Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:41, 2 April 2006

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles.

Pakistan received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Template:GAF

v t e   Links for Wikipedians interested in Pakistan
WP:Pakistan	Notice board Discussion board Recognized content Deletion talks Departments Pakistan Portal Collaborations Pakistan stubs Pakistani Wikipedians by number of edits Userboxes Outline of Pakistan
WikiProjects	Provinces Balochistan Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sindh Punjab Regions Pakistan Districts Cities Karachi Arts & Sports Cinema Pakistan Super League Transport Railways Aviation Country History Military history Politics Others Islam Indian and Pakistani cooperation Language WikiProject Urdu Urdu Intertranswiki

Archives
Archive 1	Archive 2
Archive 3	Archive 4
Archive 5	Archive 6

Featured Article Status

Taking a look at the other countries that have featured article status, I feel that a good path for this article to get there would be to sort of mirror the information provided in those other articles. At a quick glance, Australia, India, Cambodia, and South Africa are countries that are featured. Several sections they include which this article doesn't:

• Sports and games
• Holidays
• Agriculture
• Military
• Transportation
• Flora and fauna
• Climate

I don't know how extensive a "Flora and fauna" section would be in this article, but I do feel that the rest could make this article very substantial and a featured article within a month or so. It was recently tagged as good. Pepsidrinka 22:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the flora and fauna section could be fairly extensive because there is a considerable variety of climates and regions in Pakistan when you consider that there are snow-capped mountains and glaciers at one end and a subtropical coast at the other end with deserts and fertile plains in between. Green Giant 07:15, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've done a rough sketch for five sections which could be added - Climate, Fauna, Holidays, Transport and Agriculture - at User:Green Giant/sandbox/Rough Sketch. Any suggestions would be welcome. Green Giant 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading over the climate section, content wise, it looks good. I would just make a few stylistic and other changes, though I don't know how you would feel about others editing your sandbox so I refrained from doing so. Just minor things such as listing the height in miles as well and the temperature in Farenheit. Other various copyedits, but content-wise, it looks good. Pepsidrinka 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit any of the stuff in the sandbox, it is just a rough sketch so I wasn't expecting it to go into an article unedited :) Green Giant 13:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have improve the article entitled Transport in Pakistan, maybe someone can take ideas from it and form a summary to go into the main Pakistan article. User talk: Fast track 26 February 2006

Pakistan

Nearly every country that has been created fairly recently DOES have a history (except to some extent the USA, cananda, australia, new zealand etc etc). Meanwhile countries like the peoples repuclic of china(PRC), russia, iran, former yugoslavia have or have had a dominant ethnic group which more/less controlled the country and contributed the most prime ministers and improtant govt offcials to that country, han chinese, russian, persian and serbian are the biggies respectively. And when they would talk about the history of the PRC for example, people wouldnt shout "ANCIENT PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF CHINA, HARDY HAR HAR, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT WTF?" they'd assume your talking about the history of the han chinese (and leaving out the histories of all the other glorious ethnic groups) rather than talking about a time in 600 BC when people used to call that particular area the PRC. But pakistan is amazingly different; MOST people think punjabis control all, but others think its the muhajirs who have a hand in everything, others think pashtuns are influencing/controlling the country by spreading the increasingly popular(and curious) concept of blowing one self up called "islamic fundementalism" or whatever (even though islam says "killing is wrong", somepeople intrerpret this as "killing is wrong, except when its not wrong, ive just had a siffing though, i'll blow my self up, and this will spread happiness through the world). Anyway... i dont think there is a dominant ethnic group in pakistan, weve had such a magnificeint mix of leaders, sindis (jinnah, the bunch of bhuttos) punjabis (nawas sharif) muhajirs (musharaf, zia ul huq) pathans (ayub khan) and even a prominent baloch (jamali). Anyway the point im trying to get across (something i nearly forgot!) is that leave Ancient pakistan be, just accept we seperated from the india! (and "live with it innit" as so many idiots seem to say). and when you talk about it divide it up into ancient sindh, anceint punjab, ancient pashtun areas(pashtunistan?), and baloch areas(balochistan), the histories of last three are inter-twined with india, afghanistan and iran respectively. Aarandir 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think we should put more emphasise on the fact this country has a natural mix of ethinic groups; that means we have a variety of cultures, traditions and languages etc...AlimOnline 16:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Mughals?

There should be a section here about the Mughals. Lahore was one of the most important cities of the Mughal era and was the capital of the empire for a time. Anarkali's story took place in Pakistan (Lahore) and should be mentioned, too. I'll try to start this, and please try to help as much as possible! Thanks. Stallions2010 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Please keep it brief and succinct. Some of the sections on this article need to be trimmed down, especially the history and the foreign relations. Actually, really only those two. The article is at 59KB right now, and while everything in the article is important, the article is an overview of the important parts of the country and I don't know how important the Mughal era was in relations to the entire history of Pakistan. I guess just write it, but try to keep it to a minimum. Much of the history section must be trimmed. The History section as it is now is 13KB, while the Foreign relations section is 7KB. Pepsidrinka 23:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes a breif text on Mughals should also be there, since that is the history of Pakistan, may be it can be a subsection in the history area. digitalSurgeon 09:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Link Pruning

In an effort to bring the size of the article down, I have started to prune some links. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate list of links. We don't need to list every single English newspaper, just the most notable and the most popular ones. I found this site, which list the top 10 most visited newspapers sites, and I kept the English ones from the list. I removed the entire IT section because the links did not add anything and were not necessary for someone to learn additional knowledge of Pakistan. Perhaps they are better suited for a IT Industry of Pakistan article. I tried to be indiscriminate in the photos and the government section, keeping only those picture sites that had many available and removing government sites that were redundant and not neccessary (i.e. President of Pakistan website). Pepsidrinka 15:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Foreign relations section

I rewrote the Foreign relations section here because the section is unnecessarily long. If someone could go through my revision and see if there was anything of grave importance that was either not included in the original or that I failed to include. Please feel free to edit, add, comment, and/or remove from my revision. There is a main article located at Foreign relations of Pakistan where much more information could be listed. Pepsidrinka 16:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Your rewrite is definitely an improvement because the section as it is now is almost as long as the main article on foreign relations. If nobody disagrees, I think it should be replaced by your revision. Green Giant 22:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Coincides with Indian History subheaders

Freedom skies, the onus is on you to prove that those headings are neccessary. It is not for us to prove them unneccessary until you can fulfil your end of the deal. (e.g. I don't need to prove that saying "ice cream tastes good" is unneccessay until someone can argue that it is neccessary). The article has a section that indicates that Pakistan was at one time apart of India. However, perhaps we can further enhance that point by indicating it within the introductory paragraph of the history section. Saying something like "Pakistan gained its independence in 1947 during the partition of India" or "the area known today as Pakistan has historically been apart of India" or something to that effect. Any ideas or thoughts? Nevertheless, your approach of going about adding them when they have been reverted by four differnt editors atleast 9 times since February 9 is inappropriate. You have been the only editor adding these, and there has been no consensus to add these. Nor is it neccessary. Please discuss here and provide your reasoning before you add it again. Pepsidrinka 17:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. First of all, using such non standard tags to a country page just to prove a point is a bad faith edit. The way these edits are being conducted once daily is unfortunate. There is no denying the fact that the modern state of Pakistan came to existence in 1947. Having that piece of history inside the history section is definitely necessary. But to ruin section headings with "Conincides with ..." is an act of extreme jingoism. If the concern was to have that mentioned in the text, good-faith edits should have been made. However, to continiously revert the page, and adding the tags disrupting the current FA drive in the article is disheartening. Rather than lengthy rants about why the user has an utter hatred against a country, discussing things in a productive manner, and reaching consensus should be the avenue to follow. Thanks. --Ragib 18:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

To Freedom skies: Pakistan is a country, it is not an alien civlization neither have Pakistanis abandoned any of their heritage.-someguy

Um,Yes pakistan is a country;why are you so insecure that you have to use that blatantly obvious fact to open your argument,anyways ??

The Mughals, the Buddhists and the Sikhs who are prominent in Pakistani history are all part of Pakistani heritage.-someguy

No they're not.Pakistan is a complete different demographic and administrative systems(complete with president generals,chief marshall law administrators and seperate election rules for all minorities) so excuse me if i think they belonged(and still do belong) to a demographically different country in another time altogather when the land was called India.You can't have the largest movement/exchange of populations throwing away the buddhists and sikhs out of your 60 years old country and try to steal their history too

The history of Pakistani state starts from 1947, the history of the Pakistani people goes back as far as it can. -someguy

Uh,pakistani people have their history all right.All 60 years of it.The history predating that period is when they belonged to a country called India(and afghanistan,iran in some parts) and that deserves a stronger mention in the article. Pakistan can claim anything ancient belonged to "Pakistan";the ancient "stuff"(if you will) belonged to Iran,India and Afghanistan.Pakistan is just trying to squat it's place in history.

Your attempt to monopolize the history and culture of the subcontinent is a crazy one-someguy

almost as crazy as your reasoning.The facts are still as they will always be and have always been whether you like it or not.Pakistan is 60 years old(slightly younger than my grandfather) and the reigonal history should mention(not in a low key ,devious way.like it seems to be right now) that the reigons falling under the recently created state of pakistan have all 60 years of history under the pakistani rule,before that they were a part of India(demographically and culturally different).

None of us really care what you think becuase we're all teamed up. Who do you have to back you up? - Stallions2010

hm........you make it sound like it's the case of Homer Simpson vs. Deep Blue computer,let's see who are the guys on your team........who are the "all teamed up" wikipedia justice league ??? .....an introduction courtesy of Freedom Skies..........Tombseye(whatever the id means) thinks if you would go back and read history, you'd learn that Hindus actually forcibly converted Buddhists in a large-scale pogrom after Ashoka+There is a nationalist version of Buddhism in Sri Lanka for example and there have been armed separatists in Tibet and Indochina+Pakistan is actually secular run and says things like You can either join the 21st century or live in some mid-20th century nationalist dreamworld.................................................the green giant guy(kinda reminds me of the hulk;must remember not to make him angry.he might be very bad if he's angry).....Neither country has continuously existed for thousands of years+ India does not form 99% of South Asia's population or it's area (why did he say that ?? who said it in the first place??) but basically he does have a good role as a cheerleading cavalary..................so,you guys are "all teamed up" against me but good luck.against a group that thinks Dalai Lama is leading an armed assault against the PRC somehow i don't feel either underprepared or overmatched at all.

Most of us (actually all except you) agree that Pakistan has history predating sixty years, and so what does it matter what anyone says?- Stallions2010

that history was of a country called INDIA,it's older than 60 years.y'know.

some of the reigons trace their history to Iran and Afghanistan and they deserve a strong mention alonwith india.Pakistan should be man enough to say "hey! we might have a 60 years history but we have areas which fell under india and before that iran etc during the ancient times when the demographis were different and the pakistan simply did not exist"

Freedom skies, the onus is on you to prove that those headings are neccessary. It is not for us to prove them unneccessary until you can fulfil your end of the deal.-Pepsidrinka

There is no deal not with people who believe the Dalai Lama is a terrorist and LTTLE is all buddhist;let's get that straight.Ask them to get their facts straight and come talk to me after their IQ is a little more than 50.

The article has a section that indicates that Pakistan was at one time apart of India-Pepsidrinka

My complain very specifically is,The mentions are very weak.The idea(as it seems to me) is to try and steal the history of India giving it not near enough credit for the history of the reigons which existed in India before 60 years.

However, perhaps we can further enhance that point by indicating it within the introductory paragraph of the history section. Saying something like "Pakistan gained its independence in 1947 during the partition of India" or "the area known today as Pakistan has historically been apart of India" or something to that effect.-Pepsidrinka

Thank you.That would be most welcome indeed.It is after all,the truth and masking it in a low key language with out bringing it out is devious to say the least.

Any ideas or thoughts? Nevertheless, your approach of going about adding them when they have been reverted by four differnt editors atleast 9 times since February 9 is inappropriate. You have been the only editor adding these, and there has been no consensus to add these. Nor is it neccessary. Please discuss here and provide your reasoning before you add it again.-Pepsidrinka

I did use a harsher tone than needed and did go persistently to add the lines.I may be guilty of that but the basic facts i wrote are undisputed facts of history.

anyways,thanks for "the ides and thoughts".......... my suggestion is a clear opening statement unambiguous in nature and clear and simple in manner.I'll try and contribute to it.

First of all, using such non standard tags to a country page just to prove a point is a bad faith edit. The way these edits are being conducted once daily is unfortunate.-Ragib

uh,the point is already proven.it is unfortunate that the manner in which the 60 years old state's history is by in large a part of india has been deviously toned down and masked.

There is no denying the fact that the modern state of Pakistan came to existence in 1947. -Ragib

none at all

Having that piece of history inside the history section is definitely necessary. But to ruin section headings with "Conincides with ..." is an act of extreme jingoism.-Ragib

it actually did coincide with india's y'know.whether you like it or otherwise.

the act of extreme jingoism is trying to mask that pakistan was a part of India before 60 years and some states have ties to other countries as well.what i did is at least factually true.

Rather than lengthy rants about why the user has an utter hatred against a country, discussing things in a productive manner, and reaching consensus should be the avenue to follow

your optimism in me trying to gain consenseus against the "all teamed up" alliance is laudable.................there is just one problem though;the guys you so passionately asked me to obtain a consenseus from seem to have said(and i quote).......None of us really care what you think becuase we're all teamed up. Who do you have to back you up? so forgive me if i don't share your enthusiasm.

And while you're at it, please forgive the spelling mistakes and such,people.i typed in a bit of a hurry.Freedom skies

History sections

I have begun to comment out parts of the ancient history section, as that section is too large compartively to the rest of the article. Plus, there is a main article, so any superfluous information can be merged into the History of Pakistan article. Can someone please look over the work and see if it is sufficient, or did I remove too much main info? Pepsidrinka 23:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the parts of Pakistan's history section without discussing them first. Nobody had the chance to review your comments/objections and you made those changes unilaterlly. I have reverted your changes. Please discuss each line and section that you want to change and create a consensus.

Siddiqui 23:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

First off, do not use fraudulent edit summaries. Your first edit today, which said "Reverting changes to History section". You clearly reverted back to a version about 20 hours ago. Secondly, when you edit, please use edit summaries. Edit summaries are considered part of Misplaced Pages guidelines. Please see Misplaced Pages:Edit summary. Thirdly, I didn't remove any information at all, but merely commented it out, and accompanied it with a request to discuss. That is fine that you felt I took out too much. But you did not explain your objection, which I asked for in my initial discussion (i.e. "Can someone please look over the work and see if it is sufficient, or did I remove too much main info?") If you disagreed with something I commented out, the least you could do is explain to me why you feel that way. Fourthly, the objection you had with me (i.e. removing stuff unilaterally), is exactly what you did in your removal of the BBC reference and the accompaning statement regarding the "Aryan Invasion Theory". Fifthly, the parts I removed were under my impression unneccessary for this page. Please assume good faith. The main article is a place to give an overview of the country, not to explain explicit details of the history of the country in the centuries BCE. Sixthly, please explain why you feel that paragraph you added regarding Mehrgarh is neccessary for this article (i.e. an overview of Pakistan). Pepsidrinka 00:43, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui, you have done exactly what you accuse Pespsidrinka of doing i.e. making changes unilaterally. The changes Pepsidrinka made were sensible and aimed at streamlining this article. Readers don't want to become immersed in a long-winded history section in the main article when there is a perfectly good History of Pakistan article for that. Please explain why so much extra text is required in the History and Religion sections and why you have unilaterally removed the BBC reference? Green Giant 01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

As I was typing the above message, Siddiqui has also removed another reference unilaterally. Green Giant 01:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui put forward some good arguments on his talk page, and having considered them, I agree with the removal of the references on the grounds that they are POV. Green Giant 02:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can return back to the initial topic at hand. I will try to outline why I felt certain things were not neccessary in this article and should be merged into History of Pakistan.

• The founders of this civilisation are believed to be a Dravidian or Elamo-Dravidian people, but this remains difficult to verify as the Indus Valley script has not yet been deciphered. - This point is in reference to the Indus Valley Civilisation. I don't feel that points that detail exactly who comprised the civilisation is really all that important for someone looking for an overview of Pakistani history.
• The Vedic Civilisation helped shape subsequent cultures in South Asia. Some historians have challenged the Aryan Invasion Theory on the basis of new evidence, proposing instead that South Asian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today and that changes brought to the region by other cultures were not a major ingredient in the development of the Vedic Civilisation - This one is pretty self-explanatory. Reasoning behind why an idea is not accepted or why it is held in disbelief should not really be presented. At most, it should be noted that it is not unanimously accepted. Any extra details can go into the History of Pakistan article, or the Aryan Invastion Theory article.
• His grandson Ashoka is known as one of the greatest proselytisers of Buddhism, which spread in the region. - Not especially significant in the overall history of Pakistan.
• One of the most prominent Greco-Bactrian kings was Menander, who ruled from 155 to 130 BCE and is believed to have been a convert to Buddhism.- His territories covered the eastern dominions of the divided Greek empire of Bactria (from the areas of the Panjshir and Kapisa, now in Afghanistan) and extended to the Pakistani province of Punjab with diffuse tributaries to the south and east, possibly even as far as Mathura in modern India. Sagala (modern Sialkot) became his capital and prospered greatly under Menander's rule. The last Greek king to rule independently was probably Strato II, whose reign ended about 10 CE. - This is too specific for this article. Move to either History of Pakistan and/or Menander I. Last sentence can be moved to History of Pakistan and/or Strato II.
• as petty rulers (such as Theodamas) and as administrators, - I don't know why we have to qualify exactly what roles the Greek kings ruled in during their reign.
• The Kushan Kingdom stretched from modern-day Uzbekistan to Pakistan. The kingdom was founded by King Heraios, and greatly expanded by his successor, Kujula Kadphises. Kadphises' son Vima Takto conquered territory now in India, but lost much of the western parts of the kingdom, including Gandhara, to the Parthian king Gondophares. - This was removed because this clearly belongs in the Kushan Kingdom or the History of Pakistan article, moreso the former than the latter.

Do others agree/disagree? Pepsidrinka 04:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I vote in favour of Pepsidrinka's changes because readers will be put off the article if the History section takes up a large chunk, right at the top. This is what daughetr articles are for, for example if someone wants to read about Menander, they can do so by clicking on the link. Green Giant 05:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have gone through the entire history section in an effort to cut down the details and provide just a compendium of Pakistani history. Feel free to edit, add, and especially remove information if you feel it is needed. I hope we can all agree on this version, or a future version. Following this change, I think a peer review is long overdue. Pepsidrinka 21:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jinnah picture

Swerveut has twice replaced the picture of Jinnah with what s/he calls a better picture. I disagree with this because most people will know Jinnah by the photo taken when he was older. If you were to show a picture of George W. Bush, would you show a picture of him taken during his Presidency or a picture taken when he was at college? It has to be the picture that most people would identify as being George Bush, i.e. the Presidency one. In the same way Jinnah's picture should be the one taken when he was heavily involved in the creation of Pakistan, not a picture of when he was a student. That picture better belongs in the article on Jinnah. Green Giant 21:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Incidently, that picture (which is a duplicate of another picture already uploaded; but a better picture) is already on the Mohammad Ali Jinnah article, which has about five unique pictures of him. Pepsidrinka 22:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the Jinnah picture because of the doubts of its liscense. While I am quite sure it falls under PD, I am not positive and the year needs to be established. In the mean time, I have switched to the Jinnah and Gandhi picture, which was taken in 1944 and clearly falls under Indian public domain. Pepsidrinka 14:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Benson & Hedges Cup

I don't remember much details, but probably one of the cricket world cups was called "Benson and Hedges Cup". I know for sure that the 1986/7 one in the subcontinent was "Reliance cup". But the 1992 one may be called Benson and Hedges as they were the sponsors. My 2 cents. --Ragib 03:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Turns out, I was right ... see 1992 Cricket World Cup. Thanks. --Ragib 03:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, because in England there was a domestic tournament called Benson and Hedges Cup, but Cric Mania informs me that the 1992 cup was called the Benson & Hedges World Cup. I'll change it now. Green Giant 03:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The current version is fine. It is hardly ever called the Benson and Hedges World Cup (unlike the Reliance Cup]]. Tintin (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Imran's picture is not fair use and should be removed. Tintin (talk) 03:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Official language

According to the website of the Pakistani government, Urdu is the official language of Pakistan. English is not even mentioned. GerardM 16:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

good point, although I understand English has been fairly widely used in government for a long time. Green Giant 21:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

History section review again

AreJay changed the history section the other day to a much more compact version. It was reverted back to this version. I personally like the first version, but I'm appealing here to hear what others have to say. I'm only referring to the differences in the history sections, not any other changes between the two. Pepsidrinka 22:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Which version is the first one? --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer the version by Arejay but I think the introduction should be cut down a little at the same time. There is no need to mention which groups of peoples have invaded when the history section does that better. Maybe the paragraph about the origins of the name of Pakistan could be moved to History section and a mention made in the introduction like this:

In Urdu and Persian the name Pakistan means Land of the Pure and was coined by Choudhary Rahmat Ali in 1933 in the pamphlet Now or Never .

Green Giant 23:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the information is clearer when there are sections in the history. The large summary style makes it look too long. --a.n.o.n.y.m 20:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning behind the history edits, as you say, was for it to be as much in like with Misplaced Pages:Summary style as possible. As it stands now, questions may be raised in the FAC process as to the disproportionate coverage of the history section at the expense of other sections such as Provinces and territories and Geography. For the article to stand a better chance at FAC, please convert all sections to Summary style. It adds better structure and flow. Also, as was mentioned during the PR, there is no need to mention Pakistan's many geopolitical affiliations in the lead. It can, however, be incorporated in later sections of the article. As mentioned in the PR, please explicitly state Pakistan's postion vis-a-vis Kashmir. You might want to look at the note in the India article, and reword it to adequatly in your article to convey Pakistan's position. AreJay 16:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Four templates at the bottom

There are four templates in use at the bottom Template:PakistanTopics, Template:Pak relations, Template:Pak links and Template:Life in Pakistan. Most of the information on the latter two duplicates information found on the first two templates. It would be better to update the first two templates with missing links from the latter two templates and then delete the Pak links and Life in Pakistan templates. Green Giant 23:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I feel you should leave the first three templates. Template:PakistanTopics are to do with direct articles related to a particular topic whereas the Template:Pak links is more a broad area of searching which takes you to categories of a broad area of study, hence I feel these two should remain in the article. Finally, the Template:Pak relations is nothing to do with the other templates therefore it should remain also. User talk:Fast track 06 March 2006 (UTC)

The Template:Pak links was only being used on the Pakistan page so I incorporated it's set of categories into the bottom of the Template:PakistanTopics and also the links from Template:Life in Pakistan because they were already present in Template:PakistanTopics. I am a little dubious about the Template:Pak relations because six of the links are to templates for Asia, South Asia, Commonwealth of Nations, World Trade Organisation, South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA) and SAARC. That defeats the point of having those templates in the first place, so I think linking to the relevant articles would be better? Green Giant

Ok i think thats better combining the Template:Pak links to Template:PakistanTopics looks better and takes less room too. The Template:Pak relations needs to be updated to the correct articles then it should be kept. User talk:Fast track 06 March 2006 (UTC)

country located along the border of the Eurasian tectonic plate and the Indian tectonic plate

Come on guys if the conflict of Greate Middle east and Central Asia wasnt enough we now have this confusing statement. Please guys resolve this issue, the current state is really comic. Lets just settle on South Asia or if really necessary add Greater Middle east as well but atleast lets not specify location of Pakistan in terms of tectonic plates. --digitalSurgeon 10:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, leave the location as it is now without confusing readers with tectonic plates and what-not. Green Giant 23:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the tectonics into the geography section so as to avoid confusion. Tombseye 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Vedic Civilisation and the non-Indian origins of Indo-European languages

I propose to change the following paragraph:

The region was the site of one of the earliest towns in the world at Mehrgarh and later much of the Indus Valley Civilisation. That civilisation went into decline prior to the arrival of Indo-Aryan tribes from Central Asia. The two cultures mixed to produce the Vedic Civilisation that existed from Gandhara to the valley of the Ganges River, in what is now modern India, around 1500 BCE and helped shape subsequent South Asia cultures. However, this Aryan Invasion Theory has been challenged on the basis of new evidence which suggests that South Asian history shows continuity of progress from the earliest times to today and that changes brought by other cultures were not a major ingredient in the development of the Vedic Civilisation.

This version has a number of problems:

• It omits the view, once almost universal and still widely-held, that invaders from Central Asia were responsible for the decline of the Harrapan civilization.
• Whether, and to what extent the two cultures mixed or not is not known. One view is that the culture of the invaders largely replaced that of the natives. One widely-held view is that the caste system in India stems from an institutionalization of the racial differences between the new Caucasian rulers and the dark-skinned natives. This is supported by DNA analysis, which has found European genetic markers in the Y chromosomes of Brahmins, but not in other castes.
• The text could be construed as claiming that the whole region from Gandhara to the Ganges is in modern India. However, Gandhara is not in modern India.
• Whether the Vedic Civilization existed as early as 1500 BC is a matter of dispute between Hindu nationalists, who say that it did, and the vast majority of secular scholars who say that it evolved later. The text not only claims unequivocally that the Vedic civilisation is that old, but also that it extended from Gandhara to the Gangetic plain. I believe the preponderance of scholarly opinion is that the latter was heavily forested at that time, and was settled much later.
• The text suggests that "new evidence" largely supports the indigenous-origin theory, and fails to mention that much new evidence tends to support the exogenous-origin theory.
• It fails to mention the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex, the most likely origin of the invaders.
• It fails to mention that the vast majority of secular scholars worldwide believe that the origin of Indo-European languages was not in India, and that Sanskrit and other Indo-European languages are relatively recent arrivals in India. Dating methods such as glottochronology have been used to estimate the date of origin of the Sanskrit language. Sanskrit probably evolved out of proto-Avestan in or around the area of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex.

In conclusion, the existing text has factual errors, and at many points, presents one view, to the exclusion of other views that have more support in the peer-reviewed literature, especially among those who are not motivated by religious or nationalistic chauvanism. Would anyone like to propose a factually-accurate neutrally-worded text here? SkepticalContrarian 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the motto

I fixed the motto to: Iman, Ittehad, Nazm

The language problem

I've just followed the links on the official government website and found that on the Infopak Basic Facts page it gives Urdu as the national language and English as the official language. Does anyone know if this is correct or not? Green Giant 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It's correct. Pakistan's constitution and laws are written in English, which is the language of its bureaucracy. So by the definition of the term official language, English is an official language in Pakistan. PKDubey 06:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

British Colony?

The region/country called Pakistan WAS a British Colony. Unless you want to deny the Lahore Resolution, and want to create Pakistan out of thin air on August 14, 1947, it WAS created out of British colonial possessions. Realitea (talk · contribs), please stop reverting this. Bangladesh, India, Malaysia and a host of other countries are all former British colonies. And so is Pakistan. Thanks. --Ragib 07:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd also suggest reading basic history of pakistan, before making such outrageous claims. See Pakistan#History and History of Pakistan. Thanks. --Ragib 07:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Since Realitea (talk · contribs) would not admit Pakistan's existence before 1947, would you at least tell us why? Stop reverting unilaterally. You are really walking the 3RR line ... Thanks. --Ragib 07:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Can you produce a single document in which the country named "Pakistan" has been mentioned as a part of Britsh colony? If you are such interested in this misrepresentation, why don't you correct United States page on a similar principle. --Realitea 08:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to discussion!!! Anyway, Can you produce a single document showing that any of the pre-1947 events as mentioned in the history section really happened in a country with the name of "Pakistan". Oh, you can't? Then stop disrupting the article. As for a real answer to your question, please read Indian Independence Act 1947, passed by the British Parliament. See the text . Thanks. --Ragib 08:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Here you go. Sure, I can't produce anything because it all happened in Indian Subcontinent before 14th August, 1947. The country Pakistan has never been a part of Britan, its simply a historical fact. By the way, why don't you correct United States history also since you seem too keen in preserving the facts? --Realitea 08:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The relation with United States is irrelevant. If Pakistan wasn't a British colony, whose colony was it? Generally, country articles do not refer to particular governments, rather to the region the country occupies. So, 1) if you claim Pakistan didn't exist before 1947, then most of this article can't be kept here!!! 2) if British did colonize the region now known as Pakistan, then it certainly WAS a British colony.

Now, tell me, why on earth Pakistan Government is part of Commonwealth of Nations? Because of Pakistan#History. I suggest you read the history section carefully to know about the events leading to the creation of Pakistan. Thanks. --Ragib 08:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• • I think we should follow United States article. It has separate category section for the country's membership of different international organizations. Moreover, lets start a new category, Former Ottoman colonies. Any suggestions? --Realitea 08:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome to do so!! In fact, Former ottoman empire category may be quite a relevant category to the appropriate countries. As for this article, since the govt of Pakistan isn't renouncing their membership of the Commonwealth, they implicitly acknowledge that Pakistan was a colony. So does India, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Singapore, Hongkong. Thanks. --Ragib 08:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well by this logic we can also say that, Bangladesh was a colony of Pakistan ! true ? digitalSurgeon 09:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Bangladesh was PART of Pakistan. Bangladesh was a colony of Britain. Thanks. --Ragib 09:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is true that Pakistan was never a separate British colony but Pakistan was part of British India and therefore belongs in both the former British colonies and the Commonwelath of Nations whether revisionists like it or not. If you have anything useful to contribute, please do so, but if you have an agenda to promote then find a nice quiet free website provider and shout all you want there. Green Giant 09:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As per discussion, in order to be fair you have to create and manage Former Ottoman colonies and also you have to update United States page. --Falcon007 09:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Falcon007, what part of this discussion makes you feel that there is consensus to remove the Former British colonies tag? If the region of Pakistan wasn't under colonial control, perhaps you could tell us who was in charge prior to 1947? Green Giant 14:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly ... I've pointed out the logical fallacy earlier in this thread. Either Pakistan or the region HAD a history before 1947, or didn't. Since the official Pakistan Govt stance is the former, i.e. they acknowledge being a former British colony, and as such are a member of the commonwealth, I see no reason to remove that category. You can't just wake up one morning and claim that the sun rises in the west, because you think so. I think the article needs to follow official Pakistan govt stance in this, and not someone's outrageous claims. Thanks. --Ragib 16:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

As Ragib says, the official government stance is quite clear - it can be found at the Infopak webpage on Pakistani history which describes the colonial situation prior to independence. As long as the Government of Pakistan holds this line, the category is staying. If anybody can provide an official viewpoint to the contrary please do so, otherwise refrain from promoting petty revisionism here. Green Giant 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I find Falcon007 (talk · contribs)'s illogical insistence on removing this commonly used category to be bordering on vandalism, or in milder words, WP:POINT without a shred of logic in it. Please refrain from this lame edit war. Thanks. --Ragib 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Similarly this was the official statnce of US, please find some guts to change United States article for similar references. As per your criteria you need to chnage China, for it was Former Japanese colony. How about France, for it was under German occupation. Don't make wikipedia a playing field for your hyperactivities. And Ragib, you seem to be an Administrator. But I must say that you have misused your position. --Falcon007 21:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't used *any* admin privileges here, though you deserve a block right now for breaking 3RR. I'm reporting this to appropriate places, so an uninvolved admin can take action. When India, Bangladesh, Singapore will have this tag removed, your comments may be justifiable, otherwise you are just disrupting the page. Thanks. --Ragib 21:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• • Its totally bizare to see people making such a big mess out of small things. If these countries want to have this tag on their foreheads its their business. In order to be fair you have to add this category to countries which are not following it, like United States. For me this cateory is simply compromising wikipedia statndards. --Falcon007 21:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it is a big mess out of a small issue, but I also add that it is a totally bizarre case of someone revising history. Since all members of the British Commonwealth have this category, I don't see why Pakistan should be an exception. Countries also are not editing wikipedia, people are, and the consensus here is to have this tag , unless of course you renounce all history before 1947. But you are yet to answer logically how the following two goals are consistent: 1) Pakistan has a history before 1947 (obviously it does) 2) Pakistan doesn't have a history/existence before 1947. Please clear up the logical fallacy before going on the jingoistic comments on "insult on Pakistan" etc etc. Thanks. --Ragib 22:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Falcon007, there is a reason that the United States is not apart of the British colonies. Simply, the United States as we know it today, was not apart of it. Maybe 13 states were. Maine was too. Hawaii was at some point part of the British empire. Yet, the United States today was not entirely apart of the British empire, so it can not be said to be a former British colony. Pakistan on the other hand, consists entirely of a region which was apart of the British empire, in an area known as British Raj. Perhaps we should have a category for British Raj countries, place Pakistan in that, and then place the British Raj category into the Former British colonies category. Pepsidrinka 22:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the United States is listed in the category, and was listed prior to my now striked-out paragraph above. Pepsidrinka 23:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

• Pepsidrinka is correct about most of the USA not having been part of the the British Empire. However, all this misdirection about the USA and other countries is just a distraction from the essential point that the official line is clearly laid out on the official website and it is supported in this by neutral scholarship. End of story. If tomorrow, either Falcon007 or Realitea becomes the President of Pakistan and changes the official line and if neutral scholarship supports that, then we can throw the tag away. Green Giant 23:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Progress on the peer-review

I've sifted through the recommendations made by the reviewers and tried to organise it into some coherent format so that there is a clearer idea of what has been done and what still needs doing. Apologies if I have made any mistakes in this list:

1. The introductory line "Pakistan is a country located in South Asia that overlaps onto Central Asia and the Greater Middle East" – needs sensible debating
2. Discuss both positive and negative aspects - communal/ethnic tensions, economic and political issues - to do or possibly covered below
3. Cut page size to about 35-40 KB - down to 43 KB so far
4. Sub headings should be removed – mostly done
5. Fair use images should be removed - mostly done
6. Section titles like roots are not encyclopaedic - removed
7. Membership in various organisations in introduction - removed
8. Border with China not internationally recognised – footnote - done
9. Pakistan's position on Kashmir in a footnote - done
10. History section is too long -> four to five paragraphs - done
    1. In-line citations in History - appropriate citations added
    2. History - 1947-71 period when Bengalis were the majority (problems and onset of the civil war) – to do
    3. "Basic Democracy" plan of Ayub Khan? – debatable value in main article
    4. Badly worded section on freedom struggle suggested the League took over from the Congress - rewritten
11. History of Pakistan post-1971 – mostly done
    1. 2005 Kashmir earthquake - done
    2. Balochistan strife - to do
    3. War on terrorism – now mentioned
    4. Taliban - now mentioned
    5. Lahore Declaration 1998 - to do
    6. Kargil War - now mentioned
12. Expand forms of Government – remove Political History subsection - to do
    1. Political history can be covered under History - to do
    2. No need for separate political parties section - to do
    3. Provinces and Territories - prose form – mostly done
13. Condense Demographics to 3-4 paragraph prose form - no subsections - done
14. Tourism can be covered as a paragraph under the economy section - done
15. "Sport" section should have more prose - to do
16. Expand Geography section – to do
17. Rename wildlife section to flora and fauna and expand accordingly - to do
18. Discuss infrastructural, government/political, economic problems and challenges - to do
19. Islamic fundamentalism in religion, society, culture, politics are scant - to do
20. Military services - police, paramilitary and military – debatable value
21. Maps need to be NPOV – which ones specifically? - to do

I would estimate that the recommendations are about halfway implemented if you exclude the debatable ones. If you feel you can contribute to one of these recommendations sensibly, please do so. Green Giant 01:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, I was doing the exact same thing on my sandbox, but this makes more sense to have it on the talk page here. Just to comment on several items. I'm fairly certain all the pictures now are free use, and there are no restrictions on any of them. From some assistance I got in the #wikipedia chat earlier today, I tagged the Jinnah picture as PD-India and that should be the end of that. Despite all the pictures being liscensed under GFDL or similar circumstances, there are probably too many pictures. Not counting the infobox, there are 16 images, and three sections have three images. I agree that the Basic Democracy plan does not deserve mention in this article and should be mentioned in full in the History of Pakistan page or elsewhere. The military section I don't think belongs. The military and the nuclear weapon status is mentioned, which I think is sufficent. Other countries do have a military section (see Nepal or Bhutan) while others don't (see India). If anything, it should be merged into the foreign affairs section. I think the geography section is sufficent and in my opinion does not need expanding. Similarly, your (Green Giant) addition to the provinces section seems to be enough. And finally, let me just ackowledge the amount of work Green Giant is putting in to this article, both with adding new content, and removing superflous details. Pepsidrinka 03:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There is only a few things we can address in a little as space as this. Fundamentalism, for example is not discussed in the India article either. --a.n.o.n.y.m 21:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Incidently, removing the Notes and the References section brings the article size down from 42KB to 37KB. That is quite a substantial amount. Pepsidrinka 20:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is almost unrecognizable from when it was rejected as an FAC. Congratulations to all the editors on a fantastic job! A couple of comments — I would narrate history chronologically. Specifically, wars are a part of Pakistan's history. They all seem to be grouped together in one sentence. These must be formatted such that each war/conflict appears in the decade that the history section describes. Good job so far though, and if the recent edits are any indication of the quality of the article when all suggestions/concerns havew been addressed, you're looking at a very strong FA candidate. AreJay 01:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

My bad, this article was never rejected during FAC. I was thinking of another article. I still feel that there has been tremendous progress since the PR was initiated for this article AreJay 16:10, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

What in God's Good Name is a united South Asia???? Enough of POV and revisionist history, please! It was a united India. Rama's Arrow 20:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that its an attempt to re-write history, let me warn all concerned that if this is not changed to "India," you will be including Bhutan, , Maldives, Sri Lanka and Nepal into the definition. Rama's Arrow 20:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Note on history, politics

I strongly advocate that almost every fact must be directly cited here, to avoid a controversy during FAC - almost every detail is controversial. It is my feeling that the history and politics sections are not properly cited or written. Is there a need to expend 2 paras on ancient history of the region, when you can't explain the 1950s-60s, Pakistani civil war adequately? The latter series of events are more "Pakistani" than the ancient history. Rama's Arrow 20:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

On politics, it is hardly a clear-cut case as you present it. I had to mention the Constitutional history just now. Musharaff maintains a lot of power on foreign affairs and security, and he is the chief of army staff. There is a debate going on about the future role of the Army in Pakistan. You're not making this lucid. Rama's Arrow 21:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the points about citations and the need to concentrate on the modern history, but I have to disagree with overemphasis on any one aspect (e.g. the military) because this article has only a limited space and there are daughter articles for this purpose. Over the past month or so, the article had gone from 59 KB to 42 KB - i.e. 17 KB of useless bumpf and whilst the edits today were useful, it doesn't help that they added about 1 KB to the article.

However I'm not entirely convinced by the suggestion that there aren't enough citations when the recommended featured article on India has no citations at all. A careful examination shows several deficiencies including no mention of the communal riots of 1947, the more recent Gujarat riots, the Gujarat Earthquake, the Bhopal disaster, the fact that several prominent Indian leaders have been assassinated, or the several ethnic insurgencies. The four-paragraph history section summarises modern Indian history in one paragraph and apart from two notes about the disputed border, there is not one specific citation in the entire article. Instead there's a list of websites which can be viewed in edit mode and an emphasis on the date they were accessed but nothing to say which part of the main text each website relates to. Overall the entire article puts a very positive spin but doesn't go into any negative aspects. Green Giant 03:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be reasonable to (1) reduce ancient history to one para, and focus on "Pakistani" history. And (2) India became an FA a long time ago, and in-line citations are not a stipulated requirement. But its my experience that when you deal with controversial issues, you need to directly link your sources. I think that in ideal situation, India and almost all FAs should have a reasonable number of citations. It would be ok to begin an effort to add citations to the India article - but we're talking Pakistan, and this article, IMO, cannot be a good FAC without citations for history, politics - case in point is that you're dealing with Civil war/genocide, Islamic terrorism, military coups, nuclear power all in a matter of paras. Do you think its reasonable to expect people to believe what you're writing without every controversial fact backed up with an explicitly credible source? Rama's Arrow 03:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've merged the ancient history into one paragraph and "Pakistani history" now forms 2½ paragraphs. I've also added a couple of references for the 1971 war and the 1999 coup, but I don't think the section can be reduced much more without losing important elements. India only became a FA in December 2004, which is not that long ago, however, by highlighting the differences, I was pointing out that at least one FA didn't have all the features that have been suggested by the peer-review. If you look at the list above, you'll notice that many of the suggestions have been acted on but there are some suggestions that need debating first. Could you clarify what you understand by in-line citations and whether the current method of linking to the notes at the bottom is unacceptable? Green Giant 02:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Its looks ok now. By in-line citations, I meant exactly what you describe - only that almost every fact must be cited, becoz of its controversial nature. Again, its not a requirement, but credibility on controversial matter is certified by citations. Many FACs prior to 2005 did not pass through an FAC like today - standards have arisen. Rama's Arrow 20:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan is a republic?

Everyone knows that Musharaff seized power in a 1999 coup.Doesn't that make him more of a dictator than a President?202.177.246.3 11:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not as clear cut as that, because Musharraf didn't hatch a secret plan with other generals to overthrow Nawaz Sharif in 1999. If you read any outside media source, for example the UK Daily Telegraph, Sharif tried to dismissed him as Army chief whilst Musharraf was on a plane coming back from Sri Lanka. The plane was refused permission to land at Karachi and with limited fuel and a minor political crisis taking place, something had to give. Quoting the Telegraph article - The army's action, though prompted by Mr Sharif's move against the general, came amid rising dissatisfaction with Mr Sharif's government, which is accused of large scale corruption and maladministration. Mr Sharif has moved Pakistan closer to Islamic fundamentalism, entrenching sharia - or Islamic law - in the legal system, arresting journalists, harassing his opponents and dismissing judges, presidents and generals.

Sharif was trying to remove any powerbases outside his own because his Muslim League had a huge majority in the National Assembly and there was very little political opposition from the other main party (Pakistan People's Party). For example, in 1997 his supporters forced Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah out of office, simply because he had ruled against Sharif on several occasions and in particular in a contempt of court case.

Anyway Musharraf gained a sort of legitimacy when he gained a majority of votes in the Electoral College of Pakistan which according to the Constitution makes him elected president. See Dawn.com and CBS News.com for details. Green Giant 02:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Population estimate

I noticed that the population estimate for Pakistan is taken from http://www.world-gazetteer.com. How accurate is this website? Personally, I dont trust websites that try to install spyware and adware on my computer, but I dont know in this case......... --Jibran1 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns are understandable but the World Gazetteer website was used because it has a recommendation from the GE Source website which is part of the Resource Discovery Network. Both of these latter websites are UK national websites based on collaboration by numerous academic organisations. However, if you can find an estimate from a more reliable source, feel free to change the figures but do remember to list the source. Green Giant 00:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I know the Statpak website has a current population clock but this excludes Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas which are de facto parts of Pakistan even if de jure it is disputed. Green Giant 02:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

citation location

Anyone object to moving all the citations to follow punctuation, like this? That is way it's done in print sources, most FAs, and according to the Chicago Manual of Style. —Spangineer (háblame) 07:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for making a small but important point. Please feel free to change to the standard format. Green Giant 07:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's new citation tool, using <ref name="abc">reference/ ext link</ref> automatically does so, and putting a notes/refs section in the end with <references /> tag automatically creates a nice looking reference section. Thanks. --Ragib 07:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually going to do so a few days ago, but with 30+ references, I dreaded the task and decided to leave well enough alone. Now that someone suggested doing so, I guess it probably should be done. I'll try to do so later if no one does so before I get around to it. The only advantage I see with the current system is that it looks more aesthetically pleasing in the text when looking at the source code. Pepsidrinka 07:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The citation tool is better, because it adds the automatic numbering, reuse of citations in different places, and many other functions. Also, you don't have to make the source code difficult to edit ... look at how the citations are done in Rabindranath Tagore. That's a great, compact way of achieving the same thing. --Ragib 08:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The conversion is now complete. Incidently, the conversion removed 1 KB from the article size. I also acted upon the recommendation by Spangineer and moved the citations to follow the punctuation. Pepsidrinka 20:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, quick work! Good work on this article, by the way. I'll look over it some more and see if I can't support its FAC... —Spangineer&nbsp;<small>(háblame) 22:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Military dictatorship

The article Military dictatorship mentions Pakistan to be the country currently under military rule.Should not therefore the article be categorised to Category :Military dictatorship.The serving army Chief is top excecutive of the government.Shyamsunder 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

-- well it was a military dictator ship and now it's not, thus it cant be placed under military dictatorship tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalsurgeon (talk • contribs)

I am not so sure .As I understand immediately after coup in '99 all Supreme Court Judges had to take the oath again to confirm faith in new rulers..I remember that time one judget refused and he was sacked .So recognition of President Musharraf by the Supreme Court does not carry much conviction.About referendum many dictators get themselves "elected" .One recent example is of dictator of Belarus.

In military dictatorship there are two words .Militray -Yes Mussharaf is uniformed chief of army staff .Dictatoship - we need to find what poewrs does he have .We know he himself has made the law as who can contest elections and who can not( denied n Shariff and Bhutto to contest elections) ,who are eligible to vote and many more laws .He has power to dismiss the prime minister , he has all executive powers in practice , he receives and talks to all important foreign dignataries ( recently when President Bush visited Pakistan Pakisitani PM was nowehere to be seen ) and President has a constituted body which has military people in majority and that body can overule any decision of cabinet .So all in all it is dictatorship .I though welcome any other opinion.Shyamsunder 17:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to point upwards to the comments I made under the "Pakistan is a Republic" heading above. Musharraf didn't plan a coup, it was kinda forced on him by the actions of Nawaz Sharif. Before the judges swore that oath, I am sure they ruled that his administration had three years (more or less) to restore civilian rule. In 2004, he gained a kind of legitimacy when the Electoral College of Pakistan voted him into office, which is what the Constitution requires to make him elected president. See Dawn.com and CBS News.com for details of that. Obviously your argument of him still being Army chief is the strongest indicator of a military dictatorship but I think Musharraf's regime doesn't bear all the hallmarks of other dictators. By the way I think Nawaz Sharif and Benzair Bhutto are banned because of their prior records. Doesn't Mrs Bhutto have some outstanding court cases against her about her secret Swiss bank accounts which might have had a lot of public funds diverted to them. Nawaz Sharif was a little unsavoury even as a democratically elected PM, with all that fuss about the Chief Justice ruling against him in a court case and then the court being invaded by Sharif supporters and the judge having to flee. It's difficult to decide whether Pakistan actually emerged from General Zia's dictatorship at all considering the kind of democrats that succeeded him? :P Green Giant 06:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Reply: Musharraf might be extra-powerful these days due to both Army and President positions, however the laws he has passed have been by Parliament. He has not made any decrees himself. His style of governance is also not of a dictator and the country is run by elected federal, local and provincial governments. The only anomaly is Musharraf's uniform. I think this does not make him a dictator or his government a dictatorship.

Prominent Personalities

I dont think it is good idea to have list of Prominent Personalities in main Pakistan page. Please look into it. --Spasage 09:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

-- I think it's better to have a seperate article for this, it should only be linked from the main article or should be placed in the pakistan info box --digitalSurgeon 07:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Spasage, you must found this article within the 37 minutes the personalities section was around. It was added and subsequently removed by 9:51 UTC on the date in question. Pepsidrinka 11:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

EDITED PAKISTAN PAGE (New Sections Needed Science/Religion)

I have edited Pakistan page by adding the 'history of pakistan' article directly into the main page, The reasons for this is simple because there was almost no mention of Pakistan's pre-history which i believe some indian members have been editing to assert thier hegemonic agenda.

I was utterlly appalled by the lack of information and depth given on the main page, I believe two new sections should be added to pakistan page "science in pakistan" and "religion in Pakistan" i mention science because Pakistan has made several contributions in physics, namely abdus salam who won the nobel prize for physics in 1979, and Mahbub ul Haq who invented the HDI which is used throughout modern economics, also Pakistans nuclear power status is a great scientific achivement.

another section named "religion in pakistan" should be added to show the religious significance of Pakistan to groups such as sikhs, Pakistan is birth place of sikhism and guru nanak dev, this deserves mention as does the fact that thousands of hindus and sikhs make pilgrimages to religious sites across pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

You just undid a lot of work by a great many authors over the last few weeks, who are going for Featured article status. The edits you are incorporating would just make that nomination fail spectacularly. I'm reverting your edits. Please take a look at the peer review and the featured article candidacy page before making such sweeping, unilateral changes. Thanks. --Ragib 05:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The only "indian members" involved with this page have been the extremely helpful guys who not only suggested improvements during a peer review but also helped in the editing. Perhaps you are referring to some of the obvious anti-Pakistan vandalism but it's a lame to blame this on "indian members". Anyway you may not be aware but this article is mean't to be a summary and is not the place for extensive histories. Did you notice there was a link to the History of Pakistan daughter article? That's what an uninformed reader would click on if they were interested in reading about more of the history. Religions already get a good mention in the Holidays section with even a hint of Nankana Sahib.

Abdus Salam and Mahbub ul Haq are good suggestions but they would be better in a list of notable Pakistanis. If you had read the introduction and the government and politics section you might have noticed that Pakistan's nuclear status is mentioned. However, Pakistan didn't invent nuclear power or nuclear weapons so it's a little hazy to claim that this is a great achievement. Green Giant 08:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

References

the references cited after the notes section, what do they refer to? ie, where are they cited or used in the article? --Bob 21:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps someone else can explain, but from as far as I know, prior to about a month ago, nothing in this article was internally cited. All references belonged in a reference section at the bottom, which is the section you mentioned. Beginning with the push to get this article featured, the editors of this article realized that internal citations (aka inline citations) were neccessary and a push began to do so. Since most of the reference that were already there were added by past editors, most the current editors did not have access to them. So other sources were used. However, in order to preserve the actual references for the non-contentious issues, the reference section has been mainted, with an additional notes section for the inline citations. Pepsidrinka 22:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So, we don't know what text these references support? They should be properly linked to and/or cited as well--Bob 23:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as I understand, every fact does not need to be internally cited. It is usually only those contentious issues or those issues that are difficult to believe that require an inline citation. However, other facts, such as "Pakistan is part of the United Nations" would not require an immediate citation, but it by all means needs a reference. That is why general citations are found. Obviously no one is going to dispute that Pakistan is not apart of the United Nations, however, where did you get information from? It is good to provide references in general. I feel like I just repeated myself three times. Your thoughts? Pepsidrinka 02:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pepsidrinka, there are some things that are simply indisputable like the UN membership, as almost every political entity is either a member or an observer. It might be better to rename that section as Further reading or some similar name. Green Giant 03:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

What is this reference used for:Malik, Iftikhar H. "Religious Minorities in Pakistan". Minority Rights Group International. September 2002. ISBN 1897693699  ? Why is it there? The others as well. --Bob 19:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Map

Can someone put a proper map of Pakistan in the article which clearly shows the major towns.

Featured Status

Congratulations to everyone who has helped bring this article out of the Dark Ages and into the light of Featured Article. Green Giant 08:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Conragtulations to all editors for their tireless efforts in achieving Featured Article status Gnangarra 09:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

How can now it appear on the front page of Misplaced Pages ? congrats!! --digitalSurgeon 12:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

A requests has been made at Misplaced Pages talk:Tomorrow's featured article. I just set the lead as the portion to be displayed on the main page, though if someone has a better idea, please by all means make your voice heard on the linked talk page. Pepsidrinka 04:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Future track

• Spoken Article, as in Australia, India etc... --digitalSurgeon 12:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

REMOVE INSULTING JINNAH & GHANDI PICTURE!

Hello;

The top picture with Jinnah and Ghandi must be removed instantly, it is offensive, insensitive, and ill timed to have such images with hegemonic and deep seated politcally motivated contations to be placed on Paksitan or wiki altogether.

There is no need whatsoever to include the Ghandi terrorist in a picture with Jinnah, Ghandi is not the founding father of Pakistan and is a man responsible for riots and influencing them by emotional blackmail (ie starvation), The terrorist was always locked into prison by the British and this should give you an indication of Ghandis intolarable charachter. Jinnah on the otherhand was a seperate individual with different rational and morals, he was never once in prisoned, and he led a DEMOCRATIC move that was peaceful. There is no need to have Jinnah in a picture with Ghandi as there is with Churchill and Hitler on the Churchill webpage, churchill stood for peace and democracy likek jinnah, Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence.

With utter disgust, A Pakistani. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.122.237 (talk • contribs)

This is not a political forum, but a neutral encyclopedia. If you have a genuine free-to-use image of Jinnah, then please provide it so we can change the picture. Until then, please desist from vandalising the article. Green Giant 03:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling Gandhi a "terrorist" just shows how meaningless the comment is, and that you need to look into history. Perhaps reading the book "Freedom at Midnight", or even the Gandhi article on wikipedia may open your eyes. It was Gandhi, who went on a hunger strike when the newly formed Govt of India denied the transfer of 55 crore rupees as Pakistan's share. Gandhi's last fasting was *For Pakistan* and *for ending violence*. I am bound by wikipedia's principles of No personal attacks, so am refraining from any remarks on the emptiness of your comments. A lot of people worked hard to make this article featured ... that included Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis. Any further attempt to vandalize it would result in appropriate administrative actions, according to wikipedia's policy on vandalism. Thanks. --Ragib 04:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From the article on Gandhi

Gandhi advised the Congress to reject the proposals the British Cabinet Mission offered in 1946, as he was deeply suspicious of the grouping proposed for Muslim-majority states - Gandhi viewed this as a precursor to partition. However, this became one of the few times the Congress broke from Gandhi's advice (not his leadership though), as Nehru and Patel knew that if the Congress did not approve the plan, the control of government would pass to the Muslim League. Between 1946 and 1947, over 5,000 people were killed in violence. Gandhi was vehemently opposed to any plan that partitioned India into two separate countries. Many Muslims in India lived side by side with Hindus and Sikhs, and were in favour of a united India. But Jinnah commanded widespread support in West Punjab, Sindh, NWFP and East Bengal. The partition plan was approved by the Congress leadership as the only way to prevent a wide-scale Hindu-Muslim civil war. Congress leaders knew that Gandhi would viscerally oppose partition, and it was impossible for the Congress to go ahead without his agreement, for Gandhi's support in the party and throughout India was strong. Gandhi's closest colleagues had accepted partition as the best way out, and Sardar Patel endeavoured to convince Gandhi that it was the only way to avoid civil war. A devastated Gandhi gave his assent.

On the day of the transfer of power, Gandhi did not celebrate independence with the rest of India, but was alone in Calcutta, mourning the partition and working to end the violence. After India's independence, Gandhi focused on Hindu-Muslim peace and unity. He conducted extensive dialogue with Muslim and Hindu community leaders, working to cool passions in northern India, as well as in Bengal. Despite the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947, he was troubled when the Government decided to deny Pakistan the Rs. 55 crores due as per agreements made by the Partition Council. Leaders like Sardar Patel feared that Pakistan would use the money to bankroll the war against India. Gandhi was also devastated when demands resurged for all Muslims to be deported to Pakistan, and when Muslim and Hindu leaders expressed frustration and an inability to come to terms with one another. He launched his last fast-unto-death in Delhi, asking that all communal violence be ended once and for all, and that the payment of Rs. 55 crores be made to Pakistan. Gandhi feared that instability and insecurity in Pakistan would increase their anger against India, and violence would spread across the borders. He further feared that Hindus and Muslims would renew their enmity and precipitate into an open civil war. After emotional debates with his life-long colleagues, Gandhi refused to budge, and the Government rescinded its policy and made the payment to Pakistan. Hindu, Muslim and Sikh community leaders, including the RSS and Hindu Mahasabha assured him that they would renounce violence and call for peace. Gandhi thus broke his fast by sipping orange juice.

I'd say initailly he was against pakistan seperation but once this occured he did all he could to foster peace between the two countries. Keep the image even Ghandi could forgive and move towards peace sure we on wikipedia can Gnangarra 04:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

^if you are not able to help me in removing that terrorist Ghandis picture from the article then you have no rights to critcism my editing either, I have equal rights as you people if not I have more rights because I was affected directly by this terrorist! Jinnah was a man of peace and Ghandi was a terrorist! Why is that so hard for you folks to accept? Why do you all hate Pakistan so much? Why can you people not accept Pakistan as an idependent and soverign state? You people are anti-pak crowd and want to destroy the islamic republic of pakistan by posting insulting images and that is totally unacceptable to me! What you have done is greatly insulting to pakistani sentiments, Isnt it enough that Ghandi is on India page? must you force this man, his religion, his inferior ideology upon us? we are soverign state the days of colonial rule are over and we will determine its destiny not outsiders, indian, banglageshi, or anyone else! The Japan page has also been infested with those with political ambitions notably chinese and koreans who are trying to distort its history and damage its standing in the comity of nations and this is happening here also.

You have grave crime of posting, such sickening picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

Hi Babil79! Please try to accept that the picture incidentally depicts Jinnah with the "terrorist" Gandhi. Is not the picture significant in this that Jinnah had the heart to cooperate even with such a terrorist? BTW, is it written anywhere in the Pakistan article that Pakistan is not a idependent and soverign state, as you claim? And do you really think that posting an image would lead to destruction of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as you also claim? If that is the case, then I fear you shall find great difficulty in "determining the destiny" of Pakistan (as you again claim)! By the way, your comments reminds me of something. If you are intersted , check those out at here and here. Also see this

Bye.--Dwaipayanc 12:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this the same person Image:Ali-jinnah.jpg and could it be a suitable replacement Gnangarra 12:43, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Ali-jinnah.jpg seems to be of Jinnah. However, the image is not clear and so cannot be considered to be a suitable replacement. Also, as the article has already undergone a peer review and is a Featured Article ( one of the best in Misplaced Pages), the present image can be supposed to have undergone the scrutiny of many wikipedian across the world. So before randomly changing the image (that too due to the request of someone who does not sign his comments), please ask those editors who have toiled to make Pakistan a featured article.--Dwaipayanc 13:02, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

the gandhi image was one that was used after during FA I questioned the copyright status of the previous. This suggested image came from one of the talk pages of those discussing this subject. I believe the current image doesnt harm the article, being from australia I know(knew, i read the article) very little of the actions of gandhi only his basic legend(he passively faught for india's independance). With Ali Jinnah until I read the article, (then only because of its FA nomination) I had not even heard of him. When I saw the image I actually thought it was presenting Ali Jinnah as an exceptional statesman to be seen being embraced by a legend. I agree the suggested image isnt as good as the one in use. Gnangarra 15:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If you are not able to help me or Pakistan then you have no right to criticism us either!! I will not stop until Jinnah and Ghandi image is removed. period. I have recived nothing but critcism from other wikipedia members and told that I will not be allowed to change image, even though many of these same members openly admit they know next to nothing about Jinnah or the Pakistan movement. What rights do these people have to tell me about Pakistan? Why are you always attacking Pakistan? cant you bully someone else? As for the editors who have been working constantly on Pakistan page, good for them but they do not have more rights than me. I have uploaded countless jinnah images; Image:Jinnah2.jpg and Image:Jinnah1.jpg I politely request the Jinnah and Ghandi picture be removed and repalced with a more sutiable picture, I will not tolerate any criticism as that is what members here have been doing right from the begining. I dont need austrailians or americans or anyone else to tell me about founding father of Pakistan and why he is included in such a degoratory picture or in the case of Dwaipayanc telling me or insinuating that im mentally ill is unwarranted and uncalled for and has no place on wiki. I can tell the anti-pak vampires here are trying to distort the image of our small religoius state.

Now you've done it!! Please take a look at No personal attack policy. Calling people names will get you banned!! The rest of your comments really don't merit a reply. As for the picture, I think a consensus have been reached here on that. Thanks. --Ragib 17:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ive done it? Incase you have difficulty reading Dwaipayanc was trying to insinuate that i was mentally ill I dont see you warning him, besides why do you people have more rights than I do? Every time i try to make a contribution im told the "editors" ie an indian team has spent many weeks to bring the article up to par ie indian standards and contribution is not good enough, Who put you incharge of wikipedia? The whole point of wiki is for peace to acess neutral information which can be edited by users, In the case of this site the webpage is controlled by a few that hate Pakistan. Ragib; who are you to tell me my "comments really don't merit a reply"? I have equal rights and i will excercise my rights to protect the rights of my country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.122.237 (talk • contribs)

Pakistan is a featured article now thanks to the efforts of many editors from across the world, including, of course, people from Pakistan. So you do not have any proof that the article is being mal-handled by others.

And here is a proposal: prove the image is derogatory for Pakistan's image, wikipedians will remove it. Give some rationale. Don't just bark and threaten. As a citizen of a democratic country, you must be knowing that in democracy a particular person's wish is not important. It is the consensus that matters. If the majority of people tell that the image is derogatory, it will be removed at once. Period.

I was not meaning that you were mentally ill. Rather I tried to point out that the comments you made sounded like "Delusion of Persecution." I understand I have hurt you. I apologize. I am sorry.

Bye the way, even if I did insinuate, it would have been much less offensive than what you are doing here. Without any sort of provocation, you are calling Gandhi a terrorist. Before making such comment, try to gather some reference. Who do you think you are that such comments would be entertained? And who do you think you are that your claim to remove a good, historically important image would be entertained? I am amazed to see an educated man like you talk so irrationally. Thanks.--Dwaipayanc 17:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. LoL. You called Pakistan a "small" country ! You seem to have no idea about the size or population of your own country !! It's amazing. Good luck in your mission.

Ok, let's see ...

If you are not able to help me or Pakistan then you have no right to criticism us either!!

Who's helping Pakistan or you? We are writing an encyclopedia article on Pakistan. Sure, it's good for the world. But the intention is not to "help" any entity... rather the editors are doing it for advancing human knowledge.

I will not stop until Jinnah and Ghandi image is removed. period.

You are free to do so, as long as you put forward "sensible" claims. Calling Gandhi a "terrorist" doesn't help your argument, rather it makes it totally laughable. You might come up with better arguments if you want to continue your objections to the image.

Why are you always attacking Pakistan? cant you bully someone else?

Huh? A lot of editors have spent *unpaid time* to review, edit, enhance this page. Who do you see attacking who? Specific examples would be better than "everybody attacking me" type arguments.

I can tell the anti-pak vampires here are trying to distort the image of our small religoius state.

"Vampires"? Great, there goes your arguments!!

Jinnah was a man of peace and Ghandi was a terrorist! Why is that so hard for you folks to accept? Why do you all hate Pakistan so much? Why can you people not accept Pakistan as an idependent and soverign state?

I need not elaborate further. Please take some time to read history, rather than making such incoherent statements.

In the end, you of course have the right to voice your opinion, but you should support amazing claims with amazing facts, citations etc. I can't possibly see you coming up with any fact that shows Gandhi as a "terrorist" in forseeable future. Thanks. --Ragib 18:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi a terrorist?!! A next thing I wanna hear is Nelson Mandela being accused of Aparthied! --Spartian 19:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, here is the other gem from 86.131.122.237 (talk · contribs) ,

Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence..

Now you can get an idea of the sort of argument he's trying to rant on. But I think I'd stop replying to his rants. --Ragib 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Every time i try to make a contribution im told the "editors" ie an indian team has spent many weeks to bring the article up to par ie indian standards and contribution is not good enough, Who put you incharge of wikipedia? User:86.131.122.237

Does that make me an Indian too? I'd hate to think my parents have lied to me all this time and suddenly you've revealed my real ethnicity :P - The Pro-Yorkshire Green Giant 00:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I find this whole argument rather funny, Gandhi (not Ghandi) a terrorist and Jinnah a savior and a man a of peace. I've heard from fellow Pakistanis this argument and I've heard from Indians (apparently intended as an insult) the exact opposite, Gandhi a savior and Jinnah a terrorist. I dont think either are true and any who support either one has a bad comprehension of history. Just as Jinnah stood by a secular India and later on, a secular, tolerant and democratic Pakistan, Gandhi was for a free, united, tolerant India with equal and unalienable rights for Muslims. He fasted for peace with Muslims as well as to get money for the state of Pakistan. What's more, HE GAVE HIS OWN LIFE FOR THE RIGHT OF THE MUSLIMS TO LIVE IN PEACE. A Hindu fanatic, Godse, (whose RSS sister branch BJP would later massacre thousands of innocent Muslims in Gujarat), remorselesley took his life for his support of the Muslims. The people who would persecute Muslims in Gujarat, abuse Muslims in Kashmir and tear down the Babri Masjid in an effort to promote the Hindu Rashtra, were the same people who took Gandhi's life. Therefore, how about we give the man credit for his actions and let his picture stay on the website. He may have been too much of an idealist and maybe doubted some policies that would have easily kept Pakistan and India together, but he knew the Muslims were his equals and accepted them as such readily. In fact, his influence went so far as to him having a Muslim follower from that now Pakistan-entrenched territory (and my homeland) of NWFP; Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Frontier Gandhi). -User: Afghan Historian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.221.1.200 (talk • contribs)

Whoever made this accusation must be an extremely hateful person. I am not Pakistani, but I've been there many times and personally I know that the Pakistani people don't look at Gandhi as a terrorist. Only a select few extremists. Gandhi didn't want Pakistan to exist, but he was a merciful man who gave a lot of good to the world, as did Jinnah. Disgusted Pakistani, you obviously either aren't really Pakistani and just a fake trying to make Pakistan look bad, or a Pakistani, but not a real one, as you insult this great man. We shouldn't do that. I repeat, most Pakistanis don't look at Gandhi in this manner. Stallions2010 22:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

That was a fuuny arguement made by some extremist personality here. I don't want to waste my time in replying such rubbish and nonsense. I would say just one thing.... not just Indians but the whole world adds Mahatama (great soul) before his name to show the respect they have for him. Today, Mahatama Gandhi has become a symbol of Non-Voilence and Peace for whole Humanity.....his peaceful ideology is a ray of hope to save humanity from increasingly terrorist and extremist ideologies. Holy Ganga 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Gandhi might be a 'symbol of non-violence and peace for whole humanity' to you, But we are not here to talk about your religious conviction, If you dont mind I would rather you kept your religious beliefs to yourself, The reasons for removing the Ghandi picture are clearly as follows:

1. Gandhi was NOT founding father of Pakistan: No reason for him to be on Pakistan page

2. Gandhi was AGAINST the Pakistan movement: Again No reason for him to be on Pakistan page

3. Gandhi was a CRIMINAL; He was constantly imprisioned by the British no need for a criminal to be seen in a picture with a democrat and visioniary like Jinnah who unlike Gandhi was NEVER inprisioned AND WAS the founding father of Pakistan.

4. Gandhi emotionally BLACKMAILED his followers; He would often go on hunger strikes and fast for days on end, and in many cases almost killed himself, We dont need someone with that kind of charachter on this page

Can anyone disprove my claims on Gandhis charachter? These ARE ESTABLISHED FACTS, This should be more than enough to have the Ghandi + Jinnah picture WITH A PICTURE OF JUST JINNAH; Why should a civilized statesman like Jinnah have to share glory with a half naked criminal like Gandhi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babil79 (talk • contribs)

Babil, your rant is taking a laughable shape. Looking at points 3 and 4 made me remember once again that today is April 1. Anyway, I guess the consensus here and almost everywhere in wikipedia is heavily against the ideas presented in your rant. There are a thousand ways to make this article better, and many people, pakistanis, and non pakistanis alike, are working on it. Coming here to say Gandhi was a "Criminal"/"terrorist" etc. just invalidate whatever credibility you have as an editor. Nationalism is good, and everyone should have it, but extreme jingoism is a very very bad thing. Thanks. --Ragib 02:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If only all this effort were spent on Pakistan related article it would be lot closer to FA. What a waste of time. People should ignore this "person." --Blacksun 03:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The top picture with Jinnah and Ghandi must be removed instantly, it is offensive, insensitive, and ill timed to have such images with hegemonic and deep seated politcally motivated contations to be placed on Paksitan or wiki altogether.

God,that's sad in so many ways.

So you actually believe that people on wikipedia actually have deep seated politcally motivated contations, due to which they create a freaking open-for-editing article on wikipedia.

And ill timed.....why is it ill timed ?? or better yet when, according to you, would have been the proper time for it ??

Listen weirdo, whether you like it or not Gandhi and Jinnah did spend a considerable time of their lives togather, as part of the same movement and fighting for the same cause(which would then be getting the british out of India).

It happened, and it's a fact, try lliving with it.

is a man responsible for riots and influencing them by emotional blackmail (ie starvation)

If you would stop reading the Chunky Butt magazine and go for Newsweek instead you would find that it was the week long fasting of Gandhi which led to muslims returning to normalacy on the streets of delhi, after the formation of pakistan the muslims were a target of vicious hate riots throughtout the country and "the terrorist" went on hunger strike till the riots ended.During the first three days, the reaction from the common public was "Let him Die if he so badly wants to", the next few days saw a waning in the riots and increasing concern for the health of Gandhi, which would have millions marching towards delhi, by the end of the week the riots stopped and the muslims roamed the streets of delhi freely, like they used to.

And what did the man do after then ?? Take a bite into a big chocolate cake ?? nooo............he freaking, went on a nationwide tour telling people to put an end to the nonsense.

Have'nt you heard "Iswar - Allah tere` naam.Sabko Sanmati de` bhagwan"(The hymn gandhi chanted in his porbandar monastary.It traslates to "The name Iswar(Hindu for God) and Allah(muslim for God) are all the names of the one, universal god.God give peace and calm to humanity".

Anyways, the United States Government has been calling him a Champion of Liberty for a few decadeds now, and publishing stamps bearing his face, so the free world does'nt seem to think so badly of him after all,huh ??? ??? ??? ???

The terrorist was always locked into prison by the British and this should give you an indication of Ghandis intolarable charachter.

He was also called by the queen to visit the Buckingham Palace,always called upon by the Governer Generals of India.

He was the inspiration of the likes of Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela(who , by the way also speant a lifetime in jail).

He features regularly in the speeches of the newer crop of British politicians who use the "Gandhian" ideology of peaceful co-existence, to spread peace around areas like Birmingham,where the immigrants overpower the locals.

And, January 30 is commemorated in the United Kingdom as National Gandhi Remembrance Day.

So much for your "British locked him up.i'll whine" crap.

So,the british locked away the man who tried to free his country from their rule.What's the big deal ?? Did'nt the british try and kill George Washington in the Battle of Long Island ?? Did'nt they lock up Nelson Mandela throughout his young life ?? Did'nt they sell opium to the youth of China ??

It's called Imperialsm, my retarded friend. Try living with the fact that it existed.

There is no need to have Jinnah in a picture with Ghandi as there is with Churchill and Hitler on the Churchill webpage, churchill stood for peace and democracy likek jinnah, Ghandi like Hitler stood for Facism and violence.

God, it's sick in so many ways. Are you allowed to open your mouth outside of your home by your mommy, by the way ??

Incase you have difficulty reading Dwaipayanc was trying to insinuate that i was mentally ill I dont see you warning him, besides why do you people have more rights than I do?

He was barely insinuating,I'm saying outright that you are a raving lunatic(a euphimism for a loon who's not even funny).We have more rights than you do because we're not retards,is it so hard to understand ??

The whole point of wiki is for peace to acess neutral information which can be edited by users

for peace to access ?? what the f$*k ?? who's peace and what's acess ??? the information can be edited by users,all right.Users with IQ over 30.

I have equal rights and i will excercise my rights to protect the rights of my country.

Trust me you have bought as much shame to your country as is humanly possiblethrough the medium of wikipedia.Your spellings are atrocious and you tone is like a communist on wall street.Go back to your basement and live there for as long you can, I bet you have enough Chunky Butt magazines to keep ya company.You're an embaressment to both the pakistani nation and this talk page. Freedom skies 05:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• Old requests for peer review