This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pakistani nationalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Pakistan Movement head is completely one-sided point of view based and is a copy and paste from direct action day page. Most of the sources are dubious and fail verification. It should be deleted. 76.206.4.198 ( talk) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
New Article
Ive just started writing this article, its very, very far thanks S Seagal 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)S Segal
Can you please highlight the 'racist POV'? All claims are backed up by sources, there are one or two areas that still need some work and touch up, besides Im really suprised no one started work on the article before me.
I've locked the page until disputes can be resolved, I found one edit of yours namely the following: 'Azadi Section'
"The war arose from a racialist viewpoint on the part of the British who attacked the "Beastly customs of Indians" by forcing the South Asian soldiers to handle Enfield P-53 gun cartridges greased with lard taken from slaughtered pigs. This was a manifestation of the disregard that the British exhibited to Muslim and Hindu religious traditions, such as the rejection of Pork in Islam, and the mandate of vegetarianism in Hinduism"
I found this list, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_terms_per_nationality
please make edits in line with Wiki standards, As opposed to just waltzing in and making changes.
As for the Quotes by Rudyard Kipling you are welcome to list Rudyard Kipling bigoted and racist views on his article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipling If you are able to provide more quotes related to this article and 'admiration' of pakistan please mention them and we can add them to the page.
"Concentrate on the constructive achievements of Muslims in South Asia (there are a few if one looks hard enough), instead of the destructive ones"
No denying that, and they are listed namely 'The main mughal contribution to the south asia was their unique architecture. Many monuments were built during the mughal era including the Taj Mahal.' Hence architecture is one of the more positive contributions of muslims in south asia, However this is an article about 'pakistani nationalism', the intro states that pakistani nationalism
'involves radical right doctrines, similar to Fascism. It is a unique and singular combination of philosophical, nationalistic, cultural and religious elements.'
Therefore the article has made it clear from the outset that the views held by pakistani nationalists are almost facist in nature.
S Seagal 13:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
I take it your talking about religious minorities? Pakistan is 98% Muslim, very, very few religious minorities are in Pakistan most left in 1947, Pakistan is a monolithic, Muslim majority state. However there are some religious minorities that can be mentioned namely:
http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2004/apr/06inter.htm
http://www.dawn.com/2005/12/20/nat12.htm
http://www.defencejournal.com/dec98/christian.htm S Seagal 13:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
Can you please point out these "ethnic Punjabi/Sindhi bias"? First you claim the article has a bias against Hindus, then you claim it has a bias against Anglos, now you claim it has a "ethnic Punjabi/Sindhi bias"
Wikipedia is not a soapbox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
Please make your edits in line with wiki norms and abide by wiki rules S Seagal 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
It is disgusting some of you had to add your sectionalist ideas to this article. 24.90.163.84 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am a Pakistani with deep nationalist influence of Pakistani environment. I never knew Aurangzeb was that important in Pakistan. That's right! This italisized line was sarcasm. Complete banning of non-Muslim religious ceremonies is not allowed in Islam (except for stopping human sacrifices). Such actions by Aurangzeb have never been revered in Pakistan. Tipu Sultan has more importance in Pakistan. Many Mughal Kings are criticised for their non-Islamic behaviour, yet this article draws a completely different picture and tries to show them as extremist old-timers. This article has tried to prove Pakistani nationalism some kind of fascism; e.g. This ideology involves radical right doctrines, similar to Fascism. This article displays a completely wrong, and very negative, image of Pakistan and has some serious issues of neutrality. Szhaider 16:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I was born and raised in Pakistan. I can testify that Aurangzeb is not important in Pakistani nationalism. The most important and central hero-figure in Pakistani nationalism is Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah. After him, you can argue the relative importance of various personalities such as Allama Iqbal, Madar-i-Millat Fatima Jinnah, and Sir Syed. I've italicized the usual titles for these personalities, because the fact that their names usually appear in conjunction with honorific titles is an indication that they are revered. AmeriDesi 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Another line of evidence comes from the number of matches from Google searches on the .pk TLD. Note that in each case, you will find that institutions, roads, places, and organizations are named after these revered heroes.
The # of matches does suggest SOME importance to Aurangzeb, although his importance to Pakistani Nationalism is dubious unless explicitly sourced. On that note, I agree with you. Hkelkar 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTA)
Although the article mentions the atrocities perpetrated by Aurangzeb against Hindus and Sikhs in great detail, it is in dire need of a falsifiable proof (source, etc) to show that his conduct is (or had been) a guiding light or source of inspiration for Pakistani nationalists. As a Pakistani born and bred in Pakistan, schooled in institutions where syllabus was approved by the Federal Government, and as a person who considers himself and his circle of acquaintances fairly 'nationlistic', I would second SZHAIDER in his/her observation that Tipu Sultan plays a greater role in inspiring Pakistani Nationalism than Aurangzeb. Yes Aurangzeb IS respected and might even be revered in some cases, but not because of his brutal persecution of Sikhs and Hindus, but because he is convinietly portrayed as an emperor who lived a simple life and made his living by selling prayper caps.
Until a body of work is cited that quantifies the degree of reverance of Aurangzeb among Pakistani Nationalist, I am of the opinion that mentioning him as a guiding light for Pakistani Nationlists is more of a dishonest attempt to state that for a Pakistani to be nationalist, it is a necessary requirement to not just condone, but to hold in high esteem the tactics used by Aurangzeb to supress non-muslim communities of the Sub-Continent.
Regars, Salman Naseer--
203.81.224.108
21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Pakistan beating India in war is laughable. The section is also POV and unsourced, leaving it ripe for change. Bakaman Bakatalk 04:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Do not vandalise the article, read wikipedia rules and regulations and discuss changes here before making them to the article.
thanks.
S Seagal 04:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
Bakaman Bakatalk 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all Im the author of this article, it was me who started writing it, that aside the claims in the new sections are not unsourced but are confirmed by the relevant main articles, namely the pakistan army, pakistan airforce, and pakistan navy articles.
I see Hkelkar has vandalized the article and deleted the sections, You just undid alot of work, Besides im starting to sense alot of double standards here compared to the Indian nationalism article, the military achievements are also unsourced there, should we remove them also?
Im adding the relevant sections back which were vandalized by Hkelkar, Please also refrain from sending me personal insulting messages.
Thanks S Seagal 04:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
If the Military section is unsourced (which most of it is not), why is the "Nationalism and politics" section also removed?
Blank the section but do not delete it as you have done.
thanks
S Seagal 05:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
The MM ALAM Is sourced, lets add that back immediately.
infact its also mention on wikipedia itself namely here: INS_Khukri
Lets get these two back into the article immediately and we can take the rest one at time.
thanks
S Seagal 05:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
There is also huge POV and anti Sikh comments that need to go. Haphar 09:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I dare say there is a pro india bias sneaking into the article, such bias must be not be allowed to influence the article in any shape or form. Its interesting that the ones most opposed to certain sections are Indians, and not any other nationality.
I should remind people that wikipedia is not a 'soapbox' or a platform for anyone to stand upon and lecture everyone else about how 'great' they are and how 'bad' everyone else maybe.
S Seagal 12:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
!pro-india != anti-India
The article had a factually itschy anti-India bias so one needs to keep that in mind. Plus,I dare say that making nationalist characterizations of users is a violation of WP:Civility so don't do it. Hkelkar 12:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
So let me give some examples of the anti India comments, can you please show where the pro India bias is ? -
“ | Pakistani nationalists take great pride in Aurangzeb's other actions of Aurangzeb for which he his forever venerated by Pakistani nationalists include the edicts he enacted which forbade Hindus to display illuminations at Diwali festivals.[citation needed].Hindu religious fairs were outlawed in 1668. The following year, he prohibited construction of new Hindu temples as well as the repair of existing ones. In 1671 Aurangzeb issued an order that only Muslims could be landlords of crown lands. He ordered provincial Viceroys to dismiss all Hindu clerks. | ” |
“ | Of particular pride to Pakistani nationalists[citation needed] is the damage Aurangzeb inflicted upon the restless Sikh community in particular his execution of Guru Teg Bahadur who was the ninth of the Ten Gurus of Sikhism. Guru Teg Bahadur's execution for his belligerence and total disregard for the edicts and laws passed by Aurangzeb proved to be forever a scar upon the faces of the Sikh community, All claims of Guru Teg Bahadur being sent from God for the troubled people of the land as an enlightened soul whose main purpose in life was the spiritual and moral well-being of the masses, were subsequently quashed as he was meekly executed. Pakistani nationalists take great pride in the disorientation caused to the Sikh religion due to Aurangzeb's execution of Guru Tegh Bahadar, the event is very significant in Sikhism the ripples caused by this event can still be felt in the Sikh community even today who feel they were robbed of a promised Guru. | ” |
<Added by User:Haphar>
I agree they need to be reworded, but if people feel proud of executing religious figures then so be it. However, at present the article makes it look like Sikhism died as a religion because of Aurangzeb's actions. Especially the line All claims of Guru Teg Bahadur being sent from God for the troubled people of the land as an enlightened soul whose main purpose in life was the spiritual and moral well-being of the masses, were subsequently quashed as he was meekly executed. That needs to be changed. Btw, please refrain from creating redlinks for emphasis, many of us have popups and while we are reading the redlinks can get annoying. Try this Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 08:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA330082001?open&of=ENG-PAK
I'm not ashamed to admit it, I alomst pissed myself with mortal fear and my blood ran cold. Hkelkar 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest the following structure for the article:
It says that Pakistani nationalists believe that Pakistan is the cradle of civilization. So do they support the Out of India theory? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually you might call it 'out of Pakistan theory', Since those regions of India are now Pakistan.
Maybe we should move that article?
S Seagal 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
Is it safe to create a new article entitled List of mausoleums and shrines in Pakistan and linking to that article along with a brief paragraph on the article. The current list, with all its subsections, just doesn't fit in the article. It's sort of like when Indian cricket team records were all listed in subsections of Indian cricket team, it just doesn't seem right. I can easily carry out the move, but don't want to start a revert war, so am inviting discussion first. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this about Indian Muslim nationalism or Pakistani nationalism. Mention of Sikhs and Hindus living in the Pakistan region before Partition is scarce while mention of Muslims living well inside India is often made. Or is Pakistan characterised by a Muslim presence in India, in which case the Indus Valley is a dodgy source for Pakistani nationalism. One can't stop nationalists from being proud of things, but I'm just wondering what's going on with this article. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel like I'm talking to myself but the focus of this article is nationalism in Pakistan, not the history of Pakistan. Thus we should talk about important nationalistic events and how they affected nationalism. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a pretty dreadful article - and the section heading above is a good example of the sort of biased and triumphalist language used throughout. It is poorly written and not properly referenced. Obviously an article on "Pakistani Nationalism" has to describe such nationalism's founding myths and beliefs, but a properly objective and critical approach needs to be taken to these. To describe the various Islamic conquests of Northern India as "Wars of liberation, salvation and civilization" without any qualifiers or context is deliberately provocative and unacceptable on wikipedia. Sikandarji 10:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"This admiration outside of Pakistan's borders acts as a source of nationalist sentiment for Pakistani nationals."
I am a little curious, how foriegn admiration can act as a nationalist sentiment. -- N R S | T/ M\ B 05:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is a load of bullsh*t and could only have been written by a sneaky Panjabi. There is no such thing as a Pakistani civilization, lol, Pakistan has existed only since 1947 before that you Panjabis and Sindhis were Indians and were worshipping cows and stone idols. May Allah bless the Baloch and free Balochistan.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.227.120 ( talk • contribs) .
--Sindhis and Punjabis were hindus before 1947? Buddy, I think you are out of your mind. I am a Sindhi and countless generations of my family have been Sunni Muslim Alhamdolillah. Go make wudu so you can wash yourself of the anger sitting in you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik357 ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Siddiqui's version is the most balanced version. Please stop reverting it. Aurangzeb's secion is totally made up and he is hardly known in Pakistan. The only thing Pakistani's know about him is that he was one of Mughal emperors. He is no hero in Pakistan neither he is anythink even close to ideal. Before Siddiqui's version, entire article was like a rant by some obsessivly anti-Pakistan fanatic. Szhaider 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There is not facts/external supports to the claims that Aurangzeb "damaged" Sikhism by his execution of Guru Teg Bahadur. There is a counter point of view that it galvanised what was until then a peaceful sect to become a miltary sect that caused more damage to the Mughals. Nor is there any corrobaration of the claim that it scarred the Sikh's. There can be pride over this, but the hperbole must be supported by facts. Haphar 08:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This heading must be converted to Muslim Invasion as Isalam as relegion is not an invader islam has just given righ of defence. Abulfazl 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is a huge mess. Even Pakistani editors have added some material which I consider simply unbelievable. I have a suggestion. Why don't we delete entire article and rewrite it with only those points which are strictly verifiable and uncotrovercial facts. You might not like it but think about it.
PS: In my opinion, "Pakistani nationalism" is a phenomenon which cannot be strictly defined, as virtually every Pakistani has different factors on which he/she bases his/her personal "Pakistani nationalism". That is why I think only that material should be on this page which is verifiable for majority of Pakistanis.
Szhaider 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I must say, that this section of the article tends to give a partisan and one-sided view on stressing solely on the excesses carried out by many pro-Pakistan armed Muslims on the Hindus of what is now Pakistan. However it also almost blatantly ignores the violence Muslim centres in northern India and Punjab faced from Hindu/Sikh mobs faced which were as gruesome, if not even more widespread, than the so-called "ethnic cleansing" of Hindus in what is now Pakistan. Bear in mind, more Muslims (including my own family) had to migrate to Pakistan fearing for their lives than the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistani Punjab that ended up migrating to India. Suprah™ 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Pakistan Nuclear Test.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the {{Articleissues|article=1|OR=August 2007|disputed=August 2007|unreferenced=August 2006|unbalanced=August 2007}} from the top of the article. There are tags in the sections with questionable content. If any other specific items need to be addressed please use {{ OR}} and {{ fact}} to identify the specific content that needs to be corrected, referenced or removed. Jeepday ( talk) 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I added this because Pakistan was created after partition of India following 2 nation theory, if any one wants to revert, please discuss here. Ovsek ( talk) 09:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Pakistani nationalism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Pakistan Movement head is completely one-sided point of view based and is a copy and paste from direct action day page. Most of the sources are dubious and fail verification. It should be deleted. 76.206.4.198 ( talk) 20:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
New Article
Ive just started writing this article, its very, very far thanks S Seagal 03:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)S Segal
Can you please highlight the 'racist POV'? All claims are backed up by sources, there are one or two areas that still need some work and touch up, besides Im really suprised no one started work on the article before me.
I've locked the page until disputes can be resolved, I found one edit of yours namely the following: 'Azadi Section'
"The war arose from a racialist viewpoint on the part of the British who attacked the "Beastly customs of Indians" by forcing the South Asian soldiers to handle Enfield P-53 gun cartridges greased with lard taken from slaughtered pigs. This was a manifestation of the disregard that the British exhibited to Muslim and Hindu religious traditions, such as the rejection of Pork in Islam, and the mandate of vegetarianism in Hinduism"
I found this list, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_terms_per_nationality
please make edits in line with Wiki standards, As opposed to just waltzing in and making changes.
As for the Quotes by Rudyard Kipling you are welcome to list Rudyard Kipling bigoted and racist views on his article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kipling If you are able to provide more quotes related to this article and 'admiration' of pakistan please mention them and we can add them to the page.
"Concentrate on the constructive achievements of Muslims in South Asia (there are a few if one looks hard enough), instead of the destructive ones"
No denying that, and they are listed namely 'The main mughal contribution to the south asia was their unique architecture. Many monuments were built during the mughal era including the Taj Mahal.' Hence architecture is one of the more positive contributions of muslims in south asia, However this is an article about 'pakistani nationalism', the intro states that pakistani nationalism
'involves radical right doctrines, similar to Fascism. It is a unique and singular combination of philosophical, nationalistic, cultural and religious elements.'
Therefore the article has made it clear from the outset that the views held by pakistani nationalists are almost facist in nature.
S Seagal 13:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
I take it your talking about religious minorities? Pakistan is 98% Muslim, very, very few religious minorities are in Pakistan most left in 1947, Pakistan is a monolithic, Muslim majority state. However there are some religious minorities that can be mentioned namely:
http://in.rediff.com/cricket/2004/apr/06inter.htm
http://www.dawn.com/2005/12/20/nat12.htm
http://www.defencejournal.com/dec98/christian.htm S Seagal 13:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
Can you please point out these "ethnic Punjabi/Sindhi bias"? First you claim the article has a bias against Hindus, then you claim it has a bias against Anglos, now you claim it has a "ethnic Punjabi/Sindhi bias"
Wikipedia is not a soapbox:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox
Please make your edits in line with wiki norms and abide by wiki rules S Seagal 14:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
It is disgusting some of you had to add your sectionalist ideas to this article. 24.90.163.84 20:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I am a Pakistani with deep nationalist influence of Pakistani environment. I never knew Aurangzeb was that important in Pakistan. That's right! This italisized line was sarcasm. Complete banning of non-Muslim religious ceremonies is not allowed in Islam (except for stopping human sacrifices). Such actions by Aurangzeb have never been revered in Pakistan. Tipu Sultan has more importance in Pakistan. Many Mughal Kings are criticised for their non-Islamic behaviour, yet this article draws a completely different picture and tries to show them as extremist old-timers. This article has tried to prove Pakistani nationalism some kind of fascism; e.g. This ideology involves radical right doctrines, similar to Fascism. This article displays a completely wrong, and very negative, image of Pakistan and has some serious issues of neutrality. Szhaider 16:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I was born and raised in Pakistan. I can testify that Aurangzeb is not important in Pakistani nationalism. The most important and central hero-figure in Pakistani nationalism is Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah. After him, you can argue the relative importance of various personalities such as Allama Iqbal, Madar-i-Millat Fatima Jinnah, and Sir Syed. I've italicized the usual titles for these personalities, because the fact that their names usually appear in conjunction with honorific titles is an indication that they are revered. AmeriDesi 06:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Another line of evidence comes from the number of matches from Google searches on the .pk TLD. Note that in each case, you will find that institutions, roads, places, and organizations are named after these revered heroes.
The # of matches does suggest SOME importance to Aurangzeb, although his importance to Pakistani Nationalism is dubious unless explicitly sourced. On that note, I agree with you. Hkelkar 06:31, 4 October 2006 (UTA)
Although the article mentions the atrocities perpetrated by Aurangzeb against Hindus and Sikhs in great detail, it is in dire need of a falsifiable proof (source, etc) to show that his conduct is (or had been) a guiding light or source of inspiration for Pakistani nationalists. As a Pakistani born and bred in Pakistan, schooled in institutions where syllabus was approved by the Federal Government, and as a person who considers himself and his circle of acquaintances fairly 'nationlistic', I would second SZHAIDER in his/her observation that Tipu Sultan plays a greater role in inspiring Pakistani Nationalism than Aurangzeb. Yes Aurangzeb IS respected and might even be revered in some cases, but not because of his brutal persecution of Sikhs and Hindus, but because he is convinietly portrayed as an emperor who lived a simple life and made his living by selling prayper caps.
Until a body of work is cited that quantifies the degree of reverance of Aurangzeb among Pakistani Nationalist, I am of the opinion that mentioning him as a guiding light for Pakistani Nationlists is more of a dishonest attempt to state that for a Pakistani to be nationalist, it is a necessary requirement to not just condone, but to hold in high esteem the tactics used by Aurangzeb to supress non-muslim communities of the Sub-Continent.
Regars, Salman Naseer--
203.81.224.108
21:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Pakistan beating India in war is laughable. The section is also POV and unsourced, leaving it ripe for change. Bakaman Bakatalk 04:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Do not vandalise the article, read wikipedia rules and regulations and discuss changes here before making them to the article.
thanks.
S Seagal 04:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
Bakaman Bakatalk 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all Im the author of this article, it was me who started writing it, that aside the claims in the new sections are not unsourced but are confirmed by the relevant main articles, namely the pakistan army, pakistan airforce, and pakistan navy articles.
I see Hkelkar has vandalized the article and deleted the sections, You just undid alot of work, Besides im starting to sense alot of double standards here compared to the Indian nationalism article, the military achievements are also unsourced there, should we remove them also?
Im adding the relevant sections back which were vandalized by Hkelkar, Please also refrain from sending me personal insulting messages.
Thanks S Seagal 04:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
If the Military section is unsourced (which most of it is not), why is the "Nationalism and politics" section also removed?
Blank the section but do not delete it as you have done.
thanks
S Seagal 05:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
The MM ALAM Is sourced, lets add that back immediately.
infact its also mention on wikipedia itself namely here: INS_Khukri
Lets get these two back into the article immediately and we can take the rest one at time.
thanks
S Seagal 05:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
There is also huge POV and anti Sikh comments that need to go. Haphar 09:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I dare say there is a pro india bias sneaking into the article, such bias must be not be allowed to influence the article in any shape or form. Its interesting that the ones most opposed to certain sections are Indians, and not any other nationality.
I should remind people that wikipedia is not a 'soapbox' or a platform for anyone to stand upon and lecture everyone else about how 'great' they are and how 'bad' everyone else maybe.
S Seagal 12:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
!pro-india != anti-India
The article had a factually itschy anti-India bias so one needs to keep that in mind. Plus,I dare say that making nationalist characterizations of users is a violation of WP:Civility so don't do it. Hkelkar 12:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
So let me give some examples of the anti India comments, can you please show where the pro India bias is ? -
“ | Pakistani nationalists take great pride in Aurangzeb's other actions of Aurangzeb for which he his forever venerated by Pakistani nationalists include the edicts he enacted which forbade Hindus to display illuminations at Diwali festivals.[citation needed].Hindu religious fairs were outlawed in 1668. The following year, he prohibited construction of new Hindu temples as well as the repair of existing ones. In 1671 Aurangzeb issued an order that only Muslims could be landlords of crown lands. He ordered provincial Viceroys to dismiss all Hindu clerks. | ” |
“ | Of particular pride to Pakistani nationalists[citation needed] is the damage Aurangzeb inflicted upon the restless Sikh community in particular his execution of Guru Teg Bahadur who was the ninth of the Ten Gurus of Sikhism. Guru Teg Bahadur's execution for his belligerence and total disregard for the edicts and laws passed by Aurangzeb proved to be forever a scar upon the faces of the Sikh community, All claims of Guru Teg Bahadur being sent from God for the troubled people of the land as an enlightened soul whose main purpose in life was the spiritual and moral well-being of the masses, were subsequently quashed as he was meekly executed. Pakistani nationalists take great pride in the disorientation caused to the Sikh religion due to Aurangzeb's execution of Guru Tegh Bahadar, the event is very significant in Sikhism the ripples caused by this event can still be felt in the Sikh community even today who feel they were robbed of a promised Guru. | ” |
<Added by User:Haphar>
I agree they need to be reworded, but if people feel proud of executing religious figures then so be it. However, at present the article makes it look like Sikhism died as a religion because of Aurangzeb's actions. Especially the line All claims of Guru Teg Bahadur being sent from God for the troubled people of the land as an enlightened soul whose main purpose in life was the spiritual and moral well-being of the masses, were subsequently quashed as he was meekly executed. That needs to be changed. Btw, please refrain from creating redlinks for emphasis, many of us have popups and while we are reading the redlinks can get annoying. Try this Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 08:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA330082001?open&of=ENG-PAK
I'm not ashamed to admit it, I alomst pissed myself with mortal fear and my blood ran cold. Hkelkar 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest the following structure for the article:
It says that Pakistani nationalists believe that Pakistan is the cradle of civilization. So do they support the Out of India theory? Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually you might call it 'out of Pakistan theory', Since those regions of India are now Pakistan.
Maybe we should move that article?
S Seagal 04:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)S Seagal
Is it safe to create a new article entitled List of mausoleums and shrines in Pakistan and linking to that article along with a brief paragraph on the article. The current list, with all its subsections, just doesn't fit in the article. It's sort of like when Indian cricket team records were all listed in subsections of Indian cricket team, it just doesn't seem right. I can easily carry out the move, but don't want to start a revert war, so am inviting discussion first. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Is this about Indian Muslim nationalism or Pakistani nationalism. Mention of Sikhs and Hindus living in the Pakistan region before Partition is scarce while mention of Muslims living well inside India is often made. Or is Pakistan characterised by a Muslim presence in India, in which case the Indus Valley is a dodgy source for Pakistani nationalism. One can't stop nationalists from being proud of things, but I'm just wondering what's going on with this article. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I feel like I'm talking to myself but the focus of this article is nationalism in Pakistan, not the history of Pakistan. Thus we should talk about important nationalistic events and how they affected nationalism. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a pretty dreadful article - and the section heading above is a good example of the sort of biased and triumphalist language used throughout. It is poorly written and not properly referenced. Obviously an article on "Pakistani Nationalism" has to describe such nationalism's founding myths and beliefs, but a properly objective and critical approach needs to be taken to these. To describe the various Islamic conquests of Northern India as "Wars of liberation, salvation and civilization" without any qualifiers or context is deliberately provocative and unacceptable on wikipedia. Sikandarji 10:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
"This admiration outside of Pakistan's borders acts as a source of nationalist sentiment for Pakistani nationals."
I am a little curious, how foriegn admiration can act as a nationalist sentiment. -- N R S | T/ M\ B 05:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
This article is a load of bullsh*t and could only have been written by a sneaky Panjabi. There is no such thing as a Pakistani civilization, lol, Pakistan has existed only since 1947 before that you Panjabis and Sindhis were Indians and were worshipping cows and stone idols. May Allah bless the Baloch and free Balochistan.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.15.227.120 ( talk • contribs) .
--Sindhis and Punjabis were hindus before 1947? Buddy, I think you are out of your mind. I am a Sindhi and countless generations of my family have been Sunni Muslim Alhamdolillah. Go make wudu so you can wash yourself of the anger sitting in you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik357 ( talk • contribs) 23:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Siddiqui's version is the most balanced version. Please stop reverting it. Aurangzeb's secion is totally made up and he is hardly known in Pakistan. The only thing Pakistani's know about him is that he was one of Mughal emperors. He is no hero in Pakistan neither he is anythink even close to ideal. Before Siddiqui's version, entire article was like a rant by some obsessivly anti-Pakistan fanatic. Szhaider 19:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
There is not facts/external supports to the claims that Aurangzeb "damaged" Sikhism by his execution of Guru Teg Bahadur. There is a counter point of view that it galvanised what was until then a peaceful sect to become a miltary sect that caused more damage to the Mughals. Nor is there any corrobaration of the claim that it scarred the Sikh's. There can be pride over this, but the hperbole must be supported by facts. Haphar 08:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
This heading must be converted to Muslim Invasion as Isalam as relegion is not an invader islam has just given righ of defence. Abulfazl 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
This article is a huge mess. Even Pakistani editors have added some material which I consider simply unbelievable. I have a suggestion. Why don't we delete entire article and rewrite it with only those points which are strictly verifiable and uncotrovercial facts. You might not like it but think about it.
PS: In my opinion, "Pakistani nationalism" is a phenomenon which cannot be strictly defined, as virtually every Pakistani has different factors on which he/she bases his/her personal "Pakistani nationalism". That is why I think only that material should be on this page which is verifiable for majority of Pakistanis.
Szhaider 02:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I must say, that this section of the article tends to give a partisan and one-sided view on stressing solely on the excesses carried out by many pro-Pakistan armed Muslims on the Hindus of what is now Pakistan. However it also almost blatantly ignores the violence Muslim centres in northern India and Punjab faced from Hindu/Sikh mobs faced which were as gruesome, if not even more widespread, than the so-called "ethnic cleansing" of Hindus in what is now Pakistan. Bear in mind, more Muslims (including my own family) had to migrate to Pakistan fearing for their lives than the Hindus and Sikhs of Pakistani Punjab that ended up migrating to India. Suprah™ 23:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The image Image:Pakistan Nuclear Test.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I removed the {{Articleissues|article=1|OR=August 2007|disputed=August 2007|unreferenced=August 2006|unbalanced=August 2007}} from the top of the article. There are tags in the sections with questionable content. If any other specific items need to be addressed please use {{ OR}} and {{ fact}} to identify the specific content that needs to be corrected, referenced or removed. Jeepday ( talk) 21:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I added this because Pakistan was created after partition of India following 2 nation theory, if any one wants to revert, please discuss here. Ovsek ( talk) 09:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)