Talk:Afghanistan–Pakistan relations/Archive 1

Request move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan–Pakistan relations → Afghanistan – Pakistan relations — Standard format. EasternAryan (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from WP:RM. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 01:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as per WP:EMDASH. There is no spaces when the two elements are single word names.--Labattblueboy (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis is actually an en dash. But it still has no spaces there. Are you sure this is standard format? Any policy or guideline you can point out to us? --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as noted above by Labattblueboy "There is no spaces when the two elements are single word names". Pahari Sahib 00:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:DASH is clear on this. I am confused by the suggestion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum I have reverted several such moves by EasternAryan. I assume that he has misinterpreted the purpose of ndashes and the way they are styled on Wikipedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Country comparison

Could you stop deleting the table? No valid reason has been provided as to why the information is being removed; Mar4d (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making up lies because I didn't delete the table. I placed it down at the bottom because the article should start with the history as usual, see other examples: Malaysia – United States relations, Indonesia – United States relations, India–Indonesia relations.--AlimNaz (talk) 16:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were deleting some of the information in the table. I advise you to let it stay as it is, and not tamper with it. Mar4d (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GDP

I have not seen any indication in a reliable, published source that states Afghanistan's national military expenditures totalling $11 billion. That figure seems dubious and can't possibly be 1.8 or 1.9% of the GDP either, because then Afghanistan would have to be one of the world's twenty largest spenders on military and its GDP would have to be around $580 billion, not $15 billion. 1.9% of the current GDP equals between $250 and $270 million; this is also supported in the List of countries by military expenditures. Mar4d (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military expenditure

Instead of removing the figure, could you provide a source to support the new military expenditure for Afghanistan? This source verifies the expenditure to be $250 million as of 2009, which is 1.8% of GDP. Mar4d (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Afghan military started from few 1,000s active soldiers in 2003 to 160,000 now, and NATO (mainly USA) is paying for them from U.S. Dept. of Defense budget. I'm sure it's over $1 billion, I'm going find out.--Jorge Koli (talk) 09:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's a billion, I find it very hard to believe that as 1.8% of the Afghan GDP (economy) or the actual amount itself. In fact, I just checked the List of countries by military expenditures and was surprised to find that someone had updated Afghanistan's military expenditure from $250 million a couple of months ago (see my comment above) to over $11 billion! How is that possible? The source that the whole table is using in that whole article is the one I gave above, and it shows the figure to be $250 million in 2009. I have also just realised that this is exactly the same figure that you inserted a couple of months ago in the table here. So, are you the one who changed the statistics on the list? Apparently, I am not the only one who is doubting your stats. See the comments at Talk:List of countries by military expenditures#Unbelievable whopping military spending for some countries.. -- Mar4d (talk) 10:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add the $11 billion, that's too high, and I don't come to Wikipedia to do these things. I understand your point on the $250 million and the 1.9% Afghan GDP, but I think it's more since the US Department of Defense is funding the Afghan military from their own budget. This may be temporary but they didn't explain for how many years NATO will pay the Afghan military, a recent report suggested that it could last until 2025. Think we should just avoid putting the amount for now until we clarify it.--Jorge Koli (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this latest Pajhwok Afghan News report: "Wardak said a full-fledged national security force, including army and police, would account for about $5 billion a year after the withdrawal of foreign troops in 2014.

"At the present level of the security environment we are facing, it will be about $5 billion a year."
— Abdul Rahim Wardak, Afghan Defense Minister

I know we can't use this figure but it's just to show you that the $250 million is far below than the actual amount spent, and yes Wardak included the Afghan National Police in the $5 billion but anyway you look at it my $1 billion is more realistic than the current $250 million shown.--Jorge Koli (talk) 07:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This mentions "Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 funding level: 11.6b", and I think whoever added the $11 billion probably got the estimate from here.--Jorge Koli (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:June 2011 special visit of Karzai to Pakistan-5.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:June 2011 special visit of Karzai to Pakistan-5.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:June 2011 special visit of Karzai to Pakistan-5.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:June 2011 special visit of Karzai to Pakistan-2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:June 2011 special visit of Karzai to Pakistan-2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:June 2011 special visit of Karzai to Pakistan-2.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Afghanistan–Pakistan relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Afghanistan–Pakistan relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]