Jump to content

Talk:Pakistan studies/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1
The following content was taken from history of the talk page - July 2007 talks.

[1] [2] [3]

Template littering.

Hello. I am going to remove the multitude of NPOV and OR templates re-inserted without discussion or edit summaries. If you feel there are NPOV and OR problems with the article, please explain your objection here on the talk page. That is what these templates are for. A speedy deletion tag with no CSD rationale was also re-inserted, again without any edit summary. I have removed it. Thanks and best regards Tree Kittens 21:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You cannot do that.A few words from Aisha Jealal is not valid enough.This article contains sosley POV.As for indian newspapers they will collect nothing but negative sources towards Pakistan so the templeates will stay.-Vmrgrsergr 05:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right that a significant part of this article draws from the work of Ayesha Jalal, but views of others like Yvette Rosser and the studies of A. H. Nayyar and Ahmed Salim are also included. Please feel free to add other studies to expand the article. deeptrivia (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Criticism section perhaps forms too large a part of this article, but I would suggest that the best way to remedy this is to expand the other sections, or edit the text for concision. I have left the POV check template, as this seems to be the issue of concern. I removed others because there was no discussion here for them to point to. I only encountered the article through the CSD category, and otherwise have no particular interest in it. Best regards Tree Kittens 05:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Your suggestion of the 'best way to remedy this is to expand the other sections' is true, but is not a response to someone who wishes to remove less-important elements on the basis that the entire article is unbalanced. Please see Wikipedia:Criticism for more. Hornplease 06:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, hence my other recommendation to edit the text for concision, and my recognition that the Criticism section (to which I have not contributed) may be too large. Feel free to make a more productive suggestion. Thanks for your input, and for the linked essay. Tree Kittens 12:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
i think you are not supposed to remove CSD tags, as you are not admin,if Vmrgrsergr wants he could have warned you for this,beacuse i been warned for such reason too. Khalidkhoso 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
In obvious cases such as this, any editor can, and should remove CSD tags. The only true restriction is that the creator of the page should not remove the CSD tag given it is a relatively new page. Nominating a page like this for CSD is rather a violation of WP:POINT. Sasquatch t|c 19:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Lack of balance

This article needs major clean up. The huge majority of the page is used to convince the reader that the Pakistan Studies curriculum is bigoted, not to inform the reader about the subject. The article as is makes a very poor "Pakistan Studies" article, but would make a passable "Criticism of Pakistan Studies". I'll continue to research this topic and maybe eventually I'll feel comfortable enough to start editing this hot potato. In the mean time I'd ask editors with more experience on the subject to try and add some balance to this article. With such a long "criticism" section balance may be impossible however, so it may be a better idea to rename the article. Whatever the consensus is, I think we can all agree, this article obviously can't be left in the sorry state its in. - Jirt 15:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to make such changes using WP:RS. My experience is that Pakistan Studies is notable mostly because of its criticism by notable academics. It is hard to find other kinds of information from reliable sources. deeptrivia (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Pakistani opinion needed

We need opinion of Pakistani editors.This contains too much indian perspective and the sources are indian newspapers which have a history of attacking Pakistan and anything to do with that country.To reach WP:NPOV we need Pakistani opinion on this matter.Also Indian newspapers cannot be used as sources for the reason I have provided.-Vmrgrsergr 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

First, there's nothing like "Pakistani editor" or "Indian editor" on wikipedia. Second, most of this article is based on work done by scholars of Pakistani origin. A substantial numberof external links are .pk domain websites. The country of origin shouldn't matter, so all this too should be irrelevant. deeptrivia (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if country of origin doesnt matter why call it Pakistan Studies. Second I am a Pakistani editor and so are many editors here.The only part I agree with is the language bias. Third you are using Indian newspapers as sources and I explained already why that is not acceptable. And lastly you are portaying one scholar to be right while the one she is attacking to be wrong.You are deciding which scholars opinions are valid and which are not.This clearly looks like propaganda to me.-Vmrgrsergr 07:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

i would agree many points here, but this whole article looks like one sided. I will make some minor changes those would not effect POVKhalidkhoso 14:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jalal points out that they make lies about hindus but where are her sources.She has failed to even quote a single textbook.-Vmrgrsergr 18:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jalal, A., "Conjuring Pakistan: History as Official Imagining", International Journal of Middle East Studies, 27, (1995), 73-89, [4]. Everything is properly cited. Standards of journals like this one are much more rigorous than yours or mine. Unfortunately neither you, nor me have the authority to question Ayesha Jalal's publication. Is there a notable academician who has criticized her work? deeptrivia (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


Says who? Jalal attacks another scholar in the article so that is self-contradictory on your part.You titled the section "originality myths" and quoted Aisha Jalal attacking Mr Jamil who is also another scholar.So if one cant question a scholar then Jalal is the first to break the rule and that just goes against your entire arguement.-Vmrgrsergr 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

She is an professor of history with a specialization in South Asian history, and a Ph.D from Cambridge University. She has several publications on South Asian history from some of the most reputed publication houses in the world. The article quotes her published works. I or you are not notable enough even for our published opinion on her work to have any importance on wikipedia. So, you can surely criticize anyone you want, but your criticism would not be notable enough to be published in an encyclopedia. On the other hand, her criticism of Mr. Jamil is notable because of her own notability in South Asian history. I hope this makes it clear. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 23:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, kindly provide a clear rationale on the talk page, pinpointing the sentences you find problematic, for putting so many tags throughout the article. Otherwise, remove the tags. deeptrivia (talk) 23:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • My rationale is beyond clear.However you are shooting yourself in the foot by saying you cannot question scholars and then using Jalal to attack Mr Jamil who is a scholar.You simply cannot play this double standard.

Anyways if you dont want the templates then remove the propaganda and bias.Check the sections I placed the templates in and then you'll understand what's wrong with them.That's what the templates are for: flagging an inaccurate article or section-Vmrgrsergr 23:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How on earth is Jalal attacking Jamil?
Unfortunately, merely putting tags on without pinpointing your objection is not really good enough. You will have to do better if you wish to see some text changed. Hornplease 16:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Caste system

The section where it says in qoutation about the caste system in Hindiism seems to be POV.Are you trying to deny that Hinduism has a caste system? If so then you should not be editing anything to do with the subject because it is a fact that Hinduism DOES have a caste system.Vmrgrsergr 23:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is referenced and quoted from Ayesha Jalal. She can be contacted through her university address, and would be better able to answer to your objection. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 00:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Im not going to that extenct to contact someone so she can answer me of why there is no caste system in Hinduism. I mean if Ms Jalal said the Earth is flat or the sun revolves around the Earth are you going to tell me its a fact just because Ms Jalal said so? Please this is a joke.-Vmrgrsergr 03:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I clearly realize that the criticism section is really big, but I did try to find information on other aspects of this subject, like the section on "outside interest". Believe me, it's hard to come by (from reliable sources). deeptrivia (talk) 01:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay then we will consider removing her opinions from the article.One she does not cite the textbooks she gets this info from then she somehow tries to deny there is a caste system in Hindiusm leaving no place for her claims to be credible.Articles are suppossed to carry sources that provide evidence, not a person's opinions.See WP:RS.-Vmrgrsergr 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What source are you looking at? Everything here satisfies WP:RS. Please read this article (International Journal of Middle East Studies, 27, (1995), 73-89) to learn more about this, including citations. It requires patience, but please read the whole article, and other references provided here during the period the article is locked. It would be quite enriching. deeptrivia (talk) 01:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Are you trying to imply that there is no caste system in Hinduism just because Jalal said so?Yup those are unverified claims and clearly violate WP:NOR.

When the article is unprotected, Jalal's opinions must be removed and if you cannot cite which textbook says what then the entire "citicisms" section or better title "criticisms from Jalal" should be removed.-Vmrgrsergr 02:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Where does Jalal say there was no caste system? Did you read the entire journal article? Please refrain from further commenting before getting atleast some knowledge about this subject. deeptrivia (talk) 04:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should be changed from “Pakistan studies” into "Reviews and Views By Jalal on Pakistan Studies" that will help readers.Khalidkhoso 04:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • She points out authors whose "expansive pan- Islamic imaginings" detect the beginnings of Pakistan in the birth of Islam on the Arabian pensinsula. M.Ikram Rabbani and Monawwar Ali Sayyid's An Introduction to Pakistan Studies, a compulsory reading for first and second year college students studying for an F.A degree in history, begins with a chapter on the establishment of Pakistan based on a concept of Islamic sovereignty. "Allah alone is sovereign and the 'ruler of the Islamic State does not possess any authority of his own'. The coming of Islam to the Indian subcontinent was a 'blessing' since Hinduism was based on an 'unethical caste system'."

My god you must be pulling my leg "Did you read the entire journal article?" She is saying it right there and quoting the caste system as if it's untrue.-Vmrgrsergr 05:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

She is not objecting the claim that "Hinduism had caste system" but the claim that "The coming of Islam to the Indian subcontinent was a "blessing" since Hinduism was "based on" an "unethical caste system"." This is exactly what is quoted in the article. This might be right or wrong in my or your opinion, but that doesn't matter on wikipedia. Thanks. deeptrivia (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah i read that too in pakistan studies when i was in 9th class,1st year college and ,but what is wrong in it .Khalidkhoso 05:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I 100% agree with KhalidKhoso.Where is the so-called "religious bias" promoted in the curriculem.Can you cite the textbooks? Can you please tell me the title of these textbooks? Can't you name atleast one of them? Which lines or chapters from these yet-to-be-named textbooks preach "jihad against Hindus" or anything of that sort?-Vmrgrsergr 05:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Your question proves the thesis Ayesha Jalal puts in her International Journal of Middle East Studies article. Since none of you are expected to actually read the sources you are expertly commenting on, let me quote it here:
"The coming of Islam to the Indian subcontinent was a blessing since Hinduism was "based on" an unethical caste system. Once the boundaries of 'Us' and 'Them' are drawn, the history of the subcontinent is transformed into a battle of the spiritual and the profane, of the righteous Muslim and the idolatrous Hindu. " Read pages 5-8 of this article. Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Deep, it looks strange from 100+ pages Book you are concerned about only one Line. as i told you before I am agreed ("The coming of Islam to the Indian subcontinent was a blessing since Hinduism was "based on" an unethical caste system", yeah this is part of our course text in Pakistan studies 1st chapter),(other part of text is from jalal ,it is not part of text Book) ,there many more things written in Book but it is totally wrong to just point Just one or two online from book and start critics on it.Khalidkhoso 05:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Let me assure you that I am not concerned at all with anything except ensuring that wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR and WP:RS are not violated on any article. deeptrivia (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That's against the way wikipedia works. It is enough to cite an article from an international peer reviewed journal. Citing the textbooks directly will violate both WP:NOR and WP:RS. We are quoting an expert's critique on the textbook, not offering our own (which is not allowed). deeptrivia (talk) 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said we do not need opinion.Jalal needs a basis to attack the course and just mere words are WP:OR. The article claims that Muslims have better houses than Hindus according to the tetbooks.Please cite the textbook it says, not what Jalal has decided to believe.Also the attack on Mr Jamil is also an attack on an expert so you are playing a double standard by trying to portray Jalal as the one who is right and Mr Jamil who is wrong, violating WP:SOAP.-Vmrgrsergr 19:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

More sources

I strongly agree with deeptrivia above. We cant discuss the text ourselves. Jalal has done it for us. There are several other useful articles that we should quote:

  • Akbar in Pakistani Textbooks, by Mubarak Ali, Social Scientist,vol 20, no9/10,p73. "..students are supplied only such parts of the history of the subcontinent as prove the two-nation theory and refute composite Indian culture....As Akbar does not fit into this framework, he is conveniently ignored and not mentioned..."; "In Pakistan Studies Akbar is mentioned not directly but indirectly as the rival of Ahmed Sirhandi, who is projected as a hero challenging Akbar's religious policy and restoring Islamic values to India..".."the movement launched by Hazrat Mujadid for the revival of Islam laid a foundation for the emergence of two-nation theory."
  • Perpetuating the divide: Political abuse of history in South Asia, by Navnita Chadha Behera, Contemporary South Asia, 5:2, 191 - 205, which quotes: "The University Grants Commission's issued a directive in 1981 to prospective textbook authors specifying the objective of the new course on 'Pakistan Studies' as: to have a complete faith in Pakistan and its ideology; to foster the belief that Pakistan was obtained on the basis of Islam; to negate the propaganda of the enemies of Pakistan to the effect that Pakistan was established with the help of British: to build it as a real 'Cathedral of Islam';...[and] to cherish Quaid-i-Azam's motto 'unity, faith and discipline' for the consolidation of the country and keeping it away from the conspiracies of enemies of Pakistan and Islam." Also: "the Islamic roots of the demand for Pakistan are traced to the revolt of 1857 described as the first War of Independence by Muslims or as 'a. jihad by Muslims alone [in which].. .later some non-Muslims joined in'.13 The Indian National Congress is portrayed as a pro-British and purely Hindu body and the Muslim League as a rabid anti-British organization." "Justice Shameem Hussain Kadri, ex-Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court, writes of the 'diabolical Hindus' and 'Hindu conspiracies' in his officially circulated book." On the persistence of such textbooks, "This is partly because historians have long been censured by successive military rulers to the effect that 'the class of professional historian no longer exists in Pakistan' and partly because over the years, a strong nexus has developed between the research institutes established, financed and controlled by the government, college and university teachers producing or writing these textbooks and the official textbook boards, who have their own vested interests in not allowing any major revisions of these textbooks."
  • State and Nation in South Asia, by Swarna Rajagopalan, which indicates that Pak Studies was developed in 1958 under Yahya and that curricula were "changed to depict Pakistan not in terms of the diversity of its people but in geoagraphical terms and emphasizing a common faith. Islam was said to have erased all cultural differences." (Remember, this is pre-1971.)
  • Jinnah, Pakistan and Islamic Identity: The Search for Saladin by Akbar S. Ahmed, which has some really interesting points about the iconography of Jinnah in PS.

More later. Hornplease 16:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Splitting the article

This is a very contentious issue aggravated by lack of good noncritical sources. As stated above whether or not we agree with the criticism is irrelevant. Discussions of whether notable sources, echoing a notable criticism, are accurate are irrelevant. Valid or not criticism of Pakistan Studies is widespread and notable. If you know of a notable dissenting opinion that has been left out of an article than you must have a proper source.
To me, the issue is the huge amount of information about criticism of the curriculum compared to the tiny amount of actual information about the curriculum. It seems the thing to do would be to split this article, with Pakistan Studies to be used just for the history, structure, and definition of the curriculum and its programs, while Criticism of Pakistan Studies be used for the large criticism section. There are many precedence on Wikipedia for this; Communism, Criticisms of communism; Jehovah's Witnesses, Controversies regarding Jehovah's Witnesses; The Coca-Cola Company, Criticism of Coca-Cola, etc. - Jirt 17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

That should be a fine solution. However, consider the following: (a) Anyone is free to add content about history, structure, and definition of the curriculum and its programs into this article. The problem is, these details are hard to come by. I have tried to find all these details myself. (b) Therefore, in absence of these details, "Pakistan Studies" will most probably remain a stub. The notability of Pakistan Studies is mostly due to its criticism by notable scholars. (c) The "objections" raised on this article, will again appear on the Criticism of Pakistan Studies article. I don't think a name change will satisfy the editors who are think their beliefs like "Ayesha Jalal is wrong", "This is Indian media propaganda", etc. are more worthy of inclusion into the article than material from journal publications. But we can give it a try for sure. deeptrivia (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, there is some material, outlined above, about when the Pak Studies programmes were started, and what the official aim of the programmes is. In addition, we know that there are at least two major institutions devoted to it - the Pakistan and American Institutes of Pakistan Studies respectively. That should get the introduction over to more than a stub. After that we can discuss the content of most courses, interpolating analysis within the text rather than in a separate criticism section. That will ensure that the article doesnt look absurdly unbalanced. Hornplease 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Like I said we do not need opinion.Jalal needs a basis to attack the course and just mere words are WP:OR. The article claims that Muslims have better houses than Hindus according to the tetbooks.Please cite the textbook it says, not what Jalal has decided to believe.Also the attack on Mr Jamil is also an attack on an expert so you are playing a double standard by trying to portray Jalal as the one who is the unquestionable expert and Mr Jamil who is wrong, violating WP:SOAP.You yourself said we cannot question experts,so why attack Mr Jamil in the first place-Vmrgrsergr 19:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
As is clear from the reference I have suggested you to read again and again without success, this is refering to the book "Star Pakistan Studies with Questions and Answers for Degree Classes, Lahore, page 11." I hope you know that when you see a superscript number in an article, you can go to the end of the article to a section named "References", and check out the source listed against that number, and that is the source from which the information came from. This is how citations and references work in journals and publications. Now that you know this, hopefully, you would be able to find sources for all the quotes you are objecting to. Also, you can question Jalal. The process is like this: finish high school, and get into a reputable undergraduate program in history. Then join grad school and get a masters and a Ph.D degree with a specialization in South Asian history. Publish a half dozen books and two dozen papers on this subject in international journals. Become a professor of South Asian history in a good university. Then write an article criticizing Jalal, and get it accepted in a peer reviewed journal. Then, we'll surely include your criticism here. With Regards, deeptrivia (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I would have the same to say to you in regards to attacking Mr Jamil's works.So please stop playing this double standard.-Vmrgrsergr 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There is very little info oin what is is. All the links say are "Dr. XY was invited to discuss at Pakistan Studies", "We appreciate the financial support of the Institute of Pakistan studies", "Dr. XY is a professor at ...Pakistan Studies". There's not much substantive information on what is is, but there is quite a lot on why it should be criticized.Bakaman 20:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In heaven's name, can someone point me to the section where Jalal is criticising Jamil? I swear I must be going slightly mad, I can't find it anywhere in the article, but this chap's mentioned it thrice. Hornplease 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jalal points out that even an acclaimed scholar like Jamil Jalibi questions the validity of a national history that seeks to "claim Pakistan's pre-Islamic past"

There it's posted for you in bold letters.-Vmrgrsergr 20:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This article, page 7, second paragraph. Also read the first paragraph for fun. deeptrivia (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
That I saw. It's just that this is patently not criticism. She is quoting Jamil Jalibi as someone who agrees with her, that it is a 'monumental error'. This is ridiculous. Hornplease 20:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I know :) Not exceptionally funny, looking at the nature of other "objections". deeptrivia (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if she's quoting him then oyu need to change it because it seems that she's attacking him by saying he is questioning the validity.Anyways Jaalal's opinions are not accepted here and the use of Indian newspapers as sources is completely unaccetpable as I pointed out.I wanted a direct quote from a textbook , or better yet , find the authers of these yet-to-be named textbooks and ask him/her what message he/she is trying to bring to the readers.-Vmrgrsergr 21:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, but we can't do that. How would we know which bits of the textbooks to pick? See, the thing is, that there are people who do that for a living. It is their job, and they are paid for it, and most of them are pretty good at working out what parts matter and what parts don't, and if they do it badly or are unfair, their colleagues catch them out. This makes our task easy since we, the amateurs, rely on the professionals. In fact, Wikipedia makes this compulsory: WP:NOR is a link to one of the rules here, which says that we aren't allowed to do the job of selection and analysis from the original work that those professionals do. We can only quote the professionals. I hope that helps. Hornplease 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well if you feel so strongly about the WP:NOR rule then I think you should stop breaking it.To assume Pak studies is about preaching hate without any solid evidence does not work and is clearly WP:OR.You claim the textbooks preach hate yet you cannot even cite them.Instead you are citing how a person interprets them.Whats more is you are interpreting this person's opinion over the auther's.And you still haven't named the textbooks that allegedly claim "Muslims have better houses than Hindus".Their colleagues will catch them? And on what evidence do you base such a sheer assumtion on?-Vmrgrsergr 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, let me repeat "Star Pakistan Studies with Questions and Answers for Degree Classes, Lahore, page 11." deeptrivia (talk) 22:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I certainly don't assume that Pak Studies is about teaching hate. However, if a few major articles in important publications claim it is, written by those professionals whose job it is to make that call, then I will certainly think it is important and put it in this article. See, I don't have to cite them, because I am not paid to, and in fact am not allowed to by Jimbo Wales.
If the author disagreed with this person, and I could find a disagreement, I might feel it necessary to report that disagreement.
Finally, their colleagues will catch them because of a process called peer-review. Everyone checks up on everyone else, it's like a small village. Hornplease 21:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Well if Dawn or Jang had anything on Pakistan studies, I doubt it would be much different.Bakaman 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
So helpful. Hornplease 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh absolutely, check this, this, this, this, this and this out. deeptrivia (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually one of the above articles I quoted/summarised - the one with the discussion of the 'nexus' - specifically mentioned a series of investigative articles in Dawn in 1999 or thereabouts, and indicated that the lack of response or indignation suggested a state of apathy had set in in civil society. Hornplease 22:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, there are reports that some revisions have been made this year to take care of some objections. See this. These should be mentioned in a new section. deeptrivia (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's not get into karo kari as this is a problem in Hindu societies as well.It's as if this is a Pakistani problem only.Anyways it has nothing to do with textbooks and what they preach.I just want to know which textbook states "Hindus live in inferior homes o to Muslims." See WP:RS.Anyone can claim anything.-Vmrgrsergr 23:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
The name of the textbook is "Star Pakistan Studies with Questions and Answers for Degree Classes, Lahore, page 11." It doesn't say inferior home, but, as quoted in the article, says ""While 'the houses of the Muslims were more spacious, airy and open to light' that of the Hindus had 'small rooms, verandahs and less space open to sky [sic]' which 'shows the secret and exclusive attitude of Hindu mind [sic]'." deeptrivia (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • So that's it? One page from a textbook and an entire article on wikipedia about Pakistani curriculum preaching hate? yeah sure makes alot of sense.Im not going any further until you want to get serious.And yes we can wait until we can get an opinion from more Pakistani editors to reach WP:NPOV-Vmrgrsergr 23:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
if any one can tell me what is difference between (Criticism_of_Pakistan_Studies,Pakistan_Studies ) both these article are same except there names?Khalidkhoso 11:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
As of now Criticism_of_Pakistan_Studies is just a redirect to Pakistan Studies, not a seperate article. - Jirt 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is getting really silly. Why do we continue to pretend our own opinions, points of view, and arguments on Pakistan Studies are relevant to this article? The only discussion that is relevant is whether or not a source is notable and whether that source is presented properly in this article. The nationality of an editor should have no bearing on whether or not you appreciate that editors arguments for or against notability or appropriate paraphrasing of sources. -Jirt 16:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan_studies/Archive_1&oldid=1137067436"