Talk:Pakistan: Difference between revisions
Charliehdb (talk | contribs) →Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2024: Responded to edit request |
No edit summary Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=High}} |
{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=High}} |
{{WikiProject Asia|importance=High}} |
||
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Mid}} |
|||
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
{{WikiProject Countries}} |
||
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors |
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors |
Revision as of 13:58, 6 August 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pakistan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page regarding Pakistan. To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question. Q1: Can I add/remove an image? or Why was my image removed?
A1: Yes, you can add and remove images but you might want to take some points into consideration before doing that. The images were carefully chosen in balance to represent the text in a neutral way from all parts of the country. All images have also been thoroughly checked for their copy right licenses while some are added to a switch code so that each time the server cache is refreshed, the image changes automatically to the next one listed in the code. Image removals and replacements are in most cases likely to be reverted due to such reasons. Please consider starting a section regarding the image on the article talk page and discuss how it should be added so as to get a consensus. See also Talk:Pakistan/Archive 13#Positioning, adding & removing images. Q2: Can I add --- and --- details? or Why was my text removed?
A2: All text in Wikipedia has to be verifiable through reliable sources. Any content that does is not published in an independent reliable source can be removed. This article is specifically maintaining a much higher standard after it has been worked on in detail in such terms to keep it from becoming an original research. Also note that while your additions are notable they still might be reverted per WP:WEIGHT. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. In case of such reverts, please use the talk page to discuss the content Also search or take a look through the archives listed on the talk page to see if that has been previously discussed to prevent a discussion going in circles over time. Q3: Why no subsection for --- or ---?
A3: Please see WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Everything related to Pakistan can not have a separate section as it would be undue to give it a mention at length. However, most related topics' main article is linked to in the article and the topic covered per its due weight. The main country article has much broader scope about the country rather than specific issues which might probably be occurring at a specific point of time of the country's history or a small part of it. If you still think some thing can be added to further improve the article or that subsections can be further improved, please start a discussion at the talk page with your proposal. Q4: The map of Pakistan is incorrect!
A4: The dark green area shows the total area constituting Pakistan while the area shaded in light green denotes Jammu and Kashmir – territory that is claimed, but not administered, by Pakistan. This geographic detail is per neutral point of view and does not adhere to the Pakistani, Indian or any other government's descriptions of territory. Q5: Terrorism/Kashmir/any other controversial topic should be mentioned more!
A5: Such topics are already covered in the article in terms of their actual issues or effects on the country. If you think any detail is missing, use the talk page to discuss that. Bluntly adding such details to the main country article is generally considered inappropriate. |
This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Pakistan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 29, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
Kashmir
Though, the K in Pakistan may stand for Kashmir, according to the person who came up with the name Pakistan, Kashmir was never truly a part of Pakistan. The idea that it was, or is, is purely propaganda. Pakistan is in India, despite constant attempts by Pakistan to occupy it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:680:3080:C587:F489:7BE9:42A9 (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Colonial period
@SheriffIsInTown: The source does not say Congress interpreted British' clause as "creation of independent Muslim nation" but that it could be interpreted by anyone as such. I changed that wording per the source. The 1929 report did not pave the way for partition. This exceptional claim will require multiple scholarly sources. The speech by Iqbal was a "direct rebuttal" to the Nehru report of 1929 but it "never actually called for a partitioned Muslim state".[1] That's why your claim that Iqbal promoted two-nation theory is false. As Ahmad Hasan Dani also noted: "Iqbal did not argue for a Muslim State, but only for a Muslim bloc in an Indian Federation. Moreover, Bengal and Assam ( the present East Pakistan ) did not enter into his calculations. It is grossly misleading to call him the originator of the idea of Pakistan or the poet who dreamed of Pakistan. He never talked of Partition and his ideal was that of a getting together of the Muslim provinces in the north - west so as to bargain more advantageously with the projected Hindu centre.
"[2] More academic sources that say the same thing:[3][4] Srijanx22 (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- The source does not state that ML opposed QIM so I removed that wording. I will get back to you regarding your other objections later. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Srijanx22 Let's tackle separate issues in separate comments so we do not mingle them together. The text never stated that 1929 report paved the way for partition rather it stated that the rejection of these fourteen points proposals paved the way for partition.
- This text 👇🏽
represented this from Hardy 👇🏽In March 1929, in response to the Nehru Report, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, issued his fourteen points, which included proposals to safeguard the interests of the Muslim minority in a united India. These proposals were rejected, thus paving the way for the partition of India.
and this from Wuthnow 👇🏽Much has been made' of the failure of Congress and the Muslim parties to agree over the Nehru Report and of the rejection of Jinnah's 'Fourteen Points' as a significant milestone along the way to the partition of India. A great opportunity was lost, it is thought, for the abandonment of separate electorates by voluntary Muslim agreement.
To satisfy Muslims' determination to have guaranteed rights in the future political system of India and to maintain territorial unity of the Indian state, by 1929 Jinnah produced the formula known as the Fourteen Points of Mr. Jinnah. The Fourteen Points included separate electorates for Muslims in the provinces of India, parity of electoral representation in the Punjab and Bengal, and electoral considerations for Muslims in those provinces in which they were a minority, although they would retain clear majority in the Northwest Frontier Province, Baluchistan, and Sind.
- You can clearly see Hardy supporting the rejection of fourteen point, a significant milestone to the partition
the rejection of Jinnah's 'Fourteen Points' as a significant milestone along the way to the partition of India. A great opportunity was lost
, Wuthnow supports the assertion that fourteen points were aimed tomaintain territorial unity of the Indian state
thus supporting the textwhich included proposals to safeguard the interests of the Muslim minority in a united India
, also supports that since the points were aimed at maintaining the unity of Indian state, their rejection would imply that it paved the way to the partition. I'm attempting to simplify this enough to clarify where the original text originated from. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC) That's why your claim that Iqbal promoted two-nation theory is false.
, it is not my claim, that's what Basu-Miroshnik source states and that's what I am basing Iqbal's advocacy of two-nation theory on, your removal would have been justified if the text was unsourced or misrepresented but that is not the case here, Basu-Miroshnik source statesMohammed Iqbal was credited with coming up with the two-nation theory in his speech at Allahabad in 1930 to the Muslim League in a very formal way by saying: "I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind, and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Moslem State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Moslems, at least of NorthWest India.
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)- Hardy is talking about what has been "has been made of the failure of Congress and the Muslim parties" to agree over the 1929 Nehru report. Hardy cites S Gopal for source and that source notes "
As these demands were not accepted by the Conference, Jinnah is reported to have told a friend, "this is the parting of ways."
Mind the word "reported
". We don't really know if that happened. Hardy is also talking about what else has been a "significant milestone" along the way to partition. He has provided a number of examples since the beginning of 1900s thus targeting 1929 Nehru report over "has been made" would be misleading. - On Iqbal, yes some sources happen to be misleading but a serious scholarly discussion are firm about the stance of Iqbal. The scholarly consensus is pretty clear that he did not support two-nation theory or partition. >>> Extorc.talk 12:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not just Hardy, but another source also underscores the fourteen points aimed at preserving the territorial unity of the Indian state. We're not suggesting that the rejection of these points was the sole cause of partition, but rather acknowledging it as a significant milestone toward partition. Regarding Iqbal, we're not claiming he advocated for partition; we're simply reflecting what the source states. The two-nation theory doesn't inherently imply partition; it could also signify a Muslim state within a state. However, it's crucial to present the source accurately. As for the term 'scholarly consensus,' its interpretation is subjective. Can you provide a source that supports this 'scholarly consensus'? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the light of the sources that I had provided to counter your improper edits and also the above message by Extorc, it is clear that you should not be edit warring to restore your preferred wording which you had imposed merely a few days ago. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have effectively responded to and debunked your and Extorc's objections. The sources you provided claim that Iqbal did not call for a partitioned state but rather for a Muslim bloc within India. Nowhere in the article do we state that Iqbal asked for India to be partitioned; we are using the exact text from the sources within the article. None of the sources you provided state that Iqbal's speech was not a two-nation theory. The two-nation theory is not synonymous with partition; even if Iqbal called for a Muslim bloc within India, it still aligns with the two-nation theory since he advocated for blocs based on religion within India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- You have only repeated yourself and haven't debunked anything.
- Since Iqbal did not call for a "partitioned state", it means that he did not promote two-nation theory. He only wanted autonomous Muslim state just like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale wanted a Sikh autonomous state. See how nobody says Bhindranwale supported multi-nations theory. This misleading knowledge only comes from Pakistani histiography which has been laid out at the sources provided by SriJanx22. I have already done the analysis. Your preferred wording cannot be used for 1929 Report and Iqbal. There is no conclusive evidence if the report paved the way to partition. Your own sources are not saying it but Hardy is only saying what "has been made" instead of endorsing the defective idea. Again, it is misleading to claim that Iqbal promoted two-nation theory.
- Fact that you are edit warring to restore your newly added wording even when it was removed two times is not looking good for you. >>> Extorc.talk 17:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- From my perspective, the sources I provided fully back up the content.
- Fourteen points
- Wuthnow:
To satisfy Muslims' determination to have guaranteed rights in the future political system of India and to maintain territorial unity of the Indian state
, if fourteen points were aimed to maintain territorial unity of the Indian state, their rejection would understandably "pave the way to partition". - Singh & Shani:
Jinnah's famous 'fourteen points' as a condition for support for India's unity
, if fourteen points were a condition for support for India's unity, their rejection would pave the way to the partition.
- Wuthnow:
- Two-nation theory
- Singh & Shani:
At the 1930 session of the All-Indian Muslim Conference, Sir Mohammed Iqbal proposed a Muslim homeland that would serve 'as a symbolic cultural expression of the common striving of Muslim fulfilment - a political manifestation of a common mission
, if Sir Muhammad Iqbal proposed a Muslim homeland, that is akin to two-nation theory. - Basu & Miroshnik:
Mohammed Iqbal was credited with coming up with the two-nation theory in his speech at Allahabad in 1930 to the Muslim League
, the wording is clear. - Hussain:
After repeated demands for stronger constitutional safeguards to protect the rights of minorities, Iqbal eventually opted for a separate Islamic Republic instead …… Like a number of his contemporaries, Iqbal warmed up to the two nation-theory.
, again very clear.
- Singh & Shani:
- If my sources clearly support the wording I used, I won't change it simply because two editors want it altered, especially when their sources don't definitively contradict my content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Your own perspective about 1929 Report isn't enough for writing history.
- You are only mentioning the random sources that have simply promoted the false claim about Iqbal. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which clearly tells "
the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.
" The sources provided by SriJanx22 have fact-checked the false claim. Do you have any rebuttal against that? >>> Extorc.talk 05:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I have effectively responded to and debunked your and Extorc's objections. The sources you provided claim that Iqbal did not call for a partitioned state but rather for a Muslim bloc within India. Nowhere in the article do we state that Iqbal asked for India to be partitioned; we are using the exact text from the sources within the article. None of the sources you provided state that Iqbal's speech was not a two-nation theory. The two-nation theory is not synonymous with partition; even if Iqbal called for a Muslim bloc within India, it still aligns with the two-nation theory since he advocated for blocs based on religion within India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- In the light of the sources that I had provided to counter your improper edits and also the above message by Extorc, it is clear that you should not be edit warring to restore your preferred wording which you had imposed merely a few days ago. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not just Hardy, but another source also underscores the fourteen points aimed at preserving the territorial unity of the Indian state. We're not suggesting that the rejection of these points was the sole cause of partition, but rather acknowledging it as a significant milestone toward partition. Regarding Iqbal, we're not claiming he advocated for partition; we're simply reflecting what the source states. The two-nation theory doesn't inherently imply partition; it could also signify a Muslim state within a state. However, it's crucial to present the source accurately. As for the term 'scholarly consensus,' its interpretation is subjective. Can you provide a source that supports this 'scholarly consensus'? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hardy is talking about what has been "has been made of the failure of Congress and the Muslim parties" to agree over the 1929 Nehru report. Hardy cites S Gopal for source and that source notes "
Mogul Pakistan
Pakistan is clearly mentioned in the Vedas many times therefore an entity called "Mughal Pakistan" could be a real place in antiquity possibly centered around Rajanpur.
09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)~~ 137.59.145.217 (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You didn't wrote anything about one of the biggest universities and best schools and also you didn't mention much about tourism AroushFatima112014 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2024 (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. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello respected admin there is a mistake in the nominal GDP of Pakistan the gdp is growing and it's 370 billion dollars please grant me the permission to edit that mistake 14.192.147.114 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not done Unfortunately, IP editors are not allowed to edit the article directly. If you believe the GDP number is incorrect, please request a change along with a reliable source. RegentsPark (comment) 14:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan&action=edit§ion=new 2401:BA80:A117:23A1:17DD:D59C:2613:2257 (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Claimed territory?
why is this southern peninsula part of India Shows as claimed territory? It looks very non valid. Kashmir is understandable, but this looks more like a symbolic then a serious claim. 2003:D9:973F:DB63:7632:3B01:AC58:4E91 (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
- See Annexation of Junagadh, although emphasis comes from more recent politics. CMD (talk) 01:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- this doesn't answer my point.
- Barely any world doesn't even feature this point. On a neutral perspective its barley any feature worth. 84.158.62.180 (talk) 10:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- world map
- 84.158.62.180 (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 July 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
According to Pakistan budget 2023-24 the GDP nominal of Pakistan is 370 billion US dollars. So, you should improve it. Rana1219 (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. PianoDan (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
VIP
How could Pakistan be as influential as Denmark in digital record?
03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) 103.245.194.28 (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
New religious and ethno-linguistic demographics
The Pakistan Bureau of Statistics has just released their detailed 2023 census results, and I think the page’s religious and ethno-linguistic demographics should be updated Hardees123 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024
Kindly update the religious statistics in the lead infobox as per the 2023 Pakistani census according to which following is the religious composition of Pakistan:
- Islam 96.3%
- Hinduism 2.2%
- Christianity 1.4%
- Others 0.1%
Source [1]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2024
[Great news for women students and teachers: Pink buses are coming to Islamabad next week!]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
39.34.138.77 (talk) 07:56, 4 August 2024 (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. Charliehdb (talk) 10:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia articles that use Pakistani English
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class level-3 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-3 vital articles in Geography
- B-Class vital articles in Geography
- B-Class Pakistan articles
- Top-importance Pakistan articles
- WikiProject Pakistan articles
- B-Class South Asia articles
- High-importance South Asia articles
- South Asia articles
- B-Class Asia articles
- High-importance Asia articles
- WikiProject Asia articles
- B-Class Islam-related articles
- Mid-importance Islam-related articles
- WikiProject Islam articles
- B-Class country articles
- WikiProject Countries articles
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors