Talk:Pakistan/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Population

The population of Pakistan is 300 million. But the fact the mardum shumari is wrong Abdullahimran2020 (talk) 11:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

"Paquistan" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Paquistan. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Population wrong and/or inconsistent

Please change the phrase "world's sixth-most populous" to "world's fifth-most populous" inside the link in the second sentence of the article. Explanation: At the moment, the second sentence of the article is: "It is the world's sixth-most populous country with a population exceeding 207.8 million." When you click on the link 'world's sixth-most populous', you are redirected to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population where Pakistan is listed on rank 5 with a population of 218,741,520 (as of 25 Feb 2020). This change would not only make the article consistent with the list, but also with itself, because in the info-box about Pakistan, two population estimates are given and the more recent one, albeit different from the number in the list article, explicitly ranks Pakistan 5th in the world in terms of population. It reads: 212,228,286[13][14] (5th). Gunther Klobe (talk) 11:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done For the reasons given above, fifth-most complies with the UN sources given in infobox and the linked list article. These are the best comparable figures for 2019 and supersede the 2017 figures. Also changed the ranking given in the "Demographics" section" Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Spam in this Wiki

Hey Folks, I can't edit this one

But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan#cite_note-245 - This is now an affiliate marketing blog (www.ecosecretariat.org/), it looks like he picked up the expired domain with backlinks from wikipedia

If somebody with edit rights of this page could take a look, that'd be great

Looking at things further, this guy has hundreds of backlinks from wikipedia, all non-relevant now that his page has nothing to do with Pakistan, Islam, or the Middle East — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlenney (talk • contribs) 17:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Lahore Orange line metro.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Lahore Orange line metro.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Can you add the Kushan Empire to the list before the Gupta Empire in the second paragraph from top in the lead. The Kushan Empire is very important empire in the history of Pakistan. Ty 2607:9880:4030:A8:9D1:9224:122C:1919 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 18:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2020

Remove these sentences from the lead in the second paragraph from top as it is repeatedly mentioned in the infobox and in the history section of the article. As the second paragraph of the lead is already way too long. Shortening it will help the reader as it already crammed with negative historical information that has nothing to do with current Pakistan. Why not mention an event from 1980 to 2020 that is the last 40 years which has not a single mention in the lead.

//Sentences to be removed//

Initially a dominion, Pakistan adopted a constitution in 1956, becoming an Islamic republic. An ethnic civil war and Indian military intervention in 1971 resulted in the secession of East Pakistan as the new country of Bangladesh.

//Sentences to be removed//

2607:9880:4030:A8:9D1:9224:122C:1919 (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 22:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2020

Can you add the Ghurid Sultanate and the Ghaznavids Empire to the list before the Delhi Sultanate in the second paragraph from top in the lead. These two dynasties are very impotant in local history. Ty 2607:9880:4030:A8:3DB1:5F2D:D2CB:BA01 (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

 Already done: both are already mentioned just before the Khaljis (part of the Delhi Sultanate) in the last sentence of the 2nd lead paragraph. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: you mean on the Khaljis or the Delhi Sultanate article or on the Pakistan article? 2607:9880:4030:A8:68FC:30A6:11C4:4991 (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I must have been seeing things... and  done. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 15:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

the gallery of prominent people in Pakistan is missing Malala Yousafzai (Nobel Peace Prize in 2014)

We need to correct the gallery of prominent people in Pakistan. Currently Only men are featured : Nobel Prize Abdus Salam (1979) or UNESCO Science Prize for Atta-ur-Rahman) in the 8.4 Science and Technology.

Under 8.5 Education, we should be mentioned Malala Yousafzai (Nobel Peace Prize in 2014 - the youngest Nobel Prize laureate) known for the education of women and children with a link to her wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malala_Yousafzai

This should be done in all wikipedia languages.

"The Nobel Peace Prize for 2014" (Press release). Oslo: Nobel Media AB. 10 October 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MB297 (talk • contribs) 07:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention

There is a discussion @ Talk:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on religion#Impact of religion on the pandemic started by mfb

In that discussion the point raised by Kautilya3 religious congregations going ahead in many parts of the world (including Pakistan) & contributing to spread of COVID 19 does not seem to get due coverage and as The wub states is not only bizarre but also horrible & not responsible enough if wiki community fails to give wider & due attention. IMHO

The same point is applicable to article 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Pakistan#Religion

Bookku (talk) 01:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Request for comments at Indigenous Aryans

There is currently a Request for Comments at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Request for comment: IA/OoI is a fringe theory on the question Should the article say in the lede that the Indigenous Aryans / Out of India theory is a fringe theory as in the suggestion below?. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Local name

Why are the local names of places suddenly disappearing from the intros? that used to be one of my favourite parts of Wikipedia. Irtapil (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Requesting opinion on a page move request.

Hello,

@ Talk:Aurat (disambiguation)#Requested_move_11_May_2020 is taking place about article relating to women of mainly of Asian origin. In Past 2 days only two opinions are received and more opinions will be preferable. Thanks for your opinion and participation in discussion.

Bookku (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2020

{{subst:trim|1= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.173.113 (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Treaties on Kashmir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Currently the pages on Jammu and Kashmir are very fragmented. Its difficult to navigate through the pages. May be have a page on the treaties that apply to Jammu and Kashmir and link these to actual history events. The reader could then click on a link, obtain a more indepth knowledge of the treaty, its relationship with other treaties and the events surrounding it. Therefore providing them with a more educational understanding of these treaties. There is a lot of literature on these treaties, that we could use for references. There are also multiple parties to these treaties and we could link to them too. Many books and scholarly papers have been published illustrating the details surrounding these treaties. May be also create subsections on these pages illustrating the views of the Government of India, The view of the Government of Pakistan and the view of the Kashmiri Parties, The Government of China, The United Nations, The Sikh Empire and the British Government on these treaties. On Wikipedia we have the text on the various treaties but it does not show how these treaties relate to one another. We need show how they relate to one another and the events on the ground. We need to enhance the experience of the reader. Johnleeds1 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Bahria Icon Tower in economic section of Article is not actually tallest in South Asia

The Baharia Tower as mentioned under economic section is not the tallest tower in South Asia , The Palais Royale is taller than it The Bahria Icon Tower is second tallest in South Asia Nilabh Shivam 333 (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done based on the references cited at List of tallest buildings and structures in South Asia. Nice catch! For future reference, though, you should cite your sources directly in an edit request; Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references for other Wikipedia articles. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 07:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 April 2020

Update the population density (absolute) figures and rank. Change “244.4/km² (633.0/sq mi) (56th)” to “273/km² (706/mi²) (33rd)”. Idell (talk) 20:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that ?---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 21:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wikaviani and Paine Ellsworth: Change aforementioned parameters to 274/km², rank 15th. See List of countries and dependencies by population density § Density of the most populous countries. Idell (talk) 16:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

To editor Idell: sorry, I still see nothing to warrant a change. The reliable source in the list article is still from the 2017 census, which shows the figure we presently use here and does not support the new figure in the list. That figure is even different from the UN estimate. So a source must be produced to support this change to this article. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 16:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

"Islamic Pakistan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Islamic Pakistan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 8#Islamic Pakistan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:18, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

"Pakistani Federation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pakistani Federation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 9#Pakistani Federation until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:48, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• KFC Sargodha.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 June 2020

Please change the Koppen Climate map in this article to the one in the article Climate of Pakistan. The one in that article is more precise. I-82-I (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word) has been relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Bookku (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

en:Draft:Urdu feminist literature

Starting new article en:Draft:Urdu feminist literature. Please add relevant information with references.

Bookku (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Jinnah Interchange Gujranwala.jpg
• Orange line metro train Lahore.jpg
• Skyline of Karachi, Pakistan.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Lead summary

With respect to the partial revert on 22 June, I guess if we were to stay true to both the Heo and Shehabuddin sources (the former was added by me), it makes reference to the regions of British India that had a "Muslim-majority". The reference to the "northwest" won't be necessary given East Bengal too seceded, while the partition was an event, not a movement, that was a precursor to the independence. Thus, keeping in mind WP:SUMMARY, I had condensed the lead to the following to keep it as accurate as possible while linking to the Pakistan Movement, which of course was the main cause for the independent state. The body of the article delves into the rest. Any ideas on how we could restructure and condense the lead in light of these points? Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Mar4d, thank you for your comment. If you'd like to change "northwest" to "Muslim-majority", I can accept that. However, it must be noted that Pakistan was created as a homeland for Indian Muslims and that this occurred through the partition of colonial India. I think that you making those changes, along with retaining the sentence structure I wrote is a good compromise. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 21:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Anupam. Taking into account the above, I suggest the following as a compromise: "Pakistan gained independence in 1947 as a result of the Pakistan Movement, which sought statehood for the Muslim-majority regions of British India through partition." This would address the three points - the independence movement, the "Muslim-majority" regions, and also the event of partition, whilst meeting concise summary style. Best, Mar4d (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome User:Mar4d. Your version omits one of the most important aspects about the creation of Pakistan—it being made as a homeland for Indian Muslims. I would therefore suggest keeping your sentence but slightly rewording the first clause of it: "Pakistan was created as a homeland for Indian Muslims in 1947 as a result of the Pakistan Movement, which sought statehood for the Muslim-majority regions of British India through partition." I think that should work. Thoughts? Anupam^Talk 22:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan's creation as a homeland for Indian Muslims occurred as a result of the elite class of Muslims from the United Provinces and Bihar. Most of the Muslim-majority regions of India didn't demand it. The Sind United Party and Unionist Party held a membership of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs. This means that above point made by Anupam needs to be taken at face value. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: The lead isn't discussing the views of individuals or independent parties, but rather the collective position of the Pakistan Movement, which sought independence for the Muslim-majority regions. As such, there's a clear difference between both. @Anupam: Your version seems mostly fine. I will suggest the following tweak: "Pakistan gained independence in 1947 as a result of the Pakistan Movement, which sought a homeland for the Muslim-majority regions of British India through partition." This avoids the problem of repetition. For semantics, the year of independence ought to be mentioned in the opening, and the emphasis on the geographic regions is critical as it served as the basis on which statehood was sought. This is cognisant with and supported by what is mentioned in the Pakistan Declaration, and the outline of the Allahabad Address and Lahore Resolution. Cheers, Mar4d (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Mar4d, the references in the lede both mention that Pakistan was created as a "homeland for Indian Muslims". I included this in the compromise version I suggested, which also mentions the "partition", as well as your requirement of including the "Pakistan Movement" and "Muslim-majority regions of British India". The two components that you desire in the lede, as well as the ones that I hold to be important (which are mentioned in the references) are included in that revision. If you can accept this, the article can be updated. Once again, this is the sentence that I am suggesting: "Pakistan was created as a homeland for Indian Muslims in 1947 as a result of the Pakistan Movement, which sought statehood for the Muslim-majority regions of British India through partition." I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Anupam. Thanks for your views. I guess we are essentially stuck with the problem of semantics. The reason I revised my statement to include the term "homeland", as you suggested before, is to commensurate with the historicity of the three documents I mentioned above, which formed the basis of the independence movement. Please refer to the Pakistan Declaration article to understand which specific regions were historically definitional to the formation of Pakistan. You have mentioned that Pakistan became a "homeland for Indian Muslims". It is certainly true that much of the Pakistan independence movement began in the regions now part of India, and a large exchange of population occurred therein from the partition.

However, we also need to appreciate the broader connotations of the term "Indian Muslim" in both the pre-1947 context and post-1947 context. In the post-1947 scenario, which is dominant, "Indian Muslim" will almost certainly refer to a Muslim citizen of the Indian republic. Someone from the South, where the Pakistan Movement for the most part was practically nonexistent, would fit this definition. When juxtaposed into the pre-1947 era, we are again dealing with a substantially non-identical definition of Indian Muslim which is not shaped by the modern boundaries or limitations.

This is where the Lahore Resolution, Pakistan Declaration, Allahabad Address etc. also need to be taken into context and cannot be ignored, because they clearly defined the consensus on which Muslim regions of British India were to form Pakistan, and which were to be excluded. Essentially, even if we accommodated the clause you proposed, we would be vaguely oversimplifying (emphasis) what this really means, including the most central idea of the Lahore Resolution, and of Iqbal in Allahabad, and the definition in the Pakistan Declaration. For this reason, the lead "a homeland for the Muslim-majority regions of British India through partition", factually speaking, more than accurately describes the "Muslim homeland" you mentioned. Hope this helps. Alternatively, if you disagree, we could seek consultation from some prolific but neutral contributors who've expanded content on Pakistani history articles in the past, as I'm sure they could offer good input and source material. Cheers. Mar4d (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Anupam: Although not perfect, until the time that such a discussion or consensus is had, you could go ahead with the compromise version. I suggest the following: "Pakistan gained independence in 1947 as a homeland for Indian Muslims following the Pakistan Movement, which sought statehood for the Muslim-majority regions of British India through partition." Let me know if you agree. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

User:Mar4d, thank you for your reply. I am fine with the compromise version you suggested, even though it differs just slightly from my own. Feel free to add it to the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 22:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with User:Mar4d that the lead summary should be concise and focused on Pakistan movement itself which is chronologically more relevant and predates Partition and Independence for that matter. I propose reverting to the original version of the text. User:Anupam. Your contributions are appreciated but I would strongly recommend that you discuss editing of sourced content of protected pages, as our more experienced contributors have clearly spent significant time improving these lead paragraphs. This is a fairly major edit in my opinion and should be discussed. KamranHassanUK (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Mar4d, you just suggested the exact same sentence that you did before. I agree with Anupam that "homeland for Indian Muslims" must be mentioned and that term is given in the sources supporting the sentence. This was the very basis on which Pakistan was created--and this demand for Pakistan was loudest among the Indian Muslims of UP and Bihar (provinces in which Muslims were in the minority, not majority). KamranHassan, there is a discussion here that is going on and your comment here doesn't add much value to it. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Requesting attention @ article Talk:Cynthia D. Ritchie

Hi,

I created article Cynthia D. Ritchie in a neutral perspective. It has not received much vandalism up till now but once in a while the article's neutrality is likely to get disturbed being of political nature to an extent. I am myself not good at fighting vandalism and edit wars.

So I would request experienced editors interested in Pakistan topics to add article Cynthia D. Ritchie in their watch list so you can help maintain neutrality of the article. Please do discuss at Talk:Cynthia D. Ritchie

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 June 2020

Please add the Sur Empire after the Mughal Empire in the second paragraph of the lead. Ty 2607:9880:4030:A8:EDCE:CD45:862:5BE0 (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Synoman Barris: Here are the sources. 2607:9880:4030:A8:8520:3CEB:497C:A464 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ll have a look at the sources before answering the ER. I have reinstated the ER. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done although only 1 reference was enough. I used Spuler since I have nearby access to it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

References

New map

As the new map has been released by Pakistan with modified territorial.claims, I would like someone capable of making map to revise areas claimed and replace existing map. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

• "Pakistan affirms claim to IHK with new map". The Dawn. 2020-08-05. Retrieved 2020-08-05.

What was modified? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Etymology

Isn't mixing of translation with different languages of different parts of word "Pakistan" and covered by WP:OR as inappropriate? Who the hack written that?

Even if it is confirmed to be appropriate why don't you think that word can 'mean' a 'holy place' (exactly meaning posted sources give to us as translation, no any translation meaning 'land' there, however there's a 'place') and not a 'land of pure'. Any reliable sources of such statement exists (WP:RS)?

I think that statement have to be marked as at least. Please do it or delete such statement from the article.

Other way: Why article is not editable? Isn't a Wikipedia is may be 'edited by everyone'?

When that was changed??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.102.245 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2020

PAKISTAN IS NOT COUNTRY, IT IS A FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION OR UNION OF FOUR NATIONS SINDH, BALOCHISTAN, KHYBER PAKHTOON KHUWAH AND PUNJAB. --> PLEASE DO NOT USE THE WORD COUNTRY FOR PAKISTAN. 103.235.79.119 (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

do you have a reliable source for this?IdreamofJeanie (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Being a federation does not mean that it's not a country. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Besides it's (according to new or autonomous territories) a Federation it still the State primarily according to the Constitution 85.238.103.38 (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2020

I want to edit the Stock Exchange section in the article to reflect it with the current time. It is old and not true. PSE is the best in Asia one of the best performing markets in the world. See here: https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/pakistan-stock-exchange-named-best-performing-in-asia/1960823 Iamsherkhan (talk) 04:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

@Iamsherkhan: Please state exactly the changes that you are proposing. Idell (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 11:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Slightly incorrect South Sudan–Sudan border in the orthographic projection

The South Sudan–Sudan border in is slightly different to the South Sudan–Sudan border in other orthographic projections. Can someone change it to be the same as it is in File:India_(orthographic_projection).svg? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swiftestcat (talk • contribs) 08:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2020

I want to edit the Pakistan Stock Exchange section. It is written that it is one of the worst performing markets in the world. That information is old. It was recently named the best performing market in Asia and one of the best in the world. If you want to see from where I got this information, kindly visit this link: www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/pakistan-stock-exchange-named-best-performing-in-asia/1960823&usg=AOvVaw0Eih2hbOSGwvA8bJXI3kyI It is from aa.com.tr

Thank you and have a nice day! Iamsherkhan (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The link you provide as a source does not work. Please provide a working link. --RegentsPark (comment) 15:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. This is a working link to the source. I have removed this recent-news-based caption entirely and replaced it with a neutral, more permanent one. Stock market performance is transient, and the law of averages or the random walk theory easily explains why a couple of relatively bad years for the PSE would be followed by outperforming other markets. It would make sense to characterize the PSE as underperforming only after many years of poor performance compared to a benchmark. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2020

change "The state religion in Pakistan is Sunni Islam" (in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan#Religion) to "The state religion in Pakistan is Islam", because in the Constitution of Pakistan it is stated that Islam is the state religon of the country not Sunni Islam.

reference: Constitution of Pakistan 2.179.35.185 (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2020

The first sentence in the "motorways" section should be deleted or changed to make it more neutral Amaan4210 (talk) 01:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done Cleaned up. Dylsss (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 October 2020

The names of the military chiefs in the 2nd paragraph of the "Military" section are outdated and need to be replaced Amaan4210 (talk) 20:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Change "Zubair Hayat" to "Nadeem Raza", and "Muhammad Zaka" to "Muhammad Amjad Khan Niazi". Source:https://ispr.gov.pk/Amaan4210 (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020 (2)

Although Rahmat Ali had already voiced his idea for an independent Muslim state on the subcontinent before he moved to Britain, it was here that he would publish his pamphlet Now or Never: Are We to Live or Perish for Ever? (1933). In this pamphlet, issued on 28 January 1933, he made an appeal 'on behalf of the thirty million Muslims of PAKSTAN, who live in the five Northern Units of India - Punjab, N. W. F. P. (Afghan Province), Kashmir, Sindh and Baluchistan, embodying their inexorable demand for the recognition of their separate national status, as distinct from the rest of India, by the grant of a separate Federal Constitution on social, religious, political and historical grounds'. According to one source, Rahmat Ali had already coined the word in late 1932, while travelling on top of a bus (route 11) in London (see Aziz, Rahmat Ali, p. 89). Ch Zafar Habib Gujjar (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 14:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 October 2020

Request to change Pakistan's GDP and per capita as per IMF report October 2020, link: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2020/October/weo-report?c=564,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,&sy=2020&ey=2020&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1 Josephgomes619 (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

 Already done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:06, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pakistan's map needs a update its incorrect

The previous map didn't show siachen glacier in light green (even though siachen glacier is controlled by India) instead it showed it in dark green which is completely wrong, File:Pakistan in its region (de-facto).svg New updated map link:- https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pakistan_in_its_region_(de-facto).svg#mw-jump-to-license this map is extremely accurate and better than the previous counterpart and has a neutral point of view. So I would like to reach a consensus with other fellow editors in this pakistan wikipedia page to give this map a pass to replace the existing map. Swtadi143 (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Swtadi143. Please note that the present version of the orthographic map has been present on the page for many years. Main infobox details such as maps are usually not changed without consensus or discussion. If you want to request a modification on the map itself, please try Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps or the Wikipedia:Reference desk, where you may have your query answered. Note that Pakistani forces are present on the region adjoining the Siachen Glacier, so an expert will need to look into the cartographic details and claims. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pakistan_in_its_region_(claimed_hatched).svg#mw-jump-to-license Note the new map is created now and it is same with the predecessor and also shows the claimed regions just like the replaced map only one difference is the siachen glacier region is corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtadi143 (talk • contribs) 11:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, no consensus has been established so far. Plus, I think that the "only difference" region is exceptionally huge to just be the Siachen Glacier. You may try the alternative forums as mentioned above. Kindly make such edits only after experienced users have agreed to them. Idell (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the consensus has been reached the previous editor told me to find the map which shows a locator map, which also shows the claims which my previous map version didnt show and it also corrected the siachen glacier part in this new map " https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pakistan_in_its_region_(claimed_hatched).svg#mw-jump-to-license ", so instead of reverting facts over fiction you better wait for other experienced user and dont unilatreally revert other user contributions. I am ready to take this to the administrators dont edit war with me! You are not allowed to revert a contribution done in good faith accoroding to wikipedia policy. Revert once more and you will be reported to the administrators. Also, there is nothing wrong in this good faith map that I added, its neutral and good faith edit just like all wikipeia edit is supposed to be it is also specific since its a locator map, it also shows controlled and claimed areas with accuracy everything needed is there in this map unlike the incorrect predecessor map, so discuss here what you think is needed and its obviously nothing since the map is exactly accurate and specific to this min article page. You also dont mention anything about whats wrong with map dont blindly revert other wikipedia editor contributions in good faith without any reason of saying whats wrong with the map thats against wikipedia policy. Wikipedia— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtadi143 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Strong oppose top this map proposed by Swtadi143. Edit warring without consensus can result in penalties on WP. Be warned. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

The two users Fowler&Fowler (you) and Idell are the ones creating problems instead of saying the reason why they oppose the map they use vague references like "Strongly oppose" this is not the way to reach consensus, I am telling other fellow experienced editors to advice these two editors to adhere to the wikipedia policy. "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." There are no concerns raised as no reason of concern is given please the two users mentioned be specific, it seems you two (Fowler&Fowler and Idell) should wait for other experience editors for response here as you two don't know wikipedia policy of consensus and good faith discussion with concerns and objections with reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtadi143 (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• The maps in the infoboxes of the countries neighboring Pakistan show (i) the globe, (ii) the country of interest in dark green, and (iii) its claimed regions in light green: File:India (orthographic projection).svg, File:CHN orthographic.svg, File:Afghanistan (orthographic projection).svg, File:Iran (orthographic projection).svg The other countries of South Asia follow a similar pattern: File:Bangladesh (orthographic projection).svg, File:Nepal (orthographic projection).svg, File:Sri Lanka (orthographic projection).svg, File:Maldives (orthographic projection).svg. More than 150 other countries of the world have the same type of map: the country in green aligned with the lines of longitude and latitude; the continental landmasses in gray, the oceans in off-white. So please tell me what you are doing changing Pakistan to red, the remaining landmasses to yellow, showing no lines of longitude or latitude, rendering Pakistan's orientation slanted, reducing the field of view to half of South Asia, and pasting a minuscule thumb-sized globe in some projection in the left-hand corner? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

That is not an objective reason, https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bhutan_in_its_region.svg#mw-jump-to-license this country of south asia bhutan uses this type of map also the current map you out is wrong, so see both typw of map can be used because both is locator map thats not a objective reason, the rule is that any locator map can be used your objection reason is not a concern it follow the rule and I also gave you a example of a fellow south asian country bhutan which uses it, I request you to revert you edit and put tthe previous locator map the previous one is wrong anyway — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtadi143 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I still dont understand why so much opposition to this new map come on, no objective reasons! Reply here pls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtadi143 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Out of eight countries, you found Bhutan!! If you continue this nonsense you are looking at penalties. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok it seems none of the editors are agreeing on this time to move on pardon me, I am stopping this now, this went off of healthy dissucssion anyway thanks for giving your time on this matter! I am done thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swtadi143 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2020

The GDP (PPP) total/per capita and the GDP (nominal) total/per capita need to updated as per the recent IMF World Economic Outlook Database ,October 2020. Amaan4210 (talk) 03:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 05:53, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Language add

Khatri language add please Ayanahmad337 (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 December 2020

Please change the HDI to 0.560 in the infobox as that's what the source says Amaan4210 (talk) 00:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

To editor Amaan4210:  done, and also updated the ranking to 152nd according to the source. Thank you so much for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 09:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Administrative Division discrepancy

When talking about administrative divisions (section 5.2) it says the main article can be found here and then goes on the say that Pakistan has four provinces and three territories. However the "main article" it links to says in the opening paragraph that Pakistan has five territories and one territory. I am not sure which is correct (update date and treating Kashmir correctly), but I think if someone were to look into this discrepancy it would provide a good opportunity to make sure both pages are update and treat the difficulties consistently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gory (talk • contribs) 01:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2020

Change the hdi arrow to "increasing" in the infobox because the hdi increased from 2018 to 2019 Amaan4210 (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I updated it to the 2020 report where it decreases.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 18:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 January 2021

Pakistan's constitution states that Pakistan consists of the provinces of Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab, and Sindh, and the Islamabad Capital Territory. Therefore, the dependent territories of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan should be removed from the table of administrative divisions until such time as Pakistan officially incorporates them into the country. (http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/part1.html) Atelerixia (talk) 07:20, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. GreaterPonce665 ^(TALK) 15:54, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Remove Bangladesh from Kashmir section

Bangladesh's independence was never a result of a treaty. The Simla Agreement was signed in July 1972, by which time most countries in the world already recognized Bangladesh. --128.86.177.225 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Add something about Pakistan's mountains in the lede

Pakistani controlled territory includes several of the highest mountains in the world. Pakistan also has deserts and the Indus River. Why not mention these geographical features in the lede? --128.86.177.225 (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

Found a replacement link for https://www.reuters.com/article/2010/09/27/us-nuclear-iaea-pakistan-idUSTRE68Q1MN20100927 Dahl, Fredrik (27 September 2010). "Nuclear-armed Pakistan chairs board of U.N. atom body" .Reuters, Vienna to new link https://www.reuters.com/article/idINIndia-51762220100927?edition-redirect=in Tompiyatonnid4631 (talk) 15:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. Gaioa (T C L) 14:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2021

I've heard that u edit in Wikipedia using HTML I just wanted to see how did he use the code I don't wanna edit TERMINATOR 13680238 (talk) 09:49, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The story so far: On August 4, Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan announced a new political map of Pakistan. With this, Pakistan became the third country to launch a new political map after India and Nepal did the same in November 2019 and May 2020, respectively. India had reiterated its territorial claims in Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh with the new map; this triggered a reaction from Nepal which contested Indian claims in the Kalapani region of Pithoragarh district. The territorial claims of Pakistan are, however, of a far greater extent and challenge many of the past understandings and treaties. TERMINATOR 13680238 (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done No edit actually requested. This appears to be a discussion point, not an edit request Fiddle Faddle 10:18, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

119.160.65.6 (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Gaioa (T C L) 18:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2021

Pakistan is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.211.203 (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Update Map

Kindly update Pakistani map to represent official map by adding pre-1947 Junagardh to pakistani map as disputed territory. Mark Allanhart (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Notability of Draft:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai

Greetings,

Your valuable comments on notability are requested at Draft talk:Pawri Ho Rahi Hai#RfC: Is this topic notable or not ?

Thanks and warm regards,

Bookku (talk) 08:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahmadiyyah

Why is there a separate category for Ahmadiyyah? Aren’t they Muslims? Nlivataye (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Add a sentence or two about climate change in Pakistan?

Would you find it acceptable if I added a sentence or two about climate change in Pakistan, including a wikilink to Climate change in Pakistan? Maybe a sentence such as: "Pakistan contributes little to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at about less than 1%, yet it is very vulnerable to the effects of climate change." So far, climate change is not mentioned once (it is mentioned in the sub-article climate of Pakistan). EMsmile (talk) 12:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Would get a better response to all these posts if you had a proposal sentence or 2 over just an idea.--Moxy- 16:07, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

There (in Pakistan) is another language which speaks in Quetta city, Balochistan Provance which is call Hazaragi. Speaks most among the hazara nation located most in Quetta, Pakistan. Hazaras are the minority athnic shia group which are also known by there genocides. Sikandar Ali/ 77.53.10.196 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

We would need a reliable source outlining that information to add it to the article. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2021

Change this in the third lead paragraph as we are missing close to 40 years of Pakistani history which is half the age of Pakistan

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In 1971 [[East Pakistan]] seceded as the new country of [[Bangladesh]] after a [[Bangladesh Liberation War|civil war]]; in 2008, Pakistan transitioned from military to civilian rule.<ref>{{cite web |title=Opposition confident in Pakistan |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7249455.stm |website=BBC NEWS |date=18 February 2008}}</ref>
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

To this

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
In 1971 [[East Pakistan]] seceded as the new country of [[Bangladesh]] after a [[Bangladesh Liberation War|civil war]]. From 1971 to 2007, Pakistan went through two separate eras of democratic and two separate eras of military rule. In 2008, Pakistan transitioned from military to civilian rule.<ref>{{cite web |title=Opposition confident in Pakistan |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7249455.stm |website=BBC NEWS |date=18 February 2008}}</ref>
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Sugarsaltsugar (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. LOMRJYO_{(About × contribs)} 21:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2021 (2)

@Lomrjyo: In the third paragraph of the lead, We are missing 34 years of Pakistani history which is about half the age of Pakistan. So I propose this change.

Line to add between the information about 1971 and 2008 in the third paragraph of the lead like this:

.....seceded as the new country of Bangladesh after a civil war. From 1973 to 2007, Pakistan went through two separate eras of democratic and two separate eras of military rule. In 2008, Pakistan transitioned from.....

Sugarsaltsugar (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done LOMRJYO_{(About × contribs)} 23:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You forget to add the period before the reference. I also added some more references above so if you want to add them please do so.

@Lomrjyo: It should be two separate democratic eras because during this time there were five different governments first was Bhutto (1973-1977) then between 1998 to 1999 was Benazir then Sharif then Benazir then Sharif.

Sugarsaltsugar (talk) 23:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Sugarsaltsugar: I will change as requested, although I think current wording is easier to understand. LOMRJYO_{(About × contribs)} 02:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I've revised it using a better source (Talbot's Modern South Asia, Yale, 2016) and making the descriptions more nuanced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2021

Present state:

Etymology

The name Pakistan means literally "a land abounding in the pure" or "a land in which the pure abound," in Urdu and Persian. It references the word پاک (pāk), meaning "pure" in Persian and Pashto.[31] The suffix ـستان (transliterated in English as stân after stem word ending in a vowel; estân or istân after a stem ending in a consonant) is from Persian, and means "a place abounding in" [32] or "a place where anything abounds".[33]

The name of the country was coined in 1933 by Choudhry Rahmat Ali, a Pakistan Movement activist, who published it in a pamphlet Now or Never,[34] using it as an acronym ("thirty million Muslim brethren who live in PAKISTAN"), and referring to the names of the five northern regions of the British Raj: Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh, and Baluchistan.[34]

Proposed change:

Etymology

The name of the country was coined in 1933 by Choudhry Rahmat Ali, a Pakistan Movement activist, who published it in a pamphlet 'Now or Never',[34] using it as an acronym, referring to the names of the five northern regions of the British Raj: Punjab (P), Afghania (A), Kashmir (K), Sindh (S), and Baluchistan (TAN).[34] The word Pakstan eventually turned into Pakistan for the ease of pronunciation as per Urdu grammar.

From after independence, Pakistan propagates both domestically and internationally its name as "a land abounding in the pure" or "a land in which the pure abound". The word پاک (pāk) means "pure" in Persian and Pashto.[31] The suffix ـستان (transliterated in English as stân after stem word ending in a vowel; estân or istân after a stem ending in a consonant) is from Persian, and means "a place abounding in" [32] or "a place where anything abounds".[33] Nowhere in the pamphlet mentioned above, it is mentioned that the word Pakstan has another meaning other than the said acronym, nor there is any mention of such meaning (land of pure) in any document before the formation of Pakistan. The propagated meaning as 'land of pure' is a complete coincidence to have such a meaning, which is seen in many acronyms around the world. Kawrno Baba (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Please get consensus for these changes before requesting an edit. Additionally that prose would likely need some copyediting before it can be used. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Kindly update the map of Pakistan

Pakistan has claimed the entire region of Jammu and Kashmir stretching all the way to the edge of Ladakh; former Princely States of Junagarh and Manavadar and the entire territory and water bodies that fall in the Sir Creek region in the westernmost part of India in its new political map released in 2020. Kindly update this map and add these 'claimed' regions. Peter Ormond (talk) 14:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Talking on basis of ground reality, In india the official concensus is that the land given to pakistan is on rental basis , so pakistan map should be updated to show that the land on which pakistan stands doesnt beling to pakistan. Zmalqp0043 (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Peter just to clarify The statement above was sarcasm. Also I think you should take into account the unpredictability and sanity of Imran Khan( on a very serious note) the man has made a few very questionable statements. His word even as a world leader cannot be taken seriously. Zmalqp0043 (talk) 10:14, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

As opposed to Modi who is a bastion of humanity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by INGoNitE (talk • contribs) 02:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Pakistan's official language

Pakistan's official language is not English. All Provence have own language. 94.174.204.64 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

Can someone update the religion figure in the infobox of the article based on the latest 2017 census?! The current figures are from the old 1998 census.

Religion in Pakistan (2017 Census)

  Islam (96.47%)

  Hinduism (2.14%)

  Christianity (1.27%)

  Ahmadiyya (0.09%)

  Other Religions (0.03%)

Regards. Bundestag1 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 May 2021

I am a resident of Pakistan and here we have right as driving seat. so please change the driving seat from left to right. Thanks 182.187.7.114 (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021

To change the name of pakistan as republic of Pakistan Kianaamhatumhara (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Run n Fly (talk) 14:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 May 2021 (2)

pakistan Kianaamhatumhara (talk) 14:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Run n Fly (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

The per capita income in 2021 is 1543$ and the GDP is 296 Billion $. Stefan2702 (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/Asad_Umar/status/1395741372691492865?s=19 here is the source. Stefan2702 (talk) 09:51, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. A tweet is not a sufficient source for this. Surely he's citing a report, we should cite that directly as opposed to his tweet about it. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021 Articles to be updated

• Hamid Mir
• Faiz Hameed
• Draft:Aroosa Alam
• Akleem Akhtar (General Rani)

Bookku (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The only country that has been created for Islam??

Pakistan isn’t the only country that has been creating for Islam come on; there is an ocean full of Islamic states. Israel for Jewish yes only one but not Islam Nlivataye (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Nlivataye, Perhaps the only one in the 20th century? Krok6kola (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

They should clarify that; but either way Saudi Arabia officially came into being in 1932. Islamic republic of Iran in 1979. It’s just not true about Pakistan being the only one. It should be removed. Nlivataye (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nlivataye and Krok6kola: As both of you say though statement "Pakistan is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam." though has references neither can be called accurate nor Islamic enough,

1) rather it would count as soft blasphemy in Islamic definition itself, since technically first state created in the name of Islam would be Medina around 1400 years back.

2) While Pakistan calls itself Islamic, in some interpretations it can be called Islamic enough while in some of more conservative interpretations it won't count Islamic enough

3) Why such confusions do occur? 3.1) Basically it is kind of going overboard to prove legitimacy behind creation of separate state Pakistan by boasting about it.

3.2) Most people do not get nuanced differentiation between what is Muslim and what is Islamic, driven by an inaccurate definition of what is Islamic? According to [1] Muslim is purely someone who practices Islam and Islamic is anything influenced by Islam or produced by Muslims.

3.3) But some academicians have challenged that definition by alternate view According to M.M. Knight, when one does not speak for real Islam (i.e.'an abstracted ideal' that floats above, Muslim, human cultures but speaks for 'lived traditions') it is preferable to use the term Muslim instead of the term Islam or Islamic.

M.M. Knight further says,terms 'Islam/ Islamic' imposes claim of normativity, which is distinct with lived experiences hence need not be conflated. (My emphasis)

With this definition it can be apparent Pakistan in reality is a Muslim state not an Islamic enough state in practical sense. That is why most Muslim majority countries state their state religion to be Muslim but do not call themselves Islamic because actually word 'Islamic' puts very heavy demands which in modern times not remained practical enough.

4) Article Islamic state attempts to give better definition of Islamic state with that definition Muslim world#Islamic states informs of 7 countries to be Islamic state and Pakistan is just one of them. Then by which standard the semi blasphemous statement Pakistan is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam. is accurate? Muslim world#Islamic states provides refs for Pakistan being constitutionally calls itself as an Islamic state but those references don't justify Pakistan's Islamicness enough.

5) We will come refs given along with factually incorrect statement Pakistan is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam.

We have seen above Hussain, Rizwan's ref saying ""Pakistan is unique among Muslim countries in its relationship with Islam: it is the only country to have been established in the name of Islam" is incorrect from all sides.

The second reference Talbot, Ian says "As British rule there drew to an end, many Muslims demanded, in the name of Islam, the creation of a separate Pakistan state."

Talbot's statement does not have any sense of being 'only Islamic state' What the statement is saying is just established in the name of Islam.

Instead of Pakistan is the only country to have been created in the name of Islam. most probably better way of writing would be Pakistan is one of the country to have been created in the name of Islam. to avoid overstatement of "the only country"

Bookku (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sending discussion invitations to active contributors from top contributors to the article and last five who might have added reasonable non reverted content. mentioning this note to avoid misunderstanding. Bookku (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I was invited to comment here. Pakistan was not created in the name of Islam, not by a long shot. It was created because in the 1946 provincial elections of British India, the Muslim League, a party that had hitherto only claimed to represent the Muslims of British India, won all the seats in the provincial legislatures reserved for Muslims. (The League was of the view that in a united independent India, the Muslims would become relatively powerless politically.) The British took the election results to mean that the League did have the mandate for a separate state, and British Raj (commonly called India) was partitioned into a (geographically reduced) India and Pakistan in August 1947. That Pakistan gave itself an Islamic Constitution later in the mid-1950s is a different matter. It has nothing to do with its creation. India's own constitution was changed in the late 1960s to describe itself as a sovereign democratic secular socialist republic (instead of simply "sovereign democratic republic" as it was in the original version of 1950). It does not mean that India was created as a socialist state. The Islam of Iqbal, in any case, is very different from that of Saudi Arabia, much more nuanced, much more sensitive and many-sided, however much the Pakistanis of today, or their Indian detractors, might claim otherwise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are misunderstanding this. Pakistan’s rallying cry during the independence struggle was “Pakistan ka Nara kya? La illaha illalah” which translates to “What is Pakistan’s motto? There is no god but Allah. Further, it was chiefly promoted by the Muslim league, and the partition of Pakistan and India was along religious lines, so I think these factors mean Pakistan WAS created in the name of Islam. Indeed, it is considered so by much of the Islamic world. Yes, other Islamic states exist, but they were not created for Islam or in the name of Islam, they were just created and made Islamic, not chiefly made for the name of Islam (yes, not even Saudi Arabia).RealKnockout (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I've revised and in part rewritten the lead, made it NPOV, and removed the peacock claims, including the bit about the only country created as an Islamic one. It is patently untrue, inserted by the use of poor or obscure sources; I have added major sources, in some instances with quotes. I can't decide if pro-Pakistan-POV editors add these bits of pseudo-history out of misplaced pride or pro-India-POV editors do so with an aim to detract from Pakistan's rightful historical due, but either way, these claims are not encyclopedic. Not all claims are notable let alone encyclopedic. I thank the various editors for bringing this topic to a wider discussion. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Pakistan is officially known as republic of pakistan. Kianaamhatumhara (talk) 14:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

No, it is known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan officially. RealKnockout (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

References