Talk:Pakistan/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Shi'a Muslim Population of Pakistan

I am here to clarify one point that Pakistan's actual Shia-Muslim Population is 30% of Pakistani Muslims while the rest are Sunni Muslims. The previous facts of 20% Shia Muslims in Pakistan is based on 2 Decade old census, so it doesn't mean that population simply won't increase and remain as it was like before. The most authentic source of my argument are the Facts given by the Supreme Court Bar council. There was a Islam and Co-existence Conference in Karachi in Jan 2008 where there were all the top dignitaries and few Supreme court Judges, and few officials from the Interior Ministry, during the conference they told that infact Shia Muslim Population of Pakistan is 30% or above not 20%! They also told that Sindh could be a Shia Majority Province of Pakistan if all those Maula'iis of Interior Sindh are counted as Shias! It was a general discussion during which all these facts were given. I hope people out here would understand it. Thank you. Paki90 (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Paki90, I have reverted your edits as you failed to provide any sources for your claim. Please note that verifiablity is a prime criterion for Wikipedia. Also, we cannot include a statistics based upon the claims made in a conference (although, you have not provided any source to point out that indeed some claim to that effect was made) and rather would include the verifiable figures as pointed out by CIA factbook and Pakistan Govt's population data. Please do not re-add these figures without providing a valid source which backs your claim. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 12:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

According to latest congressional hearing in US congress shia muslim makes upto 25 to 35 percent population of Pakistani muslims source wikipedia.In karachi more then 7 million shia muslims are living .In lahore more then 3.5 million shia muslims are living.some of the shia majority districts in punjab are chakwal sargodha jhelam lalamusa bhakar chineot jhang etc.And in sindh interior sindh is majority shia zone for example larkana hyderabad sukker nawabshah.The gilgit bultistan is also a shia majority zone.app 30percent population of Pakistani muslims are shias. 173.254.204.155 (talk) 03:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Missile attacks

Anjum Sohail Kiani Kallar Syedan/Sheffield has condemned the ongoing attacks by USA military drones/missiles on Pakistan and called it a serious infringement of international law and attack on a sovereign nation. These attacks would be seen by the people of Pakistan as an attempt to destabilise Pakistan and its democratic goverment which could send the whole region in to anarchy and the effects would be seen all over the world.

Every time public opinion in Pakistan goes against the terrorists the USA launch a missile attack which flames the anti America feeling in Pakistan. The USA missile attacks are having a bad effect on the all attempts made by the Govt of Pakistan and the elders in the Tribal areas who are trying to get rid of the foreign terrorists.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.235.111 (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Who is Anjum Sohail Kiani? It would good to provide a source also showing the above Pahari Sahib 14:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

n 2007 and 2008 with growth rates of 6.5 to 7 percent, with manufacturing, exports and consumer expenditure leading the way. Further progress 66.99.25.201 (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

More has been said in a paragraph added a week ago at Hawala. This seems to me to have a title which is too prominent there and to lack sources, but I don't feel well enough informed to tidy it up. Umar Zulfikar Khan (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Mubarakcenterrender.jpg

The image File:Mubarakcenterrender.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:10, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Elections disorder

Hi. please help to add facts and materials to the following section in order to provide information on various events related to Nawaz Sharif and the office of Prime Minister. Nawaz_Sharif#2009_election_and_disorder. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Indian Map's Depiction of Pakistan Administered Kashmir

In the map on the India article, Azad Kashmir is claimed by the Indians in a light green colour. I believe either the editors should add Indian Occupied Kashmir in light green to the map, or inform the editors on the India article to remove their map's depiction of Azad Kashmir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.249.58.66 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've noticed it. Unfortunately the process to correct their mistake is difficult considering there are lots of users that would try to block anything being done to that map. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Instead we could highlight Indian occupied Kashmir and add it to our claim on our map instead that would sort the problem out so lets do it 86.162.67.209 (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I thought of that too :) But you need to download the program Inkscape and add Kashmir with Pakistan. I don't have time to do that sadly. Why don't you create an account here? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Amazing ! Why doesn't one of you guys also decide who the next Pakistani president will be ?Mozdeh (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by that comment - and how does it relate to the discussion?

Pahari Sahib 08:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, if you don't make anything of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mozdeh (talk • contribs) 22:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverted

I moved the article back to an earlier date due to the following reasons:

1. Addition of biased/controversial sources

2. Addition of recent events that belongs in its respective article

2. Un-sourced figures/info

--→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Holiday is mentioned

Hi,

1st January (New year) is not the official holiday in Pakistan. This is to be fixed.

Thanks muzzamil@buraq.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.175.70.22 (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

editsemiprotected

the language percentages are wrong. urdu is spoken much more widely than 8%. it is somewhere between 40-60% and pushto is also spoken more than 30%. correct it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.221.46.177 (talk) 05:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I can only change it after you give me a source. Source please? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

rank by population density, GDP per capita and area do not match

In the article the population density is mentioned as 53rd but the List of countries and dependencies by population density says 55th. GDP(PPP) per capita mentioned 127th but List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita says 128th. Area is written as 34th but List of countries and outlying territories by total area shows 36th. Why?Cool BD 09:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and correct it :) Nshuks7 (talk) 09:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

: CorrectedCool BD 11:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

War on Terror... front line state...

The article says, in the header paragraph, that Pakistan is a "front line state in the War on Terror". First of all, the term "war on terror" is an American concept. It is not universally held and therefore is not an appropriate reference in this place. By all means the article could say that "the United States regards Pakistan as a front line state in its War on Terror, but that should come much further down in the article. The header paragraph is there to summarise the main article. The inclusion of this reference in the header paragraph is wrong and should be moved further down and given a more accurate depiction such as that I which I have suggested.--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How about "front line state in the Overseas Contingency Operation"? Kauffner (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear State

There are only a handful of nations in the history of the world to possess nuclear armaments. Pakistan being a nuclear state is one of the key facts about this country. There are hundreds of other things listed in this article far less important than this.

Why no information?

Once again: Wikipedia... EPIC FAIL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.220.124 (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Its already in the third paragraph. Did you actually read? --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 14:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

A nucluer arsenal is a HUGE deal, with that, you have the power to kill millions, tell me about this instead of the flora and fauna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.84.118 (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Population & Religion ?

Well, if i am only one who thinks that Population in Pakistan - 2008 estimate 165,900,000 &

Religion in Pakistan:
   * Islam 173,000,000 .
   * Hinduism 3,200,000 (1.85%)
   * Christianity 2,800,000 (1.6%)
   * Sikhs Around 20,000 (0.04%)

= 179+ million total

Does not add up similar number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waffa (talk • contribs) 19:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Smaller Muslim population than India

Isn't it common knowledge that India has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan?? Furthermore, Bangladesh has a greater Muslim populations than Pakistan, so I am removing the comment about Pakistan coming in second place to Indonesia in Muslim population.Dogru144 (talk) 01:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Bangladesh has 89-90% muslims, whereas Pakistan has 98%+ muslims. So the number of muslims in Pakistan is higher (as the total populations are comparable). --Ragib (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, wrong. This is why you need to be careful with that notion of common knowledge is.--Loodog (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Loodog, I assume you are replying to Dogru144 here, right? --Ragib (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

link to persian article

the link to persian article is wrong. please correct it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.122.19.193 (talk) 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Location

I know that Pakistan wants to be an Arabic nation, but they are no located in SW Asia or even the middle-east, they are in South Asia along with the rest of their people - Indians. I know sometime people may throw them into a "greater mid-east" because they are Muslims and for political purposes, but they are in South Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.93.188 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Pakistanis dont want to be Arab. We are Pakistanis and that is a fact. We are a non-Arab nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.236.91.3 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

thats your opinion, maybe the rest of your people want to be included into the group —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.84.118 (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

NO thats YOUR opinion!!! Pakistanis are pakistanis, not remotely arabs or want to be arabs! Please get your facts straight! and do give a link to prove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.228.85 (talk) 06:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Education Section, 2nd Paragraph

This paragraph I'm assuming is supposed to talk about the British Education system (O and A Levels), so the first line that mentions them having a curriculum set by Muhammad is ridiculous. --Schajee (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

How is Pakistan in the middle east ?

I was wondering how pakistan is in the middle east? I thought it was only centrel Asia or South Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.84.93 (talk) 21:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Some users are using the new term Greater Middle East which Pakistan is in. However, Pakistan is also in South Asia. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The association is much older. When the term was first coined, the approaches to India were included in the Middle East, referring to most of what is today Pakistan. The western regions are Iranian-speaking and indistinguishable from Afghanisttan and southeastern Iran (Sistan and Baluchestan Province) and this was a consideration. Thus, as Pakistan is a country that is comprised of the eastern areas generally associated with Indian culture, the western areas have been geared more towards Central Asia & the Mideast. This does not preclude Pakistan being in South Asia as it can be included as part of other regions as well. The geographic designations are imperfect as countries like Turkey are generally included in both Europe and Asia (again using sometimes arbitrary criteria, but because one part is in Europe and the other in the Mideast). Afghanistan also gets variously defined in Central and/or South Asia as well as the Middle East. The overall association has more to do with Iran as opposed to the more distant Arabic-speaking world. Tombseye (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

So Iran is "middle east" and the countries right next to it (Afghanistan and Pakistan is "South Asia"......and here's another one......If Paksitan is part of the greater middle east, then why isn't India? Im not saying I want India to be title as a middle eastern country, im just saying some these things don't make sense. ARYAN818 (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

because india is IN SOUTH ASIA, go look on a map. indians culturally, geographically and physically are South Asian whereas Pakistani's are not!

Pakistan is similar to Turkey in that it borders on the Middle East, with half the country on the Iranian plateau, but the country also borders South Asia and Central Asia. I think Pakistan can technically be allowed to and be considered to be a part of each of these regions. 99.228.164.238 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

biased paragraph in the military section

"Pakistan has been strongly criticized for its support of Islamic terrorism in neighboring India and Afghanistan."

firstly why is this allegation included in the pakistan secion at all, and for some reason put in the miltary section, and why is there no "alleged" preceding "support of islamic terrorism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.45.67 (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

it seems articles pertaining to Pakistan are routinely vandalized by indians and altered with incorrect, biased and often racist undertones. I hope moderators will help control this problem and ban these complexed indian vandalizers 99.228.164.238 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Official Language

As per the constitution of Pakistan, English is the official language of Pakistan. The information box incorrectly states Urdu to be the official language, whereas it is actually the national language (the constitution maintains a difference between these two terms). Please correct this error and give English it's due recognition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.246.34 (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It still hasnt been changed. English is the official language, not Urdu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.153.23.236 (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If one looks at the following URL http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/

the Constitution of Pakistan states ;

251. National language.

(1) The National language of Pakistan is Urdu, and arrangements shall be made for its :being used for official and other purposes within fifteen years from the commencing day.

(2) Subject to clause (1), the English language may be used for official purposes until :arrangements are made for its replacement by Urdu.

(3) Without prejudice to the status of the National language, a Provincial Assembly may :by law prescribe measures for the leaching, promotion and use of a Provincial language :in addition to the National language.

Eog1916 (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Society and Culture, 2nd Paragraph

The sentence "However, majority of Pakistanis listen to Indian music produced by Bollywood and other Indian film industries" needs citation.

Besides the section lacks the mention of Pakistani pop and independant music industry which is a strong contender for being favored by the majority of Pakistanis in addition to being a significant export to Bollywood in the recent years, especially the work of Atif Aslam and Rahat Fateh Ali Khan.

thanks

--Ainakwalajin (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, reference 97 has been cited insufficiently, the cited is about the ban on Bollywood movies being lifted in 2008, while the citation uses it only to mention imposition of the ban in 1965.

--Ainakwalajin (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

The New York Times reported that there are more terrorists per square mile in Pakistan than anywhere else in the world, but Pakistan isn't doing enough to rein in the terrorists (the Jamat-ud-Dawa chief being let off is an example), so I hope you guys can include that in the article. I'm not sure how to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Jhingaadey (talk • contribs) 11:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For information: The above edit was made by an IP sock of a banned editor. Verbal chat 12:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously dude, take your propaganda some where else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.199 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

direct quote in Etymology section

The etymology section implies that the quoted material is from the Now or Never pamphlet, but the words are not exactly from there. Either the quote should be introduced differently or the words of the pamphlet should be used/? Ed8r (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Highly Misleading

1) "In recent times, Pakistan has been called part of the New Middle East.": Thats a term created by Bush administration in reference to their own political handlings (In 2004).It also includes central Asian states and Turkey as "greater Middle East". This is purely a case of POV, and should not be mentioned in the starting paragraph. Its highly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.199 (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Adbus Salaam

There is no mention of Salaam in the article, which is unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.129 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sikhs as invaders/settlers in main section

The main section says the Sikhs were invaders/settlers, but in fact they were neither, as they mostly originated locally from parts of Punjab which are now in Pakistan and even had their first capital in Gujranwala before moving to Lahore, so in reality it's in in present day India that they could, largely, be considered invaders or settlers, I think it should be removed from the current section as it's not only misleading but false, however Sikhs should be mentioned as part of the empires that existed in the region. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.Khokhar (talk • contribs) 11:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Sikhs are native to Pakistan, cannot be considered invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.202 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with youre statement. you are free to change it. I have no objections Taeyebaar (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, then now some suggestions on where to add the Sikh element, I can think of two places:

1. In the second paragraph it states: "The region forming modern Pakistan was home to the ancient Indus Valley Civilisation and then, successively, recipient of ancient Vedic, Persian, Turco-Mongol, Indo-Greek and Islamic cultures" we could all add "as well as being the birth place of the Sikh religion/culture/empire" or something similar.

2. In the Third paragraph it states "Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world and has the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia.[10][11][12] It also has the second largest Shia Muslim population in the world" I could add the same as above here also. Any suggestions?

Khokhar (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree, you can mention it as the birth place for historical vedic religion (predecessor to modern Hinduism) and Sikhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.2.191 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrong statistics for shias

I think some bastard mother fucker shia has wrote that Pakistan muslim population has 30 percent shia, this is the biggest bull shit of the world. The correct no of shias in pakistan is hardly 5 percent, I want to change this wrong number but someone has locked the page, please some patriotic Pakistani can change this shit wrong number of shias on this page, I will be very grateful to you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by GSG Flash (talk • contribs) 20:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, watch your language, it only accentuates you as the uneducated barbarian that you are. Second, that figure you are talking about came from one of your rubbish anti-Shia ultra-Sunni nationalist websites (which I think should be revised as that website seems untrustworthy and is not objective). Third, learn how to use Wikipedia before clicking that edit button, or better yet don't click that edit button at all and save us our time and IQ points from reading your garbage of a message. --GSG Flash (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither the first edit, nor the second reply to it abusing the first editor is acceptable on wikipedia - I know because I have been subjected to similar on the British National Party talk page. However what is particularly strange is that both edits are from the same user. Chill out, brother.--Streona (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

First of my edits was me correcting the format of this page, second of my edits was my reply. I meant to do both in one edit but I hit the "save page" button a bit prematurely. Don't think anything of the two edits, you can compare them if you don't believe me for some reason. And yes I know my reply was not of proper etiquette but whatever, I don't that user deserves any proper etiquette. --GSG Flash (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Shia population is approximately 25-30% in Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.199 (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Greater Middle East?

The lead section of this article says "In recent times, Pakistan has been called part of the Greater Middle East." Saying Pakistan is a part of the "Greater Middle East" is like saying the United States is a part of the "Greater Latin America". The "Greater Middle East" should be erased from the article. AdjustShift (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't just a random opinion, it was coined by the G8 at the suggestion of the Bush Administration in 2004.[1] So a mention of the term "Greater Middle East" is certainly warranted, so long as it is attributed to the G8 from 2004. Fences&Windows 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Which Administration? Wasn't the Bush Administration the same administration that waged needless war in Iraq? I've not seen any political theorist or IR expert using the "Greater Middle East" in any academic paper or book. Bush and co have very little knowledge about the rest of the word. WP is written from a neutral POV; we don't write articles from a Bush POV. It is very silly to mention in the lead section of the article that "In recent times, Pakistan has been called part of the Greater Middle East." It could be mentioned somewhere in the article that the "Greater Middle East" was coined by the G8 at the suggestion of the Bush Administration in 2004, but certainly not in the lead section. Fences and windows, you are an Irish; if you go to South Asia and say to any educated person that Pakistan is in the "Greater Middle East", he/she will laugh at you. Pakistan is linguistically and culturally closer to India and other South Asian countries. Pakistan is in South Asia. AdjustShift (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I had missed that this was in the lead, sorry! It shouldn't be, as that does indeed give undue weight to this new political label. But it has been used in scholarly articles, see:[2][3]. So regardless of our opinions of the Bush Administration - and mine aren't favourable - the article should refer to the term "Greater Middle East". Fences&Windows 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please can the editor of pakistan page change the pakistan resolution to lahore resolution as that what it is called in reality and this is. It is known now as the pakistan resolution. The name pakistan came about after 23rd march 1940. I believe it was on 6th september 1940. There is no mention in the lahore resolution of pakistan as the name of new country.

The name of paksitan was only formally told to the media and public at large by the founder of pakistan mohammed ali jinnah on september 6 1940 i believe.

In times archive section you can look up mohammed ali jinanh speaking to the legislative assembly with congress in the same building about the country pakistan.

the date of times newspaper london article is 20 november 1940, the actual article was written on 19th november 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanj10 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sikhs are a reformist Panjabi cult

why does this article state that Sikhs settled Pakistan?? Sikhs are a reformist religious cult from the 16 th century that sprang up indigenously within Pakistan's panjab region, they did not settle it in any way or form. Please correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Main map with article

Why is that map used? More precisely, why bother including disputed territories, particularly those that are under the direct control of another state? The map of the Taiwan article doesn't include claims on mainland China! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.142.5 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir is a official state of India.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.0.86 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

exactly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.186.181 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. No country's map should show regions it does not control, at least not on wikipedia. I've tried to address this by adding rename templates on the following files on wikimedia commons: [4], [5] & [6]. If you agree to the edits I've suggested please ask an empowered user from the list [7] to make these changes. Atin Bhattacharya (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Error?

In the article: " In 1971, a civil war in East Pakistan resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. "

That seems rather unlikely, given that Bangladesh is on the other side of India. 74.210.39.130 (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you knew anything about South Asia you would have known that Bangladesh was called East Pakistan from 1955 to 1971. Atin Bhattacharya (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A wonderful illustration of how personal incredulity is a useless guide to what is true. See Bangladesh Liberation War. Fences&Windows 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Better sentence structure

`Pakistan is still a poor and developing nation that faces problems with poverty and illiteracy at a high rate.`` Change poor or poverty to something else because it sounds repeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.62.12 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The GPS coordinates indicate Israel, not Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.170.134 (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

please once again refer to the map of the subcontinent in particular the "loc" it would be better not to include disputed part of kashmir with pakistan . plz do refer to the region as pok pakistan occupied kashmir or else remain completly neutral by indicating that region as disputed. i feel injustice done to India in the map shown here. 115.184.231.73 (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The cars in Pakistan are right-hand drive

there's an error that the cars are left-hand in Pakistan, while actually they are right hand drive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potterhead90 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cars drive on the left side of the road, thus the cars are right-hand drive. Pahari Sahib 20:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Jinnah Photo

Do we have a better photo of Jinnah? The current photo makes it look like there is blood pouring out of Jinnah's eyes...

This photo is much better. It shows two great leaders that influenced the creation of Pakistan. Gandhi created an independent British India and Jinnah created an independent Pakistan. Nikkul (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi didn't create an independent British India; he helped India to achieve independence from the British. AdjustShift (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I have striked out the word British because I think this is what he meant. Pahari Sahib 08:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Population

Why is the population of Pakistan stated to be 181 million people whereas the official Pakistani population clock states only 167,540,000 persons? Which figure is a better estimate of the actual population?Avman89 (talk) 05:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Quite frankly the UN source is more reliable, this site says 167,540,000 as of 27 Sep 2009, whilst this one says 164,618,507 as of 18 September 2009. They can't both be right - and I think they are both wrong. Pahari Sahib 08:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Old.

This article needs to be updated. It has nothing from 2009, the current year, especially the refugee and taliban relationships? America's donation of $310 million. And the current situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.248.197 (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Meetup

We are planning 1st Wikipedians Meetup in Karachi,Pakistan. See Meetup.--Zainichi Gaikokujin (talk) 08:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pakistani

Actually there was no conversion of Hindus happened in pakistan and every pakistani is a arab in origin.true?those who says their forefathers were converted to islam from hinduism is a zionist/hindu/christian propaganda.isn't it?Oh!forgot!everything which doesnot fit the taste of islamists are propaganda from zionists ?If I said ,pakistan is a nation that lives just on the hate of non-muslims and India ,It is the Best Kept Truth Proclaimed openly. conspiracy theories regarding each and everything justifying islam and terrorism.living in denial.isn't that what all pakistaniat is all about?just asks in a neutral POV.and faithfreedom.org is a site which opens the folly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Read this interesting article published in NY Times about Pakistani Identity >> [8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.212.224 (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

ERROR IN MOTO @ PAKISTAN info Page

Hi Admin,

Please be informed that @ Pakistan main page on wikipedia. there are few errors. The one I would like to mention now its just in start of page under basic info section in

Motto: اتحاد، تنظيم، يقين مُحکم

Ittehad, Tanzim, Yaqeen-e-Muhkam (Urdu)

"Unity, Discipline and Faith"

Actually the right sequance is " Faith - Unity - Discipline " - same also correct sequance should be in Urdu. If you would look @ Govt of Pakistan logo you will find the right motto. It would be highly appreciated if you kindly correct it at your earliest convineance. thanks RB/Netolian 04:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Jinnah is quoted with both sequences in the same sentence (December 28, 1947). And since the quote is in English, the Urdu translations and its sequences have always been up for debate. The differences in what appears on the emblem, in the books and what we believe to be true can be blown up as a Jewish/Hindu conspiracy or brushed aside as a non-issue that we really should be moving beyond. The decision is yours. sch@jee (8255) 03:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Why "extremist Islamic militants" why not just " militants"

I dont see the objectivity here. How come we have Islamic Terrorism and Islamic Militancy while when a non Muslim commits the same acts his/her religion is not attached to his label.

Militants are just militants and terrorists are just terrorists. Can any one please correct this mistake in the military section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umair101 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamic militants because: (1) it's the accepted form in Europe, India, USA, etc. (2) The militants themselves say they are fighting for Allah (3) This is a global movement carried out by (nominal) Muslims, regardless of whether they are real Muslims for killing people or not. If Shiv Sena is Hindu militants... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.66.210 (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

They are just using name of Allah and they actually dont even know His teaching then how could they be Muslims. If you are believing them to be muslims only because they say so then you should also belive that they are doing the right thing because they say so too. How come you beleive half of what they say and ignoring the other half. it does not make any sense. So either decide them on the basis of their action(non-muslim terrorists) or on the basis of what they say about themselves(peace loving Muslims)Aeymon (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan, India ????

Someone needs to remove this line "For the village in India, see Pakistan, India." from the top of the article. People searching up information about Pakistan might start to think that the country belongs to India and get confused. They will think that we are not an Independent Nation and part of a LARGER INDIA. These Slumdogs stop at nothing to erase us...lol

Yeah thats right! I agree it must be removed or it should be at least stated in some different way which should clarify its meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeymon (talk • contribs) 20:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should remove it completely because, we don't need any type of confusion concerning sovereignty issues. After 62 years, the Indians suddenly remember this unimportant village out of nowhere...lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.117.1.172 (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It is common practice in wikipedia articles to include hatnotes to articles with similar titles. It is more common to have an entire page for navigation (Pakistan (disambiguation)) to include all possible articles, but that page has not been created. If someone were to create Pakistan (disambiguation) with a list of things a person could have meant by the phrase "Pakistan", we could include a hatnote to that, instead of just to the village in India.--Louiedog (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Improvement Suggestions

1. I want the article to mention more of our links to the Middle East and less with India. This is the perfect opening sentence from the on 09 May, 2009 below: Pakistan (Urdu: پاکستان Pākistān ), officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a South Asian country located in the mountainous region adjoining Central Asia and the Middle East.

2. Please remove the following statement of "In addition to the Indian independence movement (led by Mahatma Gandhi of the Indian National Congress)" --—Preceding unsigned comment added by Advil123 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Both of these suggestions are, unfortunately, very dubious. Pakistan was, and is a part of south asia, and hardly geographically located in the Middle east. It is a stretch of imagination to claim PK to be part of Middle east, or the imaginative term "Greater middle east". And there is no justification for #2. --Ragib (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is some merit in point 2, the article currently says "in addition to the Indian independence movement (led by Mahatma Gandhi of the Indian National Congress), the Pakistan Movement (led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah of the Muslim League) demanded an independent state for the majority Muslim populations of the eastern and western regions of British India. This could be taken, by the casual reader, to mean that League and Congress shared the viewpoint. Pahari Sahib 08:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; Pakistanis physically have nothing in common with Indians than we have with Bengalis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advil123 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone please fix these errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.141.53 (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, what will you do next ... claim Arab or middle-eastern genetic lineage of Pakistanis? :) Or claim that the language spoken there is Arabic? :) Or that the whole of current day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were 3 components of British Raj ? :) Geographically, and Physically Pakistan has little to do with Middle East. --Ragib (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The two major languages of Pakistan - Punjabi and Sindhi - are both Aryan. The people are genetically the same as the Indians. The national language of Pakistan - Urdu - developed in the Gangetic plain and there as more Urdu speakers in India than in Pakistan itself. Pakistan's identity thus has a predominant "Indian" component, and ever since their secession from India, Pakistanis have been searching for an alternate identity, an identity completely different from their Indian origins. I think this is what results in their philia for the Arabs. Atin Bhattacharya (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. Urdu is actually found in parts of Punjab but more in present day india than Pakistan. The reason for that is while the Mughals ruled most of North India an Bangladesh but they maintained their capitals in Lahore, that's why Urdu texts are also found there. There has been Urdu poetry found in Lahore going back to the 12th century. So the claim that it "developed strictly in the genetic valley" is wrong. Had the mughals not gone more east of Punjab, Urdu might never have been found in north india. Urdu's parent language Sanskrit, was also spoken in the Indus valley for thousands of years. Sanskrit was never spoken in most of india, although there has been a campeign to take indian ownership of the language. Urdu is basicly developed by Mughals derived from Sanskrit, with Turkic & Persian influences. The bottom line is, Pakistan's identity & origins lie in the Indus Valley, not in india or the middle east. Linguistic & genetic evidence attest to this. only north india is indo-european wheras Pakistan is almost entirely Indo-European. Haplogroup maps also show that haplogroup R1A is limited to only certain parts of india, wheras it dominates Pakistan aside from eastern europe. Haplogorup L & R2 are carried by north indians but not really by Pakistanis. only muslim immigrants from india have L & R2 markers in them. Look up some global linguistic & haplogroup maps to clarify this-99.227.90.213 (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan as nation developed with a blend of South Asian and Middle Eastern culture influences. There is no denying it. By the way, Arabic language is also spoken by a large group of Pakistanis (Majority of it, by Muslim purists and returning Gulf workers). Large amounts of Pakistanis look more like Arabs than darker short Indians or Bengalis due to the settlers/invaders link. So, if the British conqueared Balochistan and NWFP a 100 hundred years ago that makes them Indian overlooking their Persian and Arabic links. I am amazed by the inferiority complex of some Indians and Bengalis, lol. GOD FORBID, that Pakistan has its own identity !!!:—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.141.53 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to make a smaller addition to the point about the indian independence movement to remove the noted ambiguity, we can continue to discuss the rest.Khokhar (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. I agree with Pahari Sahib that any ambiguities (as shown in his example) should be clarified. --Ragib (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ps. The point about Pakistan bordering the Middle east(Iran is more commonly included in the Middle east as well as the short distance between Pakistans south coast and the Arabian peninsula) and Central Asia (much of pakistan falls into many definitions of Central Asia) is also a valid one and should be given due consideration and maybe we should discuss it further, also can we please refrain from making 'genetic' statements as they are uncalled for and not required in the context of this article, if people are really interested there is more than enough material available to make up their own mind. Khokhar (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We have had this long discussion here about the concept of "Greater middle east". As far as I remember, no references from reliable sources were ever shown proving that Pakistan has a lesser South Asian nature, and considered to be in Middle East. BTW, I was referring to the anon/advil123, who commented on physical differences. --Ragib (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the original point was "adjoining Central Asia and the Middle East" which is valid and there are significant cultural influences as well as people living/intermingled in Pakistan who originated from these areas; which is not as much the case in the rest of South asia, so it's definately a valid point, of course the South Asian influence is also important but that's already been covered. Khokhar (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. Geographically Pakistan is at a crossroads between the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia ( for e.g the suggested gas/oil pipelines from Iran to India or the piplelines from central Asia to the Arabian sea and even India), this, naturally, gives Pakistan a distinctive strategic position and has actually been discussed a lot in recent times, it shouldn't be too hard finding referenced content stating this, and it is something that should be recognised.Khokhar (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Khokhar that the opening sentence must include South Asia, Middle East & Central Asia as the May 09, 2009 Pakistan article. Plus, you must remove the mention of this sentence " addition to the Indian independence movement (led by Mahatma Gandhi of the Indian National Congress) which demanded an independent India,". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advil123 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added some points about Pakistan's geosttrategic position, as discussed above: [9]Khokhar (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A word of advice to the editors in this thread - don't use your personal opinion in editing or even as much as possible in discussing this article. Put national pride aside, whether Indian, Pakistani, or another, and edit and discuss this using facts that can be verified from mainstream reliable sources. Particularly, avoid generalisations about the opinions or beliefs of entire nations, avoid making statements on genetics or ancestry without verifying them, and take care to avoid making statements or edits that might offend or annoy someone from a different background to your own. Fences&Windows 00:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the word 'Portmanteau' should be included in the 'Etymology' section and linked to the referent article because it's a cool and relevant word.SmappleMcWingers 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

More signs of Mughals needed.

There must be more pictures and sub-articles about Mughals who ruled Pakistan for hundreds of years. Currently there is only one picture in the the Tourism section(Lahore Fort picture) and no sub-article to talk in detail about these very significant rulers who are taught about in every Pakistani history book.

The mughals were a foreign army ruling over the region, just like the British. Not a single British site seems to be in the article., so let's keep the mughal one limited too PakShield (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

History

Just a note:

All of this Mohenjo-Daro Harrappa nonsense is India's history, not Pakistan's and Pakistan has one of the most handsomest men ever Zarak Asif Yusuufzai.

Pakistan's history starts as soon as a separate state for muslims is proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.84.118 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• In more than 7000 years of past history, India had note been a united country except only in three small periods. First was that of Ashoka (less than 50), second by Aurengzeb (Mughals) for not more than 90 years and the British (90 years). For other thousands of years of period India has been composed of sevral countries and states. So when we speak of Indian history, it is the history of a region and not a country. So the history of the area now called Pakistan is any thing related to the region called Pakistan now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.122.19.193 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

you see this is about the Indian culture. the pakis might claim the land, but it all has a long period of indian history, it was only 1400 years ago that islam was created. the country is only 60 years old, and you are contradicting yourself by saying that it is about a region, not a country. after all, the article is named "Pakistan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.186.181 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A: What Indian culture are you talking about? An India without Indus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.2.69 (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Any thing within Pakistan's geographic domain is Pakistani and NOT INDIAN. --203.99.179.235 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And anything that just came out of INDIA and hardly survived 60 years, lying by the side of INDIA like son by side of father, is not INDIAN. Don't you think Pakistan should pay respect and mannered sense to the Indian Community, Indian Religions, Trades & Friendly nature of INDIA. And what you know about the Pakistan's geographical domain. Have anyone seen, what were the geographical domains of that Pakistan at their independence?? You people even don't know your LOC and talking about geographical domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.129.244 (talk) 19:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

to Mr. 117.198.129.244,

Wikipedia policy, instructs me to assume good faith of all posters but even after making necessary assumptions for good faith, your tone still appears to be full of venom again Pakistan. First of All the name India is nothing but a reference given to subcontinent by greeks. Ancient texts show the name of this region as Bahrat -varsha

Secondly, Pakistan was never a part of Republic of India, but was a part of British Indian empire. Both Pakistan and Republic of India are 62 yrs old.

Thirdly, historically India has been referred to a region, where more than one empires (read national entities) flourished at the same point of time, except for a few brief stints in history where all the region was under one regime. Currently using Republic of India for Indian region is a misnomer (an India without Indus???) --111.68.96.117 (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sir, I think you are wrongly thinking of new India as the old India. The new India is not the same as the old one, . Both the new India and Pakistan are 62 years old. You are thinking of new India as the mother of Pakistan. That's wrong. It's more like old India is the mother of new India and Pakistan. MODERN INDIA JUST TOOK THE RIGHTS TO THE NAME INDIA SO WE HAVE AS MUCH RIGHT TO THE INDIAN EMPIRE AS YOU DO. It's our history, what ever is in India is your history. Yeah I agree that Mohenjo Daro is Indian history, it's the old Indian history not the new one so you have no right to come into our Pakistan and claim that as your history. By the way, the last comment is exactly right. The Indus is named after the region of India not the nation of India and Mohenjo Daro, Taxila, the Indus River are all our history. You have your Ganga, keep it. Please do your research before adding your comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shazy1022 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Pipeline

Are these pipeline deal links (Footnote 6, Footnote 7) in the header really necessary to "prove" the statement that Pakistan is a country in South Asia? --bender235 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

lolzz its funny isnt it..

Any ways i am planning to improve the article it was a former feature article and should be a feature article again. I will shortly request its peer review for this purpose.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Right hand drive

I would like to inform you to please make correction In Pakistan vehicles are right hand drive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.184.163 (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan have left hand drive, left hand drive should nt be mixed with left hand driving seat in the car, its actually a system of roads, i.e on which side to drive and on which side of road to drive whn u wanna turn left/right.

Thus according to this system pakistan have left hand drive. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Speeling Mistake in References

Pakistan" is mis-spelled as "Pakistna" in reference no. 78 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilam-hasilawa (talk • contribs) 04:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Was the Creation of Pakistan an Error?

In the beginning of 2009, renowned intellectual of Pakistan Irshad Ahmad Haqqani wrote some articles in daily "Jang" in which he expressed his reservations on the decision of the creation of Pakistan . Wali Khan in his book "Facts are Sacred" had already expressed such ideas. Dawn News telecast a documentary "I Remember Jinnah" and Marium Chaudhry wrote an article in daily "Dawn" and expressed her dissatisfaction regarding the role of Jinnah in partition. She wrote, "Was he a civilian with the fire of a freedom fighter or a villain with a vendetta" . Recently Arif Mian published his book "Barr-e-Saghir Kaise Tuta?", in which he interviewed top twenty four intellectuals and historians of Pakistan, and tried to communicate that the creation Pakistan was an error. He also question marked the personality of Jinnah. Regarding the question of creation of Pakistan, Dr. Mubarak Ali commented, "I personally think (creation of Pakistan) was an error. In the present situation Muslims of (subcontinent) are divided into three parts namely Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. Had India remained a single state, they would have recognised their demands ".

{{editsemiprotected}} Nazarulislam123 (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want done here. Do you want this bit of text added to the article or do you want something changed or updated? Also, recheck your spelling. Feel free to restore the tag afterwards. Thanks.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  300° 21' 0" NET   20:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I want that the above text be added at some suitable place in the article. I have corrected the spelling mistakes. Nazarulislam123 (talk) 10:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. I think the question is where in the article might a suitable place be for this paragraph. The gist of the paragraph seems to be that some people feel that the sixty year old decision to create Pakistan was an error. That sounds like a fringe view and WP:weight suggests that the article doesn't need an entire paragraph about that. A single sentence with an improved reference might fit into the history section, but I think the bulk of the paragraph wouldn't improve the article. Celestra (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Actually in the history of Pakistan, Pakistan Movement is very significant. The question "was the creation of Pakistan an error?" is as old as Pakistan Movement. During Pakistan movement, only Muslim League was in the favour of this movement. Indian Nation Congress, Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Hind, Ahrar and Khudai Khidmatgar were all against the creation of Pakistan. The Muslim Politicians who differed with the idea of creation of this country include Abul Kalam Azad, Hussain Ahmad Madani, Dr. Zakir Hussain, Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Wali Khan and others. Almost all the Hindus were against the creation of Pakistan. These facts must be mentioned in the history of Pakistan. After creation of Pakistan, though Abdul Ghaffar Khan and Wali Khan (both popular political leaders of NWFP province) took the oath of loyalty for Pakistan, but they maintained their view that Pakistan's creation was an error remained unaltered. Now after 60 years of its creation, some historians and intellectuals are trying to re-analyse the history. Actually the crises Pakistan is facing since its inception compelled some people to think on such lines that Pakistan's creation was not a well thought action. (No doubt it is a fringe view). These aspects of the history of Pakistan Movement must be added in the history section of this article. If you suggest, I will rewrite the paragraph in the historical perspective, and at the end I will mention that how intellectuals of this age now tend to agree with those who were against the creation of Pakistan started because of zarak aif hansome man, in the days of Pakistan Movement.

Nazarulislam123 (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not appropriate to say that it was an error, sounds like supporting the indian view of akhand bharat (or some thing in indian tht reads like tht). I can be mentioned in the history section that number of political leaders were against the partition of Indian subcontinent.

It would be POV to say against the creation of pakistan therefore it would be better to have a NPOV and say against the partition of Indian subcontinent.

Its an extremely fringe view and can be regarded as a Personal view of some individuals. Muslim league's victory in the Muslim majority areas stands as testimony to the creation of Pakistan. Things are simple for those who are simple but they get chaotic for those who have their own axe to grind. Apart from this if one believes on conspiracy theories and stuff like that .... then wht can i say.

As for adding wht intellectuals of present day think about the creation of Pakistan or they now tend to agree with those who opposed the partition of india, plz check this Wikipedia:Fringe theories its about the fringe theories and rules regarding it, in past ppl has used wikipedia for promoting their ideas etc which are widely acknowledged as extreme and fringe. So first rule tht comes is providing an independent source that talks about it. In case of Pakistan it means, neither the source of those who promote such ideas (like references to their article as u mentioned above about the articles in Dawn etc ) nor any thing Indian (You know Akhand Bharat and stuff like tht the never accepted the partition did they ?).

All sources which are third party (who dont hv their own axe to grind) will be welcomed. SEE Independent sources

Regards. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC) pakistan has a flag that has meanings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.60.209 (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

peer review

The article is having a peer review. All the suggestions are welcomed to improve the article for feature status. Regards الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

needs more coverage of current situation and violence in Pakistan. somebody new who reads this article would think that Pakistan is the most peaceful and prosperous country in the world. just my 2 cents Wikireader41 (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

comments were suppose to be given on peer review page, any ways tht a suggestion, i will work on it shortly

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

this what I meant Pakistan suffers record number of deaths due to militant violenceWikireader41 (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes i am working on it, thanks. الله أكبرMohammad Adil 11:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking where should i adjust the above mentioned info regqarding war on terror, should it be in military section with a link to any related main article, any suggestions ?

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added this to military section in the article along with a main article link to War in North-West Pakistan.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 14:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WildBot fixes

WildBot found links to DAB pages and broken links to sections in related articles that needed repair.

 Done  —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Languages

The article says that "English is the official language of Pakistan and used in official business, government, and legal contracts, while Urdu is the national language." However, the source given (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html) says that Urdu and English are both official languages and makes no reference to any "national language". Other sources also call Urdu the (or an) official language of Pakistan.

It would be good if the "Languages" section gave some idea of percentages of speakers. For example, acording to the same CIA source, Punjabi is by far the most common language in Pakistan, with six times as many speakers as Urdu, yet you would hardly get that idea from the article.

Perhaps someone could take a look at these points. 86.161.43.54 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC).

NWFP/Pakhtoonkhwa

{{editsemiprotected}} Can the name 'North West Frontier Province' please be changed to the new name of Khyber-Pakhtoonkhwa.. there is only one place in the article which calls the province by the new name and everywhere else it still says NWFP which is outdated now

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.154.111.184 (talk) 08:52, 1 April 2010

As far as I can tell, the rename has not yet happened; for example, this news article says, "The name is still subject to approval by Parliament". We would need evidence, in the form of a reliable source.  Chzz  ►  09:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 Not done

http://www.nwfp.gov.pk/nwfpgov/index.php This is the link for the provincial government's official website. they haven't changed the domain name but the home page calls the province Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa pretty clearly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.145.183.4 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

History section skips

History between, after Harappa and before Indo-Greek and between 300 BCE to 712 AD is missing. Can someone with the information add the history during these period.

~rAGU (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

maybe we should add a section about Vedic era here? Or is it unpatriotic to give even a small credit to Hindus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.129.239 (talk) 10:07, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it is unpatriotic, but wikipedia is not a place to show "patriotism". Wayne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.63.252 (talk) 10:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Error in GDP data.. revision needed throughout wikipedia

I wanted to point out that the IMF data cited for the GDP data does not correlate with the data given on the wiki page, the GDP(real) is $166.513Bn and GDP(real) per capita is $1016 as per 2009 estimates provided by them(IMF). These values would also need to be changed in the countries by GDP(real) page. Also the population number is incorrect, going by IMF 2009 data is should be 166.513mil. All this is from the 3rd link in the bibliography of this page. Thanks. Ivan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.208.160 (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

According to page and the source, the numbers match. None of the country articles that I know of or the rankings page has updated to the 2009 IMF staff estimates (probably because they're "staff estimates" rather than organization estimates). The figures listed are for 2008. Population data is hard for fast growing countries like Pakistan. So we can't really say that it's wrong since there are various estimates from reliable sources like the UN and Statistics department of Pakistan. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

so what? lets do the edits. 76.90.63.252 (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2010 (U In short the creation of pakistan was not an error at all. Muslims have different culture as compare to hinduism, their culture is different and every think they are used to living is different so what. i have different culture than rest of the country. lets make another country out around my house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.97.129.157 (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Name/Etymology

Reading from the etymology section, it is unclear which came first. Did the name "Pakistan" mean "land of the Pure", and was then refashioned it into a portmanteau, or was the portmanteau invented, which later was incorporated into Urdu and Farsi with the more sublime meaning? MrPMonday (talk) 01:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'd also like to point out the article mentions Islamabad as forming part of the portmanteau, but the Islamabad article says the town was planned in 1960, long after "Pakistan" was conceived of...--Smarkflea (talk) 01:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Change of Name of the North-West Frontier Province to Khyber-Pakhtunkha

The change has taken effect as President of Pakistan has sign'ed on the amendment in the 1973's Constitution of Pakistan, after it has passed from the both sections of the Parliament of Pakistan. I, in this context, rather see it necessary that the mention(s) of North-West Frontier Province, also abbreviated as N.W.F.P or simply NWFP, immediately change to Khyber-Pakhtunkha.SAY NO TO RACISM 22:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

• We are acutely aware that the name has been officially changed. We can highlight this issue (for example in the list of provinces and territories), but we cannot simply eliminate NWFP until there is a consensus for moving North-West Frontier Province to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. If you look at Talk:North-West Frontier Province, you will see that there have been two proper attempts so far, but there is disagreement as yet. Undoubtedly, the new name will increase in usage across the spectrum of media, literature, politics etc and the article will move. Green Giant (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A good article but a little patchy!

I am new to this so if I am doing something wrong...Im sorry!

This article does a good job at addressing quite a complex topic. The thing I would say about it is this...I just tried to put together a brief history of Pakistan and found some stuff lacking

1. Ayub Khan - Yahya Khan: Doesnt explain why this happened, mentions the Second Kashmir War but doesnt mention that this was in any way important.

2. The article gets very vague after 1988

I do realise that some things are discussed elsewhere but there should be at least a clue as where to go or what is important. I would just like to see this article made a bit more succinct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjones1966 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Perochak

People of Perochak. Here is the list of people of perochak who are doing great job in the progress of the Country, Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perochak (talk • contribs) 11:26, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Shia Muslims in Pakistan

All the sources stating the fact are based on either 1981 or 1998 census report. Hence these sources are correct though yet old, although rough independent estimates suggest they account for one quarter (15-20%) of the population. However, Shia Muslims claim to make up one-third of Pakistan’s population of 180 million, according the to current estimates the actual Shia population is more than 30% of Pakistan on this link, here and here, since in the last census reports great number of Shia families publicly never exposed their Shia faith by practicing "Taqiyya", due to reason that they feared getting killed since during early 80s till 90s, the last two decades were bloody and the Shia's in Pakistan had to face mass execution by the hands of extremist Deobandi and Salafi organizations, many Shia groups continue to practice Taqiyya since they fear death by the hands of Anti-Shia forces that use to dominate Pakistan at that time. There was a complete lawless situation, and yes no body talked about the genocide that the Shia had to suffer by the state sponsored extremists.Overwhelming results regarding Shia execution in Pakistan. Last year i attended a "Inter-Faith Religious Harmony Convention" at the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, the convention was presided by the Judges from the Supreme Court Bar council, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Religious affairs and many notable Scholars. In the convention they all laid emphasis on co-existence and facts regarding the total sectarian division in Pakistan and stated this; "Around 65% of Total (To be precise) Pakistani Muslims are Sunni Muslims and there is a minority 30% Shi'a Shia Ithna 'ashariyah Muslims, while remaining 5% of the Muslim population comprises Salafis, Nizari, Sufi and Zikri. Then the secretary of religious affairs (Mr. Agha Sarwar Raza Qazilbash)[10] stated that Muslims are divided into following schools: the Barelvi 41%, Shia Ithna Asharia 25%, Deobandi 21%, Ahle Hadith or Salafi 5%, Ismaili 5%, Bohra 0.25%, and other smaller sects." Now lets talk about this division, The Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahle Hadith, Salafi are sub-sects of Sunni Islam, While Shia Ithna Asharia, Ismaili, Bohra are sub-sects of Shia Islam. Then everyone talked about various problems like religious freedom, sectarian hatred, etc while one of which was Taqiyya in practice, due to which the actual Shia estimates in Pakistan has always been uncertain and is certainly more then the mentioned 25%. I hope you understand Taqqiya then hopefully you'll understand my claim and what this is all about. SyedNaqvi90 (talk) 04:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Listing of founder

Turkey lists its founder. Should that be removed also? Hcobb (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Religion

In the religion section, somebody put Ahmedis with Muslims (Sunni and Shia). They also took out Ahmedis from minority section. Please fix it. 83.82.207.195 (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from. The Pakistani constitution calls Ahmadis non-Muslim and outside the pale of Islam. But Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and therefore does not follow the laws passed down by Pakistan. As long as Ahmadis call themselves Muslims, they will not be removed from Muslims... Yes, it can be stated in Wikipedia that the constitution of Pakistan calls them non-Muslims and that has been done in many places, e.g. Islam in Pakistan. Thank You. Peaceworld111 (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I must disagree a little with you peaceworld on this , although ahmadis call themselves muslims they are not and as the constitution of pakistan states they are non muslims and seeing that this article is "PAKISTAN" the ahmadis should not be included in muslims ARQ 04:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)maniqadirARQ 04:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maniqadir (talk • contribs)

It doesn't matter what Pakistan thinks of Ahmadis, it a international human right to call yourself what you would like to be called. This article is on Pakistan but not on the view of Pakistani constitution on Pakistani people. Peaceworld111 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

it a international human right to call yourself what you would like to be called" You have misinterpreted an Individual's right as the right of a group. If I change my name to President of The United States, I am playing with your head, not presenting facts. Also, there is a definition of muslim....and Ahmadis do not fulfill that definition....just like sound waves do not fulfill the definition of EM waves arsalan... (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh really!! I'd love to see that "definition". Do you prefer the "Sunni" definition or the "Shi'a" definition? Who are you, or any Govt. to decide what the definition of a religion is, and who fulfills and who doesn't fulfill that? :) --Ragib (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on! Wikipedia is a platform to present information....not to have scholarly debate. And you might not have observed it but here, on Wikipedia, even Human has a definition. Anyways, this is not the place to publish your opinion or even your research. If you are so sure about what you think is right, why not publish it and then use it as a source on Wikipedia. Believe me, if your opinion has any credibility in academic community, you can do that. End of discussion from my side. I told you where you were wrong, and that is all I have to do here.arsalan... (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, wikipedia is to present information, not provide Government or majority view. The fact remains that Ahmadis consider themselves muslims, but the Pakistani government does not consider them as such. That is the fact without any subjective interpretation, and wikipedia needs to present exactly this. You are in no position to decide whether or not Ahmadis are muslims ... you can only provide views from Ahmadis and the govt of Pakistan. So, don't claim your subjective view on the "definition" as the fact. --Ragib (talk) 23:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh dude! How can I convince you??!!!! Isn't the "fact" that Ahmadis consider themselves Muslims "subjective" to what Ahmadis think? And about what you said earlier, you are now contradicting with it. You said that neither me nor Govt of Pakistan has any right to define what and what not is Muslim. So, how come Ahmadis have these rights? And just so you know, it wasn't the Govt of Pakistan who "defined" Muslim. There was a committee of the most learned scholars in Islamic Jurisprudence wich excluded Ahmadis from Muslim-Umah. Btw, do you know why other Muslims don't think of Ahmadis as Muslims? arsalan... (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you do not refer to me as "dude". Thank you. Now, back to your question: I'm pretty clear on what I said. Self-identification of religion is not something others can decide for a group. So, if Ahmadis consider them muslims, then you cannot deny that fact on wikipedia (that they consider them as Muslims). Ahmadis definitely have the right to self-identify as whatever. Govt. of Pakistan can also mark any group as non-muslim, non-human, alien etc., but that also does not become a fact ... rather the fact in this case is the opinion/viewpoint of the govt of pakistan. (By the way, I find it amusing that the Govt of Pakistan claims Ahmadis to be non-muslims, yet there is no hesitation to claim Abdus_Salam as the "first Muslim scientist to win a Nobel prize". What a contradiction!!). --Ragib (talk) 23:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that! Your logic is clear but the deductions are not. On Wikipedia, you say, that Ahmadis should be presented as Muslims because they consider themselves Muslim. Using the same logic, I can argue that BECAUSE Muslims consider Ahmadis to be Non-Muslim, Ahmadis shouldn't be represented as Muslims. As much as it is the fundamental right of Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims, same right Muslims hold for their identity. And I have to write it again because you didn't consider it before...but tis time I am rewriting it in a little more "charming" way. So here is the objection...Muslims consider those individuals to be muslims (Their definition, but I see that you have a confusion about that) who believe in Shahada. But Ahmadis don't believe in Shahada. And please don't say that who will decide what should one believe in to be a Muslim. It is an established FACT. And about Dr Abdus Salam. Official statements are that he is the first Pakistani Scientist. But I really don't care who has won the Nobel prize. But that is my opinion, not something I am preaching on Wikipedia.....because to do that, ALL THE INTERNET except Wikipedia is yours :) arsalan... (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You are again misunderstanding what I wrote. I maintain that, (1) On Wikipedia, Ahmadis should be presented as a group that self-identifies as Muslim. (ample references show that they do consider themselves Muslims). (2) Pakistani Govt.'s position on this is that, the govt. does not consider Ahmadis as muslims. (end). Now, these two are undisputed facts, and verifiable. I guess you do not disagree with (1) and (2). Then again (1) and (2) contradict, so you want Wikipedia to declare in favor of (2) and thereby declare (1) as false, right? That would be Wikipedia making a judgement in a POV manner, and per WP:NPOV, wikipedia is not the place to make that judgment. Hope this time you are clear about WP:V, WP:NPOV etc. --Ragib (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you were favoring (1). So, I agree, both (1) and (2) should be presented.arsalan... (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are right, both (1) and (2) should be presented here with no favor as per Wikipedia:NPOV. But looking at the article it seems that (1) is favored by wikipedia. Present there point of view but do not present them as Muslims. This was the point. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 12:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Further Expansion of Pakistan

The article states considerably most of the things about Pakistan, but either all of them are too precise or lacking further information e.g elaborating Military section, Government and Politics section, Geography and Climate section and Economy section. I am considering to expand them a little more and also add few more pictures. Guess we need suggestions regarding its expansion, please help me out with your ideas/proposals. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have more pictures, then please add those pictures. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 18:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have elaborated the following sections: Military, Geography and climate, Flora and fauna and Transportation. And also added few existing images to the article. Guess its all done the only work left for further elaboration and new images is regarding Economy Section, Education section and Government and politics section. Need suggestions, and some new images regarding their expansion. Regards! SyedMANaqvi (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Foreign Relations

I think a new section of Foreign Relations should be added in Government section, also remove "conflicts with neighboring india" in title paragraph since adding specifics is not up to Wikipedia standards of opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.250.4 (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Population in 2010

Reliable sources indicate that the current population of Pakistan in mid 2010 is about 180,808,000 and not 169,000,000.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/pk.html

http://www.trueknowledge.com/q/population_of_pakistan_in_2010

I think this error should be corrected as their is a significant difference between the 2 values stated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.141.71 (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadis

Although wikipedia dose not follow Pakistani constitution, but according to Pakistani constitution they are treated as non-Muslims. As this article is about Pakistan, so in this article they should be mentioned as non-Muslims. They think themselves muslims so they should mention it in article:Ahmadiyya. This article is about Pakistan so they should be mentioned here as they are considered in Pakistan. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 13:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Lets say if Pakistan thinks that all lions are monkeys, should that mean that they should be listed as monkeys? Peaceworld111 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk logically, i am not talking about monkeys/Lions. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 13:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Pakistan is an idiotic terrorist state and among the top few failed states of the world, the last thing Wiki or anyone else for that matter needs to follow. By this rule when South Africa was persecuting Blacks we should have considered apartheid justifiable in the South Africa article, or in Kashmir and Palestine articles we should accept Israeli and Indian treatment to these groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.21.227 (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Religion in Pakistan article mentions Pakistan's official stance on the Ahmadis' "muslimness", and we should probably mention the problem here, too. But assume for a moment that Pakistan's Sunni majority changed the constitution so that Shias would be considered non-Muslims in Pakistan, too. Should we then do the same? That's absurd, and it's no less absurd for the Ahmadis. Besides, if we accept The Economist's numbers, the majority of Ahmadis probably claimed to be Muslims at the census - right now the numbers add up to more than 100%. Huon (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So, according to this reasoning, if majority out of some certain group claims that they belong to the other group, we should just accept that....like majority of blacks say they "are" white, Wikipedia should show that too. Ahmadis are not considered non-muslims just because the majority says so...Ahmadis do not fulfill the definition of Muslim, just like Jews and Christians and Atheists. Hope it clarifies a little (if not confuse more :) arsalan... (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the "definition" and who created the "definition"? I'd love to see the definition spelled out along with sources. Religion is very subjective, and no government or dictator or "majority" can decide what the other groups must believe. --Ragib (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadis are Muslim, regardless of whether some other Muslims do not consider them to be. The Ahmadiyya article makes that quite clear.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes Mr.Huon, this number add up to more than 100%. This is because most of the Ahmadis does not show up there identity as Ahmadis in Pakistan. Secondly I agree with Mr.arsalan.... -Definition of Muslim upon which all Muslim scholars agree is "Muslim" means a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Almighty Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophet hood of Muhammad, the last of the prophets, and does not believe in, or recognize as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed to be a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description, whatsoever, after Muhammad. All suni/shia scholars agree on this definition. For more detail you can see the authenticated books of both sunni's and shia's, you will find same words. But Ahmadis call Mr.Ghulam Ahmad there Prophet as stated here: Prophethood (Ahmadiyya). Thats the reason they are not allowed to call themselves as Muslim. Other Muslim countries do not declared them non-Muslims but Pakistan because this movement was started in India/Pakistan. India do not declared them non-Muslim officially because India is not an Islamic country, but all Muslim scholars of India consider them as non-Muslims. Hope so it clarifies. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 17:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So you say non-Ahmadis all agree on a definition that excludes Ahmadis (and don't provide a reference for that definition). Color me surprised. How about the Mahdists in late 19th century Sudan? Muslims or not? The closest analogy I can think of is Mormonism, which claims to be Christian despite some blatant discrepancies from mainstream Christianity. To my knowledge, Wikipedia accepts the Mormons' self-identification as Christians, and similarly we should accept the Ahmadis' self-identification as Muslims. Huon (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The compromise text (acknowledging that that the Pakistan govt doesn't official acknowledge it as Islam is a reasonable solution (i.e., we present the govt viewpoint along with the viewpoint of the Ahmadi's themselves and others. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You need reference: According to Qur’an, Surah Al-Ahzab, 40th Aayah: Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but he is the Messenger of Allah and the Seal of the Prophets; and Allah is ever Aware of all things. There are several other verse and Hadiths mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Sunan Abu Dawood and Sunan al-Tirmidhi which verify Seal of the Prophethood at Muhammad(PBUH). but Ahmadis deny this as i mentioned link above. Sunan Abu Dawood narrates a Hadith, There shall be thirty Kazzab in my Ummah, Every body of whom will claim to be a Prophet. While I am “Khatim-ul-Nabiyyeen” and there will be no Prophet after me. Secondly answer to self-identification, user arsalan... answered it here. In last i agree with Mr.Jamie to present the Pakistani govt. viewpoint along with the viewpoint of the Ahmadi's themselves and others, but not to mention them as Muslims as they do not fulfill the definition of Muslim as mentioned in Qur’an(quoted above). Thanks. --Talha^{Discuss ©} 19:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Read references here and tell us if all these scholars; deobandis, brelvis and sufis who agree with Ahmadiyya point of view are all kafir;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_the_Prophets

Here is an enlightening video for you too; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sw6Qyqjh04 78.149.21.227 (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, during various periods in medieval history, many sects were similarly declared heretic and "non-Christian" by the catholic church (and with similar "interpretations" of scripture). That does not mean everyone considers them "non-Christian". (other examples, as pointed out above, include Mormons, who consider themselves Christians even though some other Christians may not do the same ... that doesn't make them non-Christian). BTW, by reference, I did not demand a reference or an interpretation from *you*, rather a reference that shows *everyone* considers them non-muslims (including Ahmadis themselves). Of course, I don't see any problem with mentioning Pakistani government's position regarding Ahmadi's status. --Ragib (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahmadis are considered a sect of Islam by most RS. This is a WP article so WP policies govern it. what constitution of pakistan says about ahmadis is immaterial to the argument. this kind of religious POV pushing ( calling Ahmadi's non muslim ) has no place on WP.--Wikireader41 (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)