Talk:Pakistan Army/Archive 1

Remove helicopters from the infobox

Why to place a list of helicopters flown by Pakistan in the general infobox? I suggest that that list should be removed.

Ranks of Commissioned Officers

Do not add the rank of Field Marshal in the Ranks section as this rank existed before but ended with Ayub Khan and now the highest rank within the army is General. There is no rank called the Field Marshal now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paksoldier (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to create a page for Corps of Engineers

I am humbly requesting to create a page for Corps of Engineers with the with the names of Corps of Engineers, Pakistan Army or Pakistan Army Corps of Engineers. The Corps of Engineers is one the important Corps of Pakistan Army. It has credited to build, constructed and contributed in numerous civil and military engineering projects in Pakistan. I am also adding the Corps of Engineer's Link:

• Corps of Engineers

So, please, to any Wikipedia administrator, read my request to create a page for Corps of Engineers. I would really appreciated it, Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.198.147 (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Nishan-I-Haider

It should not be translated as "Sign of Lion", should be translated as "Sign of Haider". Haider was a title given to Ali, who was known for his bravery.

Pakistan Army to Pakistani Army

Doesn't it make more sense if it were "Pakistani" Army than Pakistan Army. Its not France Army it is French Army.

The material is biased. Pakistan was attacked in 1965 by India; India crossed line of control, and not vice versa. The indian army has always been three times the army of Pakistan. ~~

Very biased indeed...probably written by some Pakistan hating Indian.

well i seems it the person written the above statments probably has seen the indian side of the picture. In the 1965 and 1971 both, India was first to launch offence. In the 1999 Kargil's war, it seems, was initiated by both conntries equally. and among the two out of three wars (1965, 1999), india was also the first to involve UN for ceasefire as well. In 1971 war, Pakistan was not prepared for the war, as it was not declared and did sustain damages.

wow pakistanis r civilsed too jk we all see the war at different view points if we haggle with the data of our old wars there wont be the initiative to prevent the new ones.every war fought damages india and pakistan irreconcilably it smashes our economy annd kills our brothers i wd advocate peaceful settlement rather than wars but there is testosterone......... leo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.144.28.15 (talk • contribs)

Umm.. why isn't there a history section?

Note : For my Indian friends, Please concentrate over your state and your army, don't get indulge with the affairs of Pakistan. You won't like if we jump to your section and start criticising your Army. Please show some maturity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atheistbyfaith (talk • contribs) 13:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Dear Pakistani friends, Nobody is here to criticise. you are free to jump over to our section and state your views. The problem arises only when a foreign army jumps over to our territory. No pun intended. Thank you. Burkat —Preceding comment was added at 07:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pakistani friends, Nobody is here to criticise. you are free to jump over to our section and state your views. The problem arises only when a foreign army jumps over to our territory. No pun intended. Thank you. Burkat —Preceding comment was added at 07:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

guys i have just one problem!!! the history of pakistan army... please look at it and look at the other army histories... the biggest artical is in between 70'z where we lost,,,, not a single thing about 65 achievements!!! and please do check it out again!! and why is all the things about army so negative!!! when i read it,, it sounds depressing!!! there is a lot of loser approach followed in this artical!!! and this is not for every one!!! those who have written it can better understand!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JANJ (talk • contribs) 12:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Almost done with this Article

I spend a couple of days and really fixing up this article and brought it with parity like the Israeli Army and Indian Army or British Army articles. Indepth details about troop formations, women and minorities, etc. have been added. There is still a few missing info in regards to the Corps Commanders. I have looked all over the net but can't find who are the commanders for the missing Corps. But aside from this, the article is throughly complete. Let me know, if there is anything else that needs to be added

Good work on expanding it. But there is an issue with the images uploaded by you. A sizeable portion of them are untagged (and may be listed for deletion). The tagged ones say copyrighted, but free to use. Can you please provide the exact email or correspondence from the original author/copyright holders agreeing to its use for any purpose? Thanx. Idleguy 06:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fixed the pictures

Hi,

Actually I forgot to select the lisence types for the pictures. The pictures are free to use, as long as proper citations is given to the authors. I made the appropriate changes Also, a lot of the images that I uploaded, I got them from wikipedia. For example, the G3, Al-Khalid Tank, Al-Talha, and the Shaheen II pics are all pics previously posted on wikipedia. I created the image files using the same filenames. As for the rest, SSG picture, anza mk2 came from pakistan defence website. They have allowed pictures to be posted from their site on wikipedia, so I saw no harm in posting more pics from their site on wikipedia. I am new to wikipedia, so I forgot to choose the type of license. The remaining 2 pics, the one of the female major-general, the american artillery and the chinese mortar are all from newspapers.

Let me know, if this is ok.

Asked Permission

Ok,

I have e-mailed www.pakistanidefence.com

for their permission to use the images on this site.

If I get a positive response, I will let you know.

Thanx

Research and inputs required

Dear all interested to improve this article, as for the present controvercial involvement of Pakistani army in some operations carried out within pakistani borders, can someone help in listing out all those with references? I think it will be good to add a section listing armed operations done be pakistan army, with dates and minor details, this list will also complement the raised concern about adding History of Pakistan Army to this article.

The list can then be sub divided into two parts, one being the list of successful operations and the other being the list of failures.

I am sure the list with successful operations will have all those carried out within pakistani borders, or perhaps those carriedout under the flag of UN. The other list though will be longer, Any Contributions please? Mkashifafzal 10:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wars?

No one has mentioned anything about the war's or anything which happens to have fighting in it..can someone mention someithing about wars??Tere naam 00:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.pakforces.tk
  • In Pakistan Army on Mon Jul 17 15:33:55 2006, HTTP Error: HTTP/1.0 bad gateway

• • In Pakistan Army on Thu Jul 27 00:50:11 2006, HTTP Error: HTTP/1.0 bad gateway

---

maru (talk) contribs 04:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Military history of the army?

Pak navy and pak air force have separate sections in the respective articles discussing about their histories. Yet pak army doens't have a history section. Instead the link "main article" under History leads to Military history of Pakistan which is a related but a different article about the entire military history. So did the specific history of pakistan army fall somewhere into the crevice? Idleguy 07:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the military history of pakistan was originally designed to be history of the pakistan army. but i kept modifying it and decided to make into a military history of pakistan. I am gonna have to write up a new section about the history of the pakistan army Mercenary2k 19:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan had no existence before 1947,so it's army. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.217.189 (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice work u guys

nice work, i wrote to dawn when i checked this document the last time urging it to encourage ppl with the neccesary skills to correct this document and the many others that are biased, 203.128.255.4 00:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No need for Major Generals' name list

I just deleted the list of major general's (which was old and incomplete), because I feel it puts too much useless info for Pakistan Army. Only lieutenant generals (which number to THIRTY!) are worthy enough to put up in the article. BTW, I updated the list as of April 2007. Razzsic 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Does it make any difference when this is already available in market on net.--203.81.202.116 07:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)andy

No need for "other commanders" name list either

Why do we have an entire section for the "other commanders" in the article? Completely unnecessary in my opinion; it should be removed to streamline the article. People that are interested in the other commanders will visit their article page themselves, no need to include it in the main PAK Army page.

Zaindy87 22:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

ofcourse there is no need to display the names of other commanders.this is due to security reasons mainly.one has got nothing to do with it. KINDLY REMOVE THE PAKISTAN FLAG FROM THIS SITE. A QUESTION AP SE PAKISTANI NATION KI JAN KAB CHHOOTAY GI? AB MOAF BHI KR DO. AND LAST ONE

AP LOGE( YE COMMANDERS, GENERALS ETC, NOT SOLDIERS) MUNAQAT KA SRAY AAM MUZAHIRAY KR K CONFIDANT NAZR AANAY KI KOSHISH KIUN KARTAY HAN. SUB KO PTA HA K TUM LOGE PERLAY DARJAY K BUD DIANAT HO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.45.13.163 (talk) 12:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

copyright problem

This article is in large part identical to the article found at http://www.defence.pk/Pakistan_Army/. This could be a copyright violation (unless it turns out that the copyrighted source actually copied material from Wikipedia). If indeed the majority of this article has been copied from http://www.defence.pk/Pakistan_Army/ than the copied material must be removed, as keeping it would be a violation of the Wikipedia copyright policy. I informed the Wikipedia:Copyright problems board about this and invite- whoever uploaded the material in question- to participate in the discussion there. --noclador 21:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I find this similarity puzzling. The intro to the article has been roughly the same, and VERY similar to the referenced page, since at least April 2006 [2]. And the history shows that the article has morphed in a natural fashion from the reasonably-different version of February 2006 [3], with no clear dividing line where chunks of content were copied into the article. The defence.pk article was written by "WebMaster", and last updated May 25; the Internet Archive knows nothing about it.

Unless the webmaster complains about the article, I'll assume that no copying of his content into Wikipedia has occured. This article has a LONG history. --Alvestrand 20:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Format of article

I have moved some of the sections around in this article based on the US Army article. The Army motto/combat doctrine/command structure should be at the top of the article because this articles main focus is the Army of today. There is a separate article for the military history of Pakistan.

Like the US Army article, the command structure and organization of the army should be at the top.Zaindy87 11:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Deployment to Arab countries

I notice there's a reference in the header to the Pakistani army deploying to Arab countries, but the only reference I can find is to the 1979 Mecca crisis. Perhaps somebody could come up with some more information on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hughteg (talk • contribs) 00:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of Helicopters in Pakistan army aviation

I believe the number of Ah-1's you have listed is incorrect. There are only 39 (approx) in service and not 72. There is no reference in the DSCA website for the this number of acquisitions. Also in the April 2007 issue of AFM the following was printed.

Ex-US Army Cobras delivered to Pakistan Army: A formal ceremony was held at Qasim AA Base, near Islamabad on Feb 2 to mark the handover of 8 re-furbished former US Army Bell AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters to the Pakistan Army. These helicopters are the 1st batch of a TOTAL of 20 refurbished AH-1Fs that are being supplied under a $50 mill FMS programme. All previously were held in storage at Fort Drum, New York awaiting re-sale. they comprise: 79-23228,79-23239,80-23516,80-23519,80-23521,81-23526,81-22527,81-23537,82-24065,82-24066,82-24067,82-24069,82-24071,82-24072,82-24073,82-24074,83-24190,83-24196,83-24198 and 83-24199. Apart of the same FMS contract, a further 20 AH-1Fs from Fort Drum were also acquired by Pakistan PURELY FOR SPARES USE. During late 2004, all 20 of the helicopters that were to be made air-worthy were moved by road from Fort Drum to Jacksonville, Florida. they were then transported by ship to San Juan, Puerto Rico, before going on to the local DynCorp international facility at Aguadilla for re-furbishment. Eight of the AH-1Fs that are to be used purely as spares ships (79-23221,79-23229,79-23231,79-232248,80-23514,81-23528,81-23530 and 83-24195) were also delivered to DynCrop in Puerto-Rico to be stripped by the company for component recovery. the remaining 12 spares donors (identities un-confirmed) are thought to have been shipped direct to Pakistan. DynCorp is also incorporating several upgrades into the 20 helicopters that are being made air-worthy. this modernisation includes fitting C-NITE (Cobra Night Imaging Thermal Equipment) target designation system for use in bad weather or at night, radar warning receivers and replacement UHF/VHF radios. Pakistan has previously taken delivery of 20 AH-1S Cobras which entered service from late 1984. Nineteen are reported to be still operational - one having presumably been lost through attrition. the type is operated by 31 and 32 squadrons, both based at Multan.

So the correct number ois 20 + the original number of ah-1's Keysersoze25 10:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Number of Helicopters in Pakistan army aviation

I believe the number of Ah-1's you have listed is incorrect. There are only 39 (approx) in service and not 72. There is no reference in the DSCA website for the this number of acquisitions. Also in the April 2007 issue of AFM the following was printed.

Ex-US Army Cobras delivered to Pakistan Army: A formal ceremony was held at Qasim AA Base, near Islamabad on Feb 2 to mark the handover of 8 re-furbished former US Army Bell AH-1F Cobra attack helicopters to the Pakistan Army. These helicopters are the 1st batch of a TOTAL of 20 refurbished AH-1Fs that are being supplied under a $50 mill FMS programme. All previously were held in storage at Fort Drum, New York awaiting re-sale. they comprise: 79-23228,79-23239,80-23516,80-23519,80-23521,81-23526,81-22527,81-23537,82-24065,82-24066,82-24067,82-24069,82-24071,82-24072,82-24073,82-24074,83-24190,83-24196,83-24198 and 83-24199. Apart of the same FMS contract, a further 20 AH-1Fs from Fort Drum were also acquired by Pakistan PURELY FOR SPARES USE. During late 2004, all 20 of the helicopters that were to be made air-worthy were moved by road from Fort Drum to Jacksonville, Florida. they were then transported by ship to San Juan, Puerto Rico, before going on to the local DynCorp international facility at Aguadilla for re-furbishment. Eight of the AH-1Fs that are to be used purely as spares ships (79-23221,79-23229,79-23231,79-232248,80-23514,81-23528,81-23530 and 83-24195) were also delivered to DynCrop in Puerto-Rico to be stripped by the company for component recovery. the remaining 12 spares donors (identities un-confirmed) are thought to have been shipped direct to Pakistan. DynCorp is also incorporating several upgrades into the 20 helicopters that are being made air-worthy. this modernisation includes fitting C-NITE (Cobra Night Imaging Thermal Equipment) target designation system for use in bad weather or at night, radar warning receivers and replacement UHF/VHF radios. Pakistan has previously taken delivery of 20 AH-1S Cobras which entered service from late 1984. Nineteen are reported to be still operational - one having presumably been lost through attrition. the type is operated by 31 and 32 squadrons, both based at Multan.

So the correct number is 20 + the original number of ah-1's (39/40 total) Keysersoze25 10:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The helicopter inventory is wrong, very big numbers of helicopters are given. Also the same at tanks and artillery inventory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.7.50 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Milan ATGM

There have never been Milan ATGM's Pakistani service. I believe this to be a carryover from a error on another website.Keysersoze25 18:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistral and other missile errors

The Mistral missile was acquired by the navy and not the army. The same is true of the Crotale which is in use by the PAF and not the army.

The army has acquired the RBS23 BAMSE system which is not mentioned, and the air force, the SPADA 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keysersoze25 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Khemkarancaptured.jpg

Image:Khemkarancaptured.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Horribly Written!

Frankly, this article is so horribly written with comments like "That war was a comic war" and "that war was funny" and stuff like that.. Hello, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia!!!!! 59.92.0.181 (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

History

I'm sorry people but the history section needs either re-writing or deleting with a link to the main history article. It is not fit for an encyclopaedic entry. If no-one objects, I will delete it. AJKGORDON«» 12:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see Mercenary2k has done both. Excellent work. AJKGORDON«» 10:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Fauji Foundation

Please forgive my ignorance and naivete. What does "Fauji Foundation" have to do with the "Political Power of the Pakistani Army"? I have certain conjectures but the article does not "connect the dots" to make the linkage clear. Can someone clarify the relationship if there is indeed one? --Richard (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am deleting the section until such time as relevance is demonstrated - with supporting, reliable references).

The deleted material is appended here, below:

=== Fauji Foundation ===

Fauji Foundation (established in 1954) is a charitable trust, operating on a completely self sustaining basis, channeling approximately 80% of the profits from commercial ventures into social protection programmes that serve a beneficiary population representing approximately 7% of the country’s population.

Spending more than Rs. 21 billion since inception on welfare, the Foundation provides services in the areas of healthcare, education, educational stipends, technical and vocational training.

• Over 2.1 million patients treated per year through the FF Healthcare System
• Approximately 38,000 students enrolled in the FF Education System
• Approximately 70,000 educational stipends dispersed each year
• Over 6,000 individuals trained annually through the Vocational & Technical Training Centres

Considered the most sustainable social protection mechanism in the country, Fauji Foundation provides welfare services to approximately 10 million individuals on a completely sustainable basis. Running autonomously for over 50 years, the foundation has been providing healthcare, education, vocational and technical training to over 7% of the country’s population through 294 welfare projects.

JTGILLICK (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nit-pick re Article Title

I know this isn't very important. Anyhow: Should this article not be called 'Army of Pakistan' like all of the other nation's military's articles? Contralya (talk) 18:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think there is a need for that but it should be in its correct adjective form (i.e Pakistani Army).--Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ghost divisions

Over the last few weeks two new divisions seem to have appeared on the ORBAT of this page, vi 25th and 26th mechanised divison in V and XXXI Corps. I have never heard of them, they certainly were not there last year, and until someone shows me evidence for their raising I am deleting those.

58.65.163.248 (talk) 14:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk to Razzsic before you do. I think he primarily takes care of this article. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 00:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

26th Mechanized Division is stationed in Bahawalpur as part of XXXI Corps. I have added the reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarChaser (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

OT-64

Does anybody know if the Pakistani Army used the OT-64 SKOT APC? Mieciu K (talk) 14:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)..............."YOU ALSO MISSED THE INFORMATION ABOUT AIRCRAFTS & MISSILE WHICH PAKISTAN HAS"

Level of competency and loyalty among soldiers

In an article in Asia Times Online[4] it is stated that only Pashtun soldiers are deployed to the north-eastern tribal areas because the Punjabi soldiers don't understand the language and area there. Furthermore, the article states, and attests this with the existence of video footage, that Pashtun soldiers are disinclined to fight against local Pashtun tribesmen: "There is detailed footage of how easily the Pakistani armed forces laid down their arms. After surrender, once their commanders had been removed, they mingled with the militants." I wonder if there is some place for this perspective in the present article? __meco (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

you can try to mention that in war against terrorism the article covers overall history and operation of Pakistan Army and not just a few battle fields. One cannot speculate so called "Level of competency and loyalty among soldiers" by just few politically motivated articles, one has to view the big picture. As an example, if Norwegian Army cannot secure even a small base at Afghanistan in war against terrorism, they cannot be bashed with incompetency or loyalty or professionalism. Sarmadhassan (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Air Defense Command

Is Air Defense Command considered a CORPS in Pakistan Army?

I think Pak Army consists of Ten Corps including the Strategic Forces Corps.

Please comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarChaser (talk • contribs) 08:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not find a source and determine it, rather than mere speculation? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

False reporting

"During the rule of General Yahya Khan, the Bengalis of East Pakistan protested against various political and economic expooitations by West Pakistan and massive civil unrest broke out in East Pakistan. In an attempt to quell the uprisings, Pakistan Army carried out Genocide and human rights abuses in East Pakistan"

          This article mentions that Pakistani Army Carried Out Atrocities and genocide against East Pakistanis which is not according to the reality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.97.17 (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC) 

Non-neutral content under "political and corporate interests" section

"Political interests" section:

• Pakistani "defence journal" source cited but none of it's content reflected in the article.
• Rediff source used to back claims, written by Indian author and published by Indian source.
• Second two paragraphs cite no source, so can be deleted.

"Commercial interests" section:

• Footnote 19 cites a forum post - not allowed, first 14 lines can be deleted.
• Footnote 20 cites a book but gives no page numbers. The book is written by notoriously anti-military author "Ayesha Siddiqa" yet this is not reflected in the article text.
• Footnote 21 is a dead link to a Washington Post article that could no be found by myself after a brief search on the washington post website.

--Hj108 (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Non-neutral" content under political and corporate interests section

"Political interests" section:

• Pakistani "defence journal" source cited but none of it's content reflected in the article.

-Agreed (I did not contribute that statement)

• Rediff source used to back claims, written by Indian author and published by Indian source.

- Please try to be objective and counter the claims made in the "Indian source" with facts and figures. The source has cited allegations made by the ruling party. The GHQ has never tried to clarify or contradict these in any press conf/press release (quite unlike the prompt response to Kerry-Lugar bill) The facts also supported by the following links: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/200504/P1_ss3.htm http://www.satribune.com/archives/Aug17_23_02/P1_landgrabbing.htm#top http://www.satribune.com/archives/jul06_12_03/opinion_amin.htm

• Second two paragraphs cite no source, so can be deleted.

The second paragraph is well nown fact in the history of Pakistan. The General did defy the Quaid-e-Azam and the fact has been cited in the parliment of Pakistan by several members |(Aitzaz Ahsan, Khwaja Asif) and never countered by the GHQ/ISPR. The third paragraph is also well known history. Please rad any Pakistan Studies text book and verify the facts if in doubt.

Commercial interests section:

• Footnote 19 cites a forum post - not allowed, first 14 lines can be deleted.

-The source may be a forum post but cites facts and figures.

• Footnote 20 cites a book but gives no page numbers. The book is written by notoriously anti-military author "Ayesha Siddiqa" yet this is not reflected in the article text.

- Please try to counter the claims made by the "notoriously anti-army" author. Also the description "notoriously anti-military" is a personal opinion-not enough reason to dismiss contents without counter arguments. The author is a well known researcher and the source cited is a well researched book published by the Oxford Uni. Press.

• Footnote 21 is a dead link to a Washington Post article that could no be found by myself after a brief search on the washington post website.

-The article has been published in Washington Post and its hard copy is available with their archives. There may be problems in the link for a while. Also, the facts presented in the artile have not been contested by the army/ISPR/GHQ

Please try to appriciate that this is an objective article and not an advertisment for Pakistan Army. Objective facts, even those not going in the organization's favor should be reported to give the readers a complet picture —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnighthawk (talk • contribs) 08:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Please try to appreciate that I want this to be an objective article, that's why I want to remove all the UNCITED text and give the section a neutral tone.

• Removed uncited text from "political interests" section.
• Tweaked lines on accusations by political parties to give a neutral tone. Mentioned that they are accusations.
• Commented out text RE Musharraf "making off" with state gifts worth "millions". What does this have to do with political interests of the army?
• Removed 14 lines of text in "commercial interests" section which uses a link to a forum (http://www.paklinks.com/gs/military-strategic-issues/249384-who-ruling-poor-nation-pakistan-army-genrals.html) - this is NOT an acceptable source as per Wikipedia policy.
• Removed text whose cited source is a dead link. Could not find it in the Washington Post archives after a brief search.
• Added a line and a source representing what real Pakistanis, who live in Pakistan, think about the political system, rather than just what Midnighthawk thinks.

--Hj108 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Edited the line on the "source representing what real Pakistanis think" to attribute the statement to the "source" and not present it as a sweeping statement. The statement is not supported by facts and figures in the original article by Pamela Constable and Kamran Khan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnighthawk (talk • contribs) 07:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan Army Size

Pakistan's Army Size is 550,000 men with 528,000 in reserve. Your reference of Zardari stating Pakistan has 700,000 troops is misleading because in Pakistan Army and Military are used interchangeably. All reputable sources state that Pakistan's Army is 550,000 men with 528,000 in reserve. Please find another source besides Zardari and then we can incorporate it. An off hand comment cannot carry more weight than reputable defense and strategic organizations. By the way, I am Pakistani. So there is no bias. And I pretty much created this article. Thanks for understanding. Mercenary2k (talk) 08:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the PA is always referred to as a ~500,000 man army? I agree with Mercenary2k.

--Hj108 (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

drones

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hcljwrNIKXck1_9cUZAIRHNXumJA

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/asia/22gates.html

http://www.mercurynews.com/politics-government/ci_14241547Mughalnz (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Waseem.Azhar, 21 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The uniform of a Pakistan army soldier exhibits much information. The qualification badges may be seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-badges.htm while decoration and awards conferred are given at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-awards.htm and finally his rank is judged from shoulder epaulet as may be seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-rank.htm.

The interservice equivalence of Pakistan Defence forces ranks is available at http://www.paf.gov.pk/ranks.html.

Waseem.Azhar (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Great information, but how would you propose we work it into the article?

 Not done till we know what to change. ^Avicenna_sis @ 02:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Waseem.Azhar (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC) The information at "Organization + Rank Structure" or alternatively "Personnel + Personnel Training + Officer Ranks" may also contain "The interservice equivalence of Pakistan Defence forces ranks is available at http://www.paf.gov.pk/ranks.html." before coresspondingly describing the structure of "Organization + Army Units" or "Personnel + Personnel Training + Uniforms".

Whereas under the headings "Personnel + Personnel Training + Uniform" more information may be provided as "The uniform of a Pakistan army soldier exhibits much information. The qualification badges may be seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-badges.htm while decoration and awards conferred are given at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-awards.htm and finally his rank is judged from shoulder epaulet as may be seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-rank.htm. before proceeding to the next section i.e. "Personnel + Personnel Training + Ethnic Composition". 175.107.3.134 (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Following two additions are suggested: 1- At the end of section on "Officer ranks" please add "The Pakistani defence service officers usually wear badges of rank on the shoulder epaulettes." 2- At the end of section on "Uniforms" please add "The uniform of a Pakistan army soldier exhibits much information i.e. The qualification badges, the decorations & awards conferred and finally the rank.".

Edit request from 203.99.178.52, 30 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

remove the Akbar Bugtis interview lines those are biased statements

203.99.178.52 (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Get consensus for the change on this talk page first. Algebraist 12:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} The uniform of a Pakistan army soldier exhibits much information. The qualification badges may be seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-badges.htm while decoration and awards conferred are given at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-awards.htm and finally his rank is judged from shoulder epaulet as may be seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-rank.htm. The interservice equivalence of Pakistan Defence forces ranks is available at http://www.paf.gov.pk/ranks.html. Waseem.Azhar (talk) 10:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Great information, but how would you propose we work it into the article?

Not done till we know what to change. ^Avicenna_sis @ 02:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Waseem.Azhar (talk) 10:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC) The information at "Organization + Rank Structure" or alternatively "Personnel + Personnel Training + Officer Ranks" may also contain "The interservice equivalence of Pakistan Defence forces ranks is available at http://www.paf.gov.pk/ranks.html." before coresspondingly describing the structure of "Organization + Army Units" or "Personnel + Personnel Training + Uniforms". Whereas under the headings "Personnel + Personnel Training + Uniform" more information may be provided as "The uniform of a Pakistan army soldier exhibits much information. The qualification badges may be seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-badges.htm while decoration and awards conferred are given at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-awards.htm and finally his rank is judged from shoulder epaulet as may be seen at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/army-rank.htm. before proceeding to the next section i.e. "Personnel + Personnel Training + Ethnic Composition".

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". As is, I am not able to understand what you would like to change. ^Avicenna_sis @ 06:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Waseem.Azhar (talk) 10:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC) Following two additions are suggested: 1- At the end of section on "Officer ranks" please add "The Pakistani defence service officers usually wear badges of rank on the shoulder epaulettes." 2- At the end of section on "Uniforms" please add "The uniform of a Pakistan army soldier exhibits much information i.e. The qualification badges, the decorations & awards conferred and finally the rank.".

Havildar Major

I find it extremely unlikely that the Pakistania Army uses E-9's as squad leaders. LUKE 84.23.155.84 (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

File:ChawindaBattel.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:ChawindaBattel.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:PakArmy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PakArmy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Capturing of Rajput Fort.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Capturing of Rajput Fort.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 26 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

plagiarism issues

Material introduced into this article by User:Paksoldier appears to be copied directly from several other wikipedia articles. (relevant diff)

"But no matter what road an officer takes, the insignia are the same." - copied from United States Army

"Senior NCOs are considered the primary link between enlisted personnel and the commissioned officers." - copied from Non-commissioned officer

""Senior non-commissioned officers are promoted to JCO rank on the basis of merit and seniority, restricted by the number of vacancies." - copied from Junior Commissioned Officer

Technically, this is not a copyright violation because wikipedia's license allows material to be copied in this manner. However, it is intellectually lazy and very bad practice. Editors should be very careful to rewrite text in their own words and to cite a source. GabrielF (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

correction.

in 1965 war losses were heavy on the indian side.india lost 9500 killed 11200 injured 475 tanks and 110 warplanes destroyed. if losses were heavy on pakistani side y didnt the indians acheive even a single objectiv in the whole war despite overwhelming number of men and material? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.6.244 (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide and source, then we can see about correcting the article. Cheers.Talk^Woe90i 10:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect pay grades

The pay grade for a Major General is not O-8, but BPS-21, etcetera. Why use pay grades from the land of OZ, instead of pay grades of Pakistan. 84.23.155.84 (talk) 22:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Attacks on Pakistan Army

Pakistan army facing so many troubles inside and outside of country .if i want to know attacks on Pakistan army in figures , and how many soldiers loose their lives . there is no section if there is one kindly tell me , if not so pleas mention .

Regard's — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.201.224.138 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have corrected Some of the helicopter numbers to be more accurate to the source material. (Even if the source material is years out of doubt)The MI-17 numbers are inaccurate as well. This reeks of fanboydom and makes the page look amateurish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.86.128 (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Indian propaganda addition

User Zenoxas has copy and pasted information from the heavily pov article Indian army and uses it here I urge all neutral non Indian users to remove it or add Pakistani sources to counter this vandalism. Zadon19 (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zadon19: I added a neutral claim However, most neutral assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared.with cited multiple independent reference here. From where does it gives pov? And how come neutrality is act of vandalism? The earlier sentence was clearly non neutral.Zenoxas (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral assessments are given below for your reading There have been several neutral assessments of the losses incurred by both India and Pakistan during the war. Most of these assessments agree that India had the upper hand over Pakistan when ceasefire was declared. Some of the neutral assessments are mentioned below —

• According to the Library of Congress Country Studies conducted by the Federal Research Division of the United States –

The war was militarily inconclusive; each side held prisoners and some territory belonging to the other. Losses were relatively heavy—on the Pakistani side, twenty aircraft, 200 tanks, and 3,800 troops. Pakistan's army had been able to withstand Indian pressure, but a continuation of the fighting would only have led to further losses and ultimate defeat for Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, schooled in the belief of their own martial prowess, refused to accept the possibility of their country's military defeat by "Hindu India" and were, instead, quick to blame their failure to attain their military aims on what they considered to be the ineptitude of Ayub Khan and his government.

• TIME magazine reported that India held 690 mi² of Pakistan territory while Pakistan held 250 mi² of Indian territory in Kashmir and Rajasthan. Additionally, Pakistan had lost almost half its armour temporarily. The article further elaborates

Severely mauled by the larger Indian armed forces, Pakistan could continue the fight only by teaming up with Red China and turning its back on the U.N.

• Devin T. Hagerty wrote in his book "South Asia in world politics" –

The invading Indian forces outfought their Pakistani counterparts and halted their attack on the outskirts of Lahore, Pakistan's second-largest city. By the time United Nations intervened on September 22, Pakistan had suffered a clear defeat.

• In his book "National identity and geopolitical visions", Gertjan Dijkink writes –

The superior Indian forces, however, won a decisive victory and the army could have even marched on into Pakistani territory had external pressure not forced both combatants to cease their war efforts.

• An excerpt from Stanley Wolpert's India, summarizing the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965,

In three weeks the second Indo-Pak War ended in what appeared to be a draw when the embargo placed by Washington on U.S. ammunition and replacements for both armies forced cessation of conflict before either side won a clear victory. India, however, was in a position to inflict grave damage to, if not capture, Pakistan's capital of the Punjab when the cease-fire was called, and controlled Kashmir's strategic Uri-Poonch bulge, much to Ayub's chagrin.

• In his book titled The greater game: India's race with destiny and China, David Van Praagh wrote –

India won the war. It gained 1,840 km² (710 sq mi) of Pakistani territory: 640 km² (250 sq mi) in Azad Kashmir, Pakistan's portion of the state; 460 km² (180 sq mi) of the Sailkot sector; 380 km² (150 sq mi) far to the south of Sindh; and most critical, 360 km² (140 sq mi) on the Lahore front. Pakistan took 540 km² (210 sq mi) of Indian territory: 490 km² (190 sq mi) in the Chhamb sector and 50 km² (19 sq mi) around Khem Karan.

• Dennis Kux's "India and the United States estranged democracies" also provides a summary of the war,

Although both sides lost heavily in men and material, and neither gained a decisive military advantage, India had the better of the war. New Delhi achieved its basic goal of thwarting Pakistan's attempt to seize Kashmir by force. Pakistan gained nothing from a conflict which it had instigated.

• BBC reported that the war served game changer in Pakistani politics,

The defeat in the 1965 war led to the army's invincibility being challenged by an increasingly vocal opposition. This became a surge after his protege, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, deserted him and established the Pakistan People's Party.

• "A region in turmoil: South Asian conflicts since 1947" by Robert Johnson mentions –

India's strategic aims were modest – it aimed to deny Pakistani Army victory, although it ended up in possession of 720 square miles (1,900 km²) of Pakistani territory for the loss of just 220 square miles (570 km²) of its own.

• An excerpt from William M. Carpenter and David G. Wiencek's "Asian security handbook: terrorism and the new security environment" –

A brief but furious 1965 war with India began with a covert Pakistani thrust across the Kashmiri cease-fire line and ended up with the city of Lahore threatened with encirclement by Indian Army. Another UN-sponsored cease-fire left borders unchanged, but Pakistan's vulnerability had again been exposed.

• English historian John Keay's "India: A History" provides a summary of the 1965 war –

The 1965 Indo-Pak war lasted barely a month. Pakistan made gains in the Rajasthan desert but its main push against India's Jammu-Srinagar road link was repulsed and Indian tanks advanced to within a sight of Lahore. Both sides claimed victory but India had most to celebrate.

• Uk Heo and Shale Asher Horowitz write in their book "Conflict in Asia: Korea, China-Taiwan, and India-Pakistan" –

Again India appeared, logistically at least, to be in a superior position but neither side was able to mobilize enough strength to gain a decisive victory.

• Newsweek magazine, however, praised the Pakistani military's ability to hold off the much larger Indian Army.

By just the end of the week, in fact, it was clear that the Pakistanis were more than holding their own.

Zenoxas (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with user Indian claims have been inserted to prove a point and furthermore neutral sources suggest that India grossly overstated their claims in the 1965 war with propaganda which I will add to balance the pov pushing of Zenoxas https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MG5wioBJyK0C&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=coggins+india+pakistan&source=bl&ots=pUqG2SiKLi&sig=RNRkGbxyjnXci-zDKIjq6jiQbUQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fDSdVcqAKsyy7QbVrIOgBg&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=coggins%20india%20pakistan&f=false

Freebuzzle1 (talk) 14:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

References

Proposal for better organization

Infantry/Armor/Artillery alone do not an Army make. The roles/importance of the following are almost completely missing from this article:

• Corps of Engineers
• Corps of Signals
• Corps of Electrical & Mechanical Engineering (EME)
• Army Service Corps (ASC)
• Army Medical Corps (AMC)
• Corps of Military Intelligence (CMI)
• Army Ordnance Corps (AOC)

Other such articles (e.g. US Army) also ignore these less flashy branches, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Solution:

1. Reorganize the "Organization" category so that it includes "Combat Arms" and "Services Arms" sub-categories, and then roll up the existing information under these accordingly. This would make a lot of room for expanding the Services formations and also better organize the Combat Arms, which right now are just thrown in together under the "corps" section.
2. The current Corps category should be cannibalized and relevant intel be integrated within the newly created sub-categories, with all the detailed structural information being moved to the Structure of Pak Army Corps page (which currently seems to contain incomplete information.)

cӨde1+6 ^LogicBomb! 18:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus

@MBlaze Lightning

So here is where we had reached an agreement.

1. REDIRECT [[5]]

You said: Since, kautilya presented a reliable source, it is acceptable to me. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So I have taken that as our agrement and the dispute resolved concerning Manekshaw's statements.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 21:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreement as proposed by Kautilya reached only upto that point in [6] ( Manekshaw had the highest respect for the fighting prowess of the Pakistan Army and refused to accept the theory that they did not fight the Bangladesh war vigorously enough.). I am keeping an eye on you. You styles seem to me strangely familiar yet mysterious.Ghatus (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus the rest, after that point, is simply the original quote. And rather than wasting your time keeping an eye on me, perhaps you should take it to the admins for investigation.TalhaZubairButt (talk) 06:56, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

You only got an unofficial consensus upto that ( Manekshaw...enough.), not an inch more. As quotes have magnifying and multiplying effect in an article, primary unverified clips from YouTube are all non- WP:RS. If you want to put that in still, find a good secondary reliable source for that quote. Thereafter its weight-age will also be measured. Ghatus (talk) 07:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@TalhaZubairButt: I never said that I have agreed to your revision of adding manekshaw full quote based on an primary source. Consensus was reached only upto Kautilya proposal, not beyond that. I think you didn't see my comment at DR/N? MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@MBlaze Lightning your comment at DRN is worthless here. And @Ghatus if you want to say something be open about it, you are accusing him of being a sock, so why not say it in the open? Anyway. You two need to provide some reasoning why only a "part" of a quote can be included and rest excluded. POV much maybe? Anyway. My question is simple so answer just that leave everything else out, or I will be asking you this again. Why should an original quote be edited and not included in its fullest?. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Wikipedia,

You have educated me a lot and have been generous to allow me access to contribute to the treasure of information you carry.

Thank you.

Even a nobody like me had access to add information but I never knew that I had had the power of deleting information appearing on the Wikipedia pages.

My fault.

Enter the Vandals.

Being from Pakistan, I had been noticing that many Wikipedia pages were being sanitized--read it vandalized--by some folks.

Your pages for Pakistan Army, Pakistani Armed Forces, Mohatta Palace and many more related to Pakistan, do not display the information they did before.

The names of the two British generals commanding the Pakistan Army in its first years are no more there on the first two pages I have mentioned just above.

I know so because I read it on Wikipedia.

The enemies of knowledge, information and awakening are ravaging Wikipedia with their disinformation.

I would gladly surrender the luxury and pleasure of posting information instantly on the Wikipedia.

When I post or, edit a page, please, let it first go to an editor.

You have one product--information.

Keep it or, lose it.

We brag we live in the age of information without realizing the age of disinformation is desperately competing.

Thank you, Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.118.211.65 (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia being vandalized.

Dear Mr. Wikipedia,

You have educated me a lot and have been generous to allow me access to contribute to the treasure of information you carry.

Thank you.

Even a nobody like me had access to add information but I never knew that I had had the power of deleting information appearing on the Wikipedia pages.

My fault.

Enter the vandals.

Being from Pakistan, I had been noticing that many Wikipedia pages were being sanitized--read it vandalized--by some folks.

Your pages for Pakistan Army, Pakistani Armed Forces, Mohatta Palace and many more related to Pakistan, do not display the information they did before.

The names of the two British generals commanding the Pakistan Army in its first years are no more there on the first two pages I have mentioned just above.

I know so because I read it on Wikipedia.

The enemies of knowledge, information and awakening are ravaging Wikipedia with their disinformation.

I would gladly surrender the luxury and pleasure of posting information instantly on the Wikipedia.

When I post or, edit a page, please, let it first go to an editor.

You have one product--information.

Keep it or, lose it.

We brag we live in the information age without realizing the disinformation age is desperately competing.

Thank you, Wikipedia.

I will be posting this same message on any of your pages I find vandalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bingobang (talk • contribs) 08:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Figures for active and reserve personnel

The introduction puts PA's troop strength at 725,000 active and 550,000 reserve, citing a 2013 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Meanwhile the infobox states right next to it states 550,000 active and 500,000 reserve - quite a disparity! IISS seems like a reliable source, but 725,000 active seems much too high. Most sources list 617,000 as the total number of active personnel in the entire Pakistani military (not just Army). The infobox figures seem much more accurate, but most sources I've seen with these figures are three or four years old. I can't afford the IISS's annual guide, CIA factbook offers no specific figures, and Pakistan Army itself seems to be a bit cagey on the subject, but I'm wondering if anyone has a source for a solid, up-to-date estimate. Tomseattle (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked on express Tribune news and it said 710 000 active troops 550 000 is must be from 10 years ago! Ghazi912 (talk) 02:16, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia keep saying to me i am putting wrong info 0f 710000 active troops and keep reverting it to 550000 troops. The 550 000 troop must be from unreliable scorce eg Indian news paper. The 710 000 one is from express tribune. If u Wikipedia need evidence then iwill send u that page that has evidence !pls reply because Pakistan Army has much more than 550 000 soldiers Ghazi912 (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pakistan Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.isi.org.pk/g.javed.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110116220659/http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-6/sbm.html to http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE3-6/sbm.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227095007/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C10%5C21%5Cstory_21-10-2010_pg7_18 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010%5C10%5C21%5Cstory_21-10-2010_pg7_18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

Hi CorrectionLab 3000, Can you please discuss here what is the basis of removing the content? There is an entire page on the content you are removing Military coups in Pakistan. About the Dhaka Fall the information is also mentioned here Military coups in Pakistan. Lastly, you cannot term some which is controversy as propaganda. Please explain your edits. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

aslam alikum sir my subject barma muslim is no safe

MUHAMMAD (SAW) sms ha ka muslman aps ma bahi bahi ha sir humra pas kis chiz ki kami ka hum barma ka muslamno ki maddad nahi kar rah ha humra pakistan ka matlab ha 1st kalma ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.155.17.247 (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes u r right bro ...i agreed Ali hamza ah (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits

Regarding this section, it has been removed because it is extremely poorly written and also a lot of it is suffering from WP:RECENTISM. We cannot just list any news story on this main article (WP:NOTNEWS). There are sub-articles for the Bangladesh war, human rights etc. where this information goes. This article isn't the venue. It also does not make sense why there are multiple separate small subsections. You are yourself making opposite points. Furthermore, there is the issue of WP:UNDUE which is riddled throughout the whole section. Mar4d (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Mar4d If it is poorly written then copy-edit and improve it. How can all it be WP:RECENTISM since the military coups have taken place quite some time ago and so has the 1971 genocide. These are clearly not News since you yourself claim that are sub-articles for these very sections. The sections here summarize those articles and link to them based on reliable sources. I agree with you that some of the subsections like Corruption can fall under WP:RECENTISM and thus their removal can be discussed. Currently it seems that for a few issues your are removing the entire section. This happens to be either a pure POV edit or a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Please be coherent in your arguments and discuss each subsection and why it should be removed rather than removing all of it. And in the future please gain consensus first before changing the Status Quo because your behavior is currently bordering on being disruptive by violating 1RR rule on Indo-Pak-Afghanistan articles. You have already been warned recently about being disruptive on another article. Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I really don't appreciate accusations. Please kindly show what restrictions this page is subject to. Meanwhile, you need to take note of WP:BRD. At least checking the article before reverting problematic sections back into it would be a good start from your end. There is a huge section for "History" which covers the military coups and 1971 conflict; I am 99% sure you did not even bother to go through it. And the Faizabad sit-in does not belong here for exactly the same reason discussed above. Please keep this article free from poorly written WP:RECENTISM, WP:UNDUE and WP:POV edits. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pakistan Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121202035448/http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/lahore/02-Jan-2010/Basketball-team-named-for-11th-South-Asian-Games to http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/lahore/02-Jan-2010/Basketball-team-named-for-11th-South-Asian-Games

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Removing duplicate Nishan-e-Haider recipient list

There is a Nishan-e-Haider recipient list on this page which is a duplicate of the one mentioned in the Nishan-e-Haider article. I propose to remove this duplicate list from the Pakistan Army article and only keep a single copy of this list in the Nishan-e-Haider article. This would in line with the award articles from other countries and award articles of Pakistan Armed Forces as well. Also, the list contains a name from Pakistan Air Force and is the not just a Pakistani Army specific award which makes it inclusion here sort of restrictive. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of sources

I am removing the following text until it could be better worded because it fails to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Also per WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material..."

"On 16 December 1971, Pakistan Army's 93,000 soldiers under leadership of lieutenant-general A.A.K Niazi surrendered in Dhaka in front of Indian Army marking the end of Bangladesh Liberation War and creation of Bangladesh after a 13 day long war with India. This surrender was also significant in the way it was the biggest surrender in a war by any country after World War 2."

The two sources attached to it dont back the "Pakistan Army's 93,000 soldiers" statement. The sources clearly state "soldiers and their abettors" and "prisoners of war". The soldiers could be from Navy and Airforce too. And it included civilians as per the very sources that supposedly back the "Pakistan Army's 93,000 soldiers" WP:OR.

"On 16 December 1971, more than 93,000 Pakistani soldiers and their abettors surrendered to the joint forces...."

"The Indian army quickly removed the 93,000 Pakistani prisoners of war (POW) from Bangladesh soil..."

"In 1972 Bangladesh requested that India turn over 195 Pakistani military and civilian officials out of 93,000 Pakistani POWs so they could be..."

Mar4d Would you look into this as well? Unfortunately, Adamgerber80 is back with his POV edits. --39.57.157.163 (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple source which points these were Pakistan Armed Forces personnel. ([7],[8]). Yes this allows for changing the wording to state Pakistani Armed Forces but not remove the content like you did. Also, the source clearly mentions this was the largest surrender since World War 2 which you removed. Also, please stop canvassing for votes with editors who share your POV. Adamgerber80 (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Indian claims in 1965 section

The user Adamberger80 seems to think this is about tthe Pakistani army yet he keeps vandalising the page by removing the Pakistani claim. The Indian page contains only Indian claims and this page should also be the same. Hranday8 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The same article about the Indian army contains only Indias perspective and not Pakistani claims of 500 tanks being destroyed yet this article is catering to Indian claims which is not fair both articles should follow the same layout. Hranday8 (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hranday8 Please discuss your edits here in a clam manner. Accusing anyone of propaganda and edit warring is not considered ideal. Also, there is no editing an article "compared to another article". Do you wish to include neutral claims here for 1965 War? If so then discuss it. Please remember that the war is only a small part of the Pakistani army history. So you have to give to weightage accordingly. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have discussed already your the only one with a issue you have a history of pushing pov on this article you need to make sure the Indian army page adheres to neutrality first before attacking Pakistani pages. Hranday8 (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hranday8 For the last time, do not see other editors through the prism of your nationality, discuss what changes you want to make there and why. If you refuse to do so then I will have to revert your edits again because you seem to be adopting an edit warring behavior currently. Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

For the last time I have already explained in depth you just dont want to accept neutrality. Please explain why this article should accomidate a Indian claim? While on the same war section on the Indian army page only Indian sources are used its called neutrality look it up. Hopefully when neutral editors get the message they will also realise my point and revert you again. Hranday8 (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

When did I mention your Indian nationality on this talk page? Stop playing the victim and spreading POV sir and explain why this article should accomidate a Indian claims and should not mimic the SAME section on the Indian army page its called fairness. Hranday8 (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hranday8 If you want the article to contain only neutral claims then say so. All that you have done so far is thrown around baseless allegations. Is this so? Adamgerber80 (talk) 10:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

What allegations? Adam Your still making things up I have messaged users who will certainly agree with my edits Razer also has no objection on the Pakistan Army he only reverted me on Indian Army page. I have described two sections relating to the SAME war and analysed them and exposed the unbalanced information I have changed the section on this article to reflect Pakistans perspective and make it equal to Indias section on the SAME war. I have engaged Razer who only disagrees on the Indian page. So please answer my question and cease deflecting and diverting the section on both articles are now reflective and neutral whats your problem? You seem to be the only person has been on this page long term constantly reverting and disagreeing while others are not. Hranday8 (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I have updated both pages to reflect neutral claims and added the word accordingly. Please have a look at WP:CANVASSING and why it is not allowed. And if you throw around another accusation, I would consider that a WP:PERSONALATTACK. So please be careful. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I havent attacked you Adam. Plus the neutral sources dont say more than 3800 losses so that needs to be rectified. Hranday8 (talk) 11:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Hranday8 Please acquaint yourself with the rules of Wikipedia. Either you don't know them or are seemingly ignoring them. Your comments above can be constituted as one. And in the future if your resort to Canvassing again, I will report you to ANI. Please be careful. Adamgerber80 (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Change article name

I see in the archive that this was raised before but there doesn't seem to have been any discussion. Shouldn't the article be called Pakistani Army on the model of other articles, British Army, Italian Army etc.? -- Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 12:21, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

@Boreas74: Yes, "Pakistani Army" sounds grammatically and conventionally correct but the official name it uses is the Pakistan Army per the official website. I believe per WP:OFFICIAL this is correct. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks @Adamgerber80: I suppose that makes sense. -- Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 12:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

History of raising divisions

@Adamgerber, see here, this is a old version of this page (2010) where information about raising divisions are noted (though without reference) but I am sure the information are true, you can also check Military history of Pakistan's 'Birth of the modern military' section and the 'responsibilities' section of the Commander-in-Chief of the Pakistan Army's writings were awful (see: any conflict with india? - this kind of writing means?) Fayaz Rahman (talk) 12:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fayaz Rahman: Please add a reference here and quote from the reference. You have been told multiple times to not add content without references. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber, there is no strong reference that those divisions were raised but you can see this page 7th Infantry Division (Pakistan) and 12th Infantry Division (Pakistan) , these two divisions were raised on the beginning journey of the country 'Pakistan'. I am not actually a Pakistan Army fan as I've told you before the army is male-dominant and posses patriarchal values much more than your country's army. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 04:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@Fayaz Rahman: Then please add references from those pages here if you wish to readd the content. Also, for the last time, this is NOT a forum, do not add personal views or comments here. @NeilN: I don't know how to deal with the forum language. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fayaz Rahman: You are aware that discretionary sanctions apply in this area. So, you can either voluntarily adhere to the expectations or I can craft a restriction (each addition must be accompanied by a source) which will result in a block each time you break it. Your choice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:16, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Neil, Why do you threat to block me, I've done nothing wrong to Wikipedia, I just love my country Pakistan (though it is patriarchal and talking with girls for a boy is very difficult, but I like it's cuisine, it's parks), so what, I haven't been able to add sources, there are so many writings in various articles in this encyclopedia which don't contain any reference or if contain they are wrong references (I am not being able to give examples for those now). Forgive me, Pakistan Zindabad. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fayaz Rahman: Provide a source or don't add it. It is very simple. Adamgerber80 (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@Fayaz Rahman: I have removed the division raising content here. Can you please provide a direct quote from the source which states this? Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Adamgerber,The book is written in Bengali, Doy you understand Bengali? I know the language. I am quoting from the book in Bengali (also I am translating into English).

১৯৬৫ সালে ভারতের সাথে যুদ্ধের আগ পর্যন্ত পশ্চিম পাকিস্তানের ৪৪ শতাংশ মানুষের প্রতিরক্ষার জন্য নিয়োজিত করা হয় ১২টি পদাতিক ডিভিশন ও বেশ কিছু স্বতন্ত্র ব্রিগেডসহ আনুমানিক ২টি পূর্ণাঙ্গ ট্যাংক ডিভিশন।

In English:

Before the 1965 war with India for the defense of 44 percent people in West Pakistan the army had 12 Infantry Divisions and 2 Armored Divisions with a large number of independent brigades.

This quote is from page number 55. Another quote from the page number 47 is:

১৯৪৭ সালে ভারত বিভক্তির সাথে ব্রিটিশ ভারতীয় বাহিনীও ভাগ হয়ে যায়। ভারতীয় সশস্ত্র বাহিনীর অধিকাংশ মুসলমান সদস্যই পাকিস্তানের পক্ষে আনুগত্য প্রকাশ করে। ফলে উত্তরাধিকার সুত্রে পাকিস্তান ৬টি পদাতিক ডিভিশন ও একটি সাঁজোয়া ব্রিগেডের মালিকানা লাভ করে।

In English:

When India was partitioned the British Indian Army was also partitioned. Most Muslim members of the Indian Armed Forces showed allegiance to Pakistan. As a result, the Pakistan Army got 6 Infantry Divisions and one armored brigade.

Thanks. I will evaluate these and get back to you. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I have shown you quotes from the book, Now it is your wish if you want to revert those writings or not. Fayaz Rahman (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Claws.In

With this edit I have hidden some content I believe is wrongly interpreted by whoever added it. The source says clearly that the I and II Corps are the Strategic Reserves (ARN and ARS). These are active duty units. However, we seem to have confused Strategic Reserves with the Army Reserve, which is a reservist component spread across the country. Could an established user please check this and restore correct content? 2A02:C7D:3C1A:7300:712F:3E23:2180:7F09 (talk) 01:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pakistantroops.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Ayubnewarmychief.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Pakistan-Coast-Guard.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Pakistan Army Structure.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Insignia of Pakistan Army Special Service Group (SSG).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Improvements

Dear editors What improvements can be done in this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Muhammad Hussain Raza (talk • contribs) 15:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Treaties on Kashmir

Various scholars have written on the Instrument of Accession (Jammu and Kashmir), The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846). But very little of that text is on wikipedia.

Maharaja gulab Singh originally worked for the Sikh Empire. But then betrayed the Sikh empire by siding with the East India Company in the Anglo-Sikh War. His name is mentioned in the treaty of Lahore too. He collected Taxes for the East India Company and the money was then given by him to the East India Company.

The Treaty of Lahore (9 March 1846) and the Treaty of Amritsar (16 March 1846) lapsed under Article 7 of the Independence Act 1947. The Act was passed by the British Parliament on July 18, 1947 to assent to the creation of the independent states of India and Pakistan. The aforementioned Article 7 provides that, with the lapse of His Majesty’s suzerainty over the Indian states, all treaties, agreements, obligations, grants, usages and sufferance’s will lapse.

The 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur (Sikh) was under the control of the East India company when he sign The Treaty of Lahore on 9 March 1846 which gave Jammu and Kashmir and its people to the East India Company.

Under the British legal system and international law a treaty signed by the 7 year old Maharaja Duleep Singh Bahadur and under duress is not valid. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)

We may need to add a section on the impact on the removal of Article 370 of the Indian constitution on The Instrument of Accession too. None of this text is on there.

Various scholars have written on these treaties, for example Alistair Lamb disputed the validity of the Instrument of Accession in his paper Myth of Indian Claim to JAMMU & KASHMIR –– A REAPPRAISAL'

Where he writes "While the date, and perhaps even the fact, of the accession to India of the State of Jammu & Kashmir in late October 1947 can be questioned, there is no dispute at that time any such accession was presented to the world at large as conditional and provisional. It was not communicated to Pakistan at the outset of the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir, nor was it presented in facsimile to the United Nations in early 1948 as part of the initial Indian reference to the Security Council. The 1948 White Paper in which the Government of India set out its formal case in respect to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, does not contain the Instrument of Accession as claimed to have been signed by the Maharajah: instead, it reproduces an unsigned form of Accession such as, it is implied, the Maharajah might have signed. To date no satisfactory original of this Instrument as signed by the Maharajah has been produced: though a highly suspect version, complete with the false date 26 October 1947, has been circulated by the Indian side since the 1960s. On the present evidence it is by no means clear that the Maharaja ever did sign an Instrument of Accession.

Indian troops actually began overtly to intervene in the State’s affairs on the morning of 27 October 1947

It is now absolutely clear that the two documents (a) the Instrument of Accession, and (c) the letter to Lord Mountbatten, could not possibly have been signed by the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir on 26 October 1947. The earliest possible time and date for their signature would have to be the afternoon of 27 October 1947. During 26 October 1947 the Maharajah of Jammu & Kashmir was travelling by road from Srinagar to Jammu. (The Kashmir State Army divisions and the Kashmiri people had already turned on him and he was on the run and had no authority in the state). His new Prime Minister, M.C. Mahajan, who was negotiating with the Government of India, and the senior Indian official concerned in State matters, V.P. Menon, were still in New Delhi where they remained overnight, and where their presence was noted by many observers. There was no communication of any sort between New Delhi and the travelling Maharajah. Menon and Mahajan set out by air from New Delhi to Jammu at about 10.00 a.m. on 27 October; and the Maharajah learned from them for the first time the result of his Prime Minister’s negotiations in New Delhi in the early afternoon of that day. The key point, of course, as has already been noted above, is that it is now obvious that these documents could only have been signed after the overt Indian intervention in the State of Jammu & Kashmir on 27 October 1947. When the Indian troops arrived at Srinagar air field, that State was still independent. Any agreements favourable to India signed after such intervention cannot escape the charge of having been produced under duress. (The International Court of Justice has stated that there "can be little doubt, as is implied in the Charter of the United Nations and recognized in Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that under contemporary international law an agreement concluded under the threat or use of force is void.)"

Additionally Maharaja was on the run. The prevailing international practice on the recognition of state governments is based on the following three factors: first, the government’s actual control of the territory; second, the government’s enjoyment of the support and obedience of the majority of the population; third, the government’s ability to stake the claim that it has a reasonable expectation of staying in power. The situation on the ground demonstrates that the Maharaja was not in control of the state of Jammu and Kashmir and was fleeing for his life and almost all of Kashmir was under the control of the Kashmiri people and the Kashmiri Army that had rebelled against him. His own troops had turned on him. With regard to the Maharaja’s control over the local population, it is clear that he enjoyed no such control or support. The people of Kashmir had been sold by the East India Company and he charged them high taxes thetefore the Kashmir Muslims, Hindus Pandits and Buddhists hated him. Furthermore, the state’s armed forces were in total disarray after most of the men turned against him and he was running for his life. Finally, it is highly doubtful that the Maharaja could claim that his government had a reasonable chance of staying in power without Indian military intervention. This assumption is substantiated by the Maharaja’s letters.

Many of these treaties apply to Jammu and Kashmir. The Kashmir conflict is already on Wikipedia. It is internationally recognized as a disputed territory under various United United Nations resolutions that are already listed on Wikipedia Nations Security Council Resolution 47, Nations Security Council Resolution 39,mediation of the Kashmir dispute, Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. There is a lot of documentation on Jammu and Kashmir in the UN archives already. If you look at the page Kashmir conflict, it already contains sections on the "Indian view", "Pakistani view", "Chinese view", "Kashmiri views". May be we could do something like that with these treaty pages. The Treaty of Lahore was signed in 9 March 1846 and the Treaty of Amritsar 16 March 1846. They predate the creation of both modern day India and Pakistan. The Treaty of Lahore was signed between the Sikh Empire and the British government. It is an international treaty and comes under international law. Johnleeds1 (talk) 11:36, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Page protection

I request to add protection to this page due to the high level of vandalism. Amaan4210 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Arid pattern camo.jpg
• Coas2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

The "Mission" headline has a wrong passage from the constitution.It also has wrong things written before it with no sources. 39.33.108.186 (talk) 08:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

>the below needs to be removed as someone tried to troll but did a poor job while executing it<

Mission Main article: Constitution of Pakistan Its existence and constitutional role are protected by the Constitution of Pakistan, where its role is to promte extrimism and terorism in Kashmir. Bluff America and Support Taliban regime.

The Armed Forces shall, under the directions of the Federal Government surrender against any threats and create world history for Highest surrenders.

— Constitution of Pakistan[24] 2.50.12.208 (talk) 12:47, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done I think I got it cleaned up. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Myanmar Army personal undergoing training in Pakistan together with Pak Soldiers and Marines.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Pakistan army

How many feilds are there in pakistan army 2400:ADC7:128:FC00:1418:9A11:9511:FCEA (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Pakistan Army women soldiers.jpg
• Pakistani Soldiers.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• SSG troops during Operation Khyber.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)