Talk:Pakistan studies

Moved page to more appropriate title: Pakistan Studies curriculum
The original title and scope of this article is: Pakistan Studies, which is a curriculum taught is Pakistan.

Hence "Pakistan Studies curriculum" is more appropriate and descriptive title for this article.

For Reference please also see:

 * EDITORIAL: Good news about curriculum; Daily Times (Pakistan) - A new voice for a new Pakistan, December 08, 2006.
 * Irfan Ghauri, School curriculum ‘enlightened’; Two-Nation Theory explained: ‘Muslim deprivation, not religion, led to Partition’ - * New Pak Studies syllabus ‘eliminates prejudice against non-Muslims’ - * Includes concept of ‘enlightened moderation’, economic and privatisation policies, October 1999 coup; Daily Times - A new voice for a new Pakistan, December 07, 2006.
 * A. H. Nayyar and Ahmed Salim (eds.) The subtle Subversion: A report on Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan - Urdu, English, Social Studies and Civics, 2004, Report of the project A Civil Society Initiative in Curricula and Textbooks Reform; Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), Islamabad, Pakistan . Also see Reactions to report posted at SDPI:.

mrigthrishna (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan Studies curriculum → Pakistan studies – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles.

I'm a bit confused about the theme, which looks very generic. If "curriculum" refers to British A levels, that should be just a section, shouldn't it? Otherwise, the article should be split into one for the A-level curriculum and one for the generic topic area. At the moment, the generic topic area looks predominant in the article, which is why I've filed this request. Tony  (talk)  03:58, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pakistan studies
This subject has been officially misused to teach hatred instead till now, the material belongs here as issues and reforms are researched and proposed by native thinkers and policy makers of Pakistan and are crucial and central to this article, PLEASE DO NOT CENSOR AND ATTEMPT TO WHITEWASH - For Reference please also see:
 * EDITORIAL: Good news about curriculum; Daily Times (Pakistan) - A new voice for a new Pakistan, December 08, 2006.
 * Irfan Ghauri, School curriculum ‘enlightened’; Two-Nation Theory explained: ‘Muslim deprivation, not religion, led to Partition’ - * New Pak Studies syllabus ‘eliminates prejudice against non-Muslims’ - * Includes concept of ‘enlightened moderation’, economic and privatisation policies, October 1999 coup; Daily Times - A new voice for a new Pakistan, December 07, 2006.
 * A. H. Nayyar and Ahmed Salim (eds.) The subtle Subversion: A report on Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan - Urdu, English, Social Studies and Civics, 2004, Report of the project A Civil Society Initiative in Curricula and Textbooks Reform; Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI), Islamabad, Pakistan . Also see Reactions to report posted at SDPI:.

mrigthrishna (talk) 04:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI: The content is not a dispute here and you would be wasting time debating on that since that debate belongs to Pakistani textbooks controversy. The discussion here in above section is about the manual of style and adding a summary rather than a duplicate of a whole article. I see that this comment of yours is also a copy of a section above, you are good at copy pasting, aren't you? --lTopGunl (talk) 05:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Pakistan studies, the subject and curriculum itself, as a national official policy has been misused for teaching hate till now it was a policy issue and is about the manufactured content of the Pakistan studies subject/curriculum. textbooks is only one part of it,

What I like or not like is none of your business frankly (about your personal attack about my copy pasting).

mrigthrishna (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are stuck on your claim which is not even under debate. We are debating on WP:MOS and WP:WEIGHT here. And personal attack? Are you kidding? Your text is an exact copy of a section above on this very talk page. Do you have any argument of why we should have a whole duplication of the one article in another article? Reply in the above section after reading the arguments given there. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Not only the textbooks but the broad syllabus of PAKISTAN STUDIES was in itself used as an official government policy for teaching hatred, PAKISTAN STUDIES broad curriculum and subject was misused as a hate strategy, hate ideology, hate plan and hate policy and textbooks were only one part of achieving this hatred and intolerance.

Original authors of PAKISTAN STUIES curriculum article may also be invited to comment. Or new editors may research references and build this article and comment.

mrigthrishna (talk) 03:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Protected
The article has been fully protected for one week per the result of WP:AN3. Use this time to try to reach agreement on the talk page. If large 10,000-byte reverts (in either direction) continue after protection expires, blocks may be issued, unless consensus is reached first. EdJohnston (talk) 06:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see a request for admins to look at this dispute which an editor filed at Administrators' noticeboard. Editors who normally work on this article may comment on the noticeboard if they wish. My own suggestion is to open a WP:Request for comment here on this talk page, a step which has the potential to bring in outside opinions. Admins don't rule on matters of content. You need to find regular editors to contribute here and give their input on how to structure the material. EdJohnston (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The report is actually based on reverting but failing to discuss. I believe the content issue can be solved if we stick to wikipedia manual of style. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Manual of style is only a guideline, and admins will not issue sanctions for deviating from the Manual of Style. There is no substitute for actual editors who are willing to study the material carefully and give their opinion on how it could be organized in the best way. This seems to be a politically-charged issue, and you might consider having a discussion at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I never asked for sanctions based on dispute content. The issue I stated at noticeboard was that editors responded quickly for reverts but are not responding to discuss the issue inspite of all possible notifications (whether or how to implement WP:MOS or something else is the disputed related thing). This might be the same at DRN or any other notice board if the opposing editors do not respond. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * TopGun: I moved the RfC to bottom of page so it is more conspicuous. This may be helpful in case any editors who are new to the dispute want to figure out how to give their opinions. If you disagree with my change, you can move it back. It seems there is a current entry at the Dispute resolution noticeboard about the Taliban in which both you and JCAla have also participated. Think about the possibility that we should wait until the Taliban issue is sorted out before we seriously consider this one. Perhaps one will help to resolve the other. I admit that I'm not sure what the current dispute is about. My guess is that one version is more critical of the Pakistani government than the other, but I know nothing about the problem. Somebody claimed there was a connection to Indophobia which sounds alarming, but I know nothing about that. Anyone who wants to explain the connection would be performing a service. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reminders to every one. Its good, I've moved the dispute section right above it. The dispute about Taliban on DRN is completely unrelated topic and has been more than extensively discussed on Talk:Taliban and there was no consensus. JCAla now took that issue to DRN and should be treated on its own accord. This issue is about the content placed here about Pakistani textbooks controversy while this article is about an academic subject "Pakistan Studies". I was the one mentioning Indophobia, the same content (as disputed here) had duplicate copies of 10K on different articles. The one from Indophobia was previously removed on the same basis. A user put back that content here recently, that's when this content dispute started on the arguments given in the dispute section. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If a similar issue was considered at Indophobia can you give a link to that discussion? Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Talk:Indophobia. The duplicate content was not kept as a result. In response to not getting to keep that content in the article Wikireader created an article Indophobia in Pakistan which is also being proposed to merger for being a POV fork under an RFC currently going on at Talk:Indophobia. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I see only User:Wikireader41 and TopGun taking part at Talk:Indophobia. And I see no consensus between the two, rather Wikireader's reply to TopGun reads: "I completely disagree with you. but I know better than edit warring with a POV pusher. please read WP:EW and take some time to think about why the admin chose to warn only you. ... and get it out of your mind that content cannot be shared between various articles on wikipedia. It happens all the time and is permitted per WP:CC-BY-SA." So what happened there does not seem relevant for this topic. JCAla (talk) 19:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hear yourself, "no consensus". It is relevant because it is about the same content being pasted all over wikipedia, that would be POV if not spam. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Pakistani textbooks controversy
This has already been discussed here. The content is in violation of policy. See WP:SUMMARY & WP:MOS. Repeatedly raising the same issue on different forums after not being able to get a consensus is against WP: POINT --lTopGunl (talk) 00:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * you are the one who is violating WP:POINT i see no consensus about going about deleting sourced content just because you don't like content which portrays Pakistan in a negative light. please read WP:IDL consider this your final warning.  you were recently blocked for edit warring and you areindulging in the same behaviour with user Atulnischal here on this article.  please read WP:EW again.--Wikireader41 (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Even before coming to my edit, you need to learn reverting any edit. Read WP:DRNC and WP:BRD. Your reasons are completely invalid for reverting me. As for the edit, I've clearly explained that this is a POV content that is violating the manual of style as well. You can stop lying about me repeatedly if you can not assume good faith, don't assume anything. There has been no edit war here. Check the timestamps before coming in to revert and attack users. Take it as your final warning. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If there's no valid reason given for this, I will revert it back to remove the duplicate content assuming WP:NINJA. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ": you have made NO valid argument here either. do not edit war with everyone around.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:09, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There has been no edit war. This was my second revert after you failed to reply with a reason for adding this comment here. I've given you reasons for removing this. The content is a duplication and a discussion has already taken place here Talk:Indophobia. Simply duplicating the exact same content on each and every article is definitely WP:POV and promotion of your point of view. If this is to be included here, it should be done as per WP:SUMMARY. Do you have your reason now or should I go slower? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * yes you are edit warring. going around removing huge chunks of info without building consensus FIRST.  this info is duly sourced and has been a part of the article on a long term basis.  i agree you may not have violated 3R rule but you coming in and removing info you dont like because of your POV and then repeatedly reverting is edit warring.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * and dont go around linking to indophobia issue. their is NO consensus there that what you are doing is acceptable either.  so dont pretend otherwise.   Only you think there is a POV issue .  nobody else thinks.  read the comments of other editors who all want the articles kept separate.  you are looking to get yourself banned if you continue on this path.  you are seriously violating a core pillar of wikipedia which is WP:NPOV.--Wikireader41 (talk) 18:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no policy that states an acclaimed 'long term' text is correct and there's no policy that stops me from removing it when I give a reason along with my removal. See WP:BOLD before you think every one should consult you before removing or adding any content to an article. Neither you nor the other editor has provided any reason or argument on why this text should stay here. You should learn how to read time stamps. The content was removed a month ago and when this editor reinstated and got reverted with a reason, you come here and revert again the same text of which you've been previously explained to on another talkpage cited above. There's no edit war here, you need to check the timestamps. You still haven't given any reason on why this should stay given that it already is in the main article and WP:SUMMARY would allow only a summary of that content here. This debate is not in anycase related to the merger of Indophobia so don't waste your time with that here. What I linked from that talk page was my clear detailed explanations to you about this text which you want to add to both these articles. And the fact that the text was removed and not reinstated by you assumes consensus itself. Just because you can not get to resolve a conflict doesn't mean you start threatening with sanctions. Feel free to report me and get WP:BOOMERANG on yourself. I haven't violated any policy though if you fail to discuss the issue inspite of your two reverts here, I will have to report you for WP:NINJA. This is your chance to explain the content and stop with the ban threats for the last time. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * we wikipedia works on consensus. you boldly deleted some sourced verifiable info because you did not like it .  i reverted it.  now you need to discuss it here and build consensus.   please go ahead and report me if you wish.  I have clearly explained everything.  you are the one who is a WP:SPA with an agenda to remove content you perceive as portraying Pakistan in a negative way.  please read WP:NPOV and WP:EW once again.--Wikireader41 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are done with the rant, we can continue discussing the content? Stop telling me to work out a consensus and start participating in it. I've given the reasons and am waiting for your argument here if you have any. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support merging and transferring of content related to the textbooks controversy from here to over to its main article and close this issue as per WP:BOLD. I have to agree with TopGun here. Even from a neutral perspective, most of the information relating to curriculum issues belongs to the main article Pakistani textbooks controversy, which is supposed to discuss the issue in more depth as opposed to having everything here which creates a duplicate content WP:FORK on this page. Besides, this topic is an academic subject that is, as an area of study, much independently notable from topics relating to alleged curriculum issues and revisionism which are are a completely different subject. By having large chunks of info of the latter here, we are basically witnessing what we call in undue weight here. This article should solely focus on Pakistan Studies as an academic subject while everything related to textbooks controversies should be relegated to the main article created for that. In my opinion, we should have a one-sentence or two-sentence WP:SUMMARY here at best, which discusses the issue and gives a link to the main article. Doing this would ensure that this article stays relevant to what it's actually supposed to discuss, and is on-topic, as well as ensuring that WP:NPOV is maintained. Mar4d (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, having a brief look at the users who are opposing this otherwise perfectly acceptable merge of duplicate content (and the apparently *shout* message below), I can't help but notice that this is more of a WP:POV and WP:Conflict of interest issue on their behalf rather than a general intention to improve this article's coverage, relevance, due-ness and neutrality. In any case, this makes the case for merge even stronger. I think we are headed towards a silent consensus and bold closure here. Mar4d (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That is what I've been explaining to the users above. Let's see what they have to say to it. I don't mean to censor the content and I've told that here and on the same duplication at Indophobia. A summary is what is needed here. You have finally raised the point, this article is an academic topic and should be least in the way of a nationalistic editing. If they disagree they can ask for a WP:DRN. I'm sure that is exactly what they will be told there. And can some one refactor the comment below to non caps? I'm not going to get into it myself since I have a hounding bull's eye on me. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We are waiting for a response here which you are expected to give within a reasonable time. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment further in the RFC below to keep discussion in one place. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

RfC about moving material from here to Pakistani textbooks controversy
There's a dispute about the content in the Pakistan studies section of the article. I along with another editor have recommended it to be in summary style as per wikipedia's manual of style, that is, a small one paragraph summary of the topic should be left in this section with a navigation link to Pakistani textbooks controversy while 2 other editors are insisting on keeping it like this calling for its notability and reliability. An editor, however, has suggested that this topic is on the academic subject "Pakistan Studies" and should emphasize more on that while the controversy content belongs to its own as it will give undue weight to the side topic. At the moment the 'curriculum issues' topic is the lengthiest topic containing about 10K of content even when it has its own dedicated article and is being disputed on basis of that. (This exact content was also duplicated at Indophobia which was removed on the same basis) --lTopGunl (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support We should not duplicate topics. If the controversy can support notability requirements on it's own, it should be broken out to it's own topic with a summary and a "Main article" link.--v/r - TP 18:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Precisely what I suggested. It already has its own topic Pakistani textbooks controversy, so just the content here is the issue which should go to its own article per summary style. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As another editor pointed out above, the "Pakistani textbook controversy" is only one part of the "curriculum issues" in Pakistan. And the "textbook controversy" was/is specifically about how India and Hindus are being portrayed in Pakistani textbooks. But the "curriculum issues" section of this article (Pakistan Studies) deals with the issue in a much broader and much more Pakistan-focused sense i. e. stating: "The survey identified inaccuracies of fact and omissions that appeared to distort the significance of actual events in the country's history. Some of the prominent issues included the lack of understanding towards the civil society, religious diversity, and gender relations." This is not a copy+paste case. The section in this article and the article "Pakistani textbook controversy" use different wording and (although sometimes referring to the same sources) emphasize different aspects. Sentences part of the section which TopGun wants removed explain i. e.: "The variable political history of Pakistan shows the country being ruled alternately by the civilian and military leaderships. This lack of political succession has had its effects on the way the history was depicted in the curricula of Pakistan Studies until 2006, which increasingly portrayed what Rubina Saigol termed as 'glorification of military'." This is a broad and general issue relevant to this article (Pakistan Studies) and cannot be dealt with as a summary of a much smaller issue (a specific India-focused textbook controversy). JCAla (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You really have to read the textbook controversy article. The controversy is not just about India. It covers all the issues you stated including military and religion. This content is effectively in scope of that article. Even if a few parts of the content have been reworded to make them acceptable here they still violate the summary style. And I'll clarify on your comment, I didn't ask for it to be "removed" (atleast as of now), I asked it to be put in its own article. The section you cited from above is merely claiming for notability of the content in a biased uncivil way. That argument gives no grounds for the content to be kept in this article. Pakistan Studies is an academic coursework which this article is about. The controversy is mainly about this course and has its own article, simple as that. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As I mentioned above Not only the textbooks but the broad syllabus of PAKISTAN STUDIES was in itself used as an official government policy for teaching hatred, PAKISTAN STUDIES broad curriculum and subject was misused as a hate strategy, hate ideology, hate plan and hate policy and textbooks were only one part of achieving this hatred and intolerance. See references above and in the article. I had also originally moved PAKISTAN STUDIES title to PAKISTAN STUDIES CURRICULUM and provided reason and references for making this move in the article and on the talk-page, someone moved it back to PAKISTAN STUDIES withour reading my comment on the talk page mrigthrishna (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Read my comment to JCAla above. The article I mentioned is just for that purpose though your tone here is pretty much POV/shout itself. There's a previous consensus which resulted in the move (which I or this RFC is not related to). They must have read your comments before moving. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * POV, I don,t think so, under the garb of PAKISTAN STUDIES "HATRED & INTOLERANCE" was officially Ingrained, Preached, Taught, Read, Learned and Recited and innocent minds of children were forever Biased and Poisoned against India, Hindus and peoples of other religions and beliefs, Falsified History was taught (History Revisionism) and "Hatred" towards Hindu past, Ancient Hindu culture of the region and Hatred towards Hindu ancestors. Religious Hatred and Intolerance related reasons were listed as reasons for breaking India and creating Pakistan for Muslims.mrigthrishna (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Capitalizing and repeating won't give any more weight to your argument. Your argument is blatantly bias and does not even address the dispute. Pakistan Studies is an academic subject which has much wider scope than the alleged controversy on textbooks and is not only taught/studied in Pakistan or by Pakistanis. Also refer to Mar4d's comments below for a better understanding. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support: as nominator; per arguments raised by me in the section above and per WP:MOS, per WP:SUMMARY and vide Mar4d's points. The content has a dedicated article where it belongs with a navigation link and summary here. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. as mentioned above the 2 topics are related but independent.  enough material exists to support 2 articles here.  TopGun has a long history of trying to get info he sees as portraying Pakistan negatively deleted from wikipedia.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per the reasons I gave in the section above. Also, I feel that there seems to be a general misconception here on the part of some editors that Pakistan Studies is a school or college subject. This is strictly not true. It's an academic subject that is studied all around the world; there are a number of international scholars, academics, institutions and experts who actually specialize and are dedicated to the study of Pakistan. It's an independent area-study field of academic discipline, just like Indology, Turkology, Iranian studies, Egyptology, American studies etc. This whole thing about educational curriculum and textbooks inaccuracy is a completely different topic and belongs on an article of its own. To quote an example, it's like writing a whole section related to the Indian NCERT controversy on the Indology article. Mar4d (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I also believe that the article title Pakistani textbooks controversy is too general and should probably be renamed to something like Pakistani educational curriculum controversy so as to accommodate everything about the alleged inaccuracies in the education system. This would also kill JCala, mrigthrishna and Wikireader's arguments that the content can't be transferred just because of the title of the other article. With this, I rest my case here. Mar4d (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you are right. Those articles don't even mention any controversies. Per that, this won't even deserve a summary here which I was giving it. -- lTopGunl (ping) 22:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose, as the issue is evidently broader then the textbooks (and then the corresponding article). &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See Mar4d's comment above which resolves this issue. This article doesn't need to be having more information about the controversy than the academic subject itself (which is currently the case). -- lTopGunl (ping) 22:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a wrong approach at material structuring: moving problematic material to the separate article raises WP:NPOV issues. The better solution would be to offload the Pakistani textbooks controversy here (and to the other articles if applicable). &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly other states' study subjects don't have their educational controversy material in them because a study about a nation is a much broader thing, which Mar4d has explicitly shown. The subject is not only taught with in Pakistan nor is the syllabus only set by universities inside Pakistan. Yet, I've suggested an option of not moving it completely and to follow summary style and a link to main article. This article has a scope of its own. -- lTopGunl (ping) 23:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF? As far as I can see, we are discussing this article, not the rest of Wikipedia, aren't we? I'm pretty ready to write my thoughts on every such article, each after another. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We are discussing WP:MOS here. But you've got my point. -- lTopGunl (ping</b>) 14:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we discuss the Pakistan studies article here, and WP:MOS is discussed at Wikipedia talk:MOS. No way this discussion may involve other articles. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say we're changing anything about WP:MOS... that was to discuss its implementation here. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging
Okay, I've taken a thorough look at the comments in the RfC above (the result being "no consensus") and per WP:BOLD, I think it would be reasonable to carry out the merge process, which namely involves moving duplicate forked content from here over to the Pakistani textbooks controversy article. This article still has fundamental WP:POV and WP:WEIGHT issues that have not been addressed and at present, it appears to be not about the academic subject studied globally but rather more about school curriculum (two completely different subjects). I observe that this article has had no major activity since December 2012 and per WP:SILENCE on part of some of the opposing editors and lack of counter-arguments to the opinions of the supporting editors, I'm inclined to believe that the argument moves more into the favour of the latter. Taking a look at the comments of neutral parties, even User:Dmitrij D. Czarkoff contends that some of the content needs to be offloaded to the textbooks article. That's pretty much what I think is the crux of the argument: Most of the content needs to be offloaded to the relevant article and WP:Summary style should be followed here (preferably just a few lines would be appropriate). User:TParis, an admin who has also commented above, voices the same argument. Since consensus is WP:NOTVOTE but rather based on meaningful discussion and until User:mrigthrishna and User:Wikireader41 have any good-faith and logical arguments to provide contrary to the points made in favour of supporting the merge above (without the usual rhetoric, WP:COI and per Shouting things loudly does not make them true), I'm almost convinced that the merge needs to be carried out keeping in mind the issues still present on the article and this discussion's present status. Once this merge is done and over with, if the opposing editors still have objections in the future, this talk page would be the best avenue to carry out further discussion. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 07:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As my previous and reasonable stance I'll still support merging of that section (which is actually using summary style here and moving details to that article). But I think the closer above closed it as no consensus though I too will like to contest that. You are right, as no consensus was formed, I appreciate your attempt to form one (either in favour or against) on this talk page which is the right venue. If unable to, I'm also ready to take this to other dispute resolution venues. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the closer stated: "No Consensus to make changes in regards to the proposal at this time." JCAla (talk) 12:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * And if you didn't read the above comments, this talk page is the right place to form one. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 15:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I absolutely agree. My statement addressed Mar4d who said the merge needed to be done and then discussions could take place afterwards. JCAla (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

tariq 2402:E000:45B:ED5D:0:0:0:1 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)