Talk:Pakistan/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

GDP figures

FN7 now contains 2012 figures, but obviously not the actuals -- they are "IMF staff estimates". Probably best to stick with real numbers, isn't it? --Stfg (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is the norm to proceed with estimates given by IMF. You can refer to pages France and United Kingdom. They have updated figures to IMF estimates. I see no harm in doing so. Pk-user (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with you its better to write the actual figure of 2011 rather than estimates for 2012. But in case these estimated figures are mentioned it should be explicitly mentioned that these are estimates probably in notes or somewhere else. The user who added these figures also mentioned Government of Pakistan's economic survey as a source in a discussion, but we cannot add that as a source because it is a self published source. --SMS ^Talk 19:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually that will be a primary source, not SPS... might be usable. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

A comment....IMF's staff estimates are not completely accurate.It estimated Indian GDP(nominal) for 2012 to be 1.843 Trillion but it turned out to be 1.676 trillion only.Hence, I support the decision to stick to the 2011 figures until clear data is available.Thanks! ϮheჂtriԞeΣagle ^Sorties 04:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, when you change figures and those figures are updated in the present reference and that you don't need a separate source, say that in the edit summary. Simplifies things and prevents your edit being misidentified as vandalism. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Strike eagle I urge you not to revert edits prior to a consensus being reached. Nevertheless, having done so. I agree any further edits should be made with consensus being reached.

Folks, the article clearly states GDP "ESTIMATES" we are NOT talking about actual GDP figures but again ESTIMATES. The literal meaning is 'to guess the cost, size, value, etc. of something'. Thus, articles such as France, United Kingdom and Saudi Arabia have edited figures to 2012 estimates NOT actual or real data. Further more, this information can be verified at finance.gov.pk as these are actual figures now. I believe we should move on to 2012 not 2011. Pk-user (talk) 14:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if those articles are dealing with it correctly. If you take it up at a notice board (probably the reliable sources noticeboard), you might get input from editors who know better. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link TopGun. I will take up the matter there or possibly with an admin. However, I would like to emphasize that this article like others on Wikipedia clearly mentions GDP estimate which by in large means a guess of the value or size of something by a reputable and reliable source which I believe IMF qualifies as. Pk-user (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem... I'll just note that admins do not rule on wikipedia's content, regular editors do that... that notice board will just have more of those with expertise in source checking and verification. Anyway, RSN would give a fair judgement on which one to include in my opinion. Others, please note that Pk-user has started the discussion in this section of RSN. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think RSN is the wrong place. The main issue is whether to use established figures or latest estimates. At RSN it was suggested to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, and I think that's right. If you search on "GDP" on that page, you can find where it's already been raised in the context of Russia, but inconclusively. By the way, the fact that some articles aleady do it is no argument, as we don't legislate by precedent. It would be great to have a consensus policy for this question, applicable to all countries, I think. --Stfg (talk) 19:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2012

✗ Not done

Prime Minister-designate Raja Pervez Ashraf

Farhajbajwa (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The latest information I can find is that he is one of three leading candidates for prime minister. Taroaldo (talk) 23:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Note that I have changed the PM-designate to "pending" as it appears Makhdoom Shahabuddin is no longer in contention for the post. Taroaldo (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Emblem

Emblem does not require the word "State" written with it because it is already known that Pakistan is a Country & the most appropriate word used should be "Country". As mentioned in our neighbouring Country India, its article on wikipedia is very well written as it does not have the word "State" written in all the article regarding India because it is already known it is a Country. Next to their Emblem they have not written State. We should follow same pattern.--Shahhh (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

President

Regarding the present government Pakistan article is full of asif zardari and benazir information instead of all this information, there should have been information about how to become a president and how the process is, in addition to that there should be information about Parliament and how many seats are there in the national assembly and how many seats are there in provincial assembly. We also need to mention how the process is in becomeing Member of National assembly and how to become member of Provincial assembly. Pakistan is not property of the currant government or any president previously! there shouldn't be any photo's of them! except Quaid e Azam. There should be only names of some names mentioned only not total publicity of their presidency! If we look at Indian wikipedia Article you will not find anything like Pakistani article!--Shahhh (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess that's how it is now.. good point... Can some one confirm if the images are free and won't hinder the FA nomination? --lTopGunl (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

• Well good point about images, but I don't see full information about Asif or Benazir.What has been written,it is appropriate, I think so.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 17:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Imprecise statement

"has undergone invasions or settlements by Hindu, Persian, Indo-Greek, Islamic, Turco-Mongol, Afghan and Sikh cultures. "; Why mix Invasions and settlements ?.. It was a Hindu settlement and others were invaders. Needs edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.61.17.46 (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 July 2012

please remove the kashmir area from your map

122.168.200.157 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done and not likely to be done Sorry but Pakistan controls some part of Kashmir too.So,its not possible to remove it from the map! TheStrikeΣagle 12:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, this map is exactly analogous to the India map: Areas controlled are shown as that nation's territory, areas claimed but not controlled are shown in light green. Huon (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree TheStrikeΣagle 12:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan and Central Asia

Many scholars consider Pakistan to be a part of Central Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvboox (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give any sources? --SMS ^Talk 22:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Per the Central Asia article, the UNESCO definition, which casts a very wide net, includes northern Pakistan. Most other definitions I'm aware of do not. Anyway, what should we do with that information? Cultural similarities with neighbouring countries are to be expected, I'd say. Huon (talk) 22:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Pakistani Shia Population

Hello Everyone, i went through the demographics and religion sections on the Pakistan page and realized that 5%-20% stat of Pakistani Shia population is almost 20 years old and dubious at least the 5% figure, given the fact that Pakistani Shia themselves claim to be almost 1/3 of the entire Muslim population of Pakistan that is around 30%. You guys should look into the matter since it is misrepresenting the population of an entire community. Here are multiple reference supporting the 30% claim and are more recent, You all should pay a look at the followings; http://www.islamicinsights.com/news/international-news/violence-against-pakistani-shias-continues-unnoticed.html, http://jafrianews.com/2012/05/06/shia-target-killing-in-pakistan-facts-causes-and-history/, http://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=3591, http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/106508.html, http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/86937.html, http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/1629486.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakistani47 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm unimpressed by those sources. PressTV and the Azerbaijani newspaper say their "one third of 160 million" number is based on Shia sources. It's obviously badly outdated at best because Pakistan's population is closer to 180 or even 190 million, and the Shia community is not a reliable source on its own numbers. I don't think the Imam Reza Network is a reliable source, and it doesn't support the 30% numbers anyway. That leaves us with an American Islamic newspaper which couches its claim in "it is reported" without detailing who reports, and Jafria News, which I don't think comes with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. On the other hand, we have the Library of Congress' country profile (2005), the US State Department (2008), and the CIA World Factbook (2010, and the 2012 version still says so). While we don't cite it here, the Pew report on Muslim populations agrees with these numbers (from 2009). These are high-quality sources, almost all of which are less than five years old. Pew, certainly among the best sources we can hope for, reports 10-15%, squarely in the middle of the 5-20% interval we report. In summary, I think it's more likely that the Shia community misrepresents itself. Huon (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Still the 5% figure is very dubious for that fact it makes no sense at all, one can quote only the 20% figure which would be credible and acceptable to all. If you may, kindly keep the 20% quote only. Pakistani47 (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

While I personally have my doubts about the 5%, it's the figure reported by the Library of Congress' country profile. We don't get to pick and choose which reliable sources we report and which we ignore. Huon (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Time Zone

In the infobox it says "UTC +5", and for summer time - "UTC +6". Surely in comparison to UTC it's always +5? Because it doesn't have summer time. In summer therefore it should be "GMT +4" (or maybe "BST +4"?) but definitely not +6. BigSteve (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan did observe summer time in some recent years; see daylight saving time in Pakistan. In those years summer time was indeed UTC +6 (UTC doesn't have summer time). I'm not sure how we should cover this sometimes-observed summer time; for now I've changed the link target in the infobox. Huon (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice. I added a footnote as well. BigSteve (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

o jobs

what happen in 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.206.1.1 (talk) 10:02, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

EDIT REQUEST (MAP)

You people are talking about administered and claimed area, but the fact is that the part of kashmir you have gave to Pakistan is not official map, but only Loc. official map has whole Kashmir with India. The thing which you are calling a map is just the ceasefire line or line of control. i would request a change in this and all other maps. dragonphoenix (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

You're saying the official Pakistani maps show all of Kashmir as part of India? I'd like to see a source for that claim... The CIA, for example, uses the Line of Control on its maps of both India and Pakistan. The UN apparently does not endorse or accept any borders in Kashmir (neither the Indian claims nor the Pakistani claims), and their maps show both sides' preferred borders and the Line of Control. The Economist says the Line of Control has in effect been accepted by both sides as the de facto border. Official Indian maps may show all of Kashmir as part of India, but I doubt anybody else's maps do. Huon (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I concur. The maps which show Kashmir a part of India represent the Indian perspective. I know for a fact that Google Maps India shows Kashmir being in India while Google Maps versions outside of India do not. All neutral maps show the Line of Control as a de facto border and there is usually a dotted line around the whole Kashmir region to indicate it as disputed. However, no neutral/international map will show all of Kashmir as part of India. Mar4d (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Failed state

I was not aware of the discussion, but now I am. I consider the following revert to my edit[1] fair enough if the principle is applied evenly. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.38.26.178 (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC) 

Edit request on 23 November 2012

birthplace of famous stoner 94.174.219.192 (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: - no details for any edit. Begoon ^talk 01:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Troop contributions

‎Secret of success changed the article to say that Pakistan sends the second-largest troop contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. This is incorrect. Pakistan's 8,541 troops are indeed more than sent by any other country. Bangladesh's total contribution is greater because they send more policemen, not more troops. See also Talk:Pakistan/Archive 16#UN Force Contribution. Thus I've reverted his edit. Huon (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

My deep apologies for the misunderstanding. I should probably gone through the archives after the first revert. Just a doubt, why are only the no. of troops mentioned and the total number of all military personnel ignored? Secret of success · talk 14:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the policemen are military personnel, and while I have no idea whether the "UN Military Experts on Mission" are, they don't change the ranking anyway. Thus the troop number seems most relevant to the article's "military" section. Huon (talk) 14:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Kashmir

I think to understand this dispute, we will need to go back to the early history of 1947. Just to have an idea I am pasting a portion of article from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir. "Kashmir was neither as large nor as old an independent state as Hyderabad; it had been created rather off-handedly by the British after the first defeat of the Sikhs in 1846, as a reward to a former official who had sided with the British. The Himalayan kingdom was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 77 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 14–15 August. When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched a guerrilla onslaught meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Instead the Maharaja appealed to Mountbatten[30] for assistance, and the governor-general agreed on the condition that the ruler accede to India. Indian soldiers entered Kashmir and drove the Pakistani-sponsored irregulars from all but a small section of the state. The United Nations was then invited to mediate the quarrel. The UN mission insisted that the opinion of Kashmiris must be ascertained, while India insisted that no referendum could occur until all of the state had been cleared of irregulars." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.36.164.228 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be aimed at improving the article. Do you propose any specific changes? Huon (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

To explain the modern situation. The entire region has a population of 12 million and increasing. The area has been hardest for the indian army as the violence escalates on a daily basis. for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g2JjuuQu3g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTb3cOBEIBo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJn7zRLwx-o In the past India had accused Pakistan of "kashmiri infiltrators" when such incidents take place. Power of 200 Million (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For the last time, please read WP:Reliable sources. Had you actually read that you'd already know that grainy youtube videos do not come close to satisfying the criteria. Articles from well-recognized news outlets do meet WP:RS. Secondly, this article is not the venue for additional info regarding the conflict. It is a serious and complicated conflict, with anger, frustration, and accusations on both sides. That complex topic is detailed primarily in Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts and India–Pakistan relations, along with numerous other topics linked from those articles. For the last time, Wikipedia talk pages are not forums for folks to air their grievances; they are intended to discuss specific improvements to articles. Talk:Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_conflicts/Archive_1#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 This is an example of editors tackling a difficult topic and working toward a consensus. Until you take a few minutes and read the links I am providing to you, you're going to continue wasting your time. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually i was merely replying to the person as he wanted to discuss and get a better idea of the Kashmir situation. As a gerneral reply under the Pakistan discussion page. To answer your comments I am not sure about "complicated conflict, frustration, accusations" as Pakistan seems to be calmly firing back without any problems and the indians are firing from their positions without stepping forward. I doubt india is naieve enough to pick a fight with 200 Million people. Especially considering Pakistan easily outnumbers all of indias north western states bordering Pakistan and has enough ammunition for 3 years of protracted war. Although the rhetoric and acccusations against Pakistan have been common for decades in the indian government see referece eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001-2002_India-Pakistan_standoff.

I would however like to clarify about wikipedia use of videos from news sources such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OuaNTU3KKU or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz6BCPkHGvY&list=UU5UYXj452MIT9UhKshDmjmA&index=1. I think this would be distinct to videos such as these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNSe3A6QPX4 which i don't think meet the standards. Power of 200 Million (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm done trying to reason with you, as you clearly aren't interested in following our WP:NPOV policy. As I already mentioned, we have plenty of articles regarding the specifics of India-Pakistan conflicts, and those conflicts are already mentioned in this article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand i will put all further discussions in those pages. Power of 200 Million (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Current topic on mutilation of indian soldiers being removed?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A current topic has been removed by a user and clarification is needed on this. Power of 200 Million (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I already told you on your talk page that (1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox and (2) any information added to the page must be backed by a reliable source, period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

There was nothing in it of a soapbox nature i was merely stating the facts. Pakistan government summoned the indian envoy for an unprovoked firing on a outpost on sunday which resulted in the death of one Pakistani soldier. The indian government has summoned the Pakistani envoy for an attack which resulted in the death of 2 indian soldiers. The Pakistan army has stated that if any soldier was killed due to unprovoked firing it would retaliate immediately or at any instance in the future.

Pakistan media has stated that the mutilations of the 2 dead indian soldiers were carried out by indian army to use as propoganda against Pakistan. Read the topic again before blanking it out completely, this is a discussion page not the article page. Power of 200 Million (talk) 19:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Even assuming that there are reliable sources for this, and even assuming that this has become a big deal, I don't see where this fits into a summary article on Pakistan. --regentspark (comment) 19:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not mention anything about a summary article, I did however say that it could be mentioned in the page. My issue is why was my topic removed from the discussion page. And to answer your comment, No its not become a big deal. Pakistan rarely concerns itself with india, majority of Pakistanis do not care much for india and consider it third world and poverty stricken. Power of 200 Million (talk) 20:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works. We're not going to add some random accusation to an article regarding a topic you have a beef with. Please read WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS and stop wasting everyone's time with your frivolous requests. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Spelling error

Demographics section > "higher than it's neighbours..." It should be "its", not "it is". 178.216.76.16 (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Thank you for pointing that out. --regentspark (comment) 15:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2013

to edit the bit that says drives on because pakistan drives on the right

81.131.235.20 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch (talk) 07:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The article seems to have been written by someone from Punjab, who has made everything in Pakistan to spin around Punjab e.g., it talks of Taxila and states it to be one of the centers of Vedic culture but completely ignores Ghandara culture or the importance of Pushkalvati or Parshapura (Peshawar) in Ghadhara civilization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.104.241.82 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the article does mention Gandharan culture: "The Vedic civilisation flourished in the ancient Gandhāran city of Takṣaśilā, now Taxila in Punjab." Our source for that sentence says Taxila was the capital of Gandhara and doesn't mention Peshawar. Huon (talk) 01:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

religion percentage problem

The page mentions that 97% of the population is muslim followed by 1.6% christians and hindus each. Given that my arithmetic most probably doesn't fail me, that means that muslims+christians+hindus make up for 100.2% of the pakistan population. Should be corrected methinks. Vlad tepes 999 (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but it does say that it's about 97%. They just don't have as exact of figure.Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 20:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Regional languages

I've reverted the languages back to what we had after the discussion recorded in Talk:Pakistan/Archive 16#"Recognized" regional languages. Firstly, there's no need to quote primary sources at length. Secondly, the situation isn't quite as clear-cut as Saimdusan makes it out to be: His secondary source which he cites for the uniqueness of Sindhi doesn't actually say so. It says: "Of the 71 other indigenous languages only Sindhi has an official role as medium of instruction in primary schools in Sindh and Pashto is used in government schools in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province." That sounds as if Pashto is as official as Sindh, though in another province. I don't think we need to discuss these intricacies in the infobox. Huon (talk) 01:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Language Map of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa

Languages of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa (Pakistan Census 1998) http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/other/yearbook2011/Population/16-20.pdf

I propose the changing of the existing map (Map of Languages of Kyber Pakhtunkha Province of Pakistan) with (Languages of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa), which is a more accurate and a better looking map. The exisiting map seems like it was made by crayons.

I have tried to talk about the incorrect map being used with everyone, but no one has been able to provide any rationale on why the districts such as Battagram, toorghar, Shangla, Buner, Tank, Karak, etc are shown as Hindko and saraiki speaking when the text states that most of the population their speaks pashto. And also this is a matter of general knowledge that most of the population in the above mentioned districts speaks pashto. Moroever, due to this incorrect and biased map there is a contraditcion between the text and the map being used on the same articale. Therefore, i have replaced this incorrect map with a more accurate one. This will not only make the page more representative of the reallity but will also make wikipedia more reliable. Tigerkhan007 (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Map being used in various articles pertaining to languages of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa is incorrect and biased. It is showing tank as Seraiki speaking which is incorrect as majority of people in Tank speak Pashto. It is showing Karak as Hindko speaking while we know that almost 99% of the population of Karak is Pashto speaking Khattak. It is showing battagram as hindko speaking while we all know that most of the people in Battagram speak Pashto. Similarly, it is showing Shangla as hindko speaking, which is incorrect as most of the people their also speak Pashto. Finally, it is showing Toorghar district as Hindko speaking while we know most of the people their also speak Pashto. I think all this show biasness or incompetence on the part of the person who included that Map. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the map fails to show that most of the people on western side of Mansehra and Haripur speak Pashto, while most on western side of D.I.Khan also speak Pashto. I feel that the Map has grossly exaggerated the number of speakers of other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerkhan007 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Tigerkhan007 (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2013

add a heading of Pakistan in space era....space achievements plus the creation of first virus...and so on

Areebbj (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The virus is prominently discussed in the list of Pakistani inventions and discoveries, but I don't think it's significant enough for this overview article - it was more of an accident than a central feature of Pakistani technology. The space program, on the other hand, is discussed as a paragraph in the Science and technology section; I don't think there' enough content to justify a section of its own. Huon (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

sir the start of the topic says that NWFP(north west frontier provience )(afghan provience).this is totally miss information and not true at all....the name of nwfp has been changed to KPK(khyber pakhtun khaw) and definately its not the provience of afghanistan at all...do coorect it A.S.A.P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.139.159 (talk) 00:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a quote from before the founding of Pakistan, explaining where the "A" in the acronym PAKSTAN comes from. At that time the North-West Frontier Province was a comparatively recent addition to British India annexed at the Afghan border and thus apparently also known as "Afghan Province". We cannot retroactively change what Choudhary Rahmat Ali said in 1933. Huon (talk) 00:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 May 2013

Please change the link for "declared nuclear power", in the section "Foreign relations of Pakistan" which currently directs to a general page on nuclear energy, to the correct wikipedia page "Declared nuclear states" or the page that it redirects to, "List of states with nuclear weapons". Tcaul (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

done. --regentspark (comment) 14:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think the change was made correctly. The text now reads "...its status as a declared List of states with nuclear weapons". The link should be to the wiki page "List of states with nuclear weapons", but the text for the link should be "declared nuclear power". Tcaul (talk) 01:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Huon (talk) 01:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 May 2013

The citation for "Urdu" currently does not exist, but there is one that should be substituted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urdu Bujinin347 (talk) 15:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Could you please be a little more explicit? What source do you want to see cited where? Wikipedia does not consider itself a reliable source, so we cannot cite our own Urdu article, and at a glance I didn't see any sources relevant to Urdu in Pakistan cited in that article that we could re-use here. Huon (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Religion box

The box in the religion section of the article is to show summary of whatever is there in text. Besides it should only list religions not every branch of religion. --SMS ^Talk 15:46, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

FA attempt and Overhaul

I tried to take this to FA status a year back but it had some minor issues... I see this article is now a much worse mess than before. Images are sandwiching text, newbie edits have gone unnoticed and we had switching images which are gone too and we have new images with lesser discussed relevance. Here are the discussions which had a very thorough consensus.

• Overhaul
• Copy edit after overhaul

I think these were the good and professional versions and reverting to them and re-incorporating the good edits manually will leave a good chance for us to take it to FA again. It is saddening to see that this, being a main country article, was allowed to decay like this. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

One of the major concern at last FA discussion was about the copy editing, that was done by User:Stfg after that nomination was closed. So I think its best to revert back to the last good version and incorporate any good edits after that, before nominating it again. --SMS ^Talk 18:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hehe! I hope SMS means "... was about the copy editing, and it was done by User:Stfg after that nomination was closed. There was another problem, of course: the whole Taliban question. It would be great to do what TopGun suggests, but do you think we can achieve enough consensus and stability for a FAC run yet? --Stfg (talk) 19:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Lol. I hope so too (I guess he used a comma after the concern). I think the copy edit was great but it's been ruined now. And I dread touching the current version of the article. The Taliban debate was closed with no consensus long ago and wasn't pursued, so I don't think it will be much of a problem if it hasn't been in a year. So I think stability will not be a problem. The thing is, no editor involved in the overhaul and the copy editing will dare to go through the current article to fix it (atleast that's my opinion after taking a look). It will be easier to make a list of good edits and updates in the diff and add them over again after reverting. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I haven't read it through just now, but just dipped in a little, and saw some pretty awful stuff, so that's a good idea. Wikipedia needs a decent article about such a major country. If you decide to do that and then want a copy-edit prior to a new FAC run, I can offer. By all means ping me when you're ready, if you like. --Stfg (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Sure and thanks. Let's see how many editors I can recruit to help me re-add all those updates in the clean version. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

It might be an idea to ping those editors who have done good work on the article in the past year. This might gain some help, and it might also avoid offence when they see their work reverted (temporarily, I assume, but they may not realise that). By the way, which version do you want to revert to? --Stfg (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, i think the Britishers took the name India (meaning originated from indus valley). The vedic name of "India" is "Bharat Chettra" , which was much bigger than current day Indian starting from borders of iran to borders of Cambodia, which also included java, Indonesia, srilanka, singapur and maldives. All theses lands were in ifluence of vedic culture. Please don't ask me to repeat history. I think some emphasis must be given to history which includes hindus.
Also, we all know how pakistan came into existence! Pakistan is an islamic nation on 'Aryan/hindu' Land. It is not a legitimate succession so there is no need to mention about pakistan in 'indus valley civilization'. Simply occupying that land doesn't mean that they are legitimate successors of that culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk • contribs) 21:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that will be good so that they know that it's just temporary. Article can also be tagged for being under maintenance. I was thinking of this. I stopped checking my watchlist after this and surely a lot of things have been messed since then. Because before that I used to help any new user update the article keeping the format, copy edit, points from FAC etc intact. I guess User:Mar4d and User:September88, who worked with me on the overhaul also left checking up after that. Now when we revert and re-add, we will ofcourse put back all the good edits and put any new sections created up for discussion calling back the editors who added them. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Mar4d has edited it several times since then, including quite recently. I wonder what he thinks? (I made the link to invoke a notification). --Stfg (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

There isn't much left to think when you watch what once used to be a decent article rot away into a systematic destruction of staggering proportions. But then again, I haven't been checking my watchlist for the past six months. Maybe it's time I start giving a damn about things :) Mar4d (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Btw, Stfg, for a person who copyedited everything, I think your selection of the words "some pretty awful stuff" to describe this article is far too generous. Please tone the rhetoric up by a notch, some bluntness wouldn't hurt. . Mar4d (talk) 16:35, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

--Stfg (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Well I guess this will probably be the way. I will wait a bit more and then drop in notices to any major editors in the last year. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  I have good access to sources - online as well as offline - and will be happy to help out if you (TopGun) or someone else takes the lead. --regentspark (comment) 15:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  Would be a pleasure to take this to FAC. Zia Khan 15:50, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 September 2013

Pakistan is 46th largest country terms of nominal GDP not 47th. Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) verify this claim. Mohsin139 (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Mohsin139 -- good catch. The position of 46th is the UN one for 2011, whereas the other columns in the source you link to are from 2012. Two of them state 44th; World Bank states 43rd, but it omits Taiwan. I've put 44th in the text for now, making it consistent with the infobox. Thanks again. --Stfg (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Coordinate error

{{geodata-check}}

The following coordinate fixes are needed for

—221.120.246.35 (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Please could you indicate which coordinates need fixing? Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Education: High before Intermediate?

Under the Education section they list High (up to Gr. 10) before Intermediate (Grades 11 and 12). Were these designations accidentally switched? 204.92.65.10 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Media and Entertainment

Under Media and Entertainment it states "Pakistan has some of the worlds most vibrant and open media.[305]"

The cited source does not back that claim up, and appears to be solely a comparison of India and Pakistans media.

I would argue that the source listed is not a reliable source as it is a blog http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010/11/11/who-has-the-most-free-media-india-or-pakistan/

I offer these sources here that counter the claim.

http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2011-2012,1043.html 
http://www.worldaudit.org/press.htm

150.207.3.234 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

All about G20 Plus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.189.12.78 (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hanzlah Riaz

Age 14year student of 10th class . Living in Pakistan,Lahore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.203.247.136 (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fourth largest standing forces?

Who wrote that? Because the page linked, aka this page says that under Active Military, Pakistan is 6th. If you go by total then it is 12th. Someone correct this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.203.137.242 (talk) 19:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

• We will surely analyze it and if found true then we will correct it. Thanks Sajjad Altaf (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The Military.

Should the Chief of Army Staff be put in the infobox underneath the Prime Minister since the Pakistani military has so much political power? Nikhilmn2002 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

• No, he shouldn't be mentioned underneath prime minister under government heading but there should be heading called "Military leadership" which should be added under legislature in the table and under that heading Chairman Joint Chief of Staff Committee, Chief of Army Staff, Air Chief Marshal and Naval Chief should be metioned and would look so damn good but I don't think there is a separate heading called "Military leadership".

• Anyone knows how to add that? Sajjad Altaf (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Kashmir Conflict

Why Kashmir conflict? The Border conflicts are rarely present in any country's article. Take India, China, they don't have any kind of such special section on border conflicts, even though they have larger areas under conflicts than Pakistan. I request a regular editor of this page to remove the mentioned section. Regards. ChitranshGaurav 08:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I object to the information regarding the area of Pakistan. The actual area of Pakistan is 881,912 kilometer squared including Pakistan administered Kashmir that makes it 34th biggest country by area. Please make these corrections.Andy qureshi (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy qureshi (talk • contribs) 01:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Kashmir conflict sub-section should remain... Sajjad Altaf (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Islamic taliban takeover of Pakistan

Taliban takeover of Pakistan be mentioned. Created as an Islamic state Soon there will be an Islamic caliphate in Pakistan. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304558804579374901672957772?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304558804579374901672957772.html

Islamicpakistan (talk) 05:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• That is a very extreme view point and far from reality, this also does not fit in the Wikipedia rules about neutrality, thus there is no need to mention this. Not to mention that even in the URL it says the words "Farticle" and not the "article". lol Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Qaumi Tarana

Guys,

How did Qaumi Tarana got deleted from Commons? Try to get it back please! Sajjad Altaf (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the deletion discussion there were copyright issues. We'd need a freely licensed version. Huon (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Food and Drinks

In food and drinks section its mentioned that Pakistani cuisine is a blend of cooking traditions from different regions of the Indian subcontinent. How can someone make a statement like that? Majority of Pakistani dishes have either local origins or have their origin in Central Asia and Middle East. Even Punjabi and Sindhi cuisine has Almost nothing to do with cuisine of rest of subcontinent, except for very few exceptions. Their is also a line It has similarities to North Indian cuisine, although Pakistan has a greater variety of meat dishes. So why comparison to India so much ?? Majority of Dishes in Pakistani cuisine are much more similar to the cuisine of Afghanistan or central Asia. Few examples, Jalebi, Gulab Jamun, Sajji, Kabuli Palao, Nehari, Naan etc etc. So either similarities of Pakistani cuisine to the cuisines of Central Asia and Middle East should be mentioned or even this line should be deleted. It looks like Some Indian Nationalist has tempered with this article. These errors should must be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhayb.Manzer (talk • contribs) 19:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Totally agreed, this needs to be reviewed and looked into.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• Rectified with some adjustments in the text.Sajjad Altaf (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Pakistan's creation legibility concern...

Hey guys, in the top section for the Pakistan article, their is a line about Pakistan's creation that doesn't sound too right. The line goes -

"Pakistan was <link>independent in 1947</link> as an independent nation for Muslims from the regions in the east and west of India where there was a Muslim majority."

This line is just not cutting it; independent is repeated twice at the start and it doesn't make sense. Zilch! Nada! Zit! One doesn't need to specify that Pakistan was independent as an 'independent' nation. All independent nations are inherently independent lol.

To make grammatical/logical sense, the first independent should be replaced with 'created'. So the line should read -

"Pakistan was <link>created in 1947</link> as an independent nation for Muslims from the regions in the east and west of India where there was a Muslim majority."

Now it makes reading sense since it was created from the regions in the west and the east; it wasn't 'independent from the regions in the west and the east' lol.

Don't you guys agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Streetking1986 (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Although i would like to disagree with the section heading you chose but your concern about grammatical errors in the text was right and it has been corrected. Thanks for your input. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Conception of Pakistan

User: Lilpiglet and myself had a disagreement over his/her changing of Allahabad address heading from "Conception of Pakistan" to "Requesting for autonomous provinces within India". I read whole Allahabad address and found his/her claim to be untrue. Allahabad calls for a separate muslim state comprising of a muslim majority provinces. Moreover English of her chosen heading is incorrect, even if we accept her chosen heading, it should read as "Request for autonomous provinces within India" and not as "Requesting for autonomous provinces within India". I would like someone to look into this as i reverted him/her already once and do not want to engage in an edit war. According to my knowledge and i am not sure if someone else will agree to this, event of Allahabad address is also widely recognized as "Conception of Pakistan" since it was starting point for a struggle for a separate homeland for muslims. Thanks Sajjad Altaf (talk) 17:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The article Pakistan is edited by most experienced editors and reviewed many times per neutrality. The term "Conception of Pakistan" is correct and appropriate as common sense, no one objected that. There should not be disruptive editing that leads edit warring. Justice007 (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, i already changed it after waiting a few hours for a reply from User: Lilpiglet and i also added one additional reference to validate the claim. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

First of all, thank you User: Sajjad Altaf for your contributions to Wikipedia and bringing forward your point of views, at least it is constructive as oppose to the opinion of someone. Now going straight to the points:

1) Can you tell me where in Allama Iqbal's Allahabad Address does it mention the word Pakistan?;

2) This is the quote directly from Iqbal's address in which he clearly states: "The principle of European democracy cannot be applied to India without recognizing the fact of communal groups. The Muslim demand for the creation of a Muslim India ***within India*** is, therefore, perfectly justified. The resolution of the All-Parties Muslim Conference at Delhi is, to my mind, wholly inspired by this noble ideal of a harmonious whole which, instead of stifling the respective individualities of its component wholes, affords them chances of fully working out the possibilities that may be latent in them. And I have no doubt that this House will emphatically endorse the Muslim demands embodied in this resolution.";

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_iqbal_1930.html

3) If what you say is True, why did they not change the name of All-India's Muslim League if they wanted a separate country?;

4) Choudhry Ali, the guy who coined the term PAKSTAN (note there was no letter "I") not to mention he was in England the entire time with him immigrating to Pakistan in 1948, only to be exiled - i am guessing for his extreme views) - He did that in 1933, so it was after the Allahabad Address, and as aforementioned Allama Iqbal and Jinnah, both wanted to stay united with India even until then ... now Mr. Ali wrote claimed his own addess in Cambridge, where he also states and writes in his pamphlet Now or Never: "This demand is basically ***different*** from the suggestion put forward by Doctor ***Mohammed Iqbal*** in his Presidential ***address to the All-India Muslim League in 1930***. While he proposed the amalgamation of the provinces into a single state ***forming a unit of the All-India Federation***, we [ie. Choudhry Ali and few of his supporters as he was NOT part of the Muslim League] propose that these Provinces should have a separate Federation of their own. There can be no peace and tranquility in the land if we, the Muslims, are duped into a Hindu-dominated Federation where we cannot be the masters of our own destiny and captains of our own souls"

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Now_or_Never;_Are_We_to_Live_or_Perish_Forever%3F

5) Now I haven't touched Choudhry Ali's page, but this is what someone else wrote: "According to some scholars, that Iqbal had not presented the idea of an autonomous Muslim State; rather he wanted a large Muslim province by amalgamating Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and Baluchistan into a big North-Western province within India. They argued that"Iqbal never pleaded for any kind of partition of the country. Rather he was an ardent proponent of a 'true' federal setup for India.... And wanted a consolidated Muslim majority within the Indian Federation". Tara Chand. also held that Iqbal was not thinking in terms of partition of India but in terms of a federation of autonomous states within India. Dr. Safdar Mehmood also fell a prey to the same misconception and in a series of articles he asserted that in an Allahabad address Iqbal proposed a Muslim majority province within the Indian federation and not an independent state outside the Indian Federation.

Obviously when one reads the Allahabad Address, one cannot ignore The Muslim demand for the creation of a Muslim India within India is, therefore, perfectly justified. What more source can be more credible than Allama Iqbal's own words? With all due respect, your citation is not

6)http://books.google.ca/books?id=VrItm_F6wncC&pg=PA172&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

(page 178 to 183, especially page 18)

7) Also, if a separate homeland had already been proposed by Jinnah and Iqbal, then why did they keep the name of their political party all throughout the 30s and right up until after WWII as "All India-Muslim League"? ... There is only one 'source', Nehru that I came across who says that Iqbal wanted a different country for Muslims but then later on realized his own rhetoric; they were not kindred spirits and were one another's political rival so he is not someone I would take seriously.

There is a huge disconnect here what what the men are actually saying with their quotes than what is perceived; if User: Justice007 please enlighten me as your "common sense" theory does not work when it comes to human history and also I am not sure what version of the article you are reading, while I acknowledge this article has good foundations, the entire article needs improvement

Normally, I wait a day to give someone time to do some research on their own, while I am doing my own and getting a third person's opinion of something I may be misinterpreting. However, I am not sure if things can be more clearer than this on this my cyber wiki debate buddy as the sources are not only right out of one, but two horses mouths (primary sources). There is also this article online where Iqbal has written in a newspaper, I wasn't too sure how "authentic" that was so left it out ... However, if User: Sajjad Altaf you do think that I am wrong or you are not convinced - kindly don't revert but temporarily delete the entire line of "29 December 1930". lilpiglet 00:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpiglet (talk • contribs)

• No it doesn't have to mention name of Pakistan for it to be concept of Pakistan. Many authors and researchers have interpreted Iqbal's address as conception of Pakistan, your opinion cannot be better than them because they can be used as a source and you cannot.

And No a page cannot be in an erroneous state for too long because thousands of people search it every day.

You should leave the page as it is and discuss on the talk page. This was settled matter before you came and made this India-centric change.

You cannot just put that information on top of a page representing a country and expect no one will react.

This page was built on a consensus and it says on the top, talk first before making a change.

This was major change affecting whole meaning and foundation of Pakistan and it should have been discussed prior to being introduced in the page. Also I will like to remind you that you cannot pick and choose a third person to come and give his opinion because that is called WP:CANVASSING and is prohibited. I didn't ask Justice007 to come and give his opinion and you should not do that as well. Sajjad Altaf (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lilpiglet, you should avoid your unconstructive edits to well-written and well-sourced article, you must go through the all sources and read compeletly, please use common sense,and read this source too. Justice007 (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Great thanks, I appreciate your first constructive comment to this discussion. What annoyed me was that people think that there is no error within the articles; well news flash it's a B-grade article for a reason. Now as far as this discussion goes. I can't believe you are providing me with a "biased source". Yes, that is a view point and I respect that but it is biased nonetheless and it's in Pakistan for that matter where freedom of speech is quite restricted. Just right now I was watching the news and university guys from Kashmir (Indian occupied) had cheered for Pakistan during a cricket match and they are charged with Sedition ... I mean Pakistan is no different (if anything it's a tad bit behind liberty of individual thought - and surprise surprise so was Iqbal; this is really worse than Jesus being charged with sedition because he did create anti-state sentiments within the public) - Before someone jumps on me, i call Pakistan's kashmir also occupied. Now it says you are a student of law c'mon dude you know everything is not black and white - especially when that involves humans. I fail to not understand what I am seeing - I did read the article and I don't disagree, until the real end ... but within it, it also says: "Thus when Iqbal pleaded for a separate Muslim state in India, he was not asking for the creation of yet another independent territorial unit in the subcontinent. What he emphasised in his address was that the life of Islam as a cultural force in India very largely depended on its centralisation in a specified territory." How much different is that from an autonomous profince with close to federal powers? So if I said he wanted an independant "state" government rather than a seperate natioanlistic one ... how am I wrong? The whole thing of "concept of Pakistan" makes many people think that they wanted to have nothing to do with rest of India; as what Sajjad has even mentioned. Especially many Pakistani's think that - due to either what the family, social group or teacher taught and we all know how bad the Pakistani school text books are when it comes to history (as is the case with India's). So you and I and I guess Sajjad even provided that link agree that there was no demand for an independent state and no mention of Pakistan, Bangladesh was not even considered (although they would be the majority ... who knows maybe this kind of thinking was one of the many reasons Bengalis split). We also need to understand that when Pakistan was made Allama had pased away at that time and it was only the religious deobandis and jame-e-islami (many of whom were extremely against Qaid end up moving to Pakistan; but Quaid was a secularist (perhaps even an agnostic/athiest - maybe that is why he was called english: infidel-e-azam (someone correct me if my translation is wrong); at the very least an unorthodox muslim as was his sister ... then not only that, there muslims who helped create pakistan, to be later on in the 60s and 70s who would, like Israel the ultra orthodox, want to control the parliament and inadvertently, they do - so the Allama thing is a revival of what the later generations of Pakistanis were taught in school rather than what occurred. I am typing this very early in the morning and did not have much sleep and don't have much time today before i have to catch a plane but all I am asking for is that right now the information becomes false - especially in the infobox: it should be clear so that someone who doesn't know about the subject can quickly get an idea; from what it seems and forgive me if I misunderstood Sajjad Altaf also thought that they had demanded a separate "homeland" from that of India; which becomes a false statement. lilpiglet 12:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpiglet (talk • contribs)

This is not a political ground what you are discussing and accusing, these are your personal views, and are nothing to do with the wikipedia rules and guide-lines. Please discuss only the issue and dispute that you disagree, to support your view point, provide the reliable sources so that involved editors can reach consensus, so do not waste your and our time. I hope this helps. Justice007 (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Major cleanup of images

• It seems to me that bombardment of the images in the article of Pakistan,that makes the artcle "Photo Album", article should be in it proper concept and style, the images should be important worldwide, images for biograhic should be mentioned only highly state figures rather just personalities. I have not seen in other articles of the states as in article of the Pakistan, I consider it as systemic bias. I have removed unnecessary images, please discuss here before adding unrequired images in the article.Justice007 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2014

add Pothohari dialect in languages 

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

Noman246 (talk) 22:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say no here. Per that article, Pothohari is a dialect of Punjabi, which is already listed in the article. If we started listing every dialect of every language, that list would get prohibitively large very quickly. --ElHef (Meep?) 02:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

While the status of Pothohari as "dialect" or "language" seems to be in dispute, I tend to agree with the assessment. Even if we consider it a language, it's spoken by a rather tiny minority within Punjab and doesn't seem significant enough for the infobox. Huon (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

home to various empires

Since when has the region of nowadays Pakistan ever been the home to any Persian Empire? Sounds like a bogus claim like on many South Asian articles. LouisAragon (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

All the "empires" listed at Persian Empire up to and including Afsharid dynasty seem to have incorporated a good deal of what is now Pakistani territory. IgnorantArmies 04:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorporating =/= "being home to" in every sense of the words. According to that statement, Armenia has also been the "home" to the Romans, Turks or Persians and their various empires as it had been incorporated by them numerous times. Totally misleading and complete bogus.

No Iranian/Persian empire has ever been centred in what is nowadays Pakistan and there is no source or independent institution that can back up these claims. Therefore I will revert it. LouisAragon (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't (/didn't) necessarily read "home to" as implying "centred in"/solely based, but I guess it's somewhat ambiguous, so that edit's fine. I would assume the intention of the original editor was to list the empires that had incorporated large swathes of now-Pakistani territory, rather than simply the states that were based in now-Pakistani territory. IgnorantArmies 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2014

The following sentence appears in the entry: "The post-independence history of Pakistan has been characterised by periods of military rule, political instability and conflicts with neighbouring India. The country continues to face challenging problems, including overpopulation, terrorism, poverty, illiteracy and corruption but regardless of that it ranks among the countries with the most income equality[14] while it has among the world's most happiest citizens." Obviously, "most happiest citizens" is grammatically incorrect and needs to be rewritten to "happiest citizens". 74.134.145.218 (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we can call this a minor edit. Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the source for that statement is badly misrepresented. It doesn't discuss the happiness of Pakistan's citicens beyond saying their "experienced well-being" is "mediocre". What gave Pakistan its high ranking was the low ecological footprint. I'd also say mentioning the HPI in the lead is undue; out of the top 5 countries by that index only one (Costa Rica, which had the best HPI) does so. If no one objects, I'll move i to the demographics section. Huon (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Map Update

The map does not include South Sudan, it needs to be updated. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 04:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014

File:Http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-le OVQKpxMw/UU2tMeFtPeI/AAAAAAAAVDQ/uy3cFbOBFQ4/s640/481975 487904861264678 1527749343 n.jpg

Flags of Pakistan & China

Theaag (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2014 (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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2014

Moeez ur rehamn 3 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC) The GDP (nominal) is incresed by $46 dollars

The number is in billions. --regentspark (comment) 13:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

Please amend the photo caption where Fakhruddin Ahmed is notes as the Prime Minister of Bangladesh. He is/was not the Prime Minister. He spent 2 years as the head of a caretaker government (an unelected position). I would suggest it would be better to list his as a Bangladeshi statesman or economist. Amacmahon (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - according to Fakhruddin Ahmed He was "Chief Adviser to the Interim Bangladesh Government" - Arjayay (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Issues

Apart from the shocking amount of puffery and promotional tone I see in the article, there are a few issues that caught my attention:

• In the media and entertainment section, the part about the film Waar is highly questionable:

  There were a few major contributions to Pakistan's film industry recently. One of them being Waar. Waar is the highest rated feature film of 2013 on IMDb, ranking above films like The Wolf of Wall Street and Gravity.

  First of all, I am pretty familiar with IMDb's rating system and these lists are not stable. 390,273 IMDb users rated The Wolf of Wall Street, while 397,006 rated Gravity. Waar, on the other hand, has only 21,758 voters, 17,262 of whom are "Non-US" users,[2] and you can tell by the reviews that a great majority of them are Pakistanis. Quite the opposite of the diverse voters' demographics of The Wolf of Wall Street and Gravity. Also, the ratings by the site's "Top 1000 voters" are generally negative.[3] This passage makes it sound like the film is something huge on IMDb, while it's nowhere near that and it should be removed because it falls under WP:UNDUE.

• Also in the same section:

  Christine Fair, a senior political analyst and specialist in South Asian political and military affairs at the Rand Corporation praised the Pakistani Media as a role model and an example for other Muslim countries to follow by stating "The only hope for Pakistanis is that the media will continue to mobilise people. The media have done a great job, even if they are at times very unprofessional, and have to come to term with the limits between journalism and political engagement."

  Regardless of the "great job" part, anyone can come up with counter-quotes to that. Who is this C. Christine Fair (a "senior political analyst") whose opinion is significant enough to make it into an important article about a whole country like this one?

• In the economy section, the mangoes' picture looks like a product advertisement, anyone would notice that. I suggest we either remove it and move the caption to the section's content, or we replace it by something relevant like mangoes being displayed in a Pakistani market or anything similar. I prefer the latter, but the way it stands just doesn't look right.

• Examples of puffery which I reverted include this and this. Normally, I can (and should) tag the article when I see this kind of wording in at least two different sections, but I somehow view maintenance tags as counter-productive because they can stay in an article for ages. I hope some of the resident editors can work on this as soon as possible. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have taken a look at your constructive edits, though I am very busy in my personal life and I am not the original creator of the article, but I will try to improve the puffery content and also images quality and appropriation. Thanks for notice all that.Justice007 (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

Please add the official FIFA 2014 brazuca football Made in Pakistan to the article along with a picture.

Source:

http://quality.fifa.com/en/Footballs/Football-facts/adidas-brazuca--tried-and-tested/

Also, please add a picture of Wasim Akram, with "Sultan of Swing" as the caption.

Thank you. Bhai-istan (talk) 09:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I doubt the fact that a certain piece of sporting equipment was manufactured in Pakistan is significant enough to be mentioned on the country article. The Wasim Akram article cites no source for that nickname, and even if it did, I don't think a portrait of Akram will help our readers' understanding of sports in Pakistan. Huon (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2014

Following line below contains German which should be replaced with Pakistan.

"The list includes the largest German companies by revenue in 2012:"

Regards, Binu Vikram

139.85.223.10 (talk) 16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done I've also tidied up the table, removing the unreferenced entries and putting all of them on a 2012 footing even if newer sources were available, for a simple reason: Comparability. Huon (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Government

Government is highly unstable. There is conflict between military rule and civil government for supremacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.248.169.54 (talk) 08:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"but regardless of that it ranks among the countries with the most income equality."

In that case is Chad like another Switzerland? --180.234.234.213 (talk) 23:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

The Title of page Should be "Islamic Republic Of Pakistan" Instead of Pakistan only Because According to Constitution of Pakistan the Name Of State is delayered as "Islamic Republic Of Pakistan" So Kindly Edit it to as i Suggested Qasim.riaz002 (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Our policy is at WP:COMMONNAME - Arjayay (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2014

Pakistan have word 2nd largest salt mine... Pakistan have a national poet name Ilama Muhammda Iqbal...

175.136.80.189 (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide reliable sources to support your claim... ƬheStrikeΣagle 09:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2014

Sights and Sounds of Pakistan 80.56.63.85 (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2014 (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. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2014

89.44.117.117 (talk) 15:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)deci pakistan este o tara ca toate tarile si se numeste pakistan sa facut intro tara care se numea pakistan si acolo locuia si dan africanu pe nume pakistan care era o tara cu denumirea de pakistan si acolo era si pakistan de la pakistan

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this, in English, in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ - Arjayay (talk) 16:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

CERN membership

in the introduction, Pakistan is named as a member of CERN. ( " ...the G20 developing nations, ECOSOC, founding member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (now the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation), and CERN.[18] ").

This is incorrect, as Pakistan is just an associate member. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN#Member_states_and_budget

The "and CERN" bit should be replaced with "and an associate member of CERN". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.64.44.211 (talk) 09:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Fourth largest standing armed forces?

The third paragraph reads that "Pakistan has the fourth largest standing armed forces in the world [...]". This seems factually incorrect. The wikipedia page to which this links is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_military_and_paramilitary_personnel

According to the same,

• if you sort by active military personnel, Pakistan with 642,000 troops stands 7th
• if you sort by total military (active+reserve+para), Pakistan with 1,982,000 troops stands 12th

Pakistan Armed Forces page also states that it is 7th largest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Armed_Forces

I am accordingly changing it from 4th to 7th.

Chocolate Horlicks (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Income equality

The sentence "The country continues to face challenging problems, including overpopulation, terrorism, poverty, illiteracy, corruption and it ranks among the countries with the most income equality." seems to imply that income equality is a "challenging problem". Furthermore, the source it cites is just a vague map that seems to use a non-standard methodology. The Gini coefficient, which wikipedia generally uses, puts Pakistan around the middle of all countries. For this reason I deleted the last part of the sentence. However, if you have an argument for the use of the Palma ratio or a better source, feel free to restore the original. RioDevez (talk) 03:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on October 26, 2014

There should be a subsection on corruption.Sarcelles (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2015

182.181.247.237 (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2015 (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. ƬheStrikeΣagle 05:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2015

New media file:National anthem of Pakistan.OGG 太远太远太太 (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2015 (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. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 22:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Places of Worship

The only history from 2014 concerning this dispute I can find is your revert to my edit change. It's not right for Wikipedia to fall under Pakistani laws and describe Ahmadi mosques as "places of worship."--Peaceworld 19:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Wording

In the "Religion" section it says: << Influence of atheism is very little with 1.0% of the population aligned as atheist in 2005.[374] However, the figure rose to 2.0% in 2012 according to Gallup.[374] >> Very probably the number didn't really double within seven years, but this difference is just due to normal variability and error margin. So please change it to: << However, Gallup found a somewhat higher figure of 2.0% in 2012. >> Or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.133.231 (talk) 03:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2015

Hello, I want to add national anthem file in Pakistan article.current file is not the proper National anthem of Pakistan.

 Thank you.

Ataurrehman.994 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done you haven't provided a file that can be used, or a source to verify your statement. - Arjayay (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 May 2015

official Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/IslamicRepublicPK 39.55.95.202 (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Pass on adding this. The page has 169 likes. Moreover, why on earth would it be sensible to add a facebook page for a nation? Cannolis (talk) 20:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2015

'no cricket team has toured pakistan since the terrorist attack on the sri lankan cricket team'. this is mentioned in wikipedia. but zimbabwe has toured pakistan for cricket this year in may 2015. so wanted to add that Aron2354 (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, right! Plenty at Zimbabwean cricket team in Pakistan in 2015. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Date of Dominion

The Date on which Pakistan became a Dominion is stated as 14th August 1947, however under the Indian Independence Act 1947, the date for India and Pakistan has been 15th August 1947.

Section 1: The new Dominions. (1) As from the fifteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and forty-seven, two independent Dominions shall be set up in India, to be known respectively as India and Pakistan. (2) The said Dominions are hereafter in this Act referred to as “the new Dominions”, and the said fifteenth day of August is hereafter in this Act referred to as “the appointed day”.

Pakistan celebrated its first independence day on 15th August 1948, and this was subsequently changed to 14th August in 1949. Should the date here not be 15th August given the fact that this is what it historically has been rather than what is celebrated now? History should be historically accurate. Ahmer Jamil Khan^Who?_Chat? 05:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The above cited act is a primary source. A direct reference to it would not fully be in line with WP:NOR. What does academic works or similar reliable sources write of the date? Borsoka (talk) 09:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Ahmadis and Islam

@FreeatlastChitchat: Don't indulge in edit war, you have to specify the reliable source stating Ahmadis are Muslims. Source should be from Pakistan or Saudi authorities or from Quran. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  09:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

One can read sources in article Ahmadiyya, these people consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad divine, which is against the teachings of Islam. Everybody knows Prophet Muhammad(SAAW/PBUH) is the last prophet of Islam. Mirza Ghulam Ahmad can't be Jesus or Mahdi as he claims it. Mahdi will come very late when day of judgement will be near, not so soon in 20th century. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  09:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been proven countless times on wikipedia that Ahmadies will be called muslims. Try the archives on this article and the Ahmadiyyah article. Other than that, drop this stick, you have flogged the horse long enough. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat: You must provide sources and links. I have given you article link of Ahmadiyya in which you can find all sources. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  10:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

You can also read [4], [5]. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  10:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Go the top of this page. Click inside the archives search box and use the term Ahmadi and Ahmadiyyah. When you have read the relevant discussions you can thank me for saving you from a block. I am partial to cupcakes so do use those on my talkpage. Have a nice day. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Article full protected for 24 hours. Please do not bring external disputes into Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Do we need sources on this page to say that Shia or Sunni are non -Muslims?--Peaceworld 11:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)