Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Someone from your project may want to take a look at Chowz. I am not familiar enough with pakistan to judge, but it seems to be original research, and I know that caste issues can be very controversial. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Pakistan members may want to be aware that there are some problems with copyright violations for articles about Pakistani TV shows. The pattern is that a lot of these shows have a plot summary that is copied and pasted from the official website or other sources. Currently there is a WP:CCI that covers one editor: Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Shariq r82, but I've encountered some other articles (Aashti, Baityaan, Noor Pur Ki Rani) where other editors introduced copyrighted material.

Project members may want to keep an eye on articles about Pakistani TV shows to check for copyright infringement.

Thanks, GabrielF (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

What often happens is new users tend to create articles and since they don't have a grasp on copyright policies, they often end up copy pasting content directly from other sources or write close-wordings. Have you tried to bring up the issue on the talk page of the editor concerned? Mar4d (talk) 08:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional comments needed to RFC at Talk:Indophobia#Merger proposal on whether to merge Indophobia in Pakistan into Indophobia or not. Read the given arguments and check the articles to get oversight. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

On going RFC on merging "Indian subcontinent" with "South Asia". Please comment. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

The existence of Petaw Payan has been called into doubt (as per the talk page). Can anyone here either show that it does exist (perhaps it's an issue of transliteration into English?), or confirm that it's fictitious? Non-Wiki sources would be appreciated. DS (talk) 15:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Pakistan will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Pakistan's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Landi Khana is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Landi Khana until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cheers. Haus^Talk 01:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on the lead section of the article on Pakistan. Please contribute to the discussion. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 11:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to wikify this article, and I need some help. It is categorized as a hill station, but the article itself doesn't say that. I think it's a town or city of some kind, but I can't be sure. English-language search engines defy me. Thanks! --Fang Aili ^talk 18:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually I searched about this, Nerian Sharif is a city in AJ & K and also a hill station as it is located on mountains. I hope you'll understand now.-- Assassin'S creed ^{T - E - C - G -} 15:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone familiar with Urdu please add the Urdu spelling to Lambardar? Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, I added both languages Punjabi and Urdu, thanks for inform.-- Assassin'S creed ^{T - E - C - G -} 15:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciate! It's an interesting topic, so I wikified the formatting a bit, and will see if I can find some better/clearer sourcing for it later. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm nice, good luck for this work.-- Assassin'S creed ^{T - E - C - G -} 18:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

To comply with WP:PRECISION, I would like to move some articles in Category:Ethnic_groups_in_Pakistan. For example:

• Swati (Pashtun tribe) - - > Swati (tribe)
• Barr (Baloch tribe) - - > Barr (tribe)

--Enric Naval (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

An RFC is taking place for the article Indians in Afghanistan which has some main disputes regarding India-Pakistan relations. Please comment there. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like these two pages are about the same party and should be merged? Apokrif (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Tagged and added to proposed mergers. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --lTopGunl (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Is it correct to say the Ustad in someone's name is a title, not their actual name? Should it be included in the name of a Wikipedia article? For example, I've been asked to look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ustad Badar uz Zaman. I guess this man's name is Badar uz Zaman and the Wikipedia article should be in that name, without the Ustad? Which is his surname? uz Zaman? Sorry for my ignorance! Sionk (talk) 00:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ustad means teacher in Urdu, but is also used as an honorific... so I guess it should not be used as a title, but should be mentioned in the lead. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

In this regard I would like to add that in Indo-Pak Classical music terminology, Ustad is mostly referred as the rank in Music field. Like we write Master, maestro. Umerali2204 (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that gives it the due weight to be mentioned in the start of the lead, but article titles do not contain honorifics... they some times do contain military ranks or occupation in brackets to disambiguate if more articles with the same name are present. See for example Muhammad Iqbal; the lead states the honorifics but the title is the actual name. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the above. To provide an example, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is not titled "Ustad Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan" but just by the name. Mar4d (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, mention of the honorific at Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan on the first mention is due in the lead. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies! I've learnt something interesting and new! Sionk (talk) 11:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I am working on an article titled women rights in Pakistan. I am going to approach this topic from the lens of feminist economics, and i will use scholarly references for my entry. Primarily, i will focus on education in Pakistan and how gender is incorporated in it. I will also discuss the impact of "Hadood Ordinace" on women in Pakistan. I know it is very sensitive topic as it is associated with Sharia Law. Hence, i would like folks to give me suggestions about how to approach this topic. I will appreciate any feedback.

Dkhan2012 (talk) 03:29, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Dkhan2012

Dear WP Pakistan, Salams. I am an occasional editor and am not yet registed as a full time user but I have made some few edits of articles of ineterest. However during the course of viewing many arricles on Pakistan, I have felt that there are a substantial number of biographical articles and stubs, mostly belonging to these categories: Pakistani civil servants, government officials, diplomats and many minor politicians-- that dont really meet Wikipedia Notability standards and guidelines and are not really suitable for an Encyclopedia of this nature. They are more 'Who's Who' directory type entries, and I doubt that there is much more to say or write about these subjects and scope for their improvement is extremely limited. Cant most of these be removed/deleted please? At least, there should be a consensus criteria/standard for adding living people to such categories as enumerated above. I would please request that a serious discussion be carried out on this issue. You will find that I have left my comments in this regard on several of the Talk Pages relating to these categories. Thank you. 39.54.151.179 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Prof (retd) Asad U Khwaja

I would encourage you to mark those articles you think are not notable with the Template:Notability template; or if they already have that template attached, propose them for deletion. I use the Twinkle tool to help me add these templates. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello I also wish to use this tool. --Highstakes00 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There is currently a content dispute ongoing at the Human rights violations in Balochistan article by another user, who disputes the addition of content related to human rights abuses by Iranian security forces and/or Baloch militants into the article. Any input from users who are familiar with the topic would be appreciated in giving their opinions/perspective on the issue on the talk page. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mar4d I am editing Pakistan army topics I can give input for this dispute. --Highstakes00 (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi Folks. We have a discussion regarding Category:History of Pakistan, specifically what "History of Pakistan" refers to, at Talk:Ghaznavids#History of Pakistan. The question is, does "History of Pakistan" refer only to the history of the current political entity known as Pakistan, or to the geographic region that encompasses what is now Pakistan? User:Nickzlapeor thinks it should be the former, but we appear to have precedents to support the latter - for example, History of England covers the history of the geographic place that is now known as England, and goes back far further than the current political entity known as England. Any thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• "So going by what you say about History of England, shouldn't History of India include all those pages encompassing current Indian boundaries, and include pages like Lahore, Karachi, which aren't a part of India today? That doesn't seem right?" Nickzlapeor (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  Don't know, maybe, maybe not - I just think it needs discussion and consensus rather than one person's unilateral decision and large scale removal of categories. If the consensus here supports you, that will be fine. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)History of Pakistan includes:

1. History of the Geographic region of today's Pakistan
2. Pakistan Movement
3. History of Islam in the Indian subcontinent

First two I don't think need any arguments. Now History of Islam in the Indian subcontinent is included in History of Pakistan as Pakistan was part of this region and was created on the basis of Islam. So advent of religion Islam in the region, its spread and all other related events etc. are considered part of Pakistan's history. Reading History of Pakistan may help in understanding the issue. --SMS ^Talk 12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• "No brother, I am not talking of the page, I am talking of the category History of Pakistan, which includes such pages that relate to history when Pakistan wasn't actually created at all. These pages, I feel, are not rightly placed into that category." Nickzlapeor (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

If the article History of Pakistan covers the history of the geographic region of today's Pakistan, that suggests to me that Category:History of Pakistan should cover it too. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Oops! I was replying to the person above me, smsarmad. But anyway if the page covers history before it's creation, then Wikipedia is truely an untrusted source of information." Nickzlapeor (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as it makes it clear what it's talking about (which it does) and does not suggest that the current political entity is that old (which it doesn't), I really can't see what is in any way untrustworthy about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: History of Pakistan should cover all history that is associated with the geographical region now known as Pakistan. Nation states are ephemeral concepts, people a little less ephemeral, and land more permanent (though nothing, as we should know, is for ever). In practical terms, we can't take a geographical entity and break its history up into infinite discrete chunks for every different state that existed in that geographical region, we would end up with a disjointed and unreadable encyclopedia, therefore it makes sense to include all histories for that geographical region. --regentspark (comment) 12:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Encyclopedia Britannica, has a page 'Pakistan', with a section 'History', which clearly states that, 'This section presents the history of Pakistan from the partition of British India (1947) to the present. For a discussion of the earlier history of the region, see India.' These are standards that I am trying to keep up in Wikipedia too." Nickzlapeor (talk) 12:44, 1 April 2012

(UTC)

user:Nickzlapeor's argument is one that use to be made by some Indian editors some half a dozen years ago. In their view, the history of Pakistan could only be the history of the entity that came into being on August 14, 1947. As someone who wrote the first draft of the History of Pakistan and also much of the current history section of the India page, I can say that this view is no longer tenable on Wikipedia. The history of Pakistan, Britannica's 1979 history divisions notwithstanding, is the history of the region that overlies Pakistan, as RegentsPark has so cogently put it. The current history covers just that. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. History is recorded of the region. Just one country history can be written in a new article and called Pakistan history after independence. --Highstakes00 (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• OK, here's another argument. I came across this article Ratirahasya on the Main Page. This article relates to 11th or 12th century India. Now this article has not been categorized with Pakistan at all. Seems 'History of Pakistan' only wants to take up everything good that India had in its history, as theirs eh? And I am not in any way saying that the above article isn't good, but if Ratirahasya doesn't have anything to do with Pakistan, NEITHER SHOULD Vedic period, OR Indus Valley Civilization, OR EVEN Maurya empire." Nickzlapeor (talk) 13:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry to say but I don't find any weight in this argument or any relation between this literature to History of Pakistan given above comments. If this literature was written in the geographical boundaries of today's Pakistan, it should be categorized as Pakistani literature. --SMS ^Talk 14:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"No it shouldn't. And neither should other irrelevant articles. Lemme explain this, articles like Vedic period have been categorized into Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan, while Ratirahasya, which is obviously from 11th-12th century, therefore includes the geographical boundaries of "today's" Pakistan as well, hasn't been categorized into Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan or anything else linking to Pakistan. Why is it so? Goes to show these categorizations have been only made for articles that either present, or favour a good "Pakistan" that had a "rich history"?" Nickzlapeor (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I assume you realize that categories are not automatically assigned to articles. Editors have to do it. Unless you're alleging that there is a conspiracy amongst a group of editors to wilfully include what you call "good Pakistan" articles in its history (why is Ratirahasya 'bad'?), I don't see a problem here. If that's what you're alleging, you'll have to back it up with diffs. If that's not what you're alleging, then simply add the category to the article in question and move on. --regentspark (comment) 14:44, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

To everyone asking me about Ratirahasya - There is absolutely NOTHING wrong/bad about anything or everything India/Hinduism has it has ever had, I am only trying to show two sides - on one side is Ratirahasya (uncategorized, which is correct), while the other has Indian prehistoric articles categorized in Pakistani history, only on the basis that they once belonged to this region (irrelevant to the latter). I do know that categories are added by users/editors themselves, which is why I am only trying to place them where they actually belong (from where they shouldn't). Nickzlapeor (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if there may perhaps be a difference between categorizing books and other literary or artistic works, and geography/history in general, as the former seem to me to be more culturally-specific than geography-specific. If Ratirahasya is entirely Indian/Hindu in culture, it may be that is is not relevant to Pakistani history? (Honestly not sure - just thinking out loud here really). But generally, I think that if a historic place or historic topic has links to two or more countries, cultures, etc, then it is good to include it in both sets of history categories. (And yes, what's "bad" about Ratirahasya anyway?) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah? Then what significance/relevance did Vernag spring have with Pakistan? Why was it even categorized into Pakistani categories? Forget that, the spring does not even lie in Pakistan itself. Even after one user pointing that out on its talk page a couple years back, why wasn't anyone cared to make the necessary changes until I did it myself yesterday? Can this be called an 'unbiased/neutral' view of categorizing articles? No. And for the second part of what you say, shouldn't the country have actually been into existence to be qualified to include such material in "its own history"? Nickzlapeor (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I concur with regentspark, these categories are not added manually. Wikipedia is a work in progress and if you find that some articles are un-categorized, do it yourself and if some one disagrees he will revert you and then may be you can bring such an argument up. But just because some one didn't work or categorize an article yet doesn't mean there's a bias other than general systematic bias due to low internet presence of Pakistan which accounts for lesser work on these topics. Any accusations would be completely wild in this case. Not that there's a good or bad Ratirahasya or something, but just because India decided to keep its colonial name, it doesn't mean all the regional history belongs to the Republic of India (or vice versa to be neutral)... it is best to include anything relevant in the history of Pakistan under appropriate section/category such as the one for pre-Islamic heritage (and definitely in "history of Pakistan"). Also, Mar4d is one of the most active editors of this project, you should read his comment below. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Top Gun You know nothing about nothing idiot, and BTW this discussion was already answered so no further replies expected. Nickzlapeor (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Remove your personal attack or I'll have to report you. Every one is entitled to their opinion. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Striking above per [1]. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Any history article which talks about events that happened within the region of modern-day Pakistan should be categorised within Category:History of Pakistan, period. This is how the system works for all other country history categories, regardless of what year those countries came into being or achieved independence. History is tied to a region and land, not identity. In that case, even the Republic of India did not exist before 1947, so using that same argument, it's like saying that all events that took place in the region are wrongly categorised into India categories. On a side note, we do have categories for pre-Islamic events in Category:History of Pakistan, so the Hinduism articles quoted above should be categorised into those categories as they are considered heritage. Moreover, I read something about the Indus Valley Civilisation above. The Indus Valley Civilisation is clearly a part of Pakistani history, and it existed mostly in a region covering modern-day Pakistan. All academic sources, whenever discussing the IVC, refer to Pakistan. The Indus Valley is more relevant to Pakistan than the Republic of India, as most of the cultural legacy, archaelogical sites as well as the very river this civilisation existed upon (Indus River) are in Pakistan. We have all Indus Valley articles thus categorised into Pakistani categories. The same should be followed for any other civilisations/empires that covered the region. Mar4d (talk) 04:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the difference between categories Pakistan Movement activists‎ & Leaders of the Pakistan Movement‎? What is the criteria which differentiate between activist and leader? If there is no criterion, should we merge both the categories? Spasage (talk) 11:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The latter category should ideally have fewer articles and should contain mainly articles of those people who are considered to have been at the forefront of the movement or were very influential, while the first category should contain activists or people who played a role but are not considered leaders/influential personalities. That's the main distinction. I think there is a similiar system for Category:Indian independence movement, so it might be worth looking how they've done it. Mar4d (talk) 04:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with above. The leaders are the few well known figures... the rest are activists. Merging would be inappropriate. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

How would we determine who is leader and who is activist. My concern is line is blure a lot of times. Anyone who was active during independence movement, should be consider as activist. Now, how would you define being influential. Can we consider merging both.I would suggest to have one category or define the criteria to put people in leader category. We can write this in category talk page. If you take eample of india, Category:Indian independence activists, everyone who was part of movement is in this single category. If would suggest we should follow this or we should have a strong reason not to do so. Spasage (talk) 15:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Ofcourse by sources. The leaders are obvious well known figures like Jinnah, Iqbal and a few others. For the rest we'll go by the sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tanolis do live in Tanawal and there are langauage is Hindko but they are Pashtoons. Pashtoons speak Pashto and Hindko. If you visit Peshawar, Kohat and DI Khan, majority of teh people speak hindko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolfikarkhan (talk • contribs) 14:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

There are two articles with same name (Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz and Jeay Sindh Quomi Mahaz). We need to delete one of them. Both of these parties are same only the spellings are different.Spasage (talk) 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Redirected Jeay Sindh Quomi Mahaz to Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz. --SMS ^Talk 19:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see you have redirected Jeay Sindh Quomi Mahaz to Jeay Sindh Qaumi Mahaz. Reason for selecting "Qaumi" over "Quomi". Spasage (talk) 20:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Reason being it is an Urdu word which is more often spelled Qaumi rather than Quomi. You can do the opposite if you disagree or we can have a discussion by involving some more editors. --SMS ^Talk 20:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Category:Government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto should be changed to Category:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Spasage (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

From my understanding of categories the first category is for articles about events that happened, departments, projects that were started, people who served, legislation done during his government. This should not be changed into the latter, rather it should exist as a sub category for the latter. The latter is for more general articles related to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, like Mausoleum of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, which is not related to his government. For now I have created this Category:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and added Category:Government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto as a sub-category, but for a more better opinion I will inform User:Mar4d to look into it. --SMS ^Talk 19:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It is good that you have created category. Do we have enough articles to fill both of them. I was thinking more in terms of having only one. Creating a category of 5 or so articles does not make sense. I think we should merge them into one, which one should we select, we can discuss. Spasage (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We have some government and some administration categories for prime minister and presidents of Pakistan. I suggest we should only have a named category instead of adding government or administration with it. It is a uniform and generic. I would start creating and renaming categories if no one has any objection.Spasage (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There are more than 15K unassessed articles about Pak. I had a idea to start a contest regarding Assessment.

Please have a look at this: Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012

Due to this contest, more then 30K articles were assessed in 1 month.

I thought that Pakistan has a good number of articles now and needs clean up like WP IND needed.

This will be beneficial for articles as well as editors as they will be able to interact with editors in their country and will learn new things and can obtain a lot of knowledge about their country.

I've been active in WP IND and I have done 3,000 assessments there so I thought that I can help you as well.

If editors agree with the idea of starting this contest, then please let me know. I'll be happy to help. Thank you and Happy editing! Yasht101 07:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

See also: User talk:TopGun/Archives/2012/April#WP Pakistan: Article Importance. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Yasht101. That's a great initiative, and I'm willing to help in whatever way I can in such a venture. WikiProject articles being not assessed is an issue itself, but there are also literally hundreds and thousands of Pakistan-related categories, articles and templates that have not even been tagged, let alone assessed. 14,000 articles is quite an understated figure, the actual figure is definitely higher due to pages not being tagged. It is also worth noting that there has never been any kind of initiative like this in WP:PAK that I am aware of, this is definitely a good start. Mar4d (talk) 09:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2012

Please add your name here if you want to take part in this contest: [2]

Instructions: [3]

Awards to be given: [4]

Work that is to be done can be viewed here: [5]

Regards! Yasht101 10:22, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice initiative Yash! Count me in. --SMS ^Talk 14:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to contribute to Pakistan wikipedia, any tasks which can be given to me will be helpful :) (Wiki id2(talk) 11:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC))

Other than the above contest... I just moved Siachen Base Camp to Siachen Base Camp (India). Siachen Base Camp (Pakistan) is needed, if you like military topics. :) ...I'll create it otherwise. Pakistan-related topics can always do with new articles. And this recent stub: 2012 Siachen Glacier avalanche, needs attention from this project. Or you can always stalk me if you want to contribute to random articles. ;) --lTopGunl (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

(Posted here originally) Inter-Services Public Relations has a number of good photos here of Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani overseeing the rescue operations for the Siachen avalanche, as well as an image of the site here. There was also a map of the situation from the agency at Voice Of America, but it seems to have been removed. Does anyone know of the copyright status of these images and if they could be used at the 2012 Siachen Glacier avalanche article? They'd be of much help in illustrating the disaster. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear WP Pakistan members Many salams. W ref to my notes/comments left on the Amb (princely state) article and on several other stub articles, of a repetitious nature about many of the former nawabs of this principality, I have requestd that these stubs might please be merged into the main Amb state article. I dont see any real rationale or small 'stand alone' stubs that are duplicating information already given under the main article. Your comments and discussion would be most welcome on the relevant talk pages, thanks. Khani100 (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Hi. This new article Sunsanahut (film) has been added recently, but the film hasnt yet been released as far as I can understand please? What would be the Wiki guidelines for such an article? Does it constitute a pre-release advertisement? What is the policy in such an instance please? Thanks for your input/feedback, Khani100 (talk) 07:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Also, in the 'New Articles' section of WP Pakistan I wonder why an article on Indian Railway lines is listed/given? It doesnt seem to have much direct relevance to the WP Pakistan subjects/areas? Shoudlnt we please be more choosy and selective in identifying relevant articles? Thanks, Khani100 (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Tanoli are absically Pathans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolfikarkhan (talk • contribs) 18:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear WP Pakistan, this small stub gives a statement which is controversial and also seemingly biased/slanted, and cites sources that arent mostly really reliable. I think that some of our senior personnel and admins here should also take a look and take appropriate action. Thanks Khani100 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Pity. It seems that the article was created as a tit-for-tat reaction to my creation of the Human rights abuses in Assam and Human rights abuses in Manipur articles, no doubt. I agree that the sources are non-WP:RS. The opening statement comparing Sindh with Balochistan is also a polemic joke. Unfortunately, I've been a bit busy recently so will not be able to dedicate any time on this yet. Whenever I'm free, I'll take a thorough look at the obvious issues which the article currently has. Mar4d (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks Khani100 (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Dear WP Pakistan, a good article is a collaborative effort and takes time; and mostly I, along with some other editors, were slowly building up this above mentioned article on a prominent political subject, for some time. In the past we had some minor disruption etc but dealt with it. However, since the last 10-12 days, some sort of 'online feud' seems to be going on between some users purporting to be relatives of the subject and complaining and criticising and abusing/threatening. For some reason, now, they are turning on the regular editors and issuing ultimatums and threats to us. I feel this deeply, have tried to do my best over some time but this is absurd! In particular, there is one IP address user who seems to have some sort of personal attacks to make, and although I have done my v best to assume good faith, I have then had to leave warnings for him/her, but to no avail. I have left my comments and notes on the article talk page and would request your help and guidance in this matter, if possible. Otherwise, all this disruption and abuse has taken all the fun out of building up this article and I would rather not work on it anymore. Thanks, Khani100 (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)Khani100

Hello, may I invited you to an Afd regarding a location in Pakistan. Perhaps you could assist in getting non-English sources?--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

 DoneI have withdrawn the nomination. --SMS ^Talk 08:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, there are 2-3 articles (including a stub created by me originally) that hve come to my notice of the above mentioned types that seem to be using some sources for refs/citations that dont really come up to Wikipedia standards arent vry reliable, and maybe we can try to improve this area too? I have left a detailed note about a couple of these dubious sources on the [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, would be grateful if you could also please have a look and contribute to the discussion thanksAsadUK200 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

Dear Wikipedia Pakistan Many salams. I wish to bring to your notice that a set of three articles on the recent abductions of Hindu women in Sindh i.e. Rinkle Kumari, Asha Kumari and Lata Kumari have all been proposed for deletion but then challenged. I sincerely believe that a problem is there and that it is an important issue, not to do with India or Pakistan or Hindu-Muslim, but w r to the basic and fundamental rights of Pakistani citizens which are guaranteed under our Constitution and which are at least theoretically 'equal' for all in Pakistan, under Pakistani law. Thus, these stubs shouldnt be deleted please, indeed the matter seriously needs our attention as human beings, and in defence of human rights. I personally think that these stubs and ones similar should or could be merged under one larger proper article about the Abduction of such girls. I have, thus, added a WP Pakistan link or template to them, which I hope shall be active soon i.a. By sweeping such problems 'under the carpet' these problems wont go away. For better or for worse, our minority communities are Pakistanis and we should do our best to safeguard and help them. Thank you AsadUK200 (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)AsadUK200

You are right and the Speedy deletion is declined. --SMS ^Talk 10:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The article East Bengal has a section on "Former provincial symbols of East Pakistan (1955-1971)", I have changed it to "Provincial symbols of East Pakistan (1955-1971)" assuming that they were still the provincial symbols of East Pakistan till it became Bangladesh, if this is correct, the section should rather be moved to East Pakistan. Please revert me if it was not the case and the symbols were only for the East Bengal province... in which case, it is also better to change the section title to "Provincial symbols of East Bengal". --lTopGunl (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

East Pakistan and West Pakistan are incorrectly using the "former country" infobox (and also using incorrect "previous countries" - which won't be a problem as I propose this to be removed), they were not countries rather administrative units of Pakistan. This should be removed in favour of the former administrative units template (Template:Former administrative units of Pakistan) - which I see is already added in case of East Pakistan, but it should be nevertheless made sure that removing the infobox does not remove any essential information with it. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

• Add East Bengal to it too. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This article could use some help from editors that speak Urdu. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, while I was on wikication, the article Haq Nawaz Jhangvi had a number of editors making suspect and inappropriate edits, including labeling him "Shaheed" and removing his proper categories to add the non-functioning category "1990 Martyrdom". This has been a slow buy ongoing issue, and on the opposite end a few folks have come to add POV negative comments as well. If those keeping an eye out for vandalism could watchlist this article, and perhaps also Mangal Bagh that would be helpful in preventing folks using WP for sectarian feuds. Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Deletion?

Pl also see my comments on the Category on Pakistani diplomats--I believe that this category, and entries in it, as well as most entries under 'Pakistani civil servants', and 'Pakistani politicians' arent really notable at all by Wiki standards and most should probably be removed/deleted. I hope that the WP Pakistan will also take note of this and that the whole Wiki community shall be able to dicuss this issue. 39.54.151.179 (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Prof Asad U Khwaja

Pl also see my comments on the 'Pakistani government officials' and 'Pakistani diplomats' categories--I am of the firm view that most of these entries under these categories, including this one, arent at all Notable by Wiki standards and should be deleted. In this category, for example, there are probably only 2 people who may claim notability! I would strongly recommend deletion of most of these articles. 39.54.151.179 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Prof Asad U Khwaja

Pl ref also to my comments and suggestions on the talk page of the stub on Ahmad Balal--I believe firmly that more than half of the Pakistani diplomats listed here arent really very .notable' by Wiki standards and I would like to see them deleted if possible, please. I dont see any point in retaining most of these and I also say that there should be a firm criteria in this regard, and for many many politicians and journalists/media people from Pakisatn, that seem to proliferate here. This calls for a proper, detaild discussion and consensus. Thank you. 39.54.151.179 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Prof Asad U Khwaja

I am not sure why the article on T. V. Raman is in the list of Pakistan-related topics. The most probably reason seems to be an erroneous claim by a few magazines that Raman was born in Lahore, something which Raman himself has publicly denied. Perhaps we should remove the article from the list of Pakistan-related topics? Piyush (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Perhaps the tag might have been added by mistake. Please be WP:BOLD and feel free to make the necessary correction/s. Mar4d (talk) 09:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll make the change. I just wanted to make sure there wasn't anything I was missing. Thanks for clarifying. Piyush (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

...is in dire need of review and clean up by an expert. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

An earlier requested-move survey generated lots of controversy and an arbitration case. Therefore, this one is being posted here and in many other places, to gather a very wide range of opinions outside of the Scotland and Australia WikiProjects.

A requested move survey was started at Talk:Perth_(disambiguation)#Requested_move, which proposes to move:

• Perth → Perth, Western Australia
• Perth, Scotland → Perth, Perthshire
• Perth (disambiguation) → Perth

Background: There was a previous requested-move survey which ran from late May to mid June. There was a great deal of controversy surrounding the closure and subsequent events, which involved a number of reverts and re-reverts which are the subject of an ongoing arbitration case. There was a move review process, which was closed with a finding that the original requested-move closure was endorsed; however, the move review process is relatively new and untried. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Gilgit–Baltistan#Neutrality. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please check out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 7#Categories by administrative unit of Pakistan, where I have nominated some 29 categories for renaming. __meco (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The page on Pervez Hoodbhoy mentions him as a recipient of the Baker Prize for 1968. However, a look at the page for the prize (or the official list here) shows that he is not on the official list. Nevertheless, since Prof Hoodbhoy himself claims to be a recipient of a prize of the same name in a Geo TV interview cited on the page (the link is in Urdu: technically I am not a native Urdu speaker, but I think I can understand most of it), I have left the references in, but removed the links to the prize page. I just thought I would post it here in case anyone else has a better source of information on which Baker Prize this is supposed to be. Most other links on the web seems to be have copied this information from Wikipedia rather than the other way around. Piyush (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Now you can add the {{Welcome-Pakistan}} template to welcome new users to Wikipedia. The template must be subst'ed so read the template instructions for how to use it. Hopefully this is an additional effective implement to recruit new participants to WikiProject Pakistan! __meco (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What can I say, you're a legend :) TopGun and I were actually trying to do the same thing with the default WP:PAK welcome template back in May but we had no clue how to add it to Twinkle. As I recall, we were playing around with our Twinkle preferences, lol. I guess we can merge elements of that template into this new one if required. Otherwise, great stuff... and thanks. Having a WP:PAK welcome template on TW indeed makes life very convenient. Mar4d (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment that:

The India-Pakistan case is supplemented as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 18:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Hi; there's a dyk nomination that's had lots of comments, about Pakistan Zindabad; seems like the current issue is lots of tagging of facts in the article; some look to me like they may be spurious but I don't have the background to resolve them and any other problems there may be; if anyone here's interested, that'd be great, thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely that claim is in error. The page is in Category:Wikipedia_naming_conventions_proposals.wp:Policy pertains.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have a recommendation about the article Rumi.

Please read all the information, I wrote on Talk, and tell whether you agree or disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rumi#Let.27s_Remove_POV_with_a_Neutral_Point_of_View

You know the ethnicity of Rumi is unknown and debated. Alternatively, from a neutral point of view, I recommend to change the (POV) sentence to a (NPOV) sentence:

"a 13th-century Persian Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic."

to "a 13th-century Muslim poet, jurist, theologian, and Sufi mystic of Persian literature. 81.213.117.125 (talk) 21:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What is Wafaq ul Madaris Al Salafiyyah? Is it notable? Am I correct that it is Pakistani? Can someone introduce some wikilinks at a minimum (if it is notable) since I don't know what it is? I'm also confused, because the content looks like it is describing "Ittehad-e-Tanzeemat-e-Madaris Deeni" not "Wafaq ul Madaris Al Salafiyyah". Thanks for the assistance! Ryan Vesey 16:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A Google news search might help, but it left me wondering what the difference between this and Wafaq ul Madaris Al-Arabia, Pakistan is. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a seminary and from what I find Wafaq ul Madaris Al Salafiyyah is different from Wafaq ul Madaris Al-Arabia. Both are Federation of seminaries. I am not sure about its notability but here are some sources that may be useful: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. From these sources I don't think it is conglomerate of those listed institutes in the article, rather it itself is a chain of seminaries of only Ahl al-Hadith faction. --SMS ^Talk 16:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The image to the right is used in Khattak; we've had problems in the past with users creating "ethnic flags" out of thin air, and this appears to be one of those. Is anyone familiar with this alleged flag, or is this just something an enthusiast made up? If it is not a historically-attested Khattak flag, it shouldbe removed, or else we are simply deceiving readers. I have left a comment at the uploaders Talk page as well. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO this flag is original research of the editor who uploaded it. The flag's history here shows that it was changed remarkably one month after it was uploaded first time. This flag more looks like of some Islamic/Jihadi organization. --SMS ^Talk 08:17, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

That does appear to be the case; I note the Wikimedia category for four such flags is http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Imaginary_flags_of_Pashtun_tribes . Given that, any objections from anyone as to just removing all four from each tribe article? They would be fine for a fansite or personal webpage, but if they're an individual person's original work, there's not a legitimate reason to have them on Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:02, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comment is elicited at an WP:RfC on the article Caste. The tertiary sources are largely agreed that Hindu India is central to a discussion of caste. Yet in the article Caste, India is casually mentioned as just one example. Does this article minimize that central role (in a social and historical ill) and thereby engage in a kind of defensive universalism, not to mention original research and synthesis?

Here is the link to the RfC: Talk:Caste#RfC:_Does_the_article_minimize_the_centrality_of_India_to_the_notion_of_caste.3F. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I came across Chaghar Matti today and noticed it's in very bad shape. I would try to clean it up, but I'm not familiar with the subject matter. Are there any kind volunteers here who would be able to take a look at this article and perhaps help get it into better shape? 28bytes (talk) 02:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I have tried to do some clean up but the article is still in bad shape, most of information is unsourced and needs to be copy edited. The only source in the article "Report of the regular settlement of the Peshawar district of the Punjab (1878)" by Edward George G . Hastings only has a passing mention of this village. I have also tried to look for more sources but couldn't find a reliable source that can be added here. Besides I find User:Librarianuet is adding this unsourced info to the article, need to advice him. --SMS ^Talk 17:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Smsarmad, thank you very much for the work you've done so far on it. It's certainly moving in the right direction. 28bytes (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

While looking at Category:Articles with missing files I discovered that the Pakistan-sports-venue-stub template had a missing image. The one currently used is Nat Std01.JPG which does not exist. If someone here can change the image, it will help clear out the Articles with missing files. Also, this stub template seems to be missing from your list of templates. Thanks Tobyc75 (talk) 23:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Zimdara and Kumbar are presently redirects to Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. They were formerly articles claiming their subjects to be "markets and villages" in that province. The redirects have been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 10#Zimdara where your comments would be most welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

file:General Akhtar abdur rahman.jpg has been nominated for deletion as being unsourced -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Please could someone who knows the area merge the two articles about the same town Khoi Ratta and Khuiratta? --Bejnar (talk) 05:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

They have been running in parallel for five years, since 10 October 2007 when Khoi Ratta was created, just after Khuiratta was created on 17 September 2007‎. Khuiratta seems to be the preferred name, 10 hits on Google scholar, compared to one, possibly two for Khoi Ratta. Also geonames uses Khuiratta. --Bejnar (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are so many name missing from the List of Urdu-language writers; for example Jamila Hashmi, Saira Hashmi and others.

As I have corrected the list according to writer's last name (surname), I request whoever adds new names must restrict to the format.

The List of Urdu-language poets is arranged by their date of births, it should be rearranged to an alphabetical order like the List of Urdu-language writers.Oaagha (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I have removed names that don't have an article on Wikipedia per notability concerns, if you find these people notable, kindly write an article satisfying Wikipedia's Notability guideline related to biographies. --SMS ^Talk 17:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Utah supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)