Talk:Pakistan/Archive 8

Progress on the peer-review

I've sifted through the recommendations made by the reviewers and tried to organise it into some coherent format so that there is a clearer idea of what has been done and what still needs doing. Apologies if I have made any mistakes in this list:

1. The introductory line "Pakistan is a country located in South Asia that overlaps onto Central Asia and the Greater Middle East" – needs sensible debating
2. Discuss both positive and negative aspects - communal/ethnic tensions, economic and political issues - to do or possibly covered below
3. Cut page size to about 35-40 KB - down to 43 KB so far
4. Sub headings should be removed – mostly done
5. Fair use images should be removed - mostly done
6. Section titles like roots are not encyclopaedic - removed
7. Membership in various organisations in introduction - removed
8. Border with China not internationally recognised – footnote - done
9. Pakistan's position on Kashmir in a footnote - done
10. History section is too long -> four to five paragraphs - done
    1. In-line citations in History - appropriate citations added
    2. History - 1947-71 period when Bengalis were the majority (problems and onset of the civil war) – to do
    3. "Basic Democracy" plan of Ayub Khan? – debatable value in main article
    4. Badly worded section on freedom struggle suggested the League took over from the Congress - rewritten
11. History of Pakistan post-1971 – mostly done
    1. 2005 Kashmir earthquake - done
    2. Balochistan strife - to do
    3. War on terrorism – now mentioned
    4. Taliban - now mentioned
    5. Lahore Declaration 1998 - to do
    6. Kargil War - now mentioned
12. Expand forms of Government – remove Political History subsection - to do
    1. Political history can be covered under History - to do
    2. No need for separate political parties section - to do
    3. Provinces and Territories - prose form – mostly done
13. Condense Demographics to 3-4 paragraph prose form - no subsections - done
14. Tourism can be covered as a paragraph under the economy section - done
15. "Sport" section should have more prose - to do
16. Expand Geography section – to do
17. Rename wildlife section to flora and fauna and expand accordingly - to do
18. Discuss infrastructural, government/political, economic problems and challenges - to do
19. Islamic fundamentalism in religion, society, culture, politics are scant - to do
20. Military services - police, paramilitary and military – debatable value
21. Maps need to be NPOV – which ones specifically? - to do

I would estimate that the recommendations are about halfway implemented if you exclude the debatable ones. If you feel you can contribute to one of these recommendations sensibly, please do so. Green Giant 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, I was doing the exact same thing on my sandbox, but this makes more sense to have it on the talk page here. Just to comment on several items. I'm fairly certain all the pictures now are free use, and there are no restrictions on any of them. From some assistance I got in the #wikipedia chat earlier today, I tagged the Jinnah picture as PD-India and that should be the end of that. Despite all the pictures being liscensed under GFDL or similar circumstances, there are probably too many pictures. Not counting the infobox, there are 16 images, and three sections have three images. I agree that the Basic Democracy plan does not deserve mention in this article and should be mentioned in full in the History of Pakistan page or elsewhere. The military section I don't think belongs. The military and the nuclear weapon status is mentioned, which I think is sufficent. Other countries do have a military section (see Nepal or Bhutan) while others don't (see India). If anything, it should be merged into the foreign affairs section. I think the geography section is sufficent and in my opinion does not need expanding. Similarly, your (Green Giant) addition to the provinces section seems to be enough. And finally, let me just ackowledge the amount of work Green Giant is putting in to this article, both with adding new content, and removing superflous details. Pepsidrinka 03:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There is only a few things we can address in a little as space as this. Fundamentalism, for example is not discussed in the India article either. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, removing the Notes and the References section brings the article size down from 42KB to 37KB. That is quite a substantial amount. Pepsidrinka 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is almost unrecognizable from when it was rejected as an FAC. Congratulations to all the editors on a fantastic job! A couple of comments — I would narrate history chronologically. Specifically, wars are a part of Pakistan's history. They all seem to be grouped together in one sentence. These must be formatted such that each war/conflict appears in the decade that the history section describes. Good job so far though, and if the recent edits are any indication of the quality of the article when all suggestions/concerns havew been addressed, you're looking at a very strong FA candidate. AreJay 01:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad, this article was never rejected during FAC. I was thinking of another article. I still feel that there has been tremendous progress since the PR was initiated for this article AreJay 16:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What in God's Good Name is a united South Asia???? Enough of POV and revisionist history, please! It was a united India. Rama's Arrow 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that its an attempt to re-write history, let me warn all concerned that if this is not changed to "India," you will be including Bhutan, , Maldives, Sri Lanka and Nepal into the definition. Rama's Arrow 20:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note on history, politics

I strongly advocate that almost every fact must be directly cited here, to avoid a controversy during FAC - almost every detail is controversial. It is my feeling that the history and politics sections are not properly cited or written. Is there a need to expend 2 paras on ancient history of the region, when you can't explain the 1950s-60s, Pakistani civil war adequately? The latter series of events are more "Pakistani" than the ancient history. Rama's Arrow 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

On politics, it is hardly a clear-cut case as you present it. I had to mention the Constitutional history just now. Musharaff maintains a lot of power on foreign affairs and security, and he is the chief of army staff. There is a debate going on about the future role of the Army in Pakistan. You're not making this lucid. Rama's Arrow 21:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the points about citations and the need to concentrate on the modern history, but I have to disagree with overemphasis on any one aspect (e.g. the military) because this article has only a limited space and there are daughter articles for this purpose. Over the past month or so, the article had gone from 59 KB to 42 KB - i.e. 17 KB of useless bumpf and whilst the edits today were useful, it doesn't help that they added about 1 KB to the article.

However I'm not entirely convinced by the suggestion that there aren't enough citations when the recommended featured article on India has no citations at all. A careful examination shows several deficiencies including no mention of the communal riots of 1947, the more recent Gujarat riots, the Gujarat Earthquake, the Bhopal disaster, the fact that several prominent Indian leaders have been assassinated, or the several ethnic insurgencies. The four-paragraph history section summarises modern Indian history in one paragraph and apart from two notes about the disputed border, there is not one specific citation in the entire article. Instead there's a list of websites which can be viewed in edit mode and an emphasis on the date they were accessed but nothing to say which part of the main text each website relates to. Overall the entire article puts a very positive spin but doesn't go into any negative aspects. Green Giant 03:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to (1) reduce ancient history to one para, and focus on "Pakistani" history. And (2) India became an FA a long time ago, and in-line citations are not a stipulated requirement. But its my experience that when you deal with controversial issues, you need to directly link your sources. I think that in ideal situation, India and almost all FAs should have a reasonable number of citations. It would be ok to begin an effort to add citations to the India article - but we're talking Pakistan, and this article, IMO, cannot be a good FAC without citations for history, politics - case in point is that you're dealing with Civil war/genocide, Islamic terrorism, military coups, nuclear power all in a matter of paras. Do you think its reasonable to expect people to believe what you're writing without every controversial fact backed up with an explicitly credible source? Rama's Arrow 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the ancient history into one paragraph and "Pakistani history" now forms 2½ paragraphs. I've also added a couple of references for the 1971 war and the 1999 coup, but I don't think the section can be reduced much more without losing important elements. India only became a FA in December 2004, which is not that long ago, however, by highlighting the differences, I was pointing out that at least one FA didn't have all the features that have been suggested by the peer-review. If you look at the list above, you'll notice that many of the suggestions have been acted on but there are some suggestions that need debating first. Could you clarify what you understand by in-line citations and whether the current method of linking to the notes at the bottom is unacceptable? Green Giant 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Its looks ok now. By in-line citations, I meant exactly what you describe - only that almost every fact must be cited, becoz of its controversial nature. Again, its not a requirement, but credibility on controversial matter is certified by citations. Many FACs prior to 2005 did not pass through an FAC like today - standards have arisen. Rama's Arrow 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Rafiq Tarar did not resign from the post of President. General Musharraf removed him from the post with his executive orders. I think this fact must be edited.

Pakistan is a republic?

Everyone knows that Musharaff seized power in a 1999 coup.Doesn't that make him more of a dictator than a President?202.177.246.3 11:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not as clear cut as that, because Musharraf didn't hatch a secret plan with other generals to overthrow Nawaz Sharif in 1999. If you read any outside media source, for example the UK Daily Telegraph, Sharif tried to dismissed him as Army chief whilst Musharraf was on a plane coming back from Sri Lanka. The plane was refused permission to land at Karachi and with limited fuel and a minor political crisis taking place, something had to give. Quoting the Telegraph article - The army's action, though prompted by Mr Sharif's move against the general, came amid rising dissatisfaction with Mr Sharif's government, which is accused of large scale corruption and maladministration. Mr Sharif has moved Pakistan closer to Islamic fundamentalism, entrenching sharia - or Islamic law - in the legal system, arresting journalists, harassing his opponents and dismissing judges, presidents and generals.

Sharif was trying to remove any powerbases outside his own because his Muslim League had a huge majority in the National Assembly and there was very little political opposition from the other main party (Pakistan People's Party). For example, in 1997 his supporters forced Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah out of office, simply because he had ruled against Sharif on several occasions and in particular in a contempt of court case.

Anyway Musharraf gained a sort of legitimacy when he gained a majority of votes in the Electoral College of Pakistan which according to the Constitution makes him elected president. See Dawn.com and CBS News.com for details. Green Giant 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Estimated Population

I noticed that the population estimate for Pakistan is taken from http://www.world-gazetteer.com. How accurate is this website? Personally, I dont trust websites that try to install spyware and adware on my computer, but I dont know in this case......... --Jibran1 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns are understandable but the World Gazetteer website was used because it has a recommendation from the GE Source website which is part of the Resource Discovery Network. Both of these latter websites are UK national websites based on collaboration by numerous academic organisations. However, if you can find an estimate from a more reliable source, feel free to change the figures but do remember to list the source. Green Giant 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I know the Statpak website has a current population clock but this excludes Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas which are de facto parts of Pakistan even if de jure it is disputed. Green Giant 02:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

citation location

Anyone object to moving all the citations to follow punctuation,^[1] like this?^[2] That is way it's done in print sources, most FAs, and according to the Chicago Manual of Style. —Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 07:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making a small but important point. Please feel free to change to the standard format. Green Giant 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's new citation tool, using <ref name="abc">reference/ ext link</ref> automatically does so, and putting a notes/refs section in the end with <references /> tag automatically creates a nice looking reference section. Thanks. --Ragib 07:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going to do so a few days ago, but with 30+ references, I dreaded the task and decided to leave well enough alone. Now that someone suggested doing so, I guess it probably should be done. I'll try to do so later if no one does so before I get around to it. The only advantage I see with the current system is that it looks more aesthetically pleasing in the text when looking at the source code. Pepsidrinka 07:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The citation tool is better, because it adds the automatic numbering, reuse of citations in different places, and many other functions. Also, you don't have to make the source code difficult to edit ... look at how the citations are done in Rabindranath Tagore. That's a great, compact way of achieving the same thing. --Ragib 08:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The conversion is now complete. Incidently, the conversion removed 1 KB from the article size. I also acted upon the recommendation by Spangineer and moved the citations to follow the punctuation. Pepsidrinka 20:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, quick work! Good work on this article, by the way. I'll look over it some more and see if I can't support its FAC... —Spangineer^[es]&nbsp;<small>(háblame) 22:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Military dictatorship

The article Military dictatorship mentions Pakistan to be the country currently under military rule.Should not therefore the article be categorised to Category :Military dictatorship.The serving army Chief is top excecutive of the government.Shyamsunder 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

-- well it was a military dictator ship and now it's not, thus it cant be placed under military dictatorship tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalsurgeon (talk • contribs)

I am not so sure .As I understand immediately after coup in '99 all Supreme Court Judges had to take the oath again to confirm faith in new rulers..I remember that time one judget refused and he was sacked .So recognition of President Musharraf by the Supreme Court does not carry much conviction.About referendum many dictators get themselves "elected" .One recent example is of dictator of Belarus.

In military dictatorship there are two words .Militray -Yes Mussharaf is uniformed chief of army staff .Dictatoship - we need to find what poewrs does he have .We know he himself has made the law as who can contest elections and who can not( denied n Shariff and Bhutto to contest elections) ,who are eligible to vote and many more laws .He has power to dismiss the prime minister , he has all executive powers in practice , he receives and talks to all important foreign dignataries ( recently when President Bush visited Pakistan Pakisitani PM was nowehere to be seen ) and President has a constituted body which has military people in majority and that body can overule any decision of cabinet .So all in all it is dictatorship .I though welcome any other opinion.Shyamsunder 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to point upwards to the comments I made under the "Pakistan is a Republic" heading above. Musharraf didn't plan a coup, it was kinda forced on him by the actions of Nawaz Sharif. Before the judges swore that oath, I am sure they ruled that his administration had three years (more or less) to restore civilian rule. In 2004, he gained a kind of legitimacy when the Electoral College of Pakistan voted him into office, which is what the Constitution requires to make him elected president. See Dawn.com and CBS News.com for details of that. Obviously your argument of him still being Army chief is the strongest indicator of a military dictatorship but I think Musharraf's regime doesn't bear all the hallmarks of other dictators. By the way I think Nawaz Sharif and Benzair Bhutto are banned because of their prior records. Doesn't Mrs Bhutto have some outstanding court cases against her about her secret Swiss bank accounts which might have had a lot of public funds diverted to them. Nawaz Sharif was a little unsavoury even as a democratically elected PM, with all that fuss about the Chief Justice ruling against him in a court case and then the court being invaded by Sharif supporters and the judge having to flee. It's difficult to decide whether Pakistan actually emerged from General Zia's dictatorship at all considering the kind of democrats that succeeded him? :P Green Giant 06:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Musharraf might be extra-powerful these days due to both Army and President positions, however the laws he has passed have been by Parliament. He has not made any decrees himself. His style of governance is also not of a dictator and the country is run by elected federal, local and provincial governments. The only anomaly is Musharraf's uniform. I think this does not make him a dictator or his government a dictatorship.

Prominent Personalities

I dont think it is good idea to have list of Prominent Personalities in main Pakistan page. Please look into it. --Spasage 09:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

-- I think it's better to have a seperate article for this, it should only be linked from the main article or should be placed in the pakistan info box --digitalSurgeon 07:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Spasage, you must found this article within the 37 minutes the personalities section was around. It was added and subsequently removed by 9:51 UTC on the date in question. Pepsidrinka 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

EDITED PAKISTAN PAGE (New Sections Needed Science/Religion)

I have edited Pakistan page by adding the 'history of pakistan' article directly into the main page, The reasons for this is simple because there was almost no mention of Pakistan's pre-history which i believe some indian members have been editing to assert thier hegemonic agenda.

I was utterlly appalled by the lack of information and depth given on the main page, I believe two new sections should be added to pakistan page "science in pakistan" and "religion in Pakistan" i mention science because Pakistan has made several contributions in physics, namely abdus salam who won the nobel prize for physics in 1979, and Mahbub ul Haq who invented the HDI which is used throughout modern economics, also Pakistans nuclear power status is a great scientific achivement.

another section named "religion in pakistan" should be added to show the religious significance of Pakistan to groups such as sikhs, Pakistan is birth place of sikhism and guru nanak dev, this deserves mention as does the fact that thousands of hindus and sikhs make pilgrimages to religious sites across pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

You just undid a lot of work by a great many authors over the last few weeks, who are going for Featured article status. The edits you are incorporating would just make that nomination fail spectacularly. I'm reverting your edits. Please take a look at the peer review and the featured article candidacy page before making such sweeping, unilateral changes. Thanks. --Ragib 05:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The only "indian members" involved with this page have been the extremely helpful guys who not only suggested improvements during a peer review but also helped in the editing. Perhaps you are referring to some of the obvious anti-Pakistan vandalism but it's a lame to blame this on "indian members". Anyway you may not be aware but this article is mean't to be a summary and is not the place for extensive histories. Did you notice there was a link to the History of Pakistan daughter article? That's what an uninformed reader would click on if they were interested in reading about more of the history. Religions already get a good mention in the Holidays section with even a hint of Nankana Sahib.

Abdus Salam and Mahbub ul Haq are good suggestions but they would be better in a list of notable Pakistanis. If you had read the introduction and the government and politics section you might have noticed that Pakistan's nuclear status is mentioned. However, Pakistan didn't invent nuclear power or nuclear weapons so it's a little hazy to claim that this is a great achievement. Green Giant 08:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

References

the references cited after the notes section, what do they refer to? ie, where are they cited or used in the article? --Bob 21:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can explain, but from as far as I know, prior to about a month ago, nothing in this article was internally cited. All references belonged in a reference section at the bottom, which is the section you mentioned. Beginning with the push to get this article featured, the editors of this article realized that internal citations (aka inline citations) were neccessary and a push began to do so. Since most of the reference that were already there were added by past editors, most the current editors did not have access to them. So other sources were used. However, in order to preserve the actual references for the non-contentious issues, the reference section has been mainted, with an additional notes section for the inline citations. Pepsidrinka 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So, we don't know what text these references support? They should be properly linked to and/or cited as well--Bob 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as I understand, every fact does not need to be internally cited. It is usually only those contentious issues or those issues that are difficult to believe that require an inline citation. However, other facts, such as "Pakistan is part of the United Nations" would not require an immediate citation, but it by all means needs a reference. That is why general citations are found. Obviously no one is going to dispute that Pakistan is not apart of the United Nations, however, where did you get information from? It is good to provide references in general. I feel like I just repeated myself three times. Your thoughts? Pepsidrinka 02:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pepsidrinka, there are some things that are simply indisputable like the UN membership, as almost every political entity is either a member or an observer. It might be better to rename that section as Further reading or some similar name. Green Giant 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this reference used for:Malik, Iftikhar H. "Religious Minorities in Pakistan". Minority Rights Group International. September 2002. ISBN 1897693699  ? Why is it there? The others as well. --Bob 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

Can someone put a proper map of Pakistan in the article which clearly shows the major towns.

Featured Status

Congratulations to everyone who has helped bring this article out of the Dark Ages and into the light of Featured Article. Green Giant 08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Conragtulations to all editors for their tireless efforts in achieving Featured Article status Gnangarra 09:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How can now it appear on the front page of Wikipedia ? congrats!! --digitalSurgeon 12:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A requests has been made at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. I just set the lead as the portion to be displayed on the main page, though if someone has a better idea, please by all means make your voice heard on the linked talk page. Pepsidrinka 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Future track

• Spoken Article, as in Australia, India etc... --digitalSurgeon 12:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE INSULTING JINNAH & GHANDI PICTURE!

Hello;

The top picture with Jinnah and Ghandi must be removed instantly, it is offensive, insensitive, and ill timed to have such images with hegemonic and deep seated politcally motivated contations to be placed on Paksitan or wiki altogether.

There is no need whatsoever to include the Ghandi terrorist in a picture with Jinnah, Ghandi is not the founding father of Pakistan and is a man responsible for riots and influencing them by emotional blackmail (ie starvation), The terrorist was always locked into prison by the British and this should give you an indication of Ghandis intolarable charachter. Jinnah on the otherhand was a seperate individual with different rational and morals, he was never once in prisoned, and he led a DEMOCRATIC move that was peaceful. There is no need to have Jinnah in a picture with Ghandi as there is with Churchill and Hitler on the Churchill webpage, churchill stood for peace and democracy likek jinnah, Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence.

With utter disgust, A Pakistani. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.122.237 (talk • contribs)

This is not a political forum, but a neutral encyclopedia. If you have a genuine free-to-use image of Jinnah, then please provide it so we can change the picture. Until then, please desist from vandalising the article. Green Giant 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling Gandhi a "terrorist" just shows how meaningless the comment is, and that you need to look into history. Perhaps reading the book "Freedom at Midnight", or even the Gandhi article on wikipedia may open your eyes. It was Gandhi, who went on a hunger strike when the newly formed Govt of India denied the transfer of 55 crore rupees as Pakistan's share. Gandhi's last fasting was *For Pakistan* and *for ending violence*. I am bound by wikipedia's principles of No personal attacks, so am refraining from any remarks on the emptiness of your comments. A lot of people worked hard to make this article featured ... that included Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis. Any further attempt to vandalize it would result in appropriate administrative actions, according to wikipedia's policy on vandalism. Thanks. --Ragib 04:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From the article on Gandhi

Gandhi advised the Congress to reject the proposals the British Cabinet Mission offered in 1946, as he was deeply suspicious of the grouping proposed for Muslim-majority states - Gandhi viewed this as a precursor to partition. However, this became one of the few times the Congress broke from Gandhi's advice (not his leadership though), as Nehru and Patel knew that if the Congress did not approve the plan, the control of government would pass to the Muslim League. Between 1946 and 1947, over 5,000 people were killed in violence. Gandhi was vehemently opposed to any plan that partitioned India into two separate countries. Many Muslims in India lived side by side with Hindus and Sikhs, and were in favour of a united India. But Jinnah commanded widespread support in West Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and East Bengal. The partition plan was approved by the Congress leadership as the only way to prevent a wide-scale Hindu-Muslim civil war. Congress leaders knew that Gandhi would viscerally oppose partition, and it was impossible for the Congress to go ahead without his agreement, for Gandhi's support in the party and throughout India was strong. Gandhi's closest colleagues had accepted partition as the best way out, and Sardar Patel endeavoured to convince Gandhi that it was the only way to avoid civil war. A devastated Gandhi gave his assent.

On the day of the transfer of power, Gandhi did not celebrate independence with the rest of India, but was alone in Calcutta, mourning the partition and working to end the violence. After India's independence, Gandhi focused on Hindu-Muslim peace and unity. He conducted extensive dialogue with Muslim and Hindu community leaders, working to cool passions in northern India, as well as in Bengal. Despite the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, he was troubled when the Government decided to deny Pakistan the Rs. 55 crores due as per agreements made by the Partition Council. Leaders like Sardar Patel feared that Pakistan would use the money to bankroll the war against India. Gandhi was also devastated when demands resurged for all Muslims to be deported to Pakistan, and when Muslim and Hindu leaders expressed frustration and an inability to come to terms with one another.[13] He launched his last fast-unto-death in Delhi, asking that all communal violence be ended once and for all, and that the payment of Rs. 55 crores be made to Pakistan. Gandhi feared that instability and insecurity in Pakistan would increase their anger against India, and violence would spread across the borders. He further feared that Hindus and Muslims would renew their enmity and precipitate into an open civil war. After emotional debates with his life-long colleagues, Gandhi refused to budge, and the Government rescinded its policy and made the payment to Pakistan. Hindu, Muslim and Sikh community leaders, including the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha assured him that they would renounce violence and call for peace. Gandhi thus broke his fast by sipping orange juice.[14]

I'd say initailly he was against pakistan seperation but once this occured he did all he could to foster peace between the two countries. Keep the image even Ghandi could forgive and move towards peace sure we on wikipedia can Gnangarra 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

^if you are not able to help me in removing that terrorist Ghandis picture from the article then you have no rights to critcism my editing either, I have equal rights as you people if not I have more rights because I was affected directly by this terrorist! Jinnah was a man of peace and Ghandi was a terrorist! Why is that so hard for you folks to accept? Why do you all hate Pakistan so much? Why can you people not accept Pakistan as an idependent and soverign state? You people are anti-pak crowd and want to destroy the islamic republic of pakistan by posting insulting images and that is totally unacceptable to me! What you have done is greatly insulting to pakistani sentiments, Isnt it enough that Ghandi is on India page? must you force this man, his religion, his inferior ideology upon us? we are soverign state the days of colonial rule are over and we will determine its destiny not outsiders, indian, banglageshi, or anyone else! The Japan page has also been infested with those with political ambitions notably chinese and koreans who are trying to distort its history and damage its standing in the comity of nations and this is happening here also.

You have grave crime of posting, such sickening picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

Hi Babil79! Please try to accept that the picture incidentally depicts Jinnah with the "terrorist" Gandhi. Is not the picture significant in this that Jinnah had the heart to cooperate even with such a terrorist? BTW, is it written anywhere in the Pakistan article that Pakistan is not a idependent and soverign state, as you claim? And do you really think that posting an image would lead to destruction of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as you also claim? If that is the case, then I fear you shall find great difficulty in "determining the destiny" of Pakistan (as you again claim)! By the way, your comments reminds me of something. If you are intersted , check those out at here and here. Also see this [1]

Bye.--Dwaipayanc 12:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same person Image:Ali-jinnah.jpg and could it be a suitable replacement Gnangarra 12:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ali-jinnah.jpg seems to be of Jinnah. However, the image is not clear and so cannot be considered to be a suitable replacement. Also, as the article has already undergone a peer review and is a Featured Article ( one of the best in Wikipedia), the present image can be supposed to have undergone the scrutiny of many wikipedian across the world. So before randomly changing the image (that too due to the request of someone who does not sign his comments), please ask those editors who have toiled to make Pakistan a featured article.--Dwaipayanc 13:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

the gandhi image was one that was used after during FA I questioned the copyright status of the previous. This suggested image came from one of the talk pages of those discussing this subject. I believe the current image doesnt harm the article, being from australia I know(knew, i read the article) very little of the actions of gandhi only his basic legend(he passively faught for india's independance). With Ali Jinnah until I read the article, (then only because of its FA nomination) I had not even heard of him. When I saw the image I actually thought it was presenting Ali Jinnah as an exceptional statesman to be seen being embraced by a legend. I agree the suggested image isnt as good as the one in use. Gnangarra 15:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are not able to help me or Pakistan then you have no right to criticism us either!! I will not stop until Jinnah and Ghandi image is removed. period. I have recived nothing but critcism from other wikipedia members and told that I will not be allowed to change image, even though many of these same members openly admit they know next to nothing about Jinnah or the Pakistan movement. What rights do these people have to tell me about Pakistan? Why are you always attacking Pakistan? cant you bully someone else? As for the editors who have been working constantly on Pakistan page, good for them but they do not have more rights than me. I have uploaded countless jinnah images; Image:Jinnah2.jpg and Image:Jinnah1.jpg I politely request the Jinnah and Ghandi picture be removed and repalced with a more sutiable picture, I will not tolerate any criticism as that is what members here have been doing right from the begining. I dont need austrailians or americans or anyone else to tell me about founding father of Pakistan and why he is included in such a degoratory picture or in the case of Dwaipayanc telling me or insinuating that im mentally ill is unwarranted and uncalled for and has no place on wiki. I can tell the anti-pak vampires here are trying to distort the image of our small religoius state.

Now you've done it!! Please take a look at No personal attack policy. Calling people names will get you banned!! The rest of your comments really don't merit a reply. As for the picture, I think a consensus have been reached here on that. Thanks. --Ragib 17:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ive done it? Incase you have difficulty reading Dwaipayanc was trying to insinuate that i was mentally ill I dont see you warning him, besides why do you people have more rights than I do? Every time i try to make a contribution im told the "editors" ie an indian team has spent many weeks to bring the article up to par ie indian standards and contribution is not good enough, Who put you incharge of wikipedia? The whole point of wiki is for peace to acess neutral information which can be edited by users, In the case of this site the webpage is controlled by a few that hate Pakistan. Ragib; who are you to tell me my "comments really don't merit a reply"? I have equal rights and i will excercise my rights to protect the rights of my country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.122.237 (talk • contribs)

Pakistan is a featured article now thanks to the efforts of many editors from across the world, including, of course, people from Pakistan. So you do not have any proof that the article is being mal-handled by others.

And here is a proposal: prove the image is derogatory for Pakistan's image, wikipedians will remove it. Give some rationale. Don't just bark and threaten. As a citizen of a democratic country, you must be knowing that in democracy a particular person's wish is not important. It is the consensus that matters. If the majority of people tell that the image is derogatory, it will be removed at once. Period.

I was not meaning that you were mentally ill. Rather I tried to point out that the comments you made sounded like "Delusion of Persecution." I understand I have hurt you. I apologize. I am sorry.

Bye the way, even if I did insinuate, it would have been much less offensive than what you are doing here. Without any sort of provocation, you are calling Gandhi a terrorist. Before making such comment, try to gather some reference. Who do you think you are that such comments would be entertained? And who do you think you are that your claim to remove a good, historically important image would be entertained? I am amazed to see an educated man like you talk so irrationally. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. LoL. You called Pakistan a "small" country ! You seem to have no idea about the size or population of your own country !! It's amazing. Good luck in your mission.

Ok, let's see ...

If you are not able to help me or Pakistan then you have no right to criticism us either!!

Who's helping Pakistan or you? We are writing an encyclopedia article on Pakistan. Sure, it's good for the world. But the intention is not to "help" any entity... rather the editors are doing it for advancing human knowledge.

I will not stop until Jinnah and Ghandi image is removed. period.

You are free to do so, as long as you put forward "sensible" claims. Calling Gandhi a "terrorist" doesn't help your argument, rather it makes it totally laughable. You might come up with better arguments if you want to continue your objections to the image.

Why are you always attacking Pakistan? cant you bully someone else?

Huh? A lot of editors have spent *unpaid time* to review, edit, enhance this page. Who do you see attacking who? Specific examples would be better than "everybody attacking me" type arguments.

I can tell the anti-pak vampires here are trying to distort the image of our small religoius state.

"Vampires"? Great, there goes your arguments!!

Jinnah was a man of peace and Ghandi was a terrorist! Why is that so hard for you folks to accept? Why do you all hate Pakistan so much? Why can you people not accept Pakistan as an idependent and soverign state?

I need not elaborate further. Please take some time to read history, rather than making such incoherent statements.

In the end, you of course have the right to voice your opinion, but you should support amazing claims with amazing facts, citations etc. I can't possibly see you coming up with any fact that shows Gandhi as a "terrorist" in forseeable future. Thanks. --Ragib 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi a terrorist?!! A next thing I wanna hear is Nelson Mandela being accused of Aparthied! --Spartian 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, here is the other gem from 86.131.122.237 (talk · contribs) ,

Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence..

Now you can get an idea of the sort of argument he's trying to rant on. But I think I'd stop replying to his rants. --Ragib 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Every time i try to make a contribution im told the "editors" ie an indian team has spent many weeks to bring the article up to par ie indian standards and contribution is not good enough, Who put you incharge of wikipedia? User:86.131.122.237

Does that make me an Indian too? I'd hate to think my parents have lied to me all this time and suddenly you've revealed my real ethnicity :P - The Pro-Yorkshire Green Giant 00:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I find this whole argument rather funny, Gandhi (not Ghandi) a terrorist and Jinnah a savior and a man a of peace. I've heard from fellow Pakistanis this argument and I've heard from Indians (apparently intended as an insult) the exact opposite, Gandhi a savior and Jinnah a terrorist. I dont think either are true and any who support either one has a bad comprehension of history. Just as Jinnah stood by a secular India and later on, a secular, tolerant and democratic Pakistan, Gandhi was for a free, united, tolerant India with equal and unalienable rights for Muslims. He fasted for peace with Muslims as well as to get money for the state of Pakistan. What's more, HE GAVE HIS OWN LIFE FOR THE RIGHT OF THE MUSLIMS TO LIVE IN PEACE. A Hindu fanatic, Godse, (whose RSS sister branch BJP would later massacre thousands of innocent Muslims in Gujarat), remorselesley took his life for his support of the Muslims. The people who would persecute Muslims in Gujarat, abuse Muslims in Kashmir and tear down the Babri Masjid in an effort to promote the Hindu Rashtra, were the same people who took Gandhi's life. Therefore, how about we give the man credit for his actions and let his picture stay on the website. He may have been too much of an idealist and maybe doubted some policies that would have easily kept Pakistan and India together, but he knew the Muslims were his equals and accepted them as such readily. In fact, his influence went so far as to him having a Muslim follower from that now Pakistan-entrenched territory (and my homeland) of NWFP; Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Frontier Gandhi). -User: Afghan Historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.1.200 (talk • contribs)

Whoever made this accusation must be an extremely hateful person. I am not Pakistani, but I've been there many times and personally I know that the Pakistani people don't look at Gandhi as a terrorist. Only a select few extremists. Gandhi didn't want Pakistan to exist, but he was a merciful man who gave a lot of good to the world, as did Jinnah. Disgusted Pakistani, you obviously either aren't really Pakistani and just a fake trying to make Pakistan look bad, or a Pakistani, but not a real one, as you insult this great man. We shouldn't do that. I repeat, most Pakistanis don't look at Gandhi in this manner. Stallions2010 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a fuuny arguement made by some extremist personality here. I don't want to waste my time in replying such rubbish and nonsense. I would say just one thing.... not just Indians but the whole world adds Mahatama (great soul) before his name to show the respect they have for him. Today, Mahatama Gandhi has become a symbol of Non-Voilence and Peace for whole Humanity.....his peaceful ideology is a ray of hope to save humanity from increasingly terrorist and extremist ideologies. Holy Ganga 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi might be a 'symbol of non-violence and peace for whole humanity' to you, But we are not here to talk about your religious conviction, If you dont mind I would rather you kept your religious beliefs to yourself, The reasons for removing the Ghandi picture are clearly as follows:

1. Gandhi was NOT founding father of Pakistan: No reason for him to be on Pakistan page

2. Gandhi was AGAINST the Pakistan movement: Again No reason for him to be on Pakistan page

3. Gandhi was a CRIMINAL; He was constantly imprisioned by the British no need for a criminal to be seen in a picture with a democrat and visioniary like Jinnah who unlike Gandhi was NEVER inprisioned AND WAS the founding father of Pakistan.

4. Gandhi emotionally BLACKMAILED his followers; He would often go on hunger strikes and fast for days on end, and in many cases almost killed himself, We dont need someone with that kind of charachter on this page

Can anyone disprove my claims on Gandhis charachter? These ARE ESTABLISHED FACTS, This should be more than enough to have the Ghandi + Jinnah picture WITH A PICTURE OF JUST JINNAH; Why should a civilized statesman like Jinnah have to share glory with a half naked criminal like Gandhi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

Babil, your rant is taking a laughable shape. Looking at points 3 and 4 made me remember once again that today is April 1. Anyway, I guess the consensus here and almost everywhere in wikipedia is heavily against the ideas presented in your rant. There are a thousand ways to make this article better, and many people, pakistanis, and non pakistanis alike, are working on it. Coming here to say Gandhi was a "Criminal"/"terrorist" etc. just invalidate whatever credibility you have as an editor. Nationalism is good, and everyone should have it, but extreme jingoism is a very very bad thing. Thanks. --Ragib 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If only all this effort were spent on Pakistan related article it would be lot closer to FA. What a waste of time. People should ignore this "person." --Blacksun 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The top picture with Jinnah and Ghandi must be removed instantly, it is offensive, insensitive, and ill timed to have such images with hegemonic and deep seated politcally motivated contations to be placed on Paksitan or wiki altogether.

God,that's sad in so many ways.

So you actually believe that people on wikipedia actually have deep seated politcally motivated contations, due to which they create a freaking open-for-editing article on wikipedia.

And ill timed.....why is it ill timed ?? or better yet when, according to you, would have been the proper time for it ??

Listen, whether you like it or not Gandhi and Jinnah did spend a considerable time of their lives togather, as part of the same movement and fighting for the same cause(which would then be getting the british out of India).

It happened, and it's a fact, try living with it.

is a man responsible for riots and influencing them by emotional blackmail (ie starvation)

If you would stop reading the Chunky Butt magazine and go for Newsweek instead you would find that it was the week long fasting of Gandhi which led to muslims returning to normalacy on the streets of delhi, after the formation of pakistan the muslims were a target of vicious hate riots throughtout the country and "the terrorist" went on hunger strike till the riots ended.During the first three days, the reaction from the common public was "Let him Die if he so badly wants to", the next few days saw a waning in the riots and increasing concern for the health of Gandhi, which would have millions marching towards delhi, by the end of the week the riots stopped and the muslims roamed the streets of delhi freely, like they used to.

And what did the man do after then ?? Take a bite into a big chocolate cake ?? nooo............he freaking, went on a nationwide tour telling people to put an end to the nonsense.

Have'nt you heard "Iswar - Allah tere` naam.Sabko Sanmati de` bhagwan"(The hymn gandhi chanted in his porbandar monastary.It traslates to "The name Iswar(Hindu for God) and Allah(muslim for God) are all the names of the one, universal god.God give peace and calm to humanity".

Anyways, the United States Government has been calling him a Champion of Liberty for a few decades now, and publishing stamps bearing his face, so the free world does'nt seem to think so badly of him after all,huh ??? ??? ??? ???

The terrorist was always locked into prison by the British and this should give you an indication of Ghandis intolarable charachter.

He was also called by the queen to visit the Buckingham Palace,always called upon by the Governer Generals of India.

He was the inspiration of the likes of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela(another hero who,by the way also spent a lifetime in jail).

He features regularly in the speeches of the newer crop of British politicians who use the "Gandhian" ideology of peaceful co-existence, to spread peace around areas like Birmingham,where the immigrants overpower the locals.

And, January 30 is commemorated in the United Kingdom as National Gandhi Remembrance Day.

So much for your "British locked him up" crap.

So,the british locked away the man who tried to free his country from their rule.What's the big deal ?? Did'nt the british try and kill George Washington in the Battle of Long Island ?? Did'nt they lock up Nelson Mandela throughout his young life ?? Did'nt they sell opium to the youth of China ??

It's called Imperialsm, my retarded friend. Try living with the fact that it existed.

There is no need to have Jinnah in a picture with Ghandi as there is with Churchill and Hitler on the Churchill webpage, churchill stood for peace and democracy likek jinnah, Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence.

God, it's sick in so many ways. Are you allowed to open your mouth outside of your home by your mommy, by the way ??

Incase you have difficulty reading Dwaipayanc was trying to insinuate that i was mentally ill I dont see you warning him, besides why do you people have more rights than I do?

He was barely insinuating,I'm saying outright that you are a raving lunatic(a euphimism for a loon who's not even funny).We have more rights than you do because we're not retards,is it so hard to understand ??

The whole point of wiki is for peace to acess neutral information which can be edited by users

for peace to access ?? what the f$*k ?? who's peace and what's acess ??? the information can be edited by users,all right.Users with IQ over 30.

I have equal rights and i will excercise my rights to protect the rights of my country.

Trust me you have bought as much shame to your country as is humanly possible through the medium of wikipedia.Your language is painfully atrocious and you tone is like a communist on wall street.Go back to your basement and live there for as long you can, I bet you have enough Chunky Butt magazines to keep ya company.You're an embaressment to both the pakistani nation and this talk page. Freedom skies 05:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Congrats on making this a featured article guys!

As for the mention of the claims to Kashmir, why no mention of this on the India page since Pakistan also claims Indian-held Kashmir just as India claims Pakistan held Kashmir? Kind of a double-standard. Tombseye 21:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm; it'a probably more a matter of getting around to it. There is also a minor row about noting Kashmir among the list of territories in Southern Asia (which I support). Anyhow, there you go! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that myself. Probably create more of a problem if I mention that much of its history and ties are Central Asian, but either way. I'm not sure it's a matter of getting around to it. One guy wanted to add that Azad Kashmir was Occupied and when I suggested we'd have to do the same for the article on the Indian controlled part, he basically objected and disappeared. At any rate, at some point it would be logical to add this info. to both or delete here if it's going to just be mentioned here. At any rate, the article looks great now. Now if some of us could improve some of the other country articles that almost made it like Iran. Tombseye 03:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing

THis article tells nothing of the pakistani genocide of bengalis. I don't see how it will affect the pov of the article

Reply: That information belongs in the 1971 war article. Also the "genocide" was mostly lies of Indian government and Mukti Bahini rebels. There were excesses committed by Pakistan during the war but no genocide. Anyway go to the 1971-war article and debate it there.

Wrong Map

I am deleting the map of Pakistan 1947 to 1971 until somebody can put a correct map there. In 1947, Kashmir was neither a part of Pakistan or India. Revert if I am wrong. Raswa 00:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Instead of removing the map entirely you could have changed the displayed text. It now reads "Pakistan up to 1970". Green Giant 00:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that inaccurate too? Why not correct it before reinserting it. Raswa 00:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In either case, part of Kashmir should be shown in different color. Raswa 00:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not discuss this before undertaking a small crusade? There was no need for you to add your comments to the archived candidacy for featured articles. The best place to raise the issue is on the talkpage here. The title of the image is now "Pakistan in 1970". Why should Kashmir be in a different colour? Green Giant 00:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Clearly I didn't realize the page was archieved already. Kashmir isn't incorporated into Pakistan entirely, only the northern areas are. Isn't that true? Then why should the map show all the Pakistani controlled areas? Raswa 02:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There are several references throughout the article that state clearly that Northern Areas and Azad Kashmir are de facto parts of Pakistan but not de jure. If you look at the map, it shows a clear border between Pakistan proper and the two disputed areas. If a reader reads the article and looks at the map, there should be no ambiguity about the issue. Green Giant 16:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some nutjob's vandalized the article! I'm doing the reverts! - User: Afghan Historian (I may be critical of my homeland sometimes, by I never saw it as a terrorist country. Give me a break!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.101.164.136 (talk • contribs)

-the MMA do indeed cause a lot of hell for a progressive Pakistan, but who in the hell says that makes it a Terrorist state? Have some decency people, even if the MMA do not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.149.15.161 (talk • contribs)

destroyed article, READ THIS PLEASE

This is shabbirbokhari1 I logged on this article yesterday April 16th 2006 and say that someone had destroyed the Pakistan article rubbing out evrything that was written and writing some very offensive things, I am half Pakistani and British I still find this very offensive, Even though the article has been changed back to normal and is the same as it was before. WHY WOULD ANYONE TAKE THE TIME AND Write many offensive things. Such as 'Grow up and be little terrorists', 'Pakis Basterd'. I am shore that many other Pakistanis would be outraged by this. Luckuly not many people have seen it.

Please ADD..................

THERE WERE LINES ADMITTING HE WAS RACIST IT SAID "I AM THE KKK" {[mR. X}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.143.177.182 (talk • contribs)

Reply from a Pakistani-American: well either the vandal was an Indian or an Afghan. I would bet it was someone from India based on the hateful language and the time that he/she took to vandalize the article. The vandal's effort went to waste.

In India the term Paki is not a word, paki is used in the US and europe. putting your blame on an Indian or Afghani is just stupid, and what pakisitanis also vandalise the India page but its always put back together.

WOW thats retarted but look at it like this....On the India Page some pakistani people randomly started abusing and stated that India is a failing world power.......now with that type of an attitude alongside biased news brought to you by the US your random terrorist attacks on India and toher countries... you can see why this happened

irc channel on freenode

Hi,

Guys we need to start a communication medium, Wikipedia is missing a lot of stuff on Pakistan and there are some other issues as well.

I've started a #wikipedia-pakistan channel on irc.freenode.net we should start having discussions there, we can start with improving the Pakistan portal.

regards

--digitalSurgeon 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

If others are going to actually enter the channel, I'll start to idle there from now on. I normally idle in #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en, but this channel can be a good medium in place of talk pages. Pepsidrinka 22:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE THESE LINES

hi. The webpage Pakistan, has the following lines " Although Bollywood movies are banned, pirated discs are easily available, so Indian film stars are popular in Pakistan as well" in the culture section. However, this is a baised statement and currently software piracy is being addressed in pakistan.. and to state such a fact is to diminish the reputation of a country ..

kindly either erase the page or change it to Although Bollywood movies are banned, Indian muslim film stars such as Shahrukh Khan and Aamir Khan are popular in Pakistan as well. This is the same effect that pakistani TV actors such as Moin Akhter and bands like Strings and Junoon have a vast popularity in India.

Regards, Imran Quadri iquadri@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.228.35 (talk • contribs)

I rollbacked your edits because I was under the impression it was vandalism. Please use edit summaries in the future. I should have not used my rollback, however, I'm going to leave the article in its current state until more discussion regarding the sentence is held. I for one don't have a problem with it. The fact of the matter is, piracy is a huge problem in Pakistan. If you say that steps are being taking to counter it, please provide a reputable source that makes that claim and then a countering sentence can be added to the paragraph. Pepsidrinka 22:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the lines about piracy must be removed given that Pakistan has taken bold steps to counter this problem; The steps Pakistan has taken invclude the Business Software Alliance (BSM) launching a nationwide 'piracy witch hunt'.

Here is a neutral source on the latest developments concering Pakistan fighting piracy:

http://www.itp.net/news/details.php?id=20388&category=

Also here is the website of Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA)

http://www.pemra.gov.pk/

May I add that pemra is department specifically formed by the Pakistan government to counter piracy, this itself and in addition to the BSA anti-piracy drive should remove all aprrehensions about Piracy in Pakistan.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

I agree with what Pepsidrinka did because at the time it was unsourced claims. The first link provided by Babil79 only shows that BSA is doing something, but it does not show that piracy has ended. The second link to PEMRA is just a homepage - is there anywhere in that site that mentions combatting piracy? From what I can see PEMRA was specifically formed to "induct the private sector into the field of electronic media" but can't see any mention of countering piracy. Oh and please sign your comments anon and Babil79. Green Giant 04:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What i dont understand is that piracy is an issue which is being tackled worldwide and is all over the world.. but why only on the pakistan webpage you have mentioned related to bollywood.. I could say the same thing in india/ america, any country you name it. I have lived both in England and currently am in France.. and i see on day to day basis, software piracy and music piracy and no body raises an eye. WHY SHOULD A PIRACY RELATED ISSUE RELATED TO THE WORLD IS BEING MENTIONED IN THE PAGE OF ONLY PAKISTAN.. Sounds like anti-pakistanism to me. And in case, people needing proof of software piracy being stopped in Pakistan. I am a citizen of pakistan, who lives 6 months in pakistan and 6 months abroad, so i have a better idea about the conditions of my country then some body who just wants to invalidated my sentiments. KINDLY NOTE THAT THIS IS A NEUTRAL WEBPAGE AND ADDING UNVERIFIED DATA mocks all of Pakistanis and i for once take an exception to that. Imran Quadri iquadri@gmail.com

JINNAH PICTURE

i have provided a suitable picture of Jinnah.. which has no copy right problems , yet to see it being replaced again with a same picture of Gandhi with Jinnah.. Being a webpage to Pakistan. I think this page suits best with a picture of Jinnah only.. and respects the sentiments of Pakistanis.. kindly think before rollbacking the webpage. If Gandhi and Jinnah picture is to be added.. kindly add it to Gandhi's own webpage and leave the Pakistan webpage only for things related to PAKISTAN.. I repeat.. its not out of disrespect or anything but i believe that the pakistan webpage must show things about pakistan and pakistani culture. Imran Quadri iquadri@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.228.35 (talk • contribs)

That image does have copyright problems because when you uploaded it, you did not specify where the image came from and whether you had permission to use it on Wikipedia. This article cannot be neutral if we gloss over the negative aspects. It is not about respecting anyone's sentiments but about presenting information correctly. If we were to follow your line of thinking here, then we should pretend that nobody died at partition or during the civil war of 1971, and ignore the fact that there have been several illegal military coups and military presidents. We could also ignore the tensions with India and dress up the Kargil affair as a strategic victory for Pakistan. I could go on but it's not worth the typing effort. You are displaying arrogant psuedo-nationalism by suggesting that people who are not from Pakistan should have no say in this article. Anybody with the slightest interest in Pakistan can edit this article as long as they adhere to the customs, conventions and rules. You may be a Pakistani but that does not make you an expert on your country. It is completely irrelevant whether you spend six months there or not. When you qualify with a PhD in Pakistani affairs from a reputable university you can make an argument as to whether you are more qualified or not to write about Pakistan (and yes reputable universities includes a lot of institutions in Pakistan). However on Wikipedia, PhD or no PhD, the only qualification needed is a neutral and reputable source for your information. Green Giant 23:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

lol.... i hate to say this .. .but i am infact doing a PhD abroad related to national affairs and relations between pakistan and other countries.. First of all, u said that interest in pakistan... ok... But does that qualifies negative interest also.. DO YOU LIVE IN PAKISTAN AND DO U HAVE AN IDEA ABOUT THE COUNTRY OR NOT.. IF NOT.. THEN DONT JUST ADD COMMENTS WITHOUT YOUR OWN RESEARCH. GO TO PAKISTAN.. AND THEN DECIDE THE TRUTH .. ITS EASY FOR PEOPLE TO READ NEWS, READ STUFF AND RUMOURS and SAY .. oh yeah.. THAT Makes me an expert on this matter.. and now , i can bash each and every one, who tries to change my point of view. You called me an arrogant and hell knows what , but i am not mad, its because when people have to listen to the truth, they dont like it, and abuse the person preaching the truth.. IT IS RELEVANT THAT I AM A PAKISTANI AND I LIVE THERE AND I KNOW ABOUT THE CONDITIONS IN DEPTH.. that's like saying oh this is an apple pie, it should be sweet, but until you havent tasted it, you dont know for sure if the chef used apple syrup in it, or lots of salt.. so.. while i am adding a neutral point of view.. it seems to me like you are taking a lot of effort to badmouth a country .. i hope that that aint the case.. AND CAN YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION WITH UR REFERENCES PLEASE;))

"What i dont understand is that piracy is an issue which is being tackled worldwide and is all over the world.. but why only on the pakistan webpage you have mentioned related to bollywood.. I could say the same thing in india/ america, any country you name it. I have lived both in England and currently am in France.. and i see on day to day basis, software piracy and music piracy and no body raises an eye. WHY SHOULD A PIRACY RELATED ISSUE RELATED TO THE WORLD IS BEING MENTIONED IN THE PAGE OF ONLY PAKISTAN."

DONT AVOI THE TOPIc.. RESPOND TO IT...

Imran Quadri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.225.228.35 (talk • contribs)

Signing your posts (on all Wikipedia talk pages—but not on articles) is an important aspect of Wikipedia's developed etiquette, and an essential aspect of the community communication that helps articles to be formed and developed. Discussion helps other users who are reading talk pages to understand the progress and evolution of a dialogue, and to better offer their help, and to easier judge users who are accountable to their comments.[2] - Holy Ganga ^talk 19:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

"DO YOU LIVE IN PAKISTAN AND DO U HAVE AN IDEA ABOUT THE COUNTRY OR NOT"

I live in Leeds, West Yorkshire, amongst one of the largest parts of the Pakistani diaspora. I spent fifteen years attending schools with Pakistani majorities. I first visited Pakistan about twelve years ago, for about nine months during my GAP year, and since then I have visited Pakistan four more times and spent a total of two years there. I also subscribe to several Pakistani channels via satellite and I have learned some Urdu (humari Urdu habsoorat neyheh, par humay thora botha jhantha hey) (My Urdu isn't brilliant but I know little bits). During my time in pakistan, I have seen many wonderful things and many terrible things. That said, it does not mean I have any more right to edit this article than another editor who can provide verifiable sources.

"ITS EASY FOR PEOPLE TO READ NEWS, READ STUFF AND RUMOURS and SAY .. oh yeah.. THAT Makes me an expert on this matter."

Nobody here claims to be an expert on anything. We use reliable and verifiable sources of information.

"You called me an arrogant and hell knows what , but i am not mad, its because when people have to listen to the truth, they dont like it, and abuse the person preaching the truth."

You still sound like an arrogant pseudo-nationalist. It means you pretend to be patriotic but you're actions are the opposite.

IT IS RELEVANT THAT I AM A PAKISTANI AND I LIVE THERE AND I KNOW ABOUT THE CONDITIONS IN DEPTH.

What is relevant is that you are an embarrasment to your people.

"AND CAN YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION WITH UR REFERENCES PLEASE;))"

OK first of all let's tackle you're line of thinking. Every time I went shopping I would meet numerous vendors trying to sell videotapes, CD's and DVD's for almost every conceivable major band, singer, and film I could think of including several movies that I knew were due to start screenings the following week. Amongst them there were hundreds of Bollywood films which I know were officially banned in Pakistan. I saw this hundreds of vendors doing this from Empress Market in Karachi to the chaotic market on the main road in Jatlan, Azad Kashmir. Now you ask for some references and here is a small selection:

Article from the BBC, May 2005

Article by Newsline, July 2005

Article from Daily Times, December 2004

The piracy issue isn't something new, for example this BSA report goes back to 1999

Nobody is suggesting that Pakistan alone is responsible for piracy but it is a significant hub and that needs to be mentioned -BSA report 2002

Finally, learn to type without the caps key and always sign your comments, you will be taken more seriously by everyone. Green Giant 21:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have just noticed that for the umpteenth time, Iquadri has tried to insert an image with no copyright tags -> [3]. This is a precise example of someone taking another person's work and ignoring their intellectual rights to the work. In all but name, that is piracy and yet we have continuous lectures from the same person, claiming there is little or no piracy in his home country. Talk about double standards. :P Green Giant 21:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

_________ hmmm:) first of all, i didnt knew how to paste an image on wiki; tried it first time, from a source without no copy right issues; but the taging system was not clear to me so i tried again with a tag, and again, no success , so sorry for that; it wasnt a double standard, just lack of time on my part to read the image tagging rules. yeah u are rite, i dont claim that it piracy isnt been done in pakistan; but its the same in india; singapore and china; yet i dont see any reference to piracy on their webpages: so that was a primary reason to voice my opinion, you told me that i am an embarassement, well, :):) i hope that if being patriotic meant that to you, so be it, Yeah yeah i know, Still, i remember the last time i went to essex, UK, there was a summer bazaar there, heard from my bro who lives there that it is organized each week, and Imagine to my surprise;;););); pirated cds being sold by british out in the open; PC games for 5 pounds and all.. THAT really sounds like a triple standard to me. so buddy, the only thing what i wanted was to say that it doesnt seem rite that while the same thing is going in UK and all over the world, u want references, here u go: http://www.eidos.co.uk/piracy.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4122624.stm http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/01/it_firms_top_uk_software/ the references are related to UK, as the jolly green gaint pointed out , however, its the same thing in france; china;

so it seems each and every country is trying its best to battle it, yet the same thing remains; like the current MPAA law suit againt torrent website.

ITs very very easy to use abusive language, but its difficult to refrain from it, seems like you yourself are an embarassement ;) any way;; and on using the capital letters, i write that way to emphasize... and ur urdu, hmmm, some constructive criticism; its not hobsorat, but khobsorat, but nice to know that u are somewhat fluent in urdu.. believe me , thats a compliment. chao

It is interesting to note that you have grave opposition against the Gandhi-Jinnah picture, because, according to you, it has got nothing to do with Pakistan. I just wonder what is your views on the Musharraf and Bush image! Taking cue from your talks, what does Bush has to do with Pakistan? Is not it better to have a picture of Musharraf alone instead? Well, I myself do believe that Bush-Musharraf picture is far better. Just inviting your views. And by the way, please sign your comments. It has become a bad habit of some people not to sign. If you are not signing because you do not know how to, please go through the wikipedia help pages. Waiting for your exciting views! Bye.--Dwaipayanc 12:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

__ eep, sorry, it was me , iquadri before, sorry, had a meeting with my professor and just left and forgot it, nope, nothing against Gandhi , infact, i saw a picture of Jinnah and Nehru, which i thought was better than this; my problems with the image is that in Gandhi's webpage, there isnt nothing about jinnah, not at all, come on, atleast add it to jinnah (already there) and both Gandhi's webpage, also yeah; the reason, initially Gandhi and Jinnah were on the same page, but after that jinnah left congress after conflicts with Gandhi's politics. So to add a picture without a good explaination is not sufficient, i mean , add something like, " Before the conflicts " or something, because if some one new , having no knowledge of pakistan came to this site, when he sees the image, thinks , aww, they were best buds and all that, but reality is that in the end, both of themm were vey much different from each other, so please either change the captions, Anyway i added only jinnah's image, but due to not enoughtime with the image tags article, i dont know how to post it, each time , gives an error.

Well, that is a good point. I mean lacking any mention of Jinnah in Gandhi article is perhaps against the comprehensive-ness of that article. We'll see to that.

It seems you are not exactly familiar with the history. Jinnah left Indian National Congress in 1920s (due to conflicts with Gandhi), while the Gandhi-Jinnah photo in the article is of 1944. So it cannot be added in the caption that the photo was before their conflict. In 1944, Gandhi and Jinnah were having some talks (I am also not much familiar with history — I cannot tell you what was the cause of the talks, Perhaps some strategy or something.) when the photo was taken. Basically the photo should be there in the article because it is a rare photo (most of the photos of those days are rae!) illustrating two notable politicians of that era. In any case, their face does not reflect any clear animosity between them — and we cannot help it. It is a photo!

Anybody who does not know anything about Pakistan, if he stumbles in the article, probably he would not have any knowledge of Jinnah also. So, if you put an image of Gandhi and Jinnah rather than Jinnah alone, such a new person can at least think, "ok, then Jinnah was contemporary of Gandhi." For further information, he/she can click on Jinnah or Gandhi to know more about those persons. Bye.--Dwaipayanc 13:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point, i agree, now can any one tell me , HOW to add an image to the pakistan webpage, i have a good picture of jinnah, with no copyrights issue, wanted it to be added to the page also, having problems understanding the image tages, helpppppppppp.......... Thank you, Also, how to add an image already existing in one wikipage, to another wikipage... what about the source then and the tags then...?????? any ideas, Imran Quadri

Read thses two : Wikipedia:Uploading images and Help:Editing. You will get answer to most of your queries.

By the way, Pakistan is a Featured Article — one of the the best articles in Wikipedia. The article has gained this status after thourough review by the community, both Pakisrani and non-Pakistani. That means the article is probably best in its present status. That does not mean the article cannot be further improved. However, it is an expected behaviour that before performing any major changes in any featured article you should discuss the reason behind such changes, as those contributors who made the article featured (in the case of Pakistan, mostly Pakistani contributors) would not really like to see their hard effort spoiled by silly changes. If you can place the intended image of Jinnah in Pakistan without changing its present contents, even then you should discuss the rationale here in the talk page. And if you want to replace some present content, you should discuss it here, of course. Please go ahead with your rationale. --Dwaipayanc 14:48, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

nope, you misunderstood, i wanted to add an image of jinnah only. Iquadri

As I've just explained to someone else today, the images used in Wikipedia and other parts of the project are a legal issue. Irrespective of whether it was your first upload or you didn't have time to read the rules, if you had been allowed to leave your image of Jinnah in the article, then Wikimedia Foundation becomes legally culpable for breaking copyright law. It would result in legal action and almost certainly Wikimedia would be ordered to remove the image immediately. The judge will not care whether you were uncertain about tags because the onus is on Wikimedia to ensure that copyright law is not broken. If software piracy is not mentioned on the articles you mention, then there is nothign wrong in you highlighting this on their respective talkpages. As for your experience of Essex, do you think I should feel aggrieved that you are accusing my country of software piracy? By the way Essex has a reputation for being full of flash geezers wiv hookey stuff dey claim fell off da back of a truck (honest guv'nor). :P

"seems like you yourself are an embarassement"

How am I an embarrasment? ;)

"on using the capital letters, i write that way to emphasize"

Well don't use caps because it looks childish.

"its not hobsorat, but khobsorat"

I wrote habsoorat, not hobsorat. It doesn't matter either way because neither of those are proper transliterations.

"nice to know that u are somewhat fluent in urdu.. believe me , thats a compliment."

Why shouldn't I believe that it's a compliment? :P - The "Jolly" Green Giant 03:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That was an example, not just saying UK is the lead, infact, its vietnam , followed by Indonesia i believe according to the latest piracy surveys:P, hmm, ok i will c about the image and about the tagging system. But kindly allow me the Freedom of Speech by using capital letters:): Iquadri

In my opinion the picture should be changed. Pragmatically speaking, people here in Pakistan are not very fond of ANY Indian leader in general. I admit Gandhi was a great leader and I (as well as many other Pakistanis) highly appreciate his effort for peace and harmony in the region but if you ask the majority, they simply don't like him. Unfortunately, our school literature doesn't support a very positive image of Gandhi as well. And having both these pictures (Jinnah with Gandhi) and (bush with mush) kind of spoils the basic Pakistani attire. Personally I think it make us look inferior like we cherish either of these (extern) personalities or the events that took place. Once again there is nothing wrong about the picture or Gandhi but it’s about the general public attitude that should be considered. Thank you. --Jareer 23:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that this article is not for the Pakistani citizens only. In general, no article in wikipedia is for any particular demographic, or country. So, "Pakistanis don't like Gandhi" is not really a valid argument against the image. An encyclopedia's task is not to cater to the general attitude of a region, but to maintain NPOV. Thanks. --Ragib 03:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jareer for your message. Your message is much more rational than the previous ones regardung the argument to remove that picture. Now a general reader will have some idea why exactly so much tussle on the image. However, as Ragib has clarified, this being an encyclopedia, neutral point of view has to be maintained. This is not a question of liking or disliking, rather a reflection of fact. In this case, what happened in the past holds good even if we do not like it. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

--

Hi Imran Quadri, Your comments about Gandhi are laughable. It makes clear how people in Pakistan are brainwashed. If a person doing masters or PhD is behaving in this way then I can imagine other people. You said Jinah was never imprisoned, which suggests he was not a freedom fighter. It is interesting to note that Pakistanis have so much inferiority complex. It would be interesting to see how you and other people of Pakistan feel about the current picture of Bush and Musharraf.

Images

DMG413 moved some of the images around for spacing - [4]. However the effect was that the text was pushed into an awkward shape. Please leave the images right-aligned because left-aligning them does not improve the appearance of the article. Green Giant 23:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture Issue

While i agree with Ragib about the picture issue.. i think a compromise could be reached.. If you check India's website... there is no mention of Jinnah at all.. while Pakistan's page contains data and image on Gandhi.. while i dont believe that inferiority complex is the issue here as claimed by UTC, i somehow dont understand why the same treatment was not given to India's webpage... the same thing is with Jinnah's and Gandhi's webpage.. and Ragib.. you pointed out that since it is a neutral webpage.. neutrality must be preserved... so either add pictures of Jinnah on Gandhi's webpage and India's also.. to show both sides of the image or just place the pictures of Gandhi and Jinnah on Jinnah's personal webpage... i mean either provide resources that Gandhi was in favor of Pakistan as people here have claimed then it would be truly neutral...Iquadri

You are welcome to edit Gandhi or India pages. However, as both are featured articles, it is an expected behaviour that you provide the rationale in those article's talk pages before you make any major changes. In fact I see you already have placed the image in Gandhi. I changed the position of the image there slightly and brought it under "Freedom and partition of India" section. The image looks nice there and quite befitting. Thank you.

However, the image in India is ill-placed, as there is a congestion of images there. Please try to find out a better location to place the image. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The note on Kashmir

The note on Kashmir needs to be there, because it's status is not universally recognized. As an example, please see India, which ALSO includes a note on Kashmir's boundary status. Thanks. --Ragib 04:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, except India, all other countries including the US recognise Azad Kashmir as a sovereign part of Pakistan. See the maps in CIA World Fact Book. Anwar saadat 04:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly that's the point: India DOES NOT recognize the border, and neither does Pakistan. This is in fact a small note, which I don't see of any problem. Revert-warring over a simple footnote is not good. Thanks. --Ragib 04:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier, India's version is irrelevant in this article.Anwar saadat 04:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Anwar: The USA's official position does not recognise Azad Kashmir or indeed Jammu and Kashmir. The US treats the entire area as disputed and continues to refer to the LoC as the Ceasefire Line. This is the UN's official position as well. The State Department calls the areas India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir respectively in its briefings for the Senate FR Committee, though it uses each country's preferred term in bilateral dealings. Hence we should state in an encyclopedia article that because of this history of conflict, there is a profusion of alternative terms for the same geographical area, some of which are politically loaded.

Hornplease 12:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hornplease.. each country has its own interpretation of Kashmir borders.. and if you will ask Kashmiris. they will say that both Indian administrated and Pakistan administrated Kashmir are infact two parts of a whole Kashmir .. So in order to make things clear and remove imbiguity, we should state clearly that kashmir is infact a disputed state and should be viewed as such. Iquadri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.51.235.223 (talk • contribs)

Oh and I amsorry to tell you this my pakistani friends but the UN and some American delegates had a debate and came to the conclusion that Kashmir is a part of India. this is after your terrorit\st bombed the mumbai trains

Kashmir is byproduct of military corruption in India and Pakistan

Red Tape, Bureaucracy, Corruption, Political corruption, Bribery, Extortion, Graft, Money Laundering all are part and parcel of Religon. vkvora 05:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Response about Pictures

Well about the congestion issue as stated by Dwaipayanc, if you count the images on India's webpage excluding the flag and the symbol , they are only 10 as compared to about 16-17 images on Pakistan's webpage.. so i don't believe that "congestion" is a pbm there.Iquadri

Well, in that particular section there was congestion. It is usually regarded bad when text comes between 2 flanking images. However, that problem has been temporarily overcome. You can check out the article India now. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering if Mr Iquadri would be trying to get the Bush-Musharaff image displayed on the George W. Bush article as well!!! Any comment, Iquadri? Your countryman Jareer has also voiced similar concerns, though in a much more civic way. And Jareer has , in fact, tried to point out the the root cause of all this problems , here I quote him, "Unfortunately, our school literature doesn't support a very positive image of Gandhi as well. And having both these pictures (Jinnah with Gandhi) and (bush with mush) kind of spoils the basic Pakistani attire. Personally I think it make us look inferior like we cherish either of these (extern) personalities or the events that took place. Once again there is nothing wrong about the picture or Gandhi but ome accusation: and finally.. you seem really really biased. Re. Perhaps you did not notice I removed the solo Gandhi pic from India article, it’s about the general public attitude that should be considered." Perhaps an educated man like you (doing Masters Research) have the insight to understand the way people are "made" to think.

By the way, do you have this objection to anything foreign displayed in Pakistan article? And, in particular, anything Indian. I ask you this because I can supply you with even more an interesting fodder. Jinnah himself was an Indian, as mentioned in the article about him, which is a featured article (one of the best of Wikipedia). Taking cue from this, and also from your earlier impolite comments, I cannot but help you advice something. Get some history lessons from non-Indian non-Pakistani sources. It's time you come out of the infantile style of objection and crying.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

hmm:))... WOW.. don't know what happened with u.. i just pointed out on the number of images.. and you went hitler on me..:)).. well i dont have a problem with Indians.. first of all.. i work in a lab where i am friends with hindus as well and we are not prejudiced in any way.. al of us i mean.. we talk freely about PAkistan and India without any backbiting or problems.. however.. What i really find interesting is your emotional state .. i mean i didnt had any problem.. and i didnt CERTAINLY used any impolite comments.. and as according to jareer.. i dont believe that many pakistanis have inferior complexes about indians.. nor do i believe indians have any such thing about pakistanis.. As far as the general public view.. i dont believe in that myself.. because nearly 2/3s of population of pakistan in uneducated.. and those who are educated become biased themselves perhaps due to literature. I believe that to some extent.. perhaps i myself am too.. and i believe no one could be 100 neutral in any issue.. not possible... but i always try to look things with a neutral view.. thats why when ragib proposed a solution.. i accepted his solution.. but what i dont understand is your hyper tension... i mean.. lets c.. u say that Jinnah was an indian.. Well my friend.. we ARE were Indians.. all our origins are from The SUBCONTINENT.. ain't nobody who can deny that.. but u are trying to say .. no.. he was PArt of the Country INDIA which exists now.. well.. i dont get ur point.. its like saying he was HUMAn.. offcourse he was.. duh.. i really found it funny man.. what a way to present your point..:)).. the only issue was the neutral issue point.. we should have a balanced view.. thats why i thought that adding Gandhi's and Jinnah's picture on India's webpage was a tribute to history.. cause if you dont learn from history and past.. you learn nothing.. as far my self .. i certainly didnt cry:)).. BUT i certainly did object.. as is my and everyone's right is.. afterall freedom of speech is an interesting thing.. and finally.. you seem really really biased.. that stinks.. get some diapers.. THAT my friend.. is an impolite comment:))))

and no.. i dont have any problems with foreign issues and pictures in this article.. My opinions about Bush aside.. (i would be much happy if US had a really good president like clinton instead of a joke like bush)..they are part of our culture and history and future.. and i believe that i have a healthy prespective of outside views regarding pakistan because i have been studying abroad and it gives you a new prespective.. kher.. tahts it.. i hope that we won't have to start another meaningless discussion..give it a rest kindly please.. Iquadri —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.51.235.223 (talk • contribs)

further

i hope that we won't have to start another meaningless discussion..give it a rest kindly please No. Now that we have found out a rational man in you, ot's time to continue for more 1 or 2 posts. Good debate. Personal attack is to some extent acceptable in debate. So I do not think your comment was impolite (I mean your last post). Now. lets have some fun. I quote you,"the only issue was the neutral issue point.. we should have a balanced view.. thats why i thought that adding Gandhi's and Jinnah's picture on India's webpage was a tribute to history..". Kool.

However, again I quote you (from a past post), "If Gandhi and Jinnah picture is to be added.. kindly add it to Gandhi's own webpage and leave the Pakistan webpage only for things related to PAKISTAN.. I repeat.. its not out of disrespect or anything but i believe that the pakistan webpage must show things about pakistan and pakistani culture." And now you are saying , i dont have any problems with foreign issues and pictures in this article.??? Also you are saying, "i mean i didnt had any problem."???? That you had grave problem is evident from this post. And that you are self-contradicting (once you were not ready to accept anything foreign in Pakistan, while now you have become the torch-bearer of world-fraternity) is also evident. However, it is really welcome that you changed your thought. If that change in thought was due to being in Wikipedia, it's really great for Wikipedia. That you could understand the image was a tribute to history' is good.

By the way, you tell nearly 2/3rd of Pakitan is uneducated. The truth is something like this : Literacy rate in Pakistan is " total population: 45.7% (2003 est.); male: 59.8%; female: 30.6%"

Please be sure next time to be as accurate as possible in data, otherwise the fun in debate gets reduced. This is not related to the main theme, but it's funny to oppose every pitfall of your opponent in a debate. You had done similar data-pitfall in the past, when you said, "but after that jinnah left congress after conflicts with Gandhi's politics. So to add a picture without a good explaination is not sufficient, i mean , add something like, " Before the conflicts " or something,". The pic is of 1946, much later of the conflict. So plaese stick to available data.

Now I am gonna quote some more. However, those may or may not be by you, as those posts were unsigned. If those were not made by you, I am sorry to quote those. Please do not read these in that case. "The top picture with Jinnah and Ghandi must be removed instantly, it is offensive, insensitive, and ill timed to have such images with hegemonic and deep seated politcally motivated contations to be placed on Paksitan or wiki altogether."

Also, "There is no need whatsoever to include the Ghandi terrorist in a picture with Jinnah, Ghandi is not the founding father of Pakistan and is a man responsible for riots and influencing them by emotional blackmail (ie starvation), The terrorist was always locked into prison by the British and this should give you an indication of Ghandis intolarable charachter. Jinnah on the otherhand was a seperate individual with different rational and morals, he was never once in prisoned, and he led a DEMOCRATIC move that was peaceful. There is no need to have Jinnah in a picture with Ghandi as there is with Churchill and Hitler on the Churchill webpage, churchill stood for peace and democracy likek jinnah, Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence. With utter disgust, A Pakistani." What do you call this post? Polite? However, I repeat, if this post was not by you, I am contracting my comment that you were impolite. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

hmm..this is a very short reply.. i will add later.. yup Dwaipayan u are rite.. some one edited my comments and i certainly didnt rite about the terrorism and all the bullshit .. anyway .. i learned my lesson in that regard.. don't know why my name was used for that terrorism thingy.. i dont have time to check it out fully as i have to submit a presentation tomorrow.. as ragib pointed out. without signing in.. comments are easily editable.. since i am short on time.. i cannot discuss your points today.. but we will talk tomorrow and we can discuss in detail your points as well.. infact, thanks for your input as well.. its nice to see that we are all rational people here... will discuss this later.. ciao.. and have fun editing in wikipediaoh and dwaipayan.. that picture is of 1944 as raghib pointed out.. semes we both slipped on accuracy.. ;)) also i think we should adopt registration policy on wikipedia so no anonymous comments, or edits are allowed to prevent this kinda stuff.. and i didnt looked at all my earlier comments.. but some one has graciously changed my Master Subject:))... thanks for telling me guys.. i am doing Masters in IT and not in foreign affairs as edited by someone..Thankx a lot.. do i get 1 degree free;)??..Iquadri.. Q

Hi Iquadri, I am really sorry the last quotation did not belong to you. Anyway, I'll wait for your talks tomorrow. By the way, that the image was of 1944 was pointed out by me (in a past post). And in last post, I mistakenly made that 1946. Good point. In any case, that was much after the split (which was in 1920).--Dwaipayan (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

---

hmm...first of all, thanks for being so patient.. so here goes.. hmm i went and read the comments related to the insulting Jinnah and Gandhi issue.. first of all.. read this.. that person claims that he was affected directly by Gandhi...:)).. don't know WHAT to make of it.. so i will let it go..then my friend the pakistani wrote and i quote.. "Why do you all hate Pakistan so much? Why can you people not accept Pakistan as an idependent and soverign state? You people are anti-pak crowd and want to destroy the islamic republic of pakistan by posting insulting images and that is totally unacceptable to me! What you have done is greatly insulting to pakistani sentiments, Isnt it enough that Ghandi is on India page? must you force this man, his religion, his inferior ideology upon us? we are soverign state the days of colonial rule are over and we will determine its destiny not outsiders, indian, banglageshi, or anyone else! The Japan page has also been infested with those with political ambitions notably chinese and koreans who are trying to distort its history and damage its standing in the comity of nations and this is happening here also." Sorry but that is a bunch of BS.. i myself am a pakistani and its EXACTLY the reason that people think of stereotyped pakistani.. hotheaded, uneducated and unflexible.. I mean , be practical.. no one is trying to enforce other cultures on us.. WE ARE DOING A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF IT OURSELVES.. after all, why do people watch indian movies... india isn't saying.. go ahead and watch otherwise i will nuke u.. its us.. i frankly dont watch indian movies much.. and before u go and criticise me.. let me explain.. its not because they are indian but because its because i dont like 3-4 hour movies.. how ever i watch movies of Shahrukh or amir khan.. and the latest i watched was Rang de basanti.. and i really really liked that film.. so its just a matter of selective taste.. i prefer english usually.. and dont get me started on pakistani films.. nuff said the better... You see my anonymous friend.. don't know if u are reading this or not.. kher.. let me explain.. its because of guys like you that we have a baaaaaad baaaaaaad name.. when i first came to pakistan's webpage.. when i saw the picture of Gandhi,, i was like . umm.. whats the picture doing here ...and whats it reference.. when it was explained to me that it was taken in 1944, i said.. ok .. because it shows that the two leaders (While on opposing sides, were infact meeting to negotiate and i guess initiate some kinda peace talk).. My initial comments on wikipedia started with piracy issues in pakistan.. and i objected that why do we have software piracy related issues only in pakistan's website while Vietnam which is the country having the biggest piracy issues has no mention of that in its webpage.. thats why i said that it was un warranted.. and that was partially settled when i slightly changed the subject matter in discussion .. However.. i still say that its not suitable to Pakistan's webpage.. we could easily put it in the software piracy webpage.. yet i didnt saw any mention of that in the relevant article so that was and is my objection. Because piracy like i said before is a global problem.. just saying that it exists in pakistan is a not a neutral position.. so what i want to say is. put the information where it is relevant.. that is on the software piracy article where it is relevant if required. we could create then different sections in that article and list the countries where such problems exist.. like china, pakistan, vietnam, and too my surprise algeria and nigeria.. they are i believe the top 10 countries where software piracy is an issue. .. i then raised my objections about Gandhi's picture and when i was given information in that regard.. i said .. okie .. that works.. like another wikipedian said that Gandhi was against pakistan in the beginning but at the end .. said ..ok .. wahts done is done.. now move to the future.. Now for that person.. umm.. vampires...?? ohboy... ad here i thought watching buffy and angel was enough for me.. hmm.. about him being criminal to not be included.. i think many of pakistani historical leaders also went to prison during that era.. does that make them criminals also?? hmm.. also initially i said that the article should only have things related to pakistan.. because then i didnt knew the date of that picture nor the explaination behind it.. but Green giant accussed me of psuedo-nationalism and many other things.. but when i pointed out the fact that piracy is a global issue.. it should be taken in a global manner..no?? I did bash out related to being living in pakistan and understanding its system, because i believed that pakistanis may have a different idea about living in pakistan as compared to others.. for example.. many consider Musharaf to be corrupt and a dictator but the truth of the matter is that he literally saved pakistan from the brink on a big big mess.. with all corrupt political leaders like Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Sharif, Islamic parties and MQM.. he isnt really what one may think.. so it was related to that.. and my outburst in that regard was i believe partly justified.. because u cant just judge a book by its covers..however i do understand that sometimes an outside view is also appreciated. What was my problem with Green giant was that.. if you spent 4 months in pakistan.. about 4-5 years ago.. u dont know the current changes.... i mean.. right now.. cable piracy is being tackled in pakistan..although its still in its infancy.. work is being done for that.. and you can't just go right out and claim that nothing is being done.. it is .. BUT on a very small level.. thought not sufficient.. it's still better than nothing.. As for pakistan being a small country.. dont knw the statistics.. but along with india, china.. if u check out the world population article.. the subcontinent region is one of the most populated in the world.. so again.. looks are deceiving..:)). I infact had an interesting discussion with my indian friend in the lab.. we were talking about extremism in Islam.. and he said that he could understand their stand (he was saying that they believe in something).. i then explained to him that basically those who resort to this way .. (in pakistan... i mean.. are usually uneducated poor people who are easily manipulated by the politicians for their own agendas (educated ones too)..so its not their own beliefs but after a while they dont know the difference). i know its a whole new can of worms.. and not relevant perhaps.. just some opinions of my own.. and in the end.... please please . do remember . there are always all kinds of people... i dont know about my fellows pakistanis who initiated the discussions in the beginning.. but i would advice you all to remember that there are always 2 sides to a coin. ok moving on to other things.. i have a question related to Google maps / Google Earth images.. wouldn't it be cool if for each country / city.. we could add satellite images taken from google maps.. would it be a voilation of copy rights.. ?? i hope not, it would add to a very cool wikipedia feature.. And as far as the literature is considered.. i never remember that any historical books thought to us (Pakistan studies, history of Pakistan) take the point that Gandhi was a terrorist or anything. Alas, let me give u an interesting example.. Currently i am studying in France. as many of you know that France was invaded and occupied by Germany during the WW2.I dont know about WW1.. but in france u will see the border cities like Colmar and Strasbourgh to have heavy influence with respect to Germany.. Do the french hate germans... i dont think so... i didnt seen any bigotry in that regard..although they are strictly against English.:)).. but its cultural differences that they frown upon and not just hate them in a general sense.. whew.. that took a lot of time.. i sincerly hope i dont have to write a such a long reply again:)).. ciao PS 3:32pm: I came back to check if there was some reply.. again my comments were changed.. its good that i saved my comments on a notepad file..earlier..WTF.. write ur own damn comments.. Iquadri

Interesting, looking into the history of this page, it seems that several anonymous IPs are signing as User:Iquadri, for example, this edit. Perhaps it will remove the confusion a lot if you always choose to sign in and use ~~~~ to sign your comments. The comments left by anons need to be marked accordingly. Otherwise, any anon user can leave any type of message, but claim to be you. Thanks. --Ragib 13:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Even further!

Hi! IQuadri, that was a really long discourse. Anyway, may I request you something? As Ragib said, please sign your post by clicking the third button from righjt side on the buttin panel above the edit box. Or you may type the sign ~~~~ (4 tildes). In that case, your signature along with name will be automatically placed after the comments. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Great

Pakistan is appearing in the main page as Today's Featured article on 29 May. It's a great news for the editors who toiled to make the article an FA. Congrats.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan at the Winter Olympics

This article says "At the 2006 Winter Olympics, Pakistan sent two participants in alpine skiing to the Winter Olympics for the first time.". According to Nations not competing at the 2006 Winter Olympics (which lacks a source), the two participants hoped to compete but did not qualify. Would someone be able to check this out before this article hits the main page? Andjam 03:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

according to the 2006 Winter olympics web site @ http://www.torino2006.org/ENG/IDF/ATH/X01_ASI.html, Pakistan did not compete, so i guess the Pakistani atheletes might have not qualified. --digitalSurgeon 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

The reversion to the version by Hajiwaseem (as of 19:56, 18 May 2006) was done, as the changes following that version by 82.225.228.35 and Iquadri were major changes in an FA demanding prior discussion in the talk page. Also, the images introduced were placed in such a way that image of one section was pushed into another section (from the section "History" to the section "Government and Politics". Please discuss in the talk page before making any major changes, as this is a featured article going to be on the first page as Today's Featured Article very soon. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes.. i edited the name of the picture's in Jinnah's and Liaqut Ali Khan's pictures in Pakistan article.. But i think now the pictures have been omitted.. However.. it seems a good idea to mention Liaqut Ali Khan and Mohammed Ali Jinnah ( as they were the first Prime minister and Governer General of Pakistan respectively).. i think it seems better on the page and more relevant to the history of Pakistan..iquadri 19:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi Jinnah picture replacement

I replaced the picture with one that features Jinnah addressing the new state as it goes well with the history section which doesn't mention Gandhi. Tombseye 22:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes this image of Jinnah addressing to the nation is just perfect for the section. It's much mote historically trlevant than the Gandhi-Jinnah image, or, the solo image of Jinnah. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Does this page need a tourism section?

Seems kind of superfluous information as the other sections go over what there is in the country in terms of sites and the provinces sections do likewise. The article's getting too long and probably any added info. should be really relevant and useful. Tombseye 04:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The description of the country provides the reader with information regarding many aspects of tourism. No need for a seperate tourism. A link to the devoted tourism project of wikitravel is sufficient. Being a general encyclopedia, wikipedia should not contain any brochure-like material. Regards. --Dwaipayan (talk) 15:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the article did not have a section when it was chosen as a featured article. That was added later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Most of these country articles tend to get overlong as people start to add superfluous information for no particular reason that I can fathom other than to promote their country I would imagine. The article is fine the way it is at this point. Thanks for the input. Tombseye 18:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is no need for a tourism section. Perhaps a Tourism in Pakistan can be created and any pertinent information can be placed there. Also, there was a tourism section during the peer review phase of this article and was removed after several comments arguing against it. Pepsidrinka 02:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that I think would be okay since there are lots of countries with tourism articles. Just not on this page which looks great as it is and should be tinkered with only when absolutely necessary. Or so one would hope. Tombseye 06:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Pakistani repository of images

I am making an Asian repository of images. Please complete the Pakistan part as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:

I will be working on Iran's section. Thanx.--Zereshk 01:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A peculiar problem

I have found a peculiar problem with the way this page appears on the Interiot's Edit Counter. The problem that I am observing is that while seeing user contributions of any person in main-space, this article appears as "APakistan". Clicking on it leads to the page saying that this article does not exist. If someone can confirm this error, then we should contact Interiot and request him to fix this problem.

Note: To understand this, go to your edit count page using Interiot's tool. There, click "Main". Browse down to find this article. You will see that it appears as "APakistan" instead of "Pakistan". -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I have too seen this thing to happen!--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Failed state addition

I just reverted the edit by 203.135.0.66 where he deleted the "failed state" ranking report without any reasoning. However, I was wondering what the editors think in regards to including this in the article. Is the ranking significant enough to be part of the article? Maybe you guys can reach a consensus as it is going to be a pretty controversial topic. --Blacksun 21:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I find the notion of failed states is itself flawed as its criteria can be applied to almost any state in the world. Ethnic conflicts, sectarian violence, etc. are found in numerous countries, including even in the US and in Europe. Lebanon survived much worse and is still intact so it's demise was greatly exaggerated. And Pakistan is ranked higher than Afghanistan, which should raise some alarm bells in terms of how this survey is being conducted. The only way I can see there being any accuracy would be a complete lack of central government control and a spiralling into civil war, secessionist movements, and de facto break-up of said state. In other words, chaos. Otherwise, as I said, the definition makes little sense. It's like talking about Sam Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, which is also flawed since it's almost as if one is looking for something to indicate a clash of civilizations. Generally, if it's not found in most encyclopedias, including something of this type is pretty pointless. And Foreign Policy is a somewhat right-wing publication that often uses grand narrative and arbitrary concepts to pass judgement upon various countries in the world. I say get rid of it or put it in foreign relations of Pakistan or something. Tombseye 22:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I dont think that mentioning failed state thing in the article can be a vauable addition to the article, clearly the ranking of failed states is flawed, Pakistan got such a low(high) rank coz of the devestating earth quake and because we are helping the americans which has lead to unrest in areas mentioned in the report so in both cases these two reasons cant make Pak a failed state and with the second fastest growing economy in Asia, how can it be a failed state ? --digitalSurgeon 06:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The failed state logic is 2 pronged 1. Is the feudal nature of much of Pakistan's Western border and the use of the Feudal structure as a part of the govt's past governance. Now when Pakistan is trying to impose it's writ on this region the regional leadership is pushing back. The reasons might be different but much of Baluchistan and NWFP are places where the government cannot make it's writ run.

2. Parts of the govt being a law unto itself ( ie Army's perceived continued support to Taliban as well as the record of the Nuclear establishment in Nuclear proliferation.)

Now the larger issue is as to how this is worse than Afghanistan ( or Nepal) is more valid than to say that these reasons are not enough. Also how bad are these issues is a more pertinent issue to raise than to say they are not reasons at all. A mention on the article would not be wrong, however it should not be highlighted, the flaws for the rating can be also mentioned. The ranking is controversial in rating Pakistan as worse than Afghanistan as well as Nepal, and that damages it's credibility more than anything else, to deny it's existence would be counterproductive, to look at it objectively and point's it flaws would be more robust. Haphar 09:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Haphar: There are lots of states in India which are beyond the control of the Indian goverment such as Chattisgarh, Kashmir and Assam. I think India should be added to the list of failed states. Also I am from the NWFP and the government controls the province as well as Baluchistan. Sure a terroist can set off a bomb or fire rockets and then hide behind the bushes and claim that they are in control, but they are not. Regarding army and proliferation, those are defense and foreign policy issues, they do not impact on the entire country or society. I see this "Failed State" label as dependent on exaggerating 2 out of 100 issues and with the purpose more of insult than utility.

Don't think it would be appropriate to include all of that in this article. This article should be a summary. --Blacksun 15:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm bothered by the fact that people are willing to call Pakistan a failed state. I'm a Pakistani and I'm trying to be impartial here. I know we are not a perfect nation, that we have separatism threatening us everyday, that we have terrorism raging in the north, that Islamic fundamentalism is pouring in like crazy. I know we have made many bad decisions regarding Afghanistan, Bangladesh and sending in militants and stuff and I do know we are poor as crazy with an earthquake devastating a huge proportion of our population. But unlike many other states (such as Somalia), WE ARE AT LEAST TRYING TO MAKE DO WITH WHAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SUCCESSFUL STATE! We dont have much, we may not have much potential for outsourcing interests like India, but we at least do our damn best to hold our diverse state together and give it a reasonable economy. AND, WE ARE DOING IT BY OURSELVES, AS OPPOSED TO IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN. Afghan Historian 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Portmaneau

Category:Pakistan was inappropriately in Category:Portmanteaus. I was going to put Pakistan in the category in its place, but I can't find any evidence that Pakistan is actually a portmanteau. If it is, please put it in Category:Geographic portmanteaus (and probably should mention it in the article too). ~ Booya ^Bazooka 08:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Congrats editors

Just wanted to say that it's great to see an article like Pakistan as FA, whereas other articles battle with controversy, POV, and other needless edit wars. Wikipedia wins!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

map

The is wrong.

Regardless of the Kashmir issue and YOUR position on it -

1. 7 - azad kashmir depicts an area that is controlled by India. That is NOT Azad kashmir.
2. 8 - depicted ad northern aras, is in fact 'azad' kashmir, the area of kashmir that Pakistan has illegally occupied since 1948.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.39.48.2 (talk • contribs)

I wanted to check with those here wether there wold be objections to this India map for NPOV? It clearly shows the border claimed by both India and Pakistan and the area under its control. Should J&K be shaded different than the rest of India as with this one? -- ^{PlaneMad|YakYak} 10:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No reference given regarding Pakistan being the second most populous muslim country in the world

There is no proof or reference regarding Pakistan being the second most populous muslim country in the world. This source http://www.islamicweb.com/begin/population.htm shows that India has a larger muslim population than Pakistan and also shows that the former is the second most populous muslim nation.

This should be taken into consideration and if required, the necessary changes must be made.

Unitedroad 08:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain, but I think the term is in reference to overwhelmingly muslim countries, and that it has the second largest population of those, not that it has the gross second largest muslim population. I.e, Indonesia, then Pakistan. Iorek85 08:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The statement refers to the fact that Pakistan is the second largest muslim country in the world while India is the third largest. According to the the following links used in wiki Pakistan and India pages. Total Indian population (which is more than the natinal indian statistics) = 1222878934. Of which 12% is listed to be muslim or 146745472 as compared to Pakistan's 160,829,453 or 97% of 165,803,560 (July 2006 est.). Following are the links:

http://www.popfound.org/pop_clock.html

http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15092001/29.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population

http://www.zackvision.com/weblog/2003/02/muslim-population.html

http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/pco/

omerlivesOmerlives 08:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The statments states that Pakistan is the second most populous "muslim" country, with emphasis on being a muslim country, not a country with more muslim population. India is a secular state --digitalSurgeon 14:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree when we talk of population strength of a particular group vis a vis a country, the political ideology doesnot come into play. Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and Senegal too are officially secular. Pakistan is the 2nd largest muslim country by virtue of numerical strength and India is the 3rd largest, China is the 13th or 14th largest muslim country. omerlivesOmerlives 14:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan has over 98% Muslim population and the estimated population in 2006 is 166 million. That calculates to about 163 million Muslims. This figure does not include over 3 million Muslim Afghan refugees that have permanently settled in Pakistan. This figure also does not include hundreds of thousands of Muslim refugees from Iran, Bangladesh, and Myanmar (Burma) that have also settled in Pakistan. Pakistan birthrate is higher is also higher than that of India (or Indian Muslim birthrate). India may had more Muslims than Pakistan upto 1980s but starting in 1990s Pakistan has taken second position after Indonesia with largest Muslim population.

Siddiqui 14:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

AD/CE?

In the course of the day, one of the years has been changed from 712 CE to AD 712 - what's Wikipedia policy here? MBlume 19:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's suggested that articles should remain consistent when using AD-BC/CE-BCE (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)). I've changed it back as per the Manual of Style. - Rudykog 08:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, thanks MBlume 21:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Sports

The official sport of Pakistan is field hockey - official in just exactly which way? Is there a law? wonders--Janneman 16:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, almost every country declares some sport as its official sport. I'm not sure of the law, but these type of things are found in the constitution usually. --Ragib 16:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

frankly, I don't know of a single constitution that mentions a "national" pastime.--Janneman 18:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's official in the same sense (for now) that English is the US's official language. MBlume 19:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

it's not official sport, it's national sport, that was once popular with pakistanis --digitalSurgeon 14:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The first line of this section should be edited - in particular, cricket is popular stands out. The last four lines lie somewhere between being out of context and irrelevant, especially the last line. Tintin (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Grammatical mistake. "The biggest rival of Pakistan in cricket are India". You can't use are for a single country.

Mention of Squash

There is not a good mention of Pak's squash achievements in the sports section, is some one up to the task ? --digitalSurgeon 00:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Repository of images

Greetings,

I have made an Asian repository of images, similar to the one that exists for Europe. Please complete the part pertaining to this country as you see fit, preferably similar to those of France, Britain et al:

Thanx.--Zereshk 14:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Pro-Indian Bias

Map of Pakistan is not the one used by the United Nations. There is a need to balance this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maakhter (talk • contribs)

Unless you clearly state which image is the one you do not like, and what exactly is your rationale (not your vaguely worded sentence above), I am going to revert the tag. Thanks you. --Ragib 03:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the official UN Map of Pakistan is EXACTLY the same as Image:PakistanNumbered.png. I should rather say this image (Image:PakistanNumbered.png) shows the Pakistan govt stand point ... the UN map has Azad Kashmir and northern areas shown in dotted lines, with a note saying:

The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations. Dotted line represents approximately the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir agreed upon by India and Pakistan. The final status of Jammu and Kashmir has not yet been agreed upon by the parties.

So, I have reverted your disputed tag. Thank you. --Ragib 03:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with everything Maakhter said apart from his title of the section. This map shows Pakistan-administered Kashmir with the same color as the rest of Pakistan, and draws the provincial borders of Northern Areas in the same style as other provinces in Pakistan. This map tends to convert the LoC into a permanent border, and fails to show the Northern Areas and Pakistan-administered Kashmir as disputed regions. See any Indian map on wikipedia for comparision. deeptrivia (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagging of Articles by Maakhter

Please have a look at the following:

I have provided specific criticism for each and every article I tagged. In many articles wrong map is used. I cannot write an article about the use of incorrect maps. All I need to do is to tag and then raise the issue in the discussion.

Here is an example:

Article labeld ‘Terrorism in Kashmir’ is biased and represents pro-Indian View.

For example “India says that over the last two years, a militant group, Lashkar-e-Toiba has split into two factions: Al Mansurin and Al Nasirin. Another new militant group reported to have emerged is the Save Kashmir Movement. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen (formerly known as Harkat-ul-Ansar) and Lashkar-e-Toiba are believed to be operating from Muzaffarabad, Azad Kashmir and Muridke, Pakistan respectively.[6] Other less well known groups are the Freedom Force and Farzandan-e-Milat. A smaller militant group, Al Badr, has been active in Kashmir for many years and is still believed to be functioning.”

How much space are you going to provide to explain Pakistani point of view?

There is also a huge list of anti-Pakistani films and books in this article as well.

Maakhter 03:40, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

United Nations

Here is what the United Nations thinks about this dispute. People who want to contribute should use facts. This is not a space to express personal opinion.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/missions/unmogip/docs.html

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/bnote.htm

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/dpko/unmogip.pdf

Thanks.

Maakhter 03:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Repetition of Same Mistakes

Same mistakes are committed in all of the articles I have tagged. It is not necessary to repeat same arguments in each tagging.

I have also posted the above to you in your talk page.

Maakhter 05:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Map of Pakistan

I have seen the map of Pakistan at the following web-page of United Nations.

http://www.un.org/Depts/Cartographic/map/profile/pakistan.pdf

The above web-page confirms my point of view. This map clearly shows line of control and does not show Azad (Independent) Kashmir (Pakistani controlled Kashmir) as a part of India.

Maakhter 05:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Extreme Poverty

Majority of Pakistanis live in poverty and a big segment(25%) live in extreme poverty. After all poverty in Pakistan does not have the same meaning poverty in say the UK. I think that needs to be included in this article as well as some pictures. Currently the article presents too pretty a picture of Pakistan, and I think that is deceitful. Comment by user dargay(not logged in).

According to the new World Bank figures, Pakistan's poverty rate is 17% and not 25% as complained by you. Pakistan is way better off than miserable India which has a poverty rate at exactly at 35%. We want to present a pretty picture of Pakistan. Thank you very much. Here is the link: Economic Report Card- Advil 1:52 am, 04 August 2006

Why does almost every talk in or about Pakistan or its economy have to involve a reference or try to compare with India? The User:Dargay was trying to point out the flaws from his viewpoint and to the best of my knowledge he is a Pakistani, not an Indian. Just an observation on this; while Pakistan was economically slightly better off than India for several decades, the trend seems to have reversed and the source you provide will show that India has overtaken Pakistan in per capita income. --Idleguy 06:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The way the Pakistani economy is running with the help of Middle East and US investments surely, Pakistan will overtake India in per capita income as well. God willing! --Advil 2:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

If I were you I wouldn't be trusting the US to help the nation in the long run. After all it was USA's crippling sanctions - among other major factors - that reduced Pakistan's once decent economy to the current state of affairs. Tomorrow if Musharaff goes then USA might very well do the same cuz US' foreign policy is designed only to help them not the others. Much as many people might not like him, he is akin to what Saddam was in Iraq, the moment he is thrown out of power all hell will break loose. And you could see a "coalition" led by USA trying to attack Pakistan. Who knew that Saddam's Iraq, which was once supported by USA would be attacked twice by them or that the Taliban and Mujahideen whom the Americans once proudly helped would be attacked by the very nation USA. With USA's forein policies, it's support today, gone tommorrow. Only God could save you then. --Idleguy 07:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

God only saves the stronge. And, we are building a stronge Pakistan. --Advil 3:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that all hell will break loose.. Musharaff is a decent guy.. yet one man cannot change the whole system without any support. I do not support your claim that he is like Saddam hussain.. The state of Pakistan and Iraq is very very different.. In this regard, educated pakistanis have to help him rebuild the nation and make it stronger..And yes .. we do trust in God, and Allah helps those who help themselves..I however do support your claim that US foreign policies are totally manipulative in nature, first Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan and now Lebanon..sigh...iquadri 10:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Title Change

how do you change the title of a wikipedia page? thanks. --Saqib22 11:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan have also won the cricket world cup in 1994

Not really Saqib,, we only won it one time in 1992.. check the statistics..iquadri 11:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Change Of Format?

I was reading the wiki article on the USSR, PRC and was very inspired by them and I feel that this article could do well by following a similar layout. (I would be happy to help!)

There should be science and technology section listing pakistans contribution to science, Ie Abdus salams electroweak theory for which he won nobel prize (pakistan first nobel winner), Mahboob ul haqs invention of the HDI which is used throughout the world as a measure of human development, others include pakistan splitting the atom (though pakistan was not the first, its still an achievement most nations have not yet acomplished), The worlds first PC virus was a boot sector virus called (c)Brain, created in 1986 by two brothers, Basit and Amjad Farooq Alvi, operating out of Lahore, Pakistan. These achievements should be mentioned.

Also there should be a mention of infastructural development in the economy section, pakistan has acomplished many great engieering feats such as the KKH (Karakorum highway) which is called one of the wonders of the world and links Pakistan and china through the himalayas, the others include the Tarbela dam (The largest earth-filled dam in the world!), The Mangla Dam in Pakistan is the twelfth largest dam in the world, Pakistan also has the largest Irrigation system in the world!

Lastly Im not very amused with the task bar on the top right handside of the page which lists pakistan independence as of only 1947, Pakistan is the successor state of half a dozen Muslim dynasties and empires and kingdoms, the task bar under the heading independence should have a layout similar to the one below.

Independence:

- Abassid Empire 711-962 
- Ghaznavid Empire 962–1187  
- Ghorid Kingdom 1187-1206  
- Delhi Sultanate 1210-1526  
- Mughal Empire 1526-1707
- British empire 1707- August 14 1947 

The Islamic colonization and settlement of the areas that is now Pakistan was very similar to the European colonization and settlement of North America, The native Indians were lost thier land similar to the Indians of America, A new script, language, people, culture and relgion was introduced to a new world/continent which until then was non-islamic, The states that make up Pakistan and that were part of Pakistan ie east pakistan joined Pakistan just like more and more states joined America, ie 13 American states and now 52 states.

Best Regards

Something Funny about (na)pakistan

It sounds very funny that (na)pakistan wants to be like turkey-a 'SECULAR' muslim country.But far from it (na)pak's army is still forming it's foreign policy(shrinked to INDIA Policy only) by seeing through the prism of religion.Well whole World knows that (na)pakistan can never be a secular country.The coward army of (na)pakistan is of no use in front of any country(Remember 1971 - 90,000 of these rats dropped there pants in front of The INDIANS & The World) but brave enough to kill one individual after other & that too only in (na)pakistan with the help of American arms.

Do something Drop a bomb or 2 on INDIA & stop Begging Kashmir.But I can understand old habits (Begging for (na)pakistan in this case)Die Hard.

Writing here & there(that too only about INDIA) gives enough satisfaction to there the pseudo-intellectuals [intellectuals in (na)pak] that they are in a way conributing to the INDIA's ills.But stupids they don't understand that by spreading there vicious campaign of hatred they are only multiplying there pains.

'We know that the nature of genius is to provide idiots with ideas twenty years later - Louis Aragon'

May ALLAH gives (na)pakistan a peaceful death.Ameeeeeeeeen

Please don't make these kinds of attacks. They detract from the purpose of wikipedia. Thanks.Hkelkar 08:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)