![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
There is no need to give excessive importance to economy by saying Pakistan's purchasing power is 27 in the world,we do not need excessive discussion on our economy to compare it with India,our economy is ours,thiers is thiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil901 ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Pakistan ,these are not dubious numbers,its clearly mentioned Fit for military service: 37,945,440 males, age 16–49 (2010 est.),37,381,549 females, age 16–49 (2010 est.) that makes it 70 million people and no need for mentioning our global economic ranking when we are not bothered about it,mention it in the economy section if you will. Muzammil901 ( talk) 13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
ok fine have ur way people,am reverting last time ok but the thought of 70 million volunteers make me feel happy and glorious.God willing someday we will manage to escape the Hindu propaganda that makes people think Pakistan is a bad country or something. Muzammil901 ( talk) 13:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
On 18 July 1947, the UK Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act to make provision for the setting up of two independent Dominions.
Please add this note to the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.5.165 ( talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Assalam-o-Alaikum please change the information about GDP (PPP), GDP (nominal) Estimated for the year 2011 , and about the population estimate :
GDP (PPP): 487 bn US$ per capita : 2,570 US$
GDP (nominal): 188 bn US$ per capita: 992 US$
Population (2011 estimated): 189.6 Million
Regards Hamis Ajaz Hamis5 ( talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I checked out the reference sources for the religion/demographics section and what has been written in this article is erroneous. The reference article does not make any reference to the number figured in the article. I tried to make the change but was unable to do so. Christians make up the largest minority group in Pakistan. The article states otherwise, listing hindus as the largest minority. Can someone please correct this as the large minority of Christians in Pakistan often pride themselves on being such a large community while living in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 ( talk) 02:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the CIA World factbook, Pakistan is indeed the sixth most populous country, but the 5th and 7th are Brazil and BANGLADESH [1], respectively. The article states that the country behind Pakistan by population rank is Russia, which is, in fact, the 9th most populous country. I changed the main article (Demographics in Pakistan) but I am unable to edit the section of this article to match it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.96.147 ( talk) 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a minor typographical error in the Tourism section of this article. The error is in the caption for the image on the right side where the description includes transposed letters in the second "the" -- this phrase, "View of the Cukoos Den Restaurant, located in teh Walled City of Lahore" -- if someone will please correct the error. 74.162.86.183 ( talk) 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The article says that "Pakistan" was coined by Choudhary Rahmat Ali in 1934. However, the cited source says that it shows when 'the word "Pakistan" appears to have been used for the first time in a document'. The document in question is dated 28th January, 1933. So what is the correct date for when this name was coined? And, was it really coined by Rahmat Ali, or is his just the first documented use?
It would be my instinct to just change the article and swap out the date and the use of the word 'coined', but I feel uncomfortable doing that as I don't actually know anything about the topic. Can anyone help? Should I just 'be bold'? threecheersfornick ( talk) 23:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pakistan is "right" handed car drive, not left.
2.49.91.241 ( talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pakistan, History section. Please change this spelling mistake. Indus Valley Civilisation -> Indus Valley Civilization Dziegielewski ( talk) 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As the article currently stands "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan" was founded in 1947. That is not accurate. The "Dominion of Pakistan" was formed in that year. The Islamic Republic, did not come into being until 1956, when it came into being the previous state ceased.
The state that was declared in 1947 was not to be a Muslim only region; Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1873-1938), and the later voice of Pakistan President Jinnah, both sought to ensure that all religions were welcome in Pakistan.(see Richard Symonds, The Making of Pakistan, 1949, p 36 & 93) It was to be a Muslim majority state that was declared in 1947. The state which followed, in 1956, was based on different principles.
I see the wrong year in the short facts portion of the article that goes along the right hand side of the page.
Formation
- Pakistan Declaration 28 January 1933 - Pakistan Resolution 23 March 1940 - Independence from the United Kingdom - Declared 14 August 1947 - Islamic Republic 23 March 1956
Robinsonbranches (
talk)
17:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There should be another topic explaining foreign relations of Pakistan with US, Arab League, Indian Subcontinent, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.163.67 ( talk) 13:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Are the editors here having a laugh when they fail to make any mention of the partition of British India and the creation of Pakistan? Im absolutely shocked there isnt a single mention of this nor a link to the page for the partiton of british india. Just a vague comment "the demand for a seperate state led to the creation of pakistan", which neither is clear in how exactly the seperate state came into establishment nor even a link to the article. I will add it myself. S Seagal ( talk) 17:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
1) There are far, far too many military images, Ofcourse there should be military images and a military section but flooding the page with all kinds of equipment is over the top. There should be a couple of pictures, Perhaps the F-16s and the frigates, Remove the JF-17 and the Babur missile pictures.
2) Add a Cinema sub-section within the culture part. Pakistan does have a cinema and did and still does make its own films, The film industry is called "Lollywood" based in Lahore and another "Pollywood" is based in Peshawar so infact there is two different film industries in the country. There should be a mention of this with a link to the cinema of pakistan page.
3. Mention the partition of British India, This is a no-brainer, the fact that its not even been mentioned shows the lack of knowledge of editors here, It should be clear about this "demand for a seperate state" and how it was achieved by atleast linking the partition of british india in the article at the top.
4. Add Infastructure section : The fact that this has not already been done is gross negligence,
"Pakistan has accomplished many engineering feats since independence these include the Karakorum highway, The highest highway in the world, The largest irrigation system in the world, The Tarbela and Mangla dams which are amongst the largest in the world. There should be links to the Karakorum highway, the indus basin page, the tarbela and mangla dams and a picture of one of the dams. Not just that but there should also be mention of the planned Skardu, Bhasha, Akhori and Kalabagh Dams.
5. Add communications section, Pakistan has over 100 million cellular phone users, around 7/8 million fixed lines, 20 million odd internet users, and it has a satellite in space and its building another satellite, not even a mention of any kind of communications has been made, not just that but Pakistan has the largest wimax network in the world. S Seagal ( talk) 17:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikireader41, if you want to be taken seriously, then please learn to keep a NPOV. Making extraordinary statements will get you nowhere. Your advice to other editors to keep a NPOV are likely to fall on deaf ears if you yourself do not do so. Okay, now coming to the point. We should not see events just from today's viewpoint. Agreed, today, Pakistan is not in a good shape; indeed, it has been called a failed state on many occasions. However, we should not give undue weight to these topics, else the article will be biased towards recent events. Let us not forget that Pakistan was largely peaceful for large stretches of time. Before 2008, are there sources claiming that Pakistan is a failed state? Say, sometime in 1985? or 1960? It is highly unlikely. I ask editors to think along these lines. Lynch 7 16:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikireader seems overly concerned about Pakistan when he should be focused more on the insurgencies in "Indian" Punjab, Kashmir, Nagaland, The Indian military defeats in 1947 when they lost an area the size of Austria to a nation barely a few months old called Pakistan, Then in 1962 lost Aksai chin to China, And in 1965 lost yet another war to Pakistan! This aswell as the HIV and population levels, malnutrition rates in this "India". The fact that wikireader claims "India" has existed for thousands of years yet is a third world hell whole speaks volumes about the "country" and the "Indian" people. Pakistan for all its woes and achievements has done everything in just 60 years. S Seagal ( talk) 00:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I've re-added the Working Committee of the Muslim Leage which PakistaniAhsan replaced a while ago with another image that was subsequently deleted from Commons. I also removed the image of Mahmud of Ghazni he added. The article does not mention Sultan Mahmud at all, and I'm not sure what that image was supposed to illustrate. For all I can tell, despite the image's caption Mahmud reigned from Ghazni in Afghanistan, not from Lahore. Thus, I don't think that image served any useful purpose in this article. Huon ( talk) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This map is wrong. It shows entire J and K as part of pakistan. Jammu is adminstered by India and so is Srinagar.
There is no claim of Pakistan on Ladakh and Jammu. Kashmir is also administrated by India. Claiming territory does not make that area a part of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitbhatia ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
@Huon agree for the time being but I do find it absurd that if Pakistan claims Jammu, it becomes a disputed territory even if it is totally controlled and administrated by India. So, all that a country has to do for Wikipedia to recognise its claim is to announce on their government's site that it belongs to them. Be assured, I don't want to start a war here :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitbhatia ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The image of Pakistan is not accurate Refer to United Nations image http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/pakistan.pdf
Findrohitsharma ( talk) 05:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
So a militant insurgency is in full swing. Wars are being fought in waziristan and Bin Laden was found and killed here. Yet no mention of terrorism? Ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.245.35 ( talk) 17:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Why are there three pronunciations given for the country name? The proper and correct pronunciation can only be the one in the local language, i.e the Urdu pronunciation, why give two other weirdly accented American pronunciations? Should one give the Urdu pronunciation of America (Umreeka) on the page for the United States? Besides, the correct pronunciation isn't that difficult. -- Minigilani ( talk) 06:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the English pronunciations of the country name.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Editor you on the article of Pakistan you mansion that badshahi mosque was build in 1973 it is wrong, it was build in 1773 please make sure thanks Shahzadsattar ( talk) 06:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"Pakistan has also won the Hockey World Cup a record four times (1971, 1978, 1982, 1994)." This is a big achievement and it should be mentioned in the first paragraph rather then in the last line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.1.208 ( talk) 14:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Pothwari Couple.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC) |
Even without the copyright problems these images are not reliable sources. If local costumes are deemed notable enough for this article (and to my understanding that's usually not the case), we should have a reliable source discussing them and then use images for illustration - preferably photographs, not drawings. Since there was no context, I have removed the images for now. Huon ( talk) 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
110.224.63.110 (
talk)
19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Military is under the heading "Politics", Shouldn't it be a separate heading in the article? Kamilhamad ( talk) 08:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
article is factually incorrect when it states that "boloywood films are banned since 1965". Bollywood movies are now leagl under some limitations and regularly play in movie theaters
99.51.188.207 ( talk) 07:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:BaburCruise.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) |
Persian is not spoken or understood in Pakistan. That's a myth.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My request is that you add the following under OFFICIAL LANGUAGES spoken:
~ Persian (Farsi) Persian is widely spoken in many regions of Pakistan, and therefore it should be added. Thankyou
67.250.9.167 ( talk) 05:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:051103-NLDF-8159O-012.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Islamabadphoto.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:GGJinnah.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
Somebody needs to reupload these images here! -- lTopGunl ( talk) 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no section on Pakistani human rights abuses? Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
My note- Yes, as you have already been asked to clarify the"human rights abuses".What do you mean here?. As editors have mentioned that there are worst states where there is violation of human rights,that you did not see for tagging.Your selected targets will be not considered as a Good faith editing to tag.You must know " simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag.Tags should be added as a last resort," in this concept of exact meaning of NPOV you failed to detail your concenrs, just having no section does not apply to place the tag,and when you are talking about section and tagging on whole article was also not legitimate,for section there is other tag.
Article is about the state not about the persons,please clarify that human rights abuses are connected to human or to states?.Human rights violation is the act of persons,leaders,policy makers,not state itself. The article Pakistan covers the all military dictators, names with wikified,it means the editors have addressed the concerns of human rights by mentioning those military dictators who were supported by human rights masters.Military dictators means itself,violation of human rights.
There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumption that someone would find controversial.If you have concerns about existing contents, you should that discuss on the talk page. I do not think that in the article Pakistan are any words,passages or sections,they may make the article appear to favour one position over another.Please do not create undue weight, if it is so,I think everyone's action to tag the article about the any country will be legitimate,because every state somewhat,and somehow is in the violation of human rights,about it nobody is unaware. Justice007 ( talk) 11:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
As someone who has looked over quite a few country articles, I would say here that a human rights section is just asking for trouble. Very few good country articles have them. This is because human rights aren't a small easily discussable topic, as they cover things from politics to religion. Any explicit human rights section will most likely either fawn over how amazing a country is, or turn into an attack section. If there are notable human rights violations, they should be integrated into information about what exactly is being violated. For example, restrictions on freedom of speech would belong in a politics section. This is better for both neutrality and understanding. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 15:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119079.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/france
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/police-abuse-goes-unchecked-france-20090402
http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/france
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/04/iran-rips-human-rights-violations-in-france-us.html
Please to be fair and bold to place the tag on the article now.And do not mention Human rights in France,it's separate article,similarly feel free to improve and expand the article Human rights in Pakistan.Cheers. Justice007 ( talk) 17:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Alongside terrorism and illiteracy overpopulation should be mentioned. — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps rates a mention as a cultural thing? [16] Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Two women raped every hour in India [20] Bridal burnings? Widow Burnings? all in India? maybe mention those while trying to desperately dig dirt upon Pakistan would equalise your pov pushing maybe? 109.150.57.203 ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
descipline=نظم not تنظيم
Hakku 313 (
talk)
14:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Request declined per above. --
lTopGunl (
talk)
12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
More specifically, the part quoted below:
The "struggle for independence" should be linked to the Indian Independence Movement instead of Pakistan movement, since it was the Indian Independence Movement which resulted in the creation of the dominions of India and Pakistan. The Indian Independence Movement was led by numerous leaders along with Jinnah. Comments? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) To characterize the efforts of Jinnah and other leaders for a separate country for Muslims as a "struggle for independence" is a misrepresentation. The actual struggle for independence was between what constituted British India and the British Empire, and later British India was divided in accordance with the agreements between the leaders of British India. I will appreciate more commentary from other users on this subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Your suspicion is wrong. My disagreement with you does not become a proof of that either. I've given all reasons behind my objections. Better to stay on content. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 16:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
My understanding of the chronology is like this: British Raj --> Indian independence movement --> Two Nation Theory adopted by the Muslim League for a homeland --> Indian Independence Act 1947 --> Dominion of Pakistan and Union of India. Please correct me if this is an inaccurate depiction. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I think it makes more sense to link the words "Islamic republic" at the second instance, because it appears more cleaner. A good example would be the article on the Islamic Republic of Iran. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --
lTopGunl (
talk)
16:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
"declared" is once again a word that should be avoided, as "self-declared" would be more accurate. The best way to go about it is to simply remove the word and say "[...] and is a nuclear weapons state". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Since you have no suggestions, I think we should wait for more input before moving forward. I'm fine with removing declared... but without any clarification it will seem dubious... also the tests have weight enough to be put in the first mention. There actually are citations present that Pakistan declared itself a nuclear state by testing the weapons. But then again, I'll not go into that debate when this one is not a big deal. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 15:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose that this should be changed to "[...] that sought the partition of India and the establishment of a new independent state [...]" for accuracy. British India ceased to exist after the passing of the Indian Independence Act, and the conditions for the division of the country were laid down in this statute as well. Therefore it's " Partition of India" and not "partition of British India". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mosque is a good idea. We have Badshai mosque already so I have these two to replace Sitar:
September88 ( talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
(UTC)
I think there needs to be some more image balance. I don't see Balochistan being depiected. The Swat image can also get a comparison with the one added here (which ever better can stay). I also found a skyline (from within the article), with some what comparable atmosphere (though not foggy) from Karachi. This image is also in a template in the article so has to be considered for redundancy. See images on right. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 23:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
On a side note, as the article has done major adjustments since peer review was submitted, I asked two reviewers to give a 2nd check; would be good if they find the time to do so. September88 ( talk) 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
And to avoid image over loading at the same time, how about population density map from "demographics" removed and Kaalash pic shifted to its place? There is a population density template in the section, it could do without the map. September88 ( talk) 00:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've made a complete list of all: (No non-free images found)
Results:
Check the licenses before adding any new images or replacing from the suggestions given here. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 02:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I liked the new image, but I added the old one for it being a panorama and for elegant variation of the images which seemed a bit similarly put. Any thoughts? -- lTopGunl ( ping) 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Going through the proposals for images, I think I have a better idea in which we can accommodate many photos and also have different representations and varities of landscapes etc. If you look at the India article, you may notice that some of the images there change whenever you refresh the page or re-visit it another time. This is because they are using a "switch" template (see here). This seems to be a function which randomly rotates selected images in a continuous cycle. We could use a similar function in this page and thus have a number of pictures (for example in geography, where the K2 and Swat valley picture can exchange every now and then with other pics) rather than having to worry about only putting permanent pictures. Mar4d ( talk) 03:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Good find Mar4d, you solved all the debates. September88 ( talk) 04:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, got free, I'm adding the feature to the chosen pictures, will list here. Also, I think there's a serious issue we need to look at. I'm now editing from a wide screen laptop - almost all the images at the end of sections are displacing edit buttons or headings. Do you see this or is it just different on different resolutions? :/ -- lTopGunl ( talk) 23:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
-- lTopGunl ( talk) 00:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose having a large-sized "clickable" map of the administrative units and provinces, similiar to what's been done (example) at Iraq#Governorates, India#Subdivisions, United Arab Emirates#Political divisions and many other articles. The current map's size is barely enough to make out the names of the provinces. Mar4d ( talk) 06:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Done I made the changes at
Template:Pakistan Administrative Units Image Map. However, I'm going to ask for some help in making the map "clickable" as that requires some sort of expertise. This would allow readers to click on the provinces/territories on the map and automatically open up their Wikipedia articles.
Mar4d (
talk)
08:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
These to references are broken; there names added with no links or citation.
Can some one else give them a try? -- lTopGunl ( talk) 06:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if all the previous peer review issues from this review have been fixed or not - it didn't make GA after that review so something might be left if not fixed over time: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pakistan/archive2.
Also note in the Featured Article review when this article was demoted, poor → Ãlways Ãhëad got a alot of POV bashing to make him add negative information to the liking of a few reviewers and even IPs under the pretext of balancing: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pakistan. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 07:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I am interested in the issue. I can help you guys get some balance into this article, to have a positive review for feature or good article. One note, in its current form the article lacks tons of reliable sources. JCAla ( talk) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
where you feel they are lacking. Your FAO source has a 301 redirect, so if you could do something about it, and I've added an {{
cn}}
to one of your edits where I couldn't find a source. And if you do add a ref, it would be really nice if you could follow the citation format used in the article, or I'd be crawling after filling each of them. :-) Plus since you've done some edits on the topic, and so have I for further npov, I'd like to say that peer reviewer Casliber already have us made some changes to the Kashmir conflict for npov and was ok with the version. Its better to not further touch that because controversial topics like these attract more conflict as they are detailed. Pakistan's article is only for its summary.
September88 (
talk)
20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Don't worry, I am here out of interest for the topic and to make good faith contributions to get this article promoted. Yet, I probably will have a different opinion than some of you on some things. September88, I have added the sources in the right format. :) However, on the Kashmir issue, you are right. I have added rather technical details and removed some detailed content both pro-Indian and pro-Pakistan which would need further elaboration if it stayed. Do you agree? I also fixed the FAO ref. JCAla ( talk) 10:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
So, basically, your edits on kashmir seems to be more pro-indian side; and giving npov and other problems instead of resolving them. For now I have reverted the last para back to previous version, which contains both your addition and mine edits. It contains reliable references added by us both and shows both sides. I've also left your recent edits on the 2nd para of the topic as they are (only corrected inverted commas info). How about now we really do keep it this way. Or it'll have to be reverted back to reviewer Casliber oked version to avoid conflicts. September88 ( talk) 17:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
@ JCla: Any editor willing to make constructive edits is welcome. Its not about my country or yours, its about npov and accuracy. And I don't want to be prissy or engage in a debate, but a few issues remain/have yet again arisen with your latest edits which needs to be discussed:
You either missed this point or maybe I didn't explain it clear enough. My last post, newer text in bold--> ("One source (Freedom House) for regarding such a controversial topic like 'kashmir elections' generally fair is just inviting more additions from other side, making the section even longer and simply more controversy.)" As you can see, following your edit, I'm simply going to have to add the other sides views on elections becoz they aren't regarded as cut clear generally fair by everyone as this source say. Plus there is again a statistical inaccuracy/ambiguity in the edit; the source says more than 60% in most polling station. This does not equal overall "over 60%" which the edit is giving impression of. I also have other few minor issues but that would just lead to more debate.
From my point of view, mentioning the unrests without saying who was behind it and where exactly it took place, is questionable. But I won't press the issue.
And clarify why India considers it an integral part.
Plus as you can see in the discussion below, this section might end up merging so lets just settle this now, so if the merger is to happen, the editor is to know which info he has to relocate. September88 ( talk) 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
No, the unrest info was there before I started editing the section. I was the one to put the elections for balance. I agree with your proposal and what Chip wrote in the merge talk, however, and have removed both. Ok?
JCAla (
talk)
17:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Propose more structuring and some shifting. "Eduction" needs to be shifted to a subsection of "Infrastructure". " Health" and " Energy" are needed under the same. A section for " Crime and law enforcement" is absent (may be " Court system" can be added too?). Demographics needs a "Language" section and one for "Family structure" -- lTopGunl ( talk) 07:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Scratch Language which has been covered in the third para of demographics. Court system and Law enforcement play same role of bringing justice so can be merged. September88 ( talk) 09:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC) fourth para of demograph not third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Pakistan's census does not include the registered 1.7 million
Afghan refugees from neighbouring
Afghanistan, who are mainly found in the
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and
Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) areas, with small numbers in the cities of
Karachi and
Quetta. Around 2 million refugees, mostly from
Afghanistan
Bangladesh, Iran, Africa, and other places are also found in Pakistan.
Please recheck this inconsistency from last edits. In the last sentence 'also' means other than Afghan refugees. So the underlined text seems more correct. What does the citation say? If it is Afghan, then the word 'also' seems redundant and the figures are inconsistent in the same paragraph. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 21:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we should remove the bit about Pakistani-Chinese food from the cuisine section because it's being given too much weight by being featured on a main article like this. Readers can go themselves to the Pakistani Chinese food article by locating it on the Pakistani cuisine article which has dedicated sections about regional food variations. This page should only contain a summary of native Pakistani cuisine in general, like all other countries' articles on Wikipedia. Third opinions are welcome. Mar4d ( talk) 04:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. If anyone feels that there is a better image (eg. of a Nihari or biryani) or any other food, suggestions are welcome.
Mar4d (
talk)
05:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Urdu name link to wikitionary; is that done elsewhere? -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it notable enough to add Bush's coined usage of "Greater Middle East"? Pakistan does not call that itself and nor does the rest of the world. It would only be suitable for addition here if it was of national importance to Pakistan. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Mar4d ( talk) 10:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Pakistan is strategically situated at the crossroads of the important regions of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East.
This was altered on claim that it doesn't refer to anything in the body:
If so, body should be updated with the related information as there's consensus to use this sentence. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 16:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The infobox reads "Unity, Discipline, Faith"... I've always known it as "Unity, Faith, Discipline". Can this be confirmed from a reliable source...? official site? The Urdu version (might not be in the same order as English one) is "Faith, Unity, Discipline". -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the content from the citation:
Pakistan is situated at the western end of the great Indo-Gangetic Plain. Of the total area of the country, about three-fifths consists of rough mountainous terrain and plateaus, and the remaining two-fifths constitutes a wide expanse of level plain. The land can be divided into five major regions: the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges and their subranges; the Hindu Kush and western mountains; the Balochistan plateau; the submontane plateau (Potwar Plateau, Salt Range, trans-Indus plain, and Sialkot area); and the Indus River plain. Within each major division there are further subdivisions, including a number of desert areas.
I think this is only a preview and full citation free access is not needed per WP:SOURCEACCESS. You can still confirm though. This detail is about that content in question and seems to be an appropriate citation. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Have you found the reference? If not, here is one. JCAla ( talk) 11:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Since the "quotes" are removed from the acronym sentence, the sentence now implies that there are still 30 million Muslims in the area. Either the quotes should be put back or the sentence should be changed to past tense ie:
The name is was an acronym representing the thirty million Muslim brethren who lived in PAKSTAN—by which we meant the five Northern units of India viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan.
-- lTopGunl ( talk) 00:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the first occurrences should be linked in lead. Body should be handled accordingly as well. There're some points given on the peer review page by Finetooth. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 18:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I think there should also be a short sentence on the Pakistan Antarctic Programme in the science and technology section, since Pakistan is only of a handful of nations ( [27]) to have an active research presence in Antarctica, including a summer facility (the Jinnah Antarctic Station), and plans to open another base soon which is going to be permanent (unlike the Jinnah station) as per this. Mar4d ( talk) 11:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Done - Added with reliable source.
Mar4d (
talk)
09:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I plan on completing the overhaul of references within the next week. Can you guys tell me which content you consider redundant because I don't want to end up finding sources of content about to be removed. Also because the references are a mess atm, (many non-obvious lines uncited/ unreliable citations which points back to wikipedia as source) some content might be needing change and some deleted to fit with new sources. Should I wait until the content is stable or should I go ahead with citing? September88 ( talk) 13:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What I meant was that there is only {National Symbols of Pakistan} in Pakistan article and I couldn't find where the real template is located to edit it. September88 ( talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
September88 ( talk) 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Done I've replaced the major suspicious refs. The remaining minor can be dealt with if called out in the review.
September88 (
talk)
14:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
On topic of removing redundancy and structuring. Something needs to be done about 'Culture and Society'. It is haphazardly divided and has too many subsections. I suggest to merge Media's 2nd para with Literature and Architecture under "Arts". Both literature and architecture can be trimmed easily they are describing historical influences which has been somewhat covered in "Early history'. The readers can easily wikilink back to 'Pakistan's Architecture and Pakistani literature' article for details. September88 ( talk) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This was given an "ok" by a reviewer, see Finetooth comments, part 5, to be added to "Demographics", "Science and technology" and "Administrative divisions" sections respectively in a concise manner. Now the issue is what all to add and which citations to use, since the main articles either lack citations or are in a mess. Let's add some 3-4 liners here for each (suggest in 3 futher subsections here) to compare as a draft. I'm adding very crude versions give your improved ones below them; we can get citations after that or twist the phrases accordingly. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this one is the lede of the main article to start with:
-- lTopGunl ( talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Since it'll be under demographics, infrastructure scratched.
September88 (
talk)
05:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Just saw that Health is already mentioned in demographics. We can fit the new info in between instead of a new para. New info in bold.
Life expectancy at birth is 63 years for females and 62 years for males as of 2006 compared to the healthy life expectancy at birth which was 54 years for males and 52 years for females in 2003. Expenditure on health was at 2% of the GDP in 2006. Private sector accounts approximately 80% of all outpatient visits. About 19% of the population and 30% of children under age of five are malnourished. The mortality below 5 was at 97 per 1,000 live births in 2006. During 1990–2003, Pakistan sustained its historical lead as the most urbanised nation in South Asia, with city dwellers making up 36% of its population. Furthermore, 50% of Pakistanis now reside in towns of 5,000 people or more. September88 ( talk) 06:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Done.. Added with
citation needed tag. --
lTopGunl (
talk)
13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
This one is a mixture of a few related main article leads:
To be tweaked if citations are missing or for improved quality. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Done.. Added with
citation needed tag. --
lTopGunl (
talk)
13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the main article's lede and another main article's list converted to prose for an overview. Seems quite adequate to be put as a summary here (maybe shorten it?):
-- lTopGunl ( talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The most senior officers of all the civilian police forces also form part of the Police Service of Pakistan, which is a component of the civil service of Pakistan.
And they're fine I think. September88 ( talk) 05:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
As for 'Energy', the condition in my house tempts me to write something critical...but seriously its fine. Health should definitely only include the two lines not scratched because it already has a para on it. September88 ( talk) 12:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Done.. Added with
citation needed tag. --
lTopGunl (
talk)
13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The legal system is derived from English common law and is based on 1973 constitution and Islamic law. The Supreme Court, provincial high courts, and other courts have jurisdiction over criminal and civil issues. Special courts and tribunals hear particular types of cases, such as drugs, commerce, and terrorism. Pakistan's penal code has limited jurisdiction in tribal areas, where law is largely derived from tribal customs. September88 ( talk) 12:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
As per Chipmunkdavis comments on peer review:
I suggest you cut down the total article size [...] I'd do something drastic with the Tourism section. It reads very advertisment like, quite WP:PEACOCKy. It's also weird that it's not included as part of Economy.
And after checking all the countries featured articles, I suggest removing Tourism altogether. Its not the major industry of Pakistan, why a separate section for it? Whatever small influence it has on economy can be summed in a line in that section. September88 ( talk) 02:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
And while we are at it, you mentioned trimming down things in peer review. Where else do you think the trimming should be done, now that we're done adding major new content? In my opinion Flora and Fauna, Economy and Transport needs to be rewritten for prose and better/updated info where some editing in/out can be done. September88 ( talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I reckon a short sentence should be added in the article about Pakistan's regional power status, or if not that, at least its "middle power" status. There are reliable sources in various places on Wikipedia to establish this (see the following sections: Regional power#South Asia, the map at Regional power#Current regional powers, the list at Regional hegemony). In addition, the Middle power article mentions Pakistan at Middle power#List of middle powers. There's also a very good map at Power in international relations#Categories of power. I think the lead might be the appropriate place to mention this (perhaps as the opening sentence of the last paragraph talking about the armed forces, nuclear power and international relations). Before that happens however, I need your opinion. Mar4d ( talk) 11:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
A middle-level regional power [1] [2], Pakistan has the eighth largest standing armed force and is the only Muslim-majority nation to possess nuclear weapons also being the first nuclear power country in the Muslim world, and the second in the South Asia [3] It a recognized nuclear-weapons state and is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States and a strategic ally of China. [4] [5] It is a founding member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) [6] and a member of the United Nations, [7] Commonwealth of Nations, [8] Next Eleven economies and the G20 developing nations.
A regional and middle-level power, [9] [2] Pakistan has the eighth largest standing army in the world and is a recognised nuclear weapons state, being the first and only nation to have that status in the Muslim world, and the second in South Asia. [3] It is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States and a strategic ally of China. [10] [11] Pakistan is a founding member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) [12] and is a member of the United Nations, [13] Commonwealth of Nations, [14] Next Eleven economies and the G20 developing nations.
What I didn't like about the previous paragraph is that it was being repetitive by mentioning the Muslim world twice. It should only give one mention to that, as well as South Asia, and it should be preceded by "it is a recognised nuclear weapons state" as that sounds more relevant. Mar4d ( talk) 16:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
A question: I noticed Library of Congress as ref. 226 & 44, alongwith this page sections cited individually at ref. 55 & 128. For consistency's sake one of the two approaches is to be applied; it could be one reference to the main page for all the different details or individual references to each section. Which is better? September88 ( talk) 22:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of text sandwich in the history section I suggest to remove the priest with Ajrak (since that is on many other articles and in the infobox of History of Pakistan. Also, the POF eye was not sandwiching anything. That section was lengthy enough for two images - actually there was a whole screen full of just text (I've added that back, let me know if there are objections). As a side note, I suggest image of Mughals be replaced with Muhammad bin Qasim's since he is more notable for the earliest history of Pakistan ie. advent of Islam in to this area (open for discussion). -- lTopGunl ( ping) 17:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
550+ edits in ~10 days. Previous version [29] vs current [30]. (A comparison). -- lTopGunl ( ping) 13:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The section doesn't mention anything about Pakistan hosting the 1990 Men's Hockey World Cup or that Pakistan has hosted the international Hockey Champions Trophy tournament eleven times. Just an observation.... Mar4d ( talk) 15:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The article will be put up for FAC soon. Any suggestions for final touches or discussion can be done here. I'll be doing minor fixes myself too and am listing things that could use help:
Any other suggestion are welcomed. September88 ( talk) 17:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
Clear}}
after the images. Let me try.{{
Clear}}
. The good thing is that {{
Clear}}
works accordingly the screen sizes and if a particular image is not giving problem in smaller screen it will not interfere with the structure there. The negative is that the same 'white space' problem encountered earlier can be seen in the wide screen, as it pushes the next section heading down to make space for the picture without colliding with its edit button. So yay or nay?
September88 (
talk)
16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I see white space on widescreen(16:10) with clear used which is not looking good at all. I have tried minimizing the white space as much as possible by moving images and editing captions
herebut it still has some white spaces left. May be I have missed some issues raised in the peer review but does it really matter how it appears on widescreen (for FAC)? --
SMS
Talk
14:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
float}}
can make the rest of white spaces disappear. --
SMS
Talk
15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC){{
float}}
but I was wrong, it is not useful here. The most I can reduce the white space is
this version but again it won't be looking any good when seen at different resolution than mine. And I agree with Uzair, it is difficult to remove white space completely and also avoid images appearing along with other section text for all display resolutions. And I hope reviewers will also understand this. --
SMS
Talk
12:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Add {{rp|288-323}} at the end of the references to add page numbers. I've found an example. See the ones being used in Pakistani English. This was what I was talking about... if necessary this can be used. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 08:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been taking a look at the article for a while and was intending to post about this weeks ago but could not be bothered. But since I have seen some editing activity going on in that section, I might as well propose it now. My question is, do we even need a seperate section for the Kashmir conflict? Since this is a political and military-related conflict, can the information present in there not just be merged under the "military" section? If you take a look at the India article, there's only a passing mention (less than a sentence) to Kashmir's disputed status under the modern history section and then just one sentence again in the military section (again, half a sentence). I have also observed that there is hardly any reference in that article to Pakistan's dispute over Kashmir. On the Pakistan article, the Kashmir dispute has been overdone and it is also disproportionately large, raising issues such as WP:WEIGHT. Alot of the info here should be moved into the Kashmir conflict article and we should only follow WP:Summary style here; I generally think four sentences should be enough. Once the section is cut down, its content should be moved and accommodated into either military' or 'politics' (which ever suits better). Any thoughts? Mar4d ( talk) 10:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the basic plan. If everyone's fine with it, I am willing to carry out and demonstrate the merge as per above. The tweaks and trimming can come in afterward. Mar4d ( talk) 06:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This statement is very controversial. It needs a clause for balance. JCAla ( talk) 11:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then we add the sentence. But, again, I advise against oversourcing with regards to the GA/FA review. Choose one reliable reference of your liking to display Pakistan's pov, and I will choose one link for the US pov, ok? JCAla ( talk) 10:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
We would have to discuss then what two incidents were outstanding, which is difficult. I prefer articles clarifying the positions generally. It is easier if you pick one reliable reference and I pick the other, this way it will automatically be balanced. JCAla ( talk) 11:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
We are in no hurry since this source (which is already in the article) already contains a lot of information. We could add "Pakistan backed attacks on American targets, U.S. says" and "In Pakistan, anger builds against the US. What do you think? JCAla ( talk) 11:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed this navigation link from the history section (it was also removed by another editor previously - Mar4d I think - but now put back by JCAla). This was suggested at the peer review, but I think History of South Asia should actually cover the Pakistan related topics from History of India (the fact that it isn't yet should not be basis of an argument as instead that article should be improved). Any one wishing to add it back can do so and I will not consider it edit war if a reasonable argument is given in the edit summary or here since I've not really removed this on neutrality basis. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 12:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggest applying for the FAC. This can be delayed if the "Kashmir dispute" section has to be merged. I'll also suggest to wait for all editors contributing to the overhaul to be active (or their confirmation) before we apply so that quick changes can be made if suggested. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
In another conversation I suggested that an FAQ page be created at Talk:Pakistan/FAQ so that further interruptions can be reduced. September88 & Mar4d support this. This section is for suggestions on what all to put in that page. A previous suggestion from Mar4d includes the recurring failed proposals from archives. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
September88 ( talk) 16:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It may have been removed due to following: 1) To avoid clutter 2) To avoid image copy-right issues 3) To maintain balance in representing major areas of the country. Please discuss on talk page before addition or removal of images.
There are many reasons for text removal: 1) It contained unnecessary detail about a subtopic. Pakistan's article is for summary of the subtopics, all details belongs to the relevant subtopic's article page. 2) Your edit maybe giving WP:NPV WP:Recentism etc issues. Discuss in talk page before adding details about sensitive or controversial topics. 3) Lack of proper citations.
Article is meant to be well covered but concise per xyz. If your given topic does not have a subsection, then chances are it does not have WP:due importance or consensuses has been to avoid creating a subsection for conciseness.
Logical location info and link archeives12345? OR/and consensuses has been to include Pakistan's location as its currently given in the article. Do not modify it, see talk 1234567 archives for further information.
Proper explanation.
Detail on separate topics or just answer of Q#2?
Based on our discussion, this is a very rough draft of how I think FAQs can go. Modify it for improvements or edit for redundancy/add your own questions. September88 ( talk) 17:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |location=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |location=
(
help)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
There is no need to give excessive importance to economy by saying Pakistan's purchasing power is 27 in the world,we do not need excessive discussion on our economy to compare it with India,our economy is ours,thiers is thiers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil901 ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Pakistan ,these are not dubious numbers,its clearly mentioned Fit for military service: 37,945,440 males, age 16–49 (2010 est.),37,381,549 females, age 16–49 (2010 est.) that makes it 70 million people and no need for mentioning our global economic ranking when we are not bothered about it,mention it in the economy section if you will. Muzammil901 ( talk) 13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
ok fine have ur way people,am reverting last time ok but the thought of 70 million volunteers make me feel happy and glorious.God willing someday we will manage to escape the Hindu propaganda that makes people think Pakistan is a bad country or something. Muzammil901 ( talk) 13:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
On 18 July 1947, the UK Parliament passed the Indian Independence Act to make provision for the setting up of two independent Dominions.
Please add this note to the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.5.165 ( talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Assalam-o-Alaikum please change the information about GDP (PPP), GDP (nominal) Estimated for the year 2011 , and about the population estimate :
GDP (PPP): 487 bn US$ per capita : 2,570 US$
GDP (nominal): 188 bn US$ per capita: 992 US$
Population (2011 estimated): 189.6 Million
Regards Hamis Ajaz Hamis5 ( talk) 16:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
I checked out the reference sources for the religion/demographics section and what has been written in this article is erroneous. The reference article does not make any reference to the number figured in the article. I tried to make the change but was unable to do so. Christians make up the largest minority group in Pakistan. The article states otherwise, listing hindus as the largest minority. Can someone please correct this as the large minority of Christians in Pakistan often pride themselves on being such a large community while living in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.116.64 ( talk) 02:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
According to the CIA World factbook, Pakistan is indeed the sixth most populous country, but the 5th and 7th are Brazil and BANGLADESH [1], respectively. The article states that the country behind Pakistan by population rank is Russia, which is, in fact, the 9th most populous country. I changed the main article (Demographics in Pakistan) but I am unable to edit the section of this article to match it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.130.96.147 ( talk) 20:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
There is a minor typographical error in the Tourism section of this article. The error is in the caption for the image on the right side where the description includes transposed letters in the second "the" -- this phrase, "View of the Cukoos Den Restaurant, located in teh Walled City of Lahore" -- if someone will please correct the error. 74.162.86.183 ( talk) 22:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The article says that "Pakistan" was coined by Choudhary Rahmat Ali in 1934. However, the cited source says that it shows when 'the word "Pakistan" appears to have been used for the first time in a document'. The document in question is dated 28th January, 1933. So what is the correct date for when this name was coined? And, was it really coined by Rahmat Ali, or is his just the first documented use?
It would be my instinct to just change the article and swap out the date and the use of the word 'coined', but I feel uncomfortable doing that as I don't actually know anything about the topic. Can anyone help? Should I just 'be bold'? threecheersfornick ( talk) 23:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pakistan is "right" handed car drive, not left.
2.49.91.241 ( talk) 08:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Pakistan, History section. Please change this spelling mistake. Indus Valley Civilisation -> Indus Valley Civilization Dziegielewski ( talk) 21:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As the article currently stands "The Islamic Republic of Pakistan" was founded in 1947. That is not accurate. The "Dominion of Pakistan" was formed in that year. The Islamic Republic, did not come into being until 1956, when it came into being the previous state ceased.
The state that was declared in 1947 was not to be a Muslim only region; Sir Muhammad Iqbal (1873-1938), and the later voice of Pakistan President Jinnah, both sought to ensure that all religions were welcome in Pakistan.(see Richard Symonds, The Making of Pakistan, 1949, p 36 & 93) It was to be a Muslim majority state that was declared in 1947. The state which followed, in 1956, was based on different principles.
I see the wrong year in the short facts portion of the article that goes along the right hand side of the page.
Formation
- Pakistan Declaration 28 January 1933 - Pakistan Resolution 23 March 1940 - Independence from the United Kingdom - Declared 14 August 1947 - Islamic Republic 23 March 1956
Robinsonbranches (
talk)
17:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
There should be another topic explaining foreign relations of Pakistan with US, Arab League, Indian Subcontinent, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.163.67 ( talk) 13:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Are the editors here having a laugh when they fail to make any mention of the partition of British India and the creation of Pakistan? Im absolutely shocked there isnt a single mention of this nor a link to the page for the partiton of british india. Just a vague comment "the demand for a seperate state led to the creation of pakistan", which neither is clear in how exactly the seperate state came into establishment nor even a link to the article. I will add it myself. S Seagal ( talk) 17:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
1) There are far, far too many military images, Ofcourse there should be military images and a military section but flooding the page with all kinds of equipment is over the top. There should be a couple of pictures, Perhaps the F-16s and the frigates, Remove the JF-17 and the Babur missile pictures.
2) Add a Cinema sub-section within the culture part. Pakistan does have a cinema and did and still does make its own films, The film industry is called "Lollywood" based in Lahore and another "Pollywood" is based in Peshawar so infact there is two different film industries in the country. There should be a mention of this with a link to the cinema of pakistan page.
3. Mention the partition of British India, This is a no-brainer, the fact that its not even been mentioned shows the lack of knowledge of editors here, It should be clear about this "demand for a seperate state" and how it was achieved by atleast linking the partition of british india in the article at the top.
4. Add Infastructure section : The fact that this has not already been done is gross negligence,
"Pakistan has accomplished many engineering feats since independence these include the Karakorum highway, The highest highway in the world, The largest irrigation system in the world, The Tarbela and Mangla dams which are amongst the largest in the world. There should be links to the Karakorum highway, the indus basin page, the tarbela and mangla dams and a picture of one of the dams. Not just that but there should also be mention of the planned Skardu, Bhasha, Akhori and Kalabagh Dams.
5. Add communications section, Pakistan has over 100 million cellular phone users, around 7/8 million fixed lines, 20 million odd internet users, and it has a satellite in space and its building another satellite, not even a mention of any kind of communications has been made, not just that but Pakistan has the largest wimax network in the world. S Seagal ( talk) 17:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikireader41, if you want to be taken seriously, then please learn to keep a NPOV. Making extraordinary statements will get you nowhere. Your advice to other editors to keep a NPOV are likely to fall on deaf ears if you yourself do not do so. Okay, now coming to the point. We should not see events just from today's viewpoint. Agreed, today, Pakistan is not in a good shape; indeed, it has been called a failed state on many occasions. However, we should not give undue weight to these topics, else the article will be biased towards recent events. Let us not forget that Pakistan was largely peaceful for large stretches of time. Before 2008, are there sources claiming that Pakistan is a failed state? Say, sometime in 1985? or 1960? It is highly unlikely. I ask editors to think along these lines. Lynch 7 16:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikireader seems overly concerned about Pakistan when he should be focused more on the insurgencies in "Indian" Punjab, Kashmir, Nagaland, The Indian military defeats in 1947 when they lost an area the size of Austria to a nation barely a few months old called Pakistan, Then in 1962 lost Aksai chin to China, And in 1965 lost yet another war to Pakistan! This aswell as the HIV and population levels, malnutrition rates in this "India". The fact that wikireader claims "India" has existed for thousands of years yet is a third world hell whole speaks volumes about the "country" and the "Indian" people. Pakistan for all its woes and achievements has done everything in just 60 years. S Seagal ( talk) 00:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I've re-added the Working Committee of the Muslim Leage which PakistaniAhsan replaced a while ago with another image that was subsequently deleted from Commons. I also removed the image of Mahmud of Ghazni he added. The article does not mention Sultan Mahmud at all, and I'm not sure what that image was supposed to illustrate. For all I can tell, despite the image's caption Mahmud reigned from Ghazni in Afghanistan, not from Lahore. Thus, I don't think that image served any useful purpose in this article. Huon ( talk) 19:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
This map is wrong. It shows entire J and K as part of pakistan. Jammu is adminstered by India and so is Srinagar.
There is no claim of Pakistan on Ladakh and Jammu. Kashmir is also administrated by India. Claiming territory does not make that area a part of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitbhatia ( talk • contribs) 14:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
@Huon agree for the time being but I do find it absurd that if Pakistan claims Jammu, it becomes a disputed territory even if it is totally controlled and administrated by India. So, all that a country has to do for Wikipedia to recognise its claim is to announce on their government's site that it belongs to them. Be assured, I don't want to start a war here :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohitbhatia ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The image of Pakistan is not accurate Refer to United Nations image http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/pakistan.pdf
Findrohitsharma ( talk) 05:09, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
So a militant insurgency is in full swing. Wars are being fought in waziristan and Bin Laden was found and killed here. Yet no mention of terrorism? Ironic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.245.35 ( talk) 17:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Why are there three pronunciations given for the country name? The proper and correct pronunciation can only be the one in the local language, i.e the Urdu pronunciation, why give two other weirdly accented American pronunciations? Should one give the Urdu pronunciation of America (Umreeka) on the page for the United States? Besides, the correct pronunciation isn't that difficult. -- Minigilani ( talk) 06:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the English pronunciations of the country name.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dear Editor you on the article of Pakistan you mansion that badshahi mosque was build in 1973 it is wrong, it was build in 1773 please make sure thanks Shahzadsattar ( talk) 06:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
"Pakistan has also won the Hockey World Cup a record four times (1971, 1978, 1982, 1994)." This is a big achievement and it should be mentioned in the first paragraph rather then in the last line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.1.208 ( talk) 14:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Pothwari Couple.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 15:50, 7 October 2011 (UTC) |
Even without the copyright problems these images are not reliable sources. If local costumes are deemed notable enough for this article (and to my understanding that's usually not the case), we should have a reliable source discussing them and then use images for illustration - preferably photographs, not drawings. Since there was no context, I have removed the images for now. Huon ( talk) 16:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
110.224.63.110 (
talk)
19:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Military is under the heading "Politics", Shouldn't it be a separate heading in the article? Kamilhamad ( talk) 08:22, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
article is factually incorrect when it states that "boloywood films are banned since 1965". Bollywood movies are now leagl under some limitations and regularly play in movie theaters
99.51.188.207 ( talk) 07:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:BaburCruise.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 11:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC) |
Persian is not spoken or understood in Pakistan. That's a myth.
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
My request is that you add the following under OFFICIAL LANGUAGES spoken:
~ Persian (Farsi) Persian is widely spoken in many regions of Pakistan, and therefore it should be added. Thankyou
67.250.9.167 ( talk) 05:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:051103-NLDF-8159O-012.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 09:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Islamabadphoto.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:GGJinnah.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 18 November 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 19:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC) |
Somebody needs to reupload these images here! -- lTopGunl ( talk) 19:41, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no section on Pakistani human rights abuses? Darkness Shines ( talk) 19:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
My note- Yes, as you have already been asked to clarify the"human rights abuses".What do you mean here?. As editors have mentioned that there are worst states where there is violation of human rights,that you did not see for tagging.Your selected targets will be not considered as a Good faith editing to tag.You must know " simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag.Tags should be added as a last resort," in this concept of exact meaning of NPOV you failed to detail your concenrs, just having no section does not apply to place the tag,and when you are talking about section and tagging on whole article was also not legitimate,for section there is other tag.
Article is about the state not about the persons,please clarify that human rights abuses are connected to human or to states?.Human rights violation is the act of persons,leaders,policy makers,not state itself. The article Pakistan covers the all military dictators, names with wikified,it means the editors have addressed the concerns of human rights by mentioning those military dictators who were supported by human rights masters.Military dictators means itself,violation of human rights.
There are virtually no topics that could proceed without making some assumption that someone would find controversial.If you have concerns about existing contents, you should that discuss on the talk page. I do not think that in the article Pakistan are any words,passages or sections,they may make the article appear to favour one position over another.Please do not create undue weight, if it is so,I think everyone's action to tag the article about the any country will be legitimate,because every state somewhat,and somehow is in the violation of human rights,about it nobody is unaware. Justice007 ( talk) 11:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
As someone who has looked over quite a few country articles, I would say here that a human rights section is just asking for trouble. Very few good country articles have them. This is because human rights aren't a small easily discussable topic, as they cover things from politics to religion. Any explicit human rights section will most likely either fawn over how amazing a country is, or turn into an attack section. If there are notable human rights violations, they should be integrated into information about what exactly is being violated. For example, restrictions on freedom of speech would belong in a politics section. This is better for both neutrality and understanding. Chipmunkdavis ( talk) 15:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119079.htm
http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/france
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/police-abuse-goes-unchecked-france-20090402
http://www.hrw.org/europecentral-asia/france
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2006/04/iran-rips-human-rights-violations-in-france-us.html
Please to be fair and bold to place the tag on the article now.And do not mention Human rights in France,it's separate article,similarly feel free to improve and expand the article Human rights in Pakistan.Cheers. Justice007 ( talk) 17:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
Alongside terrorism and illiteracy overpopulation should be mentioned. — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps rates a mention as a cultural thing? [16] Darkness Shines ( talk) 16:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Two women raped every hour in India [20] Bridal burnings? Widow Burnings? all in India? maybe mention those while trying to desperately dig dirt upon Pakistan would equalise your pov pushing maybe? 109.150.57.203 ( talk) 20:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
descipline=نظم not تنظيم
Hakku 313 (
talk)
14:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Request declined per above. --
lTopGunl (
talk)
12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
More specifically, the part quoted below:
The "struggle for independence" should be linked to the Indian Independence Movement instead of Pakistan movement, since it was the Indian Independence Movement which resulted in the creation of the dominions of India and Pakistan. The Indian Independence Movement was led by numerous leaders along with Jinnah. Comments? — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
(ec) To characterize the efforts of Jinnah and other leaders for a separate country for Muslims as a "struggle for independence" is a misrepresentation. The actual struggle for independence was between what constituted British India and the British Empire, and later British India was divided in accordance with the agreements between the leaders of British India. I will appreciate more commentary from other users on this subject. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Your suspicion is wrong. My disagreement with you does not become a proof of that either. I've given all reasons behind my objections. Better to stay on content. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 16:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
My understanding of the chronology is like this: British Raj --> Indian independence movement --> Two Nation Theory adopted by the Muslim League for a homeland --> Indian Independence Act 1947 --> Dominion of Pakistan and Union of India. Please correct me if this is an inaccurate depiction. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 22:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing this out. I think it makes more sense to link the words "Islamic republic" at the second instance, because it appears more cleaner. A good example would be the article on the Islamic Republic of Iran. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Done --
lTopGunl (
talk)
16:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
"declared" is once again a word that should be avoided, as "self-declared" would be more accurate. The best way to go about it is to simply remove the word and say "[...] and is a nuclear weapons state". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Since you have no suggestions, I think we should wait for more input before moving forward. I'm fine with removing declared... but without any clarification it will seem dubious... also the tests have weight enough to be put in the first mention. There actually are citations present that Pakistan declared itself a nuclear state by testing the weapons. But then again, I'll not go into that debate when this one is not a big deal. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 15:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I propose that this should be changed to "[...] that sought the partition of India and the establishment of a new independent state [...]" for accuracy. British India ceased to exist after the passing of the Indian Independence Act, and the conditions for the division of the country were laid down in this statute as well. Therefore it's " Partition of India" and not "partition of British India". — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Mosque is a good idea. We have Badshai mosque already so I have these two to replace Sitar:
September88 ( talk) 03:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
(UTC)
I think there needs to be some more image balance. I don't see Balochistan being depiected. The Swat image can also get a comparison with the one added here (which ever better can stay). I also found a skyline (from within the article), with some what comparable atmosphere (though not foggy) from Karachi. This image is also in a template in the article so has to be considered for redundancy. See images on right. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 23:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
On a side note, as the article has done major adjustments since peer review was submitted, I asked two reviewers to give a 2nd check; would be good if they find the time to do so. September88 ( talk) 00:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
And to avoid image over loading at the same time, how about population density map from "demographics" removed and Kaalash pic shifted to its place? There is a population density template in the section, it could do without the map. September88 ( talk) 00:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've made a complete list of all: (No non-free images found)
Results:
Check the licenses before adding any new images or replacing from the suggestions given here. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 02:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
I liked the new image, but I added the old one for it being a panorama and for elegant variation of the images which seemed a bit similarly put. Any thoughts? -- lTopGunl ( ping) 12:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
Going through the proposals for images, I think I have a better idea in which we can accommodate many photos and also have different representations and varities of landscapes etc. If you look at the India article, you may notice that some of the images there change whenever you refresh the page or re-visit it another time. This is because they are using a "switch" template (see here). This seems to be a function which randomly rotates selected images in a continuous cycle. We could use a similar function in this page and thus have a number of pictures (for example in geography, where the K2 and Swat valley picture can exchange every now and then with other pics) rather than having to worry about only putting permanent pictures. Mar4d ( talk) 03:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Good find Mar4d, you solved all the debates. September88 ( talk) 04:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, got free, I'm adding the feature to the chosen pictures, will list here. Also, I think there's a serious issue we need to look at. I'm now editing from a wide screen laptop - almost all the images at the end of sections are displacing edit buttons or headings. Do you see this or is it just different on different resolutions? :/ -- lTopGunl ( talk) 23:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
-- lTopGunl ( talk) 00:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
I propose having a large-sized "clickable" map of the administrative units and provinces, similiar to what's been done (example) at Iraq#Governorates, India#Subdivisions, United Arab Emirates#Political divisions and many other articles. The current map's size is barely enough to make out the names of the provinces. Mar4d ( talk) 06:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Done I made the changes at
Template:Pakistan Administrative Units Image Map. However, I'm going to ask for some help in making the map "clickable" as that requires some sort of expertise. This would allow readers to click on the provinces/territories on the map and automatically open up their Wikipedia articles.
Mar4d (
talk)
08:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
These to references are broken; there names added with no links or citation.
Can some one else give them a try? -- lTopGunl ( talk) 06:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if all the previous peer review issues from this review have been fixed or not - it didn't make GA after that review so something might be left if not fixed over time: Wikipedia:Peer review/Pakistan/archive2.
Also note in the Featured Article review when this article was demoted, poor → Ãlways Ãhëad got a alot of POV bashing to make him add negative information to the liking of a few reviewers and even IPs under the pretext of balancing: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Pakistan. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 07:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I am interested in the issue. I can help you guys get some balance into this article, to have a positive review for feature or good article. One note, in its current form the article lacks tons of reliable sources. JCAla ( talk) 19:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
cn}}
where you feel they are lacking. Your FAO source has a 301 redirect, so if you could do something about it, and I've added an {{
cn}}
to one of your edits where I couldn't find a source. And if you do add a ref, it would be really nice if you could follow the citation format used in the article, or I'd be crawling after filling each of them. :-) Plus since you've done some edits on the topic, and so have I for further npov, I'd like to say that peer reviewer Casliber already have us made some changes to the Kashmir conflict for npov and was ok with the version. Its better to not further touch that because controversial topics like these attract more conflict as they are detailed. Pakistan's article is only for its summary.
September88 (
talk)
20:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Don't worry, I am here out of interest for the topic and to make good faith contributions to get this article promoted. Yet, I probably will have a different opinion than some of you on some things. September88, I have added the sources in the right format. :) However, on the Kashmir issue, you are right. I have added rather technical details and removed some detailed content both pro-Indian and pro-Pakistan which would need further elaboration if it stayed. Do you agree? I also fixed the FAO ref. JCAla ( talk) 10:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
So, basically, your edits on kashmir seems to be more pro-indian side; and giving npov and other problems instead of resolving them. For now I have reverted the last para back to previous version, which contains both your addition and mine edits. It contains reliable references added by us both and shows both sides. I've also left your recent edits on the 2nd para of the topic as they are (only corrected inverted commas info). How about now we really do keep it this way. Or it'll have to be reverted back to reviewer Casliber oked version to avoid conflicts. September88 ( talk) 17:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
@ JCla: Any editor willing to make constructive edits is welcome. Its not about my country or yours, its about npov and accuracy. And I don't want to be prissy or engage in a debate, but a few issues remain/have yet again arisen with your latest edits which needs to be discussed:
You either missed this point or maybe I didn't explain it clear enough. My last post, newer text in bold--> ("One source (Freedom House) for regarding such a controversial topic like 'kashmir elections' generally fair is just inviting more additions from other side, making the section even longer and simply more controversy.)" As you can see, following your edit, I'm simply going to have to add the other sides views on elections becoz they aren't regarded as cut clear generally fair by everyone as this source say. Plus there is again a statistical inaccuracy/ambiguity in the edit; the source says more than 60% in most polling station. This does not equal overall "over 60%" which the edit is giving impression of. I also have other few minor issues but that would just lead to more debate.
From my point of view, mentioning the unrests without saying who was behind it and where exactly it took place, is questionable. But I won't press the issue.
And clarify why India considers it an integral part.
Plus as you can see in the discussion below, this section might end up merging so lets just settle this now, so if the merger is to happen, the editor is to know which info he has to relocate. September88 ( talk) 17:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
No, the unrest info was there before I started editing the section. I was the one to put the elections for balance. I agree with your proposal and what Chip wrote in the merge talk, however, and have removed both. Ok?
JCAla (
talk)
17:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Propose more structuring and some shifting. "Eduction" needs to be shifted to a subsection of "Infrastructure". " Health" and " Energy" are needed under the same. A section for " Crime and law enforcement" is absent (may be " Court system" can be added too?). Demographics needs a "Language" section and one for "Family structure" -- lTopGunl ( talk) 07:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Scratch Language which has been covered in the third para of demographics. Court system and Law enforcement play same role of bringing justice so can be merged. September88 ( talk) 09:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC) fourth para of demograph not third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by September88 ( talk • contribs) 09:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Pakistan's census does not include the registered 1.7 million
Afghan refugees from neighbouring
Afghanistan, who are mainly found in the
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and
Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) areas, with small numbers in the cities of
Karachi and
Quetta. Around 2 million refugees, mostly from
Afghanistan
Bangladesh, Iran, Africa, and other places are also found in Pakistan.
Please recheck this inconsistency from last edits. In the last sentence 'also' means other than Afghan refugees. So the underlined text seems more correct. What does the citation say? If it is Afghan, then the word 'also' seems redundant and the figures are inconsistent in the same paragraph. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 21:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I think we should remove the bit about Pakistani-Chinese food from the cuisine section because it's being given too much weight by being featured on a main article like this. Readers can go themselves to the Pakistani Chinese food article by locating it on the Pakistani cuisine article which has dedicated sections about regional food variations. This page should only contain a summary of native Pakistani cuisine in general, like all other countries' articles on Wikipedia. Third opinions are welcome. Mar4d ( talk) 04:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. If anyone feels that there is a better image (eg. of a Nihari or biryani) or any other food, suggestions are welcome.
Mar4d (
talk)
05:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Urdu name link to wikitionary; is that done elsewhere? -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:17, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Is it notable enough to add Bush's coined usage of "Greater Middle East"? Pakistan does not call that itself and nor does the rest of the world. It would only be suitable for addition here if it was of national importance to Pakistan. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Mar4d ( talk) 10:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Pakistan is strategically situated at the crossroads of the important regions of South Asia, Central Asia and the Middle East.
This was altered on claim that it doesn't refer to anything in the body:
If so, body should be updated with the related information as there's consensus to use this sentence. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 16:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The infobox reads "Unity, Discipline, Faith"... I've always known it as "Unity, Faith, Discipline". Can this be confirmed from a reliable source...? official site? The Urdu version (might not be in the same order as English one) is "Faith, Unity, Discipline". -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the content from the citation:
Pakistan is situated at the western end of the great Indo-Gangetic Plain. Of the total area of the country, about three-fifths consists of rough mountainous terrain and plateaus, and the remaining two-fifths constitutes a wide expanse of level plain. The land can be divided into five major regions: the Himalayan and Karakoram ranges and their subranges; the Hindu Kush and western mountains; the Balochistan plateau; the submontane plateau (Potwar Plateau, Salt Range, trans-Indus plain, and Sialkot area); and the Indus River plain. Within each major division there are further subdivisions, including a number of desert areas.
I think this is only a preview and full citation free access is not needed per WP:SOURCEACCESS. You can still confirm though. This detail is about that content in question and seems to be an appropriate citation. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Have you found the reference? If not, here is one. JCAla ( talk) 11:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Since the "quotes" are removed from the acronym sentence, the sentence now implies that there are still 30 million Muslims in the area. Either the quotes should be put back or the sentence should be changed to past tense ie:
The name is was an acronym representing the thirty million Muslim brethren who lived in PAKSTAN—by which we meant the five Northern units of India viz: Punjab, North-West Frontier Province (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan.
-- lTopGunl ( talk) 00:41, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
I think the first occurrences should be linked in lead. Body should be handled accordingly as well. There're some points given on the peer review page by Finetooth. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 18:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I think there should also be a short sentence on the Pakistan Antarctic Programme in the science and technology section, since Pakistan is only of a handful of nations ( [27]) to have an active research presence in Antarctica, including a summer facility (the Jinnah Antarctic Station), and plans to open another base soon which is going to be permanent (unlike the Jinnah station) as per this. Mar4d ( talk) 11:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Done - Added with reliable source.
Mar4d (
talk)
09:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
I plan on completing the overhaul of references within the next week. Can you guys tell me which content you consider redundant because I don't want to end up finding sources of content about to be removed. Also because the references are a mess atm, (many non-obvious lines uncited/ unreliable citations which points back to wikipedia as source) some content might be needing change and some deleted to fit with new sources. Should I wait until the content is stable or should I go ahead with citing? September88 ( talk) 13:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
What I meant was that there is only {National Symbols of Pakistan} in Pakistan article and I couldn't find where the real template is located to edit it. September88 ( talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
September88 ( talk) 01:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Done I've replaced the major suspicious refs. The remaining minor can be dealt with if called out in the review.
September88 (
talk)
14:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
On topic of removing redundancy and structuring. Something needs to be done about 'Culture and Society'. It is haphazardly divided and has too many subsections. I suggest to merge Media's 2nd para with Literature and Architecture under "Arts". Both literature and architecture can be trimmed easily they are describing historical influences which has been somewhat covered in "Early history'. The readers can easily wikilink back to 'Pakistan's Architecture and Pakistani literature' article for details. September88 ( talk) 00:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
This was given an "ok" by a reviewer, see Finetooth comments, part 5, to be added to "Demographics", "Science and technology" and "Administrative divisions" sections respectively in a concise manner. Now the issue is what all to add and which citations to use, since the main articles either lack citations or are in a mess. Let's add some 3-4 liners here for each (suggest in 3 futher subsections here) to compare as a draft. I'm adding very crude versions give your improved ones below them; we can get citations after that or twist the phrases accordingly. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Ok, this one is the lede of the main article to start with:
-- lTopGunl ( talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Since it'll be under demographics, infrastructure scratched.
September88 (
talk)
05:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Just saw that Health is already mentioned in demographics. We can fit the new info in between instead of a new para. New info in bold.
Life expectancy at birth is 63 years for females and 62 years for males as of 2006 compared to the healthy life expectancy at birth which was 54 years for males and 52 years for females in 2003. Expenditure on health was at 2% of the GDP in 2006. Private sector accounts approximately 80% of all outpatient visits. About 19% of the population and 30% of children under age of five are malnourished. The mortality below 5 was at 97 per 1,000 live births in 2006. During 1990–2003, Pakistan sustained its historical lead as the most urbanised nation in South Asia, with city dwellers making up 36% of its population. Furthermore, 50% of Pakistanis now reside in towns of 5,000 people or more. September88 ( talk) 06:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Done.. Added with
citation needed tag. --
lTopGunl (
talk)
13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
This one is a mixture of a few related main article leads:
To be tweaked if citations are missing or for improved quality. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Done.. Added with
citation needed tag. --
lTopGunl (
talk)
13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
This is the main article's lede and another main article's list converted to prose for an overview. Seems quite adequate to be put as a summary here (maybe shorten it?):
-- lTopGunl ( talk) 02:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The most senior officers of all the civilian police forces also form part of the Police Service of Pakistan, which is a component of the civil service of Pakistan.
And they're fine I think. September88 ( talk) 05:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
As for 'Energy', the condition in my house tempts me to write something critical...but seriously its fine. Health should definitely only include the two lines not scratched because it already has a para on it. September88 ( talk) 12:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Done.. Added with
citation needed tag. --
lTopGunl (
talk)
13:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
The legal system is derived from English common law and is based on 1973 constitution and Islamic law. The Supreme Court, provincial high courts, and other courts have jurisdiction over criminal and civil issues. Special courts and tribunals hear particular types of cases, such as drugs, commerce, and terrorism. Pakistan's penal code has limited jurisdiction in tribal areas, where law is largely derived from tribal customs. September88 ( talk) 12:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
As per Chipmunkdavis comments on peer review:
I suggest you cut down the total article size [...] I'd do something drastic with the Tourism section. It reads very advertisment like, quite WP:PEACOCKy. It's also weird that it's not included as part of Economy.
And after checking all the countries featured articles, I suggest removing Tourism altogether. Its not the major industry of Pakistan, why a separate section for it? Whatever small influence it has on economy can be summed in a line in that section. September88 ( talk) 02:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
And while we are at it, you mentioned trimming down things in peer review. Where else do you think the trimming should be done, now that we're done adding major new content? In my opinion Flora and Fauna, Economy and Transport needs to be rewritten for prose and better/updated info where some editing in/out can be done. September88 ( talk) 05:40, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
I reckon a short sentence should be added in the article about Pakistan's regional power status, or if not that, at least its "middle power" status. There are reliable sources in various places on Wikipedia to establish this (see the following sections: Regional power#South Asia, the map at Regional power#Current regional powers, the list at Regional hegemony). In addition, the Middle power article mentions Pakistan at Middle power#List of middle powers. There's also a very good map at Power in international relations#Categories of power. I think the lead might be the appropriate place to mention this (perhaps as the opening sentence of the last paragraph talking about the armed forces, nuclear power and international relations). Before that happens however, I need your opinion. Mar4d ( talk) 11:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
A middle-level regional power [1] [2], Pakistan has the eighth largest standing armed force and is the only Muslim-majority nation to possess nuclear weapons also being the first nuclear power country in the Muslim world, and the second in the South Asia [3] It a recognized nuclear-weapons state and is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States and a strategic ally of China. [4] [5] It is a founding member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) [6] and a member of the United Nations, [7] Commonwealth of Nations, [8] Next Eleven economies and the G20 developing nations.
A regional and middle-level power, [9] [2] Pakistan has the eighth largest standing army in the world and is a recognised nuclear weapons state, being the first and only nation to have that status in the Muslim world, and the second in South Asia. [3] It is designated as a major non-NATO ally of the United States and a strategic ally of China. [10] [11] Pakistan is a founding member of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation) [12] and is a member of the United Nations, [13] Commonwealth of Nations, [14] Next Eleven economies and the G20 developing nations.
What I didn't like about the previous paragraph is that it was being repetitive by mentioning the Muslim world twice. It should only give one mention to that, as well as South Asia, and it should be preceded by "it is a recognised nuclear weapons state" as that sounds more relevant. Mar4d ( talk) 16:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
A question: I noticed Library of Congress as ref. 226 & 44, alongwith this page sections cited individually at ref. 55 & 128. For consistency's sake one of the two approaches is to be applied; it could be one reference to the main page for all the different details or individual references to each section. Which is better? September88 ( talk) 22:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be a bit of text sandwich in the history section I suggest to remove the priest with Ajrak (since that is on many other articles and in the infobox of History of Pakistan. Also, the POF eye was not sandwiching anything. That section was lengthy enough for two images - actually there was a whole screen full of just text (I've added that back, let me know if there are objections). As a side note, I suggest image of Mughals be replaced with Muhammad bin Qasim's since he is more notable for the earliest history of Pakistan ie. advent of Islam in to this area (open for discussion). -- lTopGunl ( ping) 17:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
550+ edits in ~10 days. Previous version [29] vs current [30]. (A comparison). -- lTopGunl ( ping) 13:14, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The section doesn't mention anything about Pakistan hosting the 1990 Men's Hockey World Cup or that Pakistan has hosted the international Hockey Champions Trophy tournament eleven times. Just an observation.... Mar4d ( talk) 15:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
The article will be put up for FAC soon. Any suggestions for final touches or discussion can be done here. I'll be doing minor fixes myself too and am listing things that could use help:
Any other suggestion are welcomed. September88 ( talk) 17:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
Clear}}
after the images. Let me try.{{
Clear}}
. The good thing is that {{
Clear}}
works accordingly the screen sizes and if a particular image is not giving problem in smaller screen it will not interfere with the structure there. The negative is that the same 'white space' problem encountered earlier can be seen in the wide screen, as it pushes the next section heading down to make space for the picture without colliding with its edit button. So yay or nay?
September88 (
talk)
16:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I see white space on widescreen(16:10) with clear used which is not looking good at all. I have tried minimizing the white space as much as possible by moving images and editing captions
herebut it still has some white spaces left. May be I have missed some issues raised in the peer review but does it really matter how it appears on widescreen (for FAC)? --
SMS
Talk
14:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
{{
float}}
can make the rest of white spaces disappear. --
SMS
Talk
15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC){{
float}}
but I was wrong, it is not useful here. The most I can reduce the white space is
this version but again it won't be looking any good when seen at different resolution than mine. And I agree with Uzair, it is difficult to remove white space completely and also avoid images appearing along with other section text for all display resolutions. And I hope reviewers will also understand this. --
SMS
Talk
12:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)Add {{rp|288-323}} at the end of the references to add page numbers. I've found an example. See the ones being used in Pakistani English. This was what I was talking about... if necessary this can be used. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 08:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been taking a look at the article for a while and was intending to post about this weeks ago but could not be bothered. But since I have seen some editing activity going on in that section, I might as well propose it now. My question is, do we even need a seperate section for the Kashmir conflict? Since this is a political and military-related conflict, can the information present in there not just be merged under the "military" section? If you take a look at the India article, there's only a passing mention (less than a sentence) to Kashmir's disputed status under the modern history section and then just one sentence again in the military section (again, half a sentence). I have also observed that there is hardly any reference in that article to Pakistan's dispute over Kashmir. On the Pakistan article, the Kashmir dispute has been overdone and it is also disproportionately large, raising issues such as WP:WEIGHT. Alot of the info here should be moved into the Kashmir conflict article and we should only follow WP:Summary style here; I generally think four sentences should be enough. Once the section is cut down, its content should be moved and accommodated into either military' or 'politics' (which ever suits better). Any thoughts? Mar4d ( talk) 10:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
This is the basic plan. If everyone's fine with it, I am willing to carry out and demonstrate the merge as per above. The tweaks and trimming can come in afterward. Mar4d ( talk) 06:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
This statement is very controversial. It needs a clause for balance. JCAla ( talk) 11:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok, then we add the sentence. But, again, I advise against oversourcing with regards to the GA/FA review. Choose one reliable reference of your liking to display Pakistan's pov, and I will choose one link for the US pov, ok? JCAla ( talk) 10:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
We would have to discuss then what two incidents were outstanding, which is difficult. I prefer articles clarifying the positions generally. It is easier if you pick one reliable reference and I pick the other, this way it will automatically be balanced. JCAla ( talk) 11:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
We are in no hurry since this source (which is already in the article) already contains a lot of information. We could add "Pakistan backed attacks on American targets, U.S. says" and "In Pakistan, anger builds against the US. What do you think? JCAla ( talk) 11:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I've removed this navigation link from the history section (it was also removed by another editor previously - Mar4d I think - but now put back by JCAla). This was suggested at the peer review, but I think History of South Asia should actually cover the Pakistan related topics from History of India (the fact that it isn't yet should not be basis of an argument as instead that article should be improved). Any one wishing to add it back can do so and I will not consider it edit war if a reasonable argument is given in the edit summary or here since I've not really removed this on neutrality basis. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 12:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Suggest applying for the FAC. This can be delayed if the "Kashmir dispute" section has to be merged. I'll also suggest to wait for all editors contributing to the overhaul to be active (or their confirmation) before we apply so that quick changes can be made if suggested. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
In another conversation I suggested that an FAQ page be created at Talk:Pakistan/FAQ so that further interruptions can be reduced. September88 & Mar4d support this. This section is for suggestions on what all to put in that page. A previous suggestion from Mar4d includes the recurring failed proposals from archives. -- lTopGunl ( talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
September88 ( talk) 16:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
It may have been removed due to following: 1) To avoid clutter 2) To avoid image copy-right issues 3) To maintain balance in representing major areas of the country. Please discuss on talk page before addition or removal of images.
There are many reasons for text removal: 1) It contained unnecessary detail about a subtopic. Pakistan's article is for summary of the subtopics, all details belongs to the relevant subtopic's article page. 2) Your edit maybe giving WP:NPV WP:Recentism etc issues. Discuss in talk page before adding details about sensitive or controversial topics. 3) Lack of proper citations.
Article is meant to be well covered but concise per xyz. If your given topic does not have a subsection, then chances are it does not have WP:due importance or consensuses has been to avoid creating a subsection for conciseness.
Logical location info and link archeives12345? OR/and consensuses has been to include Pakistan's location as its currently given in the article. Do not modify it, see talk 1234567 archives for further information.
Proper explanation.
Detail on separate topics or just answer of Q#2?
Based on our discussion, this is a very rough draft of how I think FAQs can go. Modify it for improvements or edit for redundancy/add your own questions. September88 ( talk) 17:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |location=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |location=
(
help)