Talk:Pakistan/Archive 7

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, Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia guidelines. Please see Wikipedia: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 ^t 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 ^[1].

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 ^t 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 Wikipedia: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:Pakistan topics, Template:Pakistan ties, 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:Pakistan topics 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:Pakistan topics and also the links from Template:Life in Pakistan because they were already present in Template:Pakistan topics. 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:Pakistan topics 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^[2].

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 [3]. 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)