| Revision as of 10:46, 14 July 2005 editDbachmann (talk | contribs)227,714 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:33, 6 January 2025 edit undoChipmunkdavis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,706 edits Reverted 1 edit by 2402:AD80:11D:3FB7:1:0:E264:8521 (talk): NonsensicalTags: Twinkle Undo |
| (768 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{talk header}} |
|
I've fixed the BBC poll results that somebody added so they tally with http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2017631.stm - if there is some other survey which matches the figures which were given here, then a source should be given for it. I also have very severe doubts about some other changes recently made by the same user (see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=439956&oldid=439933 ) - unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to fix this up myself. --] 03:28 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{calm}} |
|
---- |
|
|
|
{{Pakistani English}} |
|
UserPakAtheist removed: |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=Top|History=y}} |
|
India defeated Pakistan in all the three wars that it launched. |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject History |importance=Top}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject British Empire |importance=High}} |
|
A recent survey conducted by ] for the ], found that 61% of Kashmiris would prefer Indian citizenship, 6% would prefer Pakistani, with 33% undecided . |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject India |importance=High}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Bangladesh|importance=High}} |
|
-- |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{contentious topics/talk notice|ipa}} |
|
I disagree. While all surveys are inherently biased, it is still useful information. It should up to the reader to beware the potential for error. I think the BBC can be trusted enough to not further any political purpose. Are there any other surveys by different organizations supporting or debunking these results? Those would help... |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
| algo = old(31d) |
|
And what's wrong with that general statement? Isnt it true? |
|
|
|
| archive = Talk:History of Pakistan/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
| counter = 1 |
|
--] 21:44, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
Poll: |
|
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
The problem with that particular poll is dual, first it counted votes only in indian held kashmir, secondly it the only muslim concentrated area that it gave importance was areas sorrounding sirinagar. |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{To do}} |
|
Secondly If you are going to mention a poll in an article about "history of pakistan" which forces the user to conclude about a contentious issue which has taken more then 50 years to resolve, then it could only be a poll which takes the whole population into account without being under the influence of pakistani or indian governments. |
|
|
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
The second statement that i deleted was about the three wars, it was because the if you mention such a generalized statement then you should better come up with your authentic references, because you can only be sure about the 70's war the other two.... you cant. |
|
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions","appear":{"revid":188878597,"parentid":188876748,"timestamp":"2008-02-03T20:53:17Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":824844413,"parentid":824055114,"timestamp":"2018-02-09T21:13:00Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
|
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions","appear":{"revid":188878597,"parentid":188876748,"timestamp":"2008-02-03T20:53:17Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":824844413,"parentid":824055114,"timestamp":"2018-02-09T21:13:00Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
A survey by an indian organization finds 74% people want freedom!!! |
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001008/j&k.htm#2 |
|
|
|
|
|
== Vedic Civilization == |
|
|
|
|
|
I thought pakistani punjab was the cradle of the vedic civilization. I am surprised that there is no mention of it at all in the history of pakistan. The Indo-Greeks come suddenly after the Indus Valley Civilization, and there's a gap of a couple of thousand years. |
|
|
|
|
|
== POV == |
|
|
|
|
|
Some user has recenty edited the article drastically to make it conform to the theory that Pakistan was never a part of India, apart from small intermittent periods from time to time, and that Pakistan was always a separate entity. |
|
|
One example is this: |
|
|
"When the Abdali kingdom weakened early in the 19th century due to internecine warfare, Pakistan did not revert to Indian control but instead an independent kingdom arose in Punjab headed by the Sikh leader Ranjit Singh....." |
|
|
|
|
|
These edits seem to convey a point of view that Pakistan always existed as a separate nation for thousands of years, which was colonized by India from time to time. Someone please read the article thoroughly and make it less POV. ] 30 June 2005 00:37 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I can do it myself too, but I am tired of vandals who would come again and restore the changes, and perhaps also get me blocked. ] 30 June 2005 00:39 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another gem: |
|
|
|
|
|
''So far one of our objects has been to underline the fact that right from the days of the Indus Valley Civilization down to the end of the Ghaznavid rule at the fall of the 12th century A.D. over a period of more than four thousand years, Pakistan has been invariably a single, compact, separate entity either independent or part of powers located to her west; its dependence on or forming part of India was merely an exception and that too for an extremely short period. It was only when the Muslims established themselves at Delhi early in the 13 century A.D. that Pakistan was made a part of India, but not in the pre-Muslim period. And once Muslims' successors in the sub-continent, the British, relinquished power in the middle of the 20th century, Pakistan reverted to its normal position of an independent country. Indian propaganda that the division of this sub-continent was unnatural and unrealistic is fake and fraudulent. Muslims had joined this region of Pakistan with India in the early 13th century A.D. when the Delhi Sultanate was formed; again Muslims have disconnected it from India giving it the normal and natural form which its geographical, ethnical, cultural and religious identity demanded.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
{{unsigned|130.203.202.156| 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC)}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I believe the article needs to state facts instead of judgement from any viewpoints. I agree with the comments above, that some sections, especially the Vedic Civilization section, needs rewording and possible removal of some "quotes" to remove POV. For example, the section "Vedic civilization"'s last part, the para from "It may be of interest to mention here that so long as the Aryans stayed in Pakistan, they did not evolve that particular religion called 'Hinduism' with its caste system and other taboos." is a plain example of POV, and even somewhat hilarious. --] 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm the guy who made some of the changes actually. It's in the Oxford History of India and isn't my POV. In addition, Vedic civilization's geography and the fact that it's religious hymns makes it difficult to place: |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.answers.com/topic/vedic-civilization |
|
|
|
|
|
I also added the periods that appear to have been deleted including within the Islamic period that were completed ignored up until the Mughal Empire. |
|
|
|
|
|
Also, no mention of the Sassanian control of the southern western regions of Pakistan prior to Muslim invasions. It's as if the western parts are being deliberately left out. |
|
|
|
|
|
All of my edits can be checked out and verified. Just google Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud of Ghaznavi, Muhammad bin Qasim, Ahmad Shah Durrani and the rest. And then check out the various views of ancient Pakistan. |
|
|
--] 00:55, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The issue is not the existence of rule by Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud, Muhammad bin Quasim. The issue is the tone you write it. Just state the facts, which should speak for themselves. The sentence I mentioned is POV, no doubt about that. The section "Vedic civilization" seems ok until judgement and theories about the emergence of caste system start to creep into the article. By the way, you referenced Answers.com which is actually a wikipedia mirror. I don't find the article ] contain any of the "references" on aryans-were-good-until-they-entered-current-day-India theory. Please stick to the facts. Thanks. --] 30 June 2005 01:00 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Okay that's fair enough. I'm going to rewrite it. I can't really reference the Oxford History of India as it doesn't seem to be on the net. I just googled it regarding Central Asian origins. I'm going to remove that part. I'm also going to edit those sections regarding Ghori, Mahmud and Qasim, but in addition the Sassanians aren't mentioned and nor are the Turkic slave dynasties before the Mughal Empire. Nonetheless I'll make changes and see what people have to say. |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 01:05, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==article focus== |
|
|
see ]; the pre-1947 material should be merged in ]. The division into Pakistan vs. Indian Republic is only aged 60 years, and it is inappropriate to organize articles about early history guided by it. Before the RoI and Pakistan, there was the ]. Before that, it was just a collection of shifting kingdoms anyway, so the only thing that unites it are geographical criteria. ] <small>]</small> 10:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
