Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articlePakistan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 29, 2006.
On this day... Article milestones
February 10, 2006Good article nomineeListed
March 11, 2006Peer reviewReviewed
March 25, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
April 22, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
January 24, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
March 29, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
January 14, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
March 25, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 6, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 14, 2004, March 23, 2005, August 14, 2005, March 23, 2006, August 14, 2006, March 23, 2007, August 14, 2007, August 14, 2008, and February 5, 2011.
Current status: Former featured article

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 March 2024[edit]

Edit the Human Development Index of Pakistan Nhnnguyeneee (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Updated with 2023/2024 report. Please provide your own sources in future requests. Liu1126 (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2024[edit]

2601:182:501:72C0:1F8:42A0:4C4C:C40E (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Countries that Pakistan doesn’t recognize |1|| Steady | style="text-align:left"|  Armenia |- |2|| Decrease (1) | style="text-align:left"|  Israel |- |3|| Steady | {{left}  India

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 09:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article size[edit]

I will be working on reducing the readable prose size of this article. The initial goal will be to reduce as much size by just language adjustment without changing the meaning and context of the content. There will not be any whole sale removal in initial stage. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright waiting on that. Nobody told me about the language adjustment part. However I did move the military history portion from here to Pakistan Armed Force and now there is duplication. I suggest we at least remove that. Also law enforcement section was fixed. So I reverted back to that portion. We can work from there. Wikibear47 (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The size is now a hair below 15,000 words (14,966 to be exact, by independent count; the tools here do a *terrible* job of counting) and WP:SIZESPLIT is neither policy, nor guideline. This is a top-level, parent article in summary style; pretty much everything that could be shifted into child articles has been shifted. Thank you for your changes; the article is fine, now; please stop removing content (other than true duplication, and if you can move excess content from long subsections here to child articles, I have no objection). For further cuts not of those types, please achieve consensus here first. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More improvements can be done under history section. Also I think that military history section should be moved from here to Pakistan Armed Forces or Military history of Pakistan. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A country with four wars and other smaller conflicts in 77 years, I think that much military history is warranted. It is already a summary. If those other articles does not have this content then we can add it there but it should not be removed from this article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:30, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Mathglot (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using quotations with short footnotes[edit]

Hi, SheriffIsInTown. Thanks for your improvements to referencing. Just wanted to let you know that the use of param |ps= in combination with {{sfn}} (e.g., here) is problematic. Alternative solutions exist, such as {{harvtxt}}. Please see Template:Sfn#Adding additional comments or quotes for details. Mathglot (talk) 18:52, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed they recommend using {{harvnb}} when there are multiple occurrences of the same reference with the same author and year but different quoted text. I haven't encountered this situation yet, but if I do, I'll certainly consider using the alternative solutions suggested. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:11, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot I think an efn for every quoted source adds unnecessary complexity. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it very clear, but if you find that too complex, then please use <ref name="Last-yyyy">{{harvtxt|Last|yyyy}} Your quotation here.</ref> instead; harvnb may be an alternative. What you can't do, is leave it the way it was before. Also: please use {{sfn}} templates in the standard way, with just last name(s) only (no first name) followed by year; so not {{sfn|Safia Haleem|2013}} but {{sfn|Haleem|2013}} (and please add the page number, so it should be {{sfn|Haleem|2013|p=999}}. No need to add param |ref= to the citation in the bibliography if you use just the last name(s) and year in the {{sfn}}—the software will connect them up automatically. Notice how short citations #1–20 all connect now through the short citation to the full one in the Bibliography. Mathglot (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mathglot I'd rather opt for {{harvtxt}} because I believe having a letter for each footnote next to every source in the article doesn't look good. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 04:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't understand the question. But in general, there is no reason to include a quote with every citation, especially if the body content properly summarizes the source. (If it doesn't it should, and including a quotation is not, or at least, should not be a substitute for our requirement as editors to properly summarize our sources.) Anyone who really needs a quotation from the source can just look it up; maybe for some sources with very limited access a quotation could be helpful. If a quotation is particularly well-known, striking, or a perfect synthesis of the majority of reliable opinion on a particular topic, then consider adding the quotation directly to the article, enclosed in double-quotes. Mathglot (talk)+
(post-ec) If you prefer to use harvtxt for quotes, I have no objections to that method. Mathglot (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Area is mentioned without reference to claims.[edit]

It just states Pakistan area outright. It doesn’t mention that Pakistan claims a total area of 908,677 sqkm. This needs to be addressed. (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fake quotation on middle power status[edit]

In the bundled citation in the lead on middle power status, bullet 5 says this:

  • Buzan & Waever (2003) "In the framework of their regional security complex theory (RSCT), Barry Buzan and Ole Waever differentiate between superpowers and great powers which act and influence the global level (or system level) and regional powers whose influence may be large in their regions but have less effect at the global level. This category of regional powers includes Brazil, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey."

This presents the double-quoted material as content copied directly from the source. The Buzan-Waever short citation lacks a page number, and I assumed it had to be part of a preface written by someone else, as Buzan and Waever wouldn't refer to themselves in the third person like that, so I also wanted to add the preface author as part of the citation. But I didn't find a preface in the book, and doing a search, I didn't find the quotation, either. Somewhat alarmed that we might have fake quotations in the article, I tracked this down as follows:

  • at 21:00, 14 December 2016 Kautilya3 added an explanatory note to the "middle power" mention in the lead (diff). There were no quotation marks, and the |quote= param was not used; this was just a normal explanatory note added by a Wikipedia editor. (That said, notes of this type, like all body content, are subject to verification and sourcing if required, but I don't see a problem with it.)
  • at 00:17, 5 March 2017 another editor added a |quote= parameter to the citation, and moved the explanatory note inside the citation as the content of the quote parameter (diff), causing Kautilya's note to appear to be a quotation from the book.

This then got propagated through some of the reference cleanup we have both been doing, retaining the double-quote marks to preserve it as a quotation.

However, it was never a quotation, it was authored by a Wikipedia editor, and text created by Wikipedia editors cannot be placed in double-quotes (unless they wrote a book and are quoting themselves). Having it enclosed in quotes is a violation of our WP:Verifiability policy. I have removed this fake quotation, and reestablished it as an explanatory note again. (We could also just remove it, if it doesn't add anything.) This makes me wonder whether there are other cases like this of citations containing fake quotations inside a |quote= parameter. We might have to scan the whole article and examine any quotations and make sure that verifiability holds up for all quotations. Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to dig for a page number but I was not finding the quoted text, I assumed that I might have some accessibility issues. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial period[edit]

@SheriffIsInTown: The source does not say Congress interpreted British' clause as "creation of independent Muslim nation" but that it could be interpreted by anyone as such. I changed that wording per the source. The 1929 report did not pave the way for partition. This exceptional claim will require multiple scholarly sources. The speech by Iqbal was a "direct rebuttal" to the Nehru report of 1929 but it "never actually called for a partitioned Muslim state".[1] That's why your claim that Iqbal promoted two-nation theory is false. As Ahmad Hasan Dani also noted: "Iqbal did not argue for a Muslim State, but only for a Muslim bloc in an Indian Federation. Moreover, Bengal and Assam ( the present East Pakistan ) did not enter into his calculations. It is grossly misleading to call him the originator of the idea of Pakistan or the poet who dreamed of Pakistan. He never talked of Partition and his ideal was that of a getting together of the Muslim provinces in the north - west so as to bargain more advantageously with the projected Hindu centre."[2] More academic sources that say the same thing:[3][4] Srijanx22 (talk) 08:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source does not state that ML opposed QIM so I removed that wording. I will get back to you regarding your other objections later. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 12:13, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Srijanx22 Let's tackle separate issues in separate comments so we do not mingle them together. The text never stated that 1929 report paved the way for partition rather it stated that the rejection of these fourteen points proposals paved the way for partition.
This text 👇🏽

In March 1929, in response to the Nehru Report, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, issued his fourteen points, which included proposals to safeguard the interests of the Muslim minority in a united India. These proposals were rejected, thus paving the way for the partition of India.

represented this from Hardy 👇🏽

Much has been made' of the failure of Congress and the Muslim parties to agree over the Nehru Report and of the rejection of Jinnah's 'Fourteen Points' as a significant milestone along the way to the partition of India. A great opportunity was lost, it is thought, for the abandonment of separate electorates by voluntary Muslim agreement.

and this from Wuthnow 👇🏽

To satisfy Muslims' determination to have guaranteed rights in the future political system of India and to maintain territorial unity of the Indian state, by 1929 Jinnah produced the formula known as the Fourteen Points of Mr. Jinnah. The Fourteen Points included separate electorates for Muslims in the provinces of India, parity of electoral representation in the Punjab and Bengal, and electoral considerations for Muslims in those provinces in which they were a minority, although they would retain clear majority in the Northwest Frontier Province, Baluchistan, and Sind.

You can clearly see Hardy supporting the rejection of fourteen point, a significant milestone to the partition the rejection of Jinnah's 'Fourteen Points' as a significant milestone along the way to the partition of India. A great opportunity was lost, Wuthnow supports the assertion that fourteen points were aimed to maintain territorial unity of the Indian state thus supporting the text which included proposals to safeguard the interests of the Muslim minority in a united India, also supports that since the points were aimed at maintaining the unity of Indian state, their rejection would imply that it paved the way to the partition. I'm attempting to simplify this enough to clarify where the original text originated from. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why your claim that Iqbal promoted two-nation theory is false., it is not my claim, that's what Basu-Miroshnik source states and that's what I am basing Iqbal's advocacy of two-nation theory on, your removal would have been justified if the text was unsourced or misrepresented but that is not the case here, Basu-Miroshnik source states Mohammed Iqbal was credited with coming up with the two-nation theory in his speech at Allahabad in 1930 to the Muslim League in a very formal way by saying: "I would like to see the Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind, and Baluchistan amalgamated into a single State. Self-government within the British Empire or without the British Empire, the formation of a consolidated North-West Indian Moslem State appears to me to be the final destiny of the Moslems, at least of NorthWest India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hardy is talking about what has been "has been made of the failure of Congress and the Muslim parties" to agree over the 1929 Nehru report. Hardy cites S Gopal for source and that source notes "As these demands were not accepted by the Conference, Jinnah is reported to have told a friend, "this is the parting of ways." Mind the word "reported". We don't really know if that happened. Hardy is also talking about what else has been a "significant milestone" along the way to partition. He has provided a number of examples since the beginning of 1900s thus targeting 1929 Nehru report over "has been made" would be misleading.
On Iqbal, yes some sources happen to be misleading but a serious scholarly discussion are firm about the stance of Iqbal. The scholarly consensus is pretty clear that he did not support two-nation theory or partition. >>> Extorc.talk 12:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not just Hardy, but another source also underscores the fourteen points aimed at preserving the territorial unity of the Indian state. We're not suggesting that the rejection of these points was the sole cause of partition, but rather acknowledging it as a significant milestone toward partition. Regarding Iqbal, we're not claiming he advocated for partition; we're simply reflecting what the source states. The two-nation theory doesn't inherently imply partition; it could also signify a Muslim state within a state. However, it's crucial to present the source accurately. As for the term 'scholarly consensus,' its interpretation is subjective. Can you provide a source that supports this 'scholarly consensus'? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the light of the sources that I had provided to counter your improper edits and also the above message by Extorc, it is clear that you should not be edit warring to restore your preferred wording which you had imposed merely a few days ago. Srijanx22 (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have effectively responded to and debunked your and Extorc's objections. The sources you provided claim that Iqbal did not call for a partitioned state but rather for a Muslim bloc within India. Nowhere in the article do we state that Iqbal asked for India to be partitioned; we are using the exact text from the sources within the article. None of the sources you provided state that Iqbal's speech was not a two-nation theory. The two-nation theory is not synonymous with partition; even if Iqbal called for a Muslim bloc within India, it still aligns with the two-nation theory since he advocated for blocs based on religion within India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have only repeated yourself and haven't debunked anything.
Since Iqbal did not call for a "partitioned state", it means that he did not promote two-nation theory. He only wanted autonomous Muslim state just like Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale wanted a Sikh autonomous state. See how nobody says Bhindranwale supported multi-nations theory. This misleading knowledge only comes from Pakistani histiography which has been laid out at the sources provided by SriJanx22. I have already done the analysis. Your preferred wording cannot be used for 1929 Report and Iqbal. There is no conclusive evidence if the report paved the way to partition. Your own sources are not saying it but Hardy is only saying what "has been made" instead of endorsing the defective idea. Again, it is misleading to claim that Iqbal promoted two-nation theory.
Fact that you are edit warring to restore your newly added wording even when it was removed two times is not looking good for you. >>> Extorc.talk 17:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, the sources I provided fully back up the content.
Fourteen points
  • Wuthnow: To satisfy Muslims' determination to have guaranteed rights in the future political system of India and to maintain territorial unity of the Indian state, if fourteen points were aimed to maintain territorial unity of the Indian state, their rejection would understandably "pave the way to partition".
  • Singh & Shani: Jinnah's famous 'fourteen points' as a condition for support for India's unity, if fourteen points were a condition for support for India's unity, their rejection would pave the way to the partition.
Two-nation theory
  • Singh & Shani: At the 1930 session of the All-Indian Muslim Conference, Sir Mohammed Iqbal proposed a Muslim homeland that would serve 'as a symbolic cultural expression of the common striving of Muslim fulfilment - a political manifestation of a common mission, if Sir Muhammad Iqbal proposed a Muslim homeland, that is akin to two-nation theory.
  • Basu & Miroshnik: Mohammed Iqbal was credited with coming up with the two-nation theory in his speech at Allahabad in 1930 to the Muslim League, the wording is clear.
  • Hussain: After repeated demands for stronger constitutional safeguards to protect the rights of minorities, Iqbal eventually opted for a separate Islamic Republic instead …… Like a number of his contemporaries, Iqbal warmed up to the two nation-theory., again very clear.
If my sources clearly support the wording I used, I won't change it simply because two editors want it altered, especially when their sources don't definitively contradict my content. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your own perspective about 1929 Report isn't enough for writing history.
You are only mentioning the random sources that have simply promoted the false claim about Iqbal. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which clearly tells "the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." The sources provided by SriJanx22 have fact-checked the false claim. Do you have any rebuttal against that? >>> Extorc.talk 05:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mogul Pakistan[edit]

Pakistan is clearly mentioned in the Vedas many times therefore an entity called "Mughal Pakistan" could be a real place in antiquity possibly centered around Rajanpur.

09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)~\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)~~ (talk) 09:45, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2024[edit]

You didn't wrote anything about one of the biggest universities and best schools and also you didn't mention much about tourism AroushFatima112014 (talk) 14:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 June 2024[edit]

Hello respected admin there is a mistake in the nominal GDP of Pakistan the gdp is growing and it's 370 billion dollars please grant me the permission to edit that mistake (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Unfortunately, IP editors are not allowed to edit the article directly. If you believe the GDP number is incorrect, please request a change along with a reliable source. RegentsPark (comment) 14:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]