![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is a complete joke, most likey made to counter the Indian seperatist movements. I never knew provinces wanting to rename themselves was equated to wanting a seperate state, or provinces that wanted more autonomy were infact wanting to seperate. It's hilarious to see just how patethic and low these indians can really get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.39.5 ( talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is POV, it gives the idea that Pakistan's breakup is a given, see Wikipedia:Undue. It also says that Pakistan is "held together by the common cause of hatred of Hindu India" and also of the two nation theory "this theory was exposed as false". Whether or not the nation is or is not held together in this manner, - you need to cite sources for this, otherwise you just presenting your own opinion. If you look at the intro for the TNT article is says according to theory "Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations by every definition, and therefore Muslims should have an autonomous homeland in the Muslim majority areas of British India for the safeguard of their political, cultural, and social rights, within or without a United India." Which is somewhat different to what you have written, thus I am tagging this as POV. Pahari Sahib 07:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | All governments since 1947 have heavily relied on pointing across the border to promote “National Unity”. In all cases national integration was tried by emphasizing India as an external threat, one that was always willing to attack the new country. Hostility towards India,... and anti-Hindu sentiments have been and largely remained important tools to stress Pakistan’s legitimacy, its unity | ” |
now an editor cannot use the source verbatim for copyright issues and ofcourse for economy, he has to paraphrase, the article uses the words,
If that cannot be summarised as hatred of Hindu India, what can it be as? I am not asserting that the glue that binds Pakistan together is hatred of India, others have done that. Next time before making charges please read the articles quoted carefully and discuss clarifications before making wild accucations and edits. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 09:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This is what wikipedia on neutrality says:
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.
Who has stopped any body from bringing conflicting perspectives as evidenced by reliable sources? Go ahead. Just be careful about sources. Removing tag. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Next time editors rearrange text, kindly carry references to where the text is, or the material may seem to convey the impression of being unsourced. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 09:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added back the tag removed without any discussion by POV user Yogesh 109.149.65.225 ( talk) 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed allot of the unsourced drivel from the article. Afghan section contains afghan government claims which is pure pov. 82.132.229.253 ( talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Pashtunistan isnt a "movement" but a geographical area. The article on Pashtunistan itself defines it as such. Moreover this edit talks about a proposed state which isnt in consonances with the theme of this article either, which rather talks about "separatist movements" and not disputed areas. Going by this, even Kashmir should then also be mentioned in this article.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The section on Sindhudesh was removed by either a single dynamic IP user or two IP users. I've returned it to the page.
References
~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 10:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hydronium Hydroxide I left a message on your user page regarding this problem maybe should have left the message here but I find this troubling whenever it comes to Pakistan it must be added but when Indian users removed Dravud Nadu a proposed separatist state for Tamil nationalists in India it gets removed on the basis of it not being popular etc for this reason I think Sindhudesh should also be removed unless we can add the same to the Indian article. 82.132.218.83 ( talk) 06:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@
Satrar: My friend, please cross check the fact I corrected with the inline citation. A humble request, and please respond here. —
Echo1Charlie (
talk)
05:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Satrar: What is your objection in adding that content with inline citation? Please respond here or else your reluctance to respond here would be treated as
WP:SILENCE and the said content would be re-added, so I request you to write your objections regarding the said change here. Thank you —
Echo1Charlie (
talk)
05:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Satrar: I hope you've seen the verdict of
Administrators' noticeboard, as per the suggestion I'm requesting you again to respond here so that this dispute could be solved as early as possible. Thanks —
Echo1Charlie (
talk)
13:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is a complete joke, most likey made to counter the Indian seperatist movements. I never knew provinces wanting to rename themselves was equated to wanting a seperate state, or provinces that wanted more autonomy were infact wanting to seperate. It's hilarious to see just how patethic and low these indians can really get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.39.5 ( talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is POV, it gives the idea that Pakistan's breakup is a given, see Wikipedia:Undue. It also says that Pakistan is "held together by the common cause of hatred of Hindu India" and also of the two nation theory "this theory was exposed as false". Whether or not the nation is or is not held together in this manner, - you need to cite sources for this, otherwise you just presenting your own opinion. If you look at the intro for the TNT article is says according to theory "Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations by every definition, and therefore Muslims should have an autonomous homeland in the Muslim majority areas of British India for the safeguard of their political, cultural, and social rights, within or without a United India." Which is somewhat different to what you have written, thus I am tagging this as POV. Pahari Sahib 07:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
“ | All governments since 1947 have heavily relied on pointing across the border to promote “National Unity”. In all cases national integration was tried by emphasizing India as an external threat, one that was always willing to attack the new country. Hostility towards India,... and anti-Hindu sentiments have been and largely remained important tools to stress Pakistan’s legitimacy, its unity | ” |
now an editor cannot use the source verbatim for copyright issues and ofcourse for economy, he has to paraphrase, the article uses the words,
If that cannot be summarised as hatred of Hindu India, what can it be as? I am not asserting that the glue that binds Pakistan together is hatred of India, others have done that. Next time before making charges please read the articles quoted carefully and discuss clarifications before making wild accucations and edits. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 09:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
This is what wikipedia on neutrality says:
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.
Who has stopped any body from bringing conflicting perspectives as evidenced by reliable sources? Go ahead. Just be careful about sources. Removing tag. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Next time editors rearrange text, kindly carry references to where the text is, or the material may seem to convey the impression of being unsourced. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 09:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I have added back the tag removed without any discussion by POV user Yogesh 109.149.65.225 ( talk) 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed allot of the unsourced drivel from the article. Afghan section contains afghan government claims which is pure pov. 82.132.229.253 ( talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Pashtunistan isnt a "movement" but a geographical area. The article on Pashtunistan itself defines it as such. Moreover this edit talks about a proposed state which isnt in consonances with the theme of this article either, which rather talks about "separatist movements" and not disputed areas. Going by this, even Kashmir should then also be mentioned in this article.— TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The section on Sindhudesh was removed by either a single dynamic IP user or two IP users. I've returned it to the page.
References
~ Hydronium~Hydroxide~ (Talk)~ 10:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Hydronium Hydroxide I left a message on your user page regarding this problem maybe should have left the message here but I find this troubling whenever it comes to Pakistan it must be added but when Indian users removed Dravud Nadu a proposed separatist state for Tamil nationalists in India it gets removed on the basis of it not being popular etc for this reason I think Sindhudesh should also be removed unless we can add the same to the Indian article. 82.132.218.83 ( talk) 06:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@
Satrar: My friend, please cross check the fact I corrected with the inline citation. A humble request, and please respond here. —
Echo1Charlie (
talk)
05:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Satrar: What is your objection in adding that content with inline citation? Please respond here or else your reluctance to respond here would be treated as
WP:SILENCE and the said content would be re-added, so I request you to write your objections regarding the said change here. Thank you —
Echo1Charlie (
talk)
05:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@
Satrar: I hope you've seen the verdict of
Administrators' noticeboard, as per the suggestion I'm requesting you again to respond here so that this dispute could be solved as early as possible. Thanks —
Echo1Charlie (
talk)
13:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)