Each time I edit this, this clown replaces the accurate data with his nonsense.

Thanks,

Applepie Applepie 18:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Changing Form of Government to Military Dictatorship
I suggest changing entry for the form of government to Military Dictatorship. CuriousOliver 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It pretty much has been a military dictatorship for few years now. Last night's events prove that.  --213.84.19.170 09:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Terminology.

No way is Pakistan a semi presidential republic. It is a military dictatorship. France is a semi presidential republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.105.6 (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Given the fluid state of affairs (e.g. there were rumours of Musharraf's house arrest just hours ago, which he seems to be denying) I would suggest waiting a day or so to see how things pan out. Green Giant 11:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that a few days have passed, the form of government should probably be changed to reflect the current reality. --64.142.82.28 (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Introduction is skewed in its history
The introduction jumps from the Indus Valley Civilization to the "conquest" by Persians and Greeks. It skips, perhaps deliberately, the entire period of Indian/Hindu and Buddhist civilizations. Witness the Buddhas that are being destroyed to this day, not to mention that Lahore derives its name from Luv, the son of Rama. Though Alexander brought his army to the Indus, there was hardly any Greek conquest and this region was never a part of a sustained Greek empire. It was a part of Hindu and Buddhist empires for most of its history--though unfortunately not the history that is taught in Pakistan currently. (This wasn't always the case, history books before Zia-ul-haq had different accounts). In this "new" history, post-Zia, the history of Pakistan begins with its conquerors like Mahmud of Ghazni rather than the history of its own people -- the epitome of colonization when people forget their own histories and identify simply with their conquerors. Puck42 07:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone reverted factual changes to history introduction without comment. Puck42 07:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * For the second time user Noor Aalam has reverted my edits without any comment on this topic in the discussion page. It appears Noor Aalam is simply trying to exclusively control the article by reverting any changes he doesn't agree with without any attempt at discussion. Please suggest ways to deal with this kind of behavior that violates the colloborative nature of wikipedia.Puck42 22:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Encarta also jumps from the Indus Valley civilization, to the Muslim empires of the region. See this link. The Gupta and Mauryan empire do not have the same impact on modern day Pakistan as the Mughals have. So if the Mughals are not included i dont see any point in including those two empires. I removed the other empire which you seemed to have a problem with as well, as all that info can be found in the history section. Noor Aalam 22:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting particularly when Encarta's article on Pakistan is written by someone occupying a chair sponsored by the Pakistani government. There is no problem in including Mughals--they are part of history. But to claim that Guptas and Mauryas should not be included that were empires that lasted for centuries in that region and whose artifacts (Ashoka pillars, various Buddhas) are still found while the Greeks are (hmm what exactly is the influence of Greeks on modern day Pakistan, if that is the criteria) should be seems like an ideological slant rather than a factual one. Puck42 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The other interesting thing is that the list of influences mentioned Greeks, Persians, Arabs, Afghans, Turks, and Mongols .. are all from the West. This is living in denial of the influence from the East that is at least as much as the influence from the West. The culture of Pakistan has more in common with the rest of the Indian subcontinent than it does with the Middle East. A denial of this is part of the schizophrenic identity that Pakistan has created for itself--denying all Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh influences on its culture and a shared history with the rest of India.Puck42 12:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

No one is stating that the Gupta and Mauryan empire are not important, they are, but it should be mentioned in the history section. Why mention those two empires and not any of the other empires in the intro? gandhara and mauryan emire are included in the history section, so you might want to add something on the gupta empire. I agree Pakistan has a common history with North India, what exactly in the article makes you suggest that this is being denied? As for the sentence regarding invasions its been their since the article got featured. -- Noor Aalam (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Emergency rule in Pakistan: Your reaction

 * On 3rd November, 2007 BBC opened debate on Emergency and more than 10,000 comments received many against emergency rule of President Mushraf.
 * http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=3776&edition=2&ttl=20071107170824
 * vkvora2001 17:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Please see the talk pg guideline at the top of the pg. Noor Aalam 21:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Demographics of religion
I have some difficulty finding the numbers the article currently gives for population by religion in the referenced sources, especially after the last edit by Paki90. "96% of the population are Muslims" corresponds to the referenced data from the Population Census Organization of Pakistan, but I cannot find the percentage of Sunni and Shi'a in their table, and the survey from the Ministry of Finance has no mention of religion. The CIA World Factbook, which is probably the source that the reference here is meant to point to (note 38 or 45, not 3), says "Religions: Muslim 97% (Sunni 77%, Shi'a 20%), other (includes Christian and Hindu) 3%" Which source is the basis for changing the Sunni and Shi'a percentages from "nearly 77%" and "20%" respectively, to "nearly 66%" and "34%"? The article also says that "Minority religions include Hinduism (1.85%), Christianity (1.6%) ...", while in the table from the Population Census Organization we find Christian: 1.59%, Hindu: 1.60%. Gokirie (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This article is highly biased. The militants in FATA are being harboured by Pakistani military and notorious intelligence agencies.69.157.109.144 (talk) 04:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please revert the vandalism by ARCoolGuy
The article is semi-protected, so I can't do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pakistan&oldid=179339204 appears to be the last good version. Since then, all of the changes have been by one user, ARCoolGuy, who has replaced one large section with "Yo" and added a new section consisting of the sentence "The president is evil."

This user's contributions seem to all be focused on the love lives of cartoon and video game characters, until today he vandalised this article and United States. --75.36.142.34 (talk) 13:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

"... and is a nuclear power."
Quote: "It is also a member of the UN, WTO, G33, G77 and is a nuclear power." - Can you say that? "and is a nuclear power" just sounds wrong in my ears. --Kirjapan (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Population
There is a difference in numbers: the german wikipedia states 167.806.000 inhabitants in Pakistan. Regards 77.11.202.4 (talk) 01:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)