Talk:Pakistan

Pakistani

Actually there was no conversion of Hindus happened in pakistan and every pakistani is a arab in origin.true?those who says their forefathers were converted to islam from hinduism is a zionist/hindu/christian propaganda.isn't it?Oh!forgot!everything which doesnot fit the taste of islamists are propaganda from zionists ?If I said ,pakistan is a nation that lives just on the hate of non-muslims and India ,It is the Best Kept Truth Proclaimed openly. conspiracy theories regarding each and everything justifying islam and terrorism.living in denial.isn't that what all pakistaniat is all about?just asks in a neutral POV.and faithfreedom.org is a site which opens the folly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 22:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

What do you wanna say? Do Pakistanis believe they are really Arabs? They can't be that stupid. ≈≈

Sikhs are a reformist Panjabi cult

why does this article state that Sikhs settled Pakistan?? Sikhs are a reformist religious cult from the 16 th century that sprang up indigenously within Pakistan's panjab region, they did not settle it in any way or form. Please correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.164.238 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wrong statistics for shias

I think some bastard mother fucker shia has wrote that Pakistan muslim population has 30 percent shia, this is the biggest bull shit of the world. The correct no of shias in pakistan is hardly 5 percent, I want to change this wrong number but someone has locked the page, please some patriotic Pakistani can change this shit wrong number of shias on this page, I will be very grateful to you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GSG Flash (talk • contribs)

First of all, watch your language, it only accentuates you as the uneducated barbarian that you are. Second, that figure you are talking about came from one of your rubbish anti-Shia ultra-Sunni nationalist websites (which I think should be revised as that website seems untrustworthy and is not objective). Third, learn how to use Wikipedia before clicking that edit button, or better yet don't click that edit button at all and save us our time and IQ points from reading your garbage of a message. --GSG Flash (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither the first edit, nor the second reply to it abusing the first editor is acceptable on wikipedia - I know because I have been subjected to similar on the British National Party talk page. However what is particularly strange is that both edits are from the same user. Chill out, brother.--Streona (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

First of my edits was me correcting the format of this page, second of my edits was my reply. I meant to do both in one edit but I hit the "save page" button a bit prematurely. Don't think anything of the two edits, you can compare them if you don't believe me for some reason. And yes I know my reply was not of proper etiquette but whatever, I don't that user deserves any proper etiquette. --GSG Flash (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Shia population is approximately 25-30% in Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.199 (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

pakistanis in greater number are now interested in http://faithfreedom.org and ex-muslims movement?amar khan is a famous murtid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.22.239 (talk) 10:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Main map with article

Why is that map used? More precisely, why bother including disputed territories, particularly those that are under the direct control of another state? The map of the Taiwan article doesn't include claims on mainland China! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.142.5 (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir is a official state of India.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.0.86 (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

exactly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.186.181 (talk) 19:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. No country's map should show regions it does not control, at least not on wikipedia. I've tried to address this by adding rename templates on the following files on wikimedia commons: [1], [2] & [3]. If you agree to the edits I've suggested please ask an empowered user from the list [4] to make these changes. Atin Bhattacharya (talk) 19:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

History

Just a note:

All of this Mohenjo-Daro Harrappa nonsense is India's history, not Pakistan's

Pakistan's history starts as soon as a separate state for muslims is proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.84.118 (talk) 23:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• In more than 7000 years of past history, India had note been a united country except only in three small periods. First was that of Ashoka (less than 50), second by Aurengzeb (Mughals) for not more than 90 years and the British (90 years). For other thousands of years of period India has been composed of sevral countries and states. So when we speak of Indian history, it is the history of a region and not a country. So the history of the area now called Pakistan is any thing related to the region called Pakistan now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.122.19.193 (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

you see this is about the indian culture. the pakis might claim the land, but it all has a long period of indian history, it was only 1400 years ago that islam was created. the country is only 60 years old, and you are contradicting yourself by saying that it is about a region, not a country. after all, the article is named "Pakistan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.186.181 (talk) 19:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A: What Indian culture are you talking about? An India without Indus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.2.69 (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Why "extremist Islamic militants" why not just " militants"

I dont see the objectivity here. How come we have Islamic Terrorism and Islamic Militancy while when a non Muslim commits the same acts his/her religion is not attached to his label.

Militants are just militants and terrorists are just terrorists. Can any one please correct this mistake in the military section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umair101 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Islamic militants because: (1) it's the accepted form in Europe, India, USA, etc. (2) The militants themselves say they are fighting for Allah (3) This is a global movement carried out by (nominal) Muslims, regardless of whether they are real Muslims for killing people or not. If Shiv Sena is Hindu militants... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.66.210 (talk) 10:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Terrorism

The New York Times reported that there are more terrorists per square mile in Pakistan than anywhere else in the world, but Pakistan isn't doing enough to rein in the terrorists (the Jamat-ud-Dawa chief being let off is an example), so I hope you guys can include that in the article. I'm not sure how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr.Jhingaadey (talk • contribs)

For information: The above edit was made by an IP sock of a banned editor. Verbal chat 12:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously dude, take your propaganda some where else —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.199 (talk) 08:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

its "Unity, Faith and Discipline" NOT "Unity, Discipline and Faith"

Hi.

I have in various places that the Motto Given by Quaid-e-Azam was actually "Unity, Faith and Discipline" NOT the "Unity, Discipline and Faith". Although its the sequence of word, but its very important that it MUST be written in the proper sequence as given by Father of the Nation Quaid-e-Azam.

direct quote in Etymology section

The etymology section implies that the quoted material is from the Now or Never pamphlet, but the words are not exactly from there. Either the quote should be introduced differently or the words of the pamphlet should be used/? Ed8r (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Highly Misleading

1) "In recent times, Pakistan has been called part of the New Middle East.": Thats a term created by Bush administration in reference to their own political handlings (In 2004).It also includes central Asian states and Turkey as "greater Middle East". This is purely a case of POV, and should not be mentioned in the starting paragraph. Its highly misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.199 (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Adbus Salaam

There is no mention of Salaam in the article, which is unfortunate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.129 (talk) 17:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sikhs as invaders/settlers in main section

The main section says the Sikhs were invaders/settlers, but in fact they were neither, as they mostly originated locally from parts of Punjab which are now in Pakistan and even had their first capital in Gujranwala before moving to Lahore, so in reality it's in in present day India that they could, largely, be considered invaders or settlers, I think it should be removed from the current section as it's not only misleading but false, however Sikhs should be mentioned as part of the empires that existed in the region. Any thoughts?

I agree, Sikhs are native to Pakistan, cannot be considered invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.6.202 (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with youre statement. you are free to change it. I have no objections Taeyebaar (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, then now some suggestions on where to add the Sikh element, I can think of two places:

1. In the second paragraph it states: "The region forming modern Pakistan was home to the ancient Indus Valley Civilisation and then, successively, recipient of ancient Vedic, Persian, Turco-Mongol, Indo-Greek and Islamic cultures" we could all add "as well as being the birth place of the Sikh religion/culture/empire" or something similar.

2. In the Third paragraph it states "Pakistan is the sixth most populous country in the world and has the second largest Muslim population in the world after Indonesia.[10][11][12] It also has the second largest Shia Muslim population in the world" I could add the same as above here also. Any suggestions?

Yes I agree, you can mention it as the birth place for historical vedic religion (predecessor to modern Hinduism) and Sikhism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.2.191 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Khokhar (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Improvement Suggestions

1. I want the article to mention more of our links to the Middle East and less with India. This is the perfect opening sentence from the on 09 May, 2009 below: Pakistan (Template:Lang-ur Pākistān ), officially the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, is a South Asian country located in the mountainous region adjoining Central Asia and the Middle East.

2. Please remove the following statement of "In addition to the Indian independence movement (led by Mahatma Gandhi of the Indian National Congress)" --— Preceding unsigned comment added by Advil123 (talk • contribs)

Both of these suggestions are, unfortunately, very dubious. Pakistan was, and is a part of south asia, and hardly geographically located in the Middle east. It is a stretch of imagination to claim PK to be part of Middle east, or the imaginative term "Greater middle east". And there is no justification for #2. --Ragib (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually there is some merit in point 2, the article currently says "in addition to the Indian independence movement (led by Mahatma Gandhi of the Indian National Congress), the Pakistan Movement (led by Muhammad Ali Jinnah of the Muslim League) demanded an independent state for the majority Muslim populations of the eastern and western regions of British India. This could be taken, by the casual reader, to mean that League and Congress shared the viewpoint. Pahari Sahib 08:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; Pakistanis physically have nothing in common with Indians than we have with Bengalis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advil123 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Someone please fix these errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.141.53 (talk) 07:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL, what will you do next ... claim Arab or middle-eastern genetic lineage of Pakistanis? :) Or claim that the language spoken there is Arabic? :) Or that the whole of current day India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were 3 components of British Raj ? :) Geographically, and Physically Pakistan has little to do with Middle East. --Ragib (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The two major languages of Pakistan - Punjabi and Sindhi - are both Aryan. The people are genetically the same as the Indians. The national language of Pakistan - Urdu - developed in the Gangetic plain and there as more Urdu speakers in India than in Pakistan itself. Pakistan's identity thus has a predominant "Indian" component, and ever since their secession from India, Pakistanis have been searching for an alternate identity, an identity completely different from their Indian origins. I think this is what results in their philia for the Arabs. Atin Bhattacharya (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan as nation developed with a blend of South Asian and Middle Eastern culture influences. There is no denying it. By the way, Arabic language is also spoken by a large group of Pakistanis (Majority of it, by Muslim purists and returning Gulf workers). Large amounts of Pakistanis look more like Arabs than darker short Indians or Bengalis due to the settlers/invaders link. So, if the British conqueared Balochistan and NWFP a 100 hundred years ago that makes them Indian overlooking their Persian and Arabic links. I am amazed by the inferiority complex of some Indians and Bengalis, lol. GOD FORBID, that Pakistan has its own identity !!!:— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.141.53 (talk • contribs)

I am going to make a smaller addition to the point about the indian independence movement to remove the noted ambiguity, we can continue to discuss the rest.Khokhar (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. I agree with Pahari Sahib that any ambiguities (as shown in his example) should be clarified. --Ragib (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ps. The point about Pakistan bordering the Middle east(Iran is more commonly included in the Middle east as well as the short distance between Pakistans south coast and the Arabian peninsula) and Central Asia (much of pakistan falls into many definitions of Central Asia) is also a valid one and should be given due consideration and maybe we should discuss it further, also can we please refrain from making 'genetic' statements as they are uncalled for and not required in the context of this article, if people are really interested there is more than enough material available to make up their own mind. Khokhar (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

We have had this long discussion here about the concept of "Greater middle east". As far as I remember, no references from reliable sources were ever shown proving that Pakistan has a lesser South Asian nature, and considered to be in Middle East. BTW, I was referring to the anon/advil123, who commented on physical differences. --Ragib (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the original point was "adjoining Central Asia and the Middle East" which is valid and there are significant cultural influences as well as people living/intermingled in Pakistan who originated from these areas; which is not as much the case in the rest of South asia, so it's definately a valid point, of course the South Asian influence is also important but that's already been covered. Khokhar (talk) 19:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. Geographically Pakistan is at a crossroads between the Middle East, Central Asia and South Asia ( for e.g the suggested gas/oil pipelines from Iran to India or the piplelines from central Asia to the Arabian sea and even India), this, naturally, gives Pakistan a distinctive strategic position and has actually been discussed a lot in recent times, it shouldn't be too hard finding referenced content stating this, and it is something that should be recognised.Khokhar (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Khokhar that the opening sentence must include South Asia, Middle East & Central Asia as the May 09, 2009 Pakistan article. Plus, you must remove the mention of this sentence " addition to the Indian independence movement (led by Mahatma Gandhi of the Indian National Congress) which demanded an independent India,". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Advil123 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added some points about Pakistan's geosttrategic position, as discussed above: [5]Khokhar (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A word of advice to the editors in this thread - don't use your personal opinion in editing or even as much as possible in discussing this article. Put national pride aside, whether Indian, Pakistani, or another, and edit and discuss this using facts that can be verified from mainstream reliable sources. Particularly, avoid generalisations about the opinions or beliefs of entire nations, avoid making statements on genetics or ancestry without verifying them, and take care to avoid making statements or edits that might offend or annoy someone from a different background to your own. Fences&Windows 00:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the word 'Portmanteau' should be included in the 'Etymology' section and linked to the referent article because it's a cool and relevant word.SmappleMcWingers 04:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jinnah Photo

Do we have a better photo of Jinnah? The current photo makes it look like there is blood pouring out of Jinnah's eyes...

This photo is much better. It shows two great leaders that influenced the creation of Pakistan. Gandhi created an independent British India and Jinnah created an independent Pakistan. Nikkul (talk) 00:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Gandhi didn't create an independent British India; he helped India to achieve independence from the British. AdjustShift (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Greater Middle East?

The lead section of this article says "In recent times, Pakistan has been called part of the Greater Middle East." Saying Pakistan is a part of the "Greater Middle East" is like saying the United States is a part of the "Greater Latin America". The "Greater Middle East" should be erased from the article. AdjustShift (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But this isn't just a random opinion, it was coined by the G8 at the suggestion of the Bush Administration in 2004.[6] So a mention of the term "Greater Middle East" is certainly warranted, so long as it is attributed to the G8 from 2004. Fences&Windows 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Which Administration? Wasn't the Bush Administration the same administration that waged needless war in Iraq? I've not seen any political theorist or IR expert using the "Greater Middle East" in any academic paper or book. Bush and co have very little knowledge about the rest of the word. WP is written from a neutral POV; we don't write articles from a Bush POV. It is very silly to mention in the lead section of the article that "In recent times, Pakistan has been called part of the Greater Middle East." It could be mentioned somewhere in the article that the "Greater Middle East" was coined by the G8 at the suggestion of the Bush Administration in 2004, but certainly not in the lead section. Fences and windows, you are an Irish; if you go to South Asia and say to any educated person that Pakistan is in the "Greater Middle East", he/she will laugh at you. Pakistan is linguistically and culturally closer to India and other South Asian countries. Pakistan is in South Asia. AdjustShift (talk) 15:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I had missed that this was in the lead, sorry! It shouldn't be, as that does indeed give undue weight to this new political label. But it has been used in scholarly articles, see:[7][8]. So regardless of our opinions of the Bush Administration - and mine aren't favourable - the article should refer to the term "Greater Middle East". Fences&Windows 01:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please can the editor of pakistan page change the pakistan resolution to lahore resolution as that what it is called in reality and this is. It is known now as the pakistan resolution. The name pakistan came about after 23rd march 1940. I believe it was on 6th september 1940. There is no mention in the lahore resolution of pakistan as the name of new country.

The name of paksitan was only formally told to the media and public at large by the founder of pakistan mohammed ali jinnah on september 6 1940 i believe.

In times archive section you can look up mohammed ali jinanh speaking to the legislative assembly with congress in the same building about the country pakistan.

the date of times newspaper london article is 20 november 1940, the actual article was written on 19th november 1940. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salmanj10 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Error?

In the article: " In 1971, a civil war in East Pakistan resulted in the creation of Bangladesh. "

That seems rather unlikely, given that Bangladesh is on the other side of India. 74.210.39.130 (talk) 15:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

If you knew anything about South Asia you would have known that Bangladesh was called East Pakistan from 1955 to 1971. Atin Bhattacharya (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

A wonderful illustration of how personal incredulity is a useless guide to what is true. See Bangladesh Liberation War. Fences&Windows 18:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Better sentence structure

`Pakistan is still a poor and developing nation that faces problems with poverty and illiteracy at a high rate.`` Change poor or poverty to something else because it sounds repeated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.62.12 (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The GPS coordinates indicate Israel, not Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.98.170.134 (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC) please once again refer to the map of the subcontinent in particular the "loc" it would be better not to include disputed part of kashmir with pakistan . plz do refer to the region as pok pakistan occupied kashmir or else remain completly neutral by indicating that region as disputed. i feel injustice done to India in the map shown here.

The cars in Pakistan are right-hand drive

there's an error that the cars are left-hand in Pakistan, while actually they are right hand drive.

More signs of Mughals needed.

There must be more pictures and sub-articles about Mughals who ruled Pakistan for hundreds of years. Currently there is only one picture in the the Tourism section(Lahore Fort picture) and no sub-article to talk in detail about these very significant rulers who are taught about in every Pakistani history book.