Talk:Pakistan/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Comment

I am an Indian and I am visiting this page. For the record, I am completely against the vandalism of the Pakistani page. Wikipedia is not a place to make political statements, go to internet blogs/forums if you want to give your opinion. Not to mention, when you do make a modification to the page, please ensure that you use proper grammar and spelling otherwise you will come across as uninformed and/or unintelligent. However, think carefully before you post your opinion, remember that we were once a part of the same country before. If an Indian is doing this, take into consideration that the actions a Pakistani leader took may not have been what all the people of Pakistan wanted.This unsigned comment was left by User:70.28.138.228.

Just a question

Somebody can put me right, but has the decision to avoid all mention of the Kashmir issue and relations with India (along with a statement of charges and counter-charges) been taken after a revert war or something? I was looking for it, and to my shock, its not even mentioned, except for a single line. Or if it is, not too prominently, I couldnt find it. Surely theres some NPOV way of mentioning the charges that are thrown around about Kashmir? It certainly belongs in an encyclopaedia article on Pakistan. Hornplease 04:35, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant text

I removed Mr. Khalid Mahmood Bhatti Helsingor's comments or rather rants from here as the topic is totally irrelevant to the purpose of this page, that is, to talk about the wikipedia article Pakistan. This is not a message board or newsgroup, so please do not put inconsistent discussion in this page. Thanks. --Ragib 01:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sikh Raj section

This section should be merged with the Pakistan in Middle Ages section. Keeping it in the current level breaks the continuity in the history section. Also, from the appearance of the content, it looks like copied and pasted from somewhere else. Anyway, I am merging it with Pakistan in middle ages section, while keeping most of the content intact. Thanks. --Ragib 15:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, some claims by the original author Thetruth (talk · contribs) seem to be unsubstantiable. For example, claims that the Sikh empire was the "first secular state in modern world" is definitely untrue, because the US and the French republic predated it by several years. Similarly, " At its peak from 1825 to 1839, the Sikh kingdom was worthy of European rivalry and was one of the most attractive destinations for many European; travellers, artists and writers who flocked to the Lahore Durbar for its style and its patronage of the arts", seems quite dubious and possibly a POV/exaggarated claim. I reworded the subsection to make it speculation/unsubstantiated claim-free, and I'd welcome the author to come up with reference to back his claims. Finally, the sections were simply cut and pasted from Khalistan which itself is disputed, so references are even more important in this case. Thanks. --Ragib 21:49, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

After SusanPowL0 (talk · contribs) reinserted the sentence on "first secular nation" issue, I looked up US constitution, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which is a part of the Bill of Rights. Textually, it prevents the U.S. Congress from infringing on six rights. These guarantees were that the Congress would not:

• Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion (the "Establishment Clause of the First Amendment")
• Prohibit the freedom of religion (the "free exercise of religion")

This supports the notion that at least the United States was a secular nation before the Sikh empire. Thanks. --Ragib 03:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I also refer to Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The US was and IS a secular country, unless the first amendment or the bill of rights are thrown out. --Ragib 03:10, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, now that the dispute seems to be over, can someone also take a look at this point, the Sikh State of early 18th century being the first secular state in the modern world? The First French Republic was secular according to this, and also the United States was a secular republic according to the US Constitution. Any comments on this? Thanks. --Ragib 05:54, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I said previously, the dispute is far from over. Please continue the discussion on whether to include support to Talibans and AQ Khan in the introduction. Your assertion of saying the dispute on that is over is completely misleading. That is not the agreement that is reached. Please refer to the last section and continue discussion there. SamTr014

I WILL reinsert the 2 lines on support to Taliban and AQ Khan if my arguments there go uncontested. SamTr014

Your arguments are indeed contested, please continue the argument in proper location not in the Sikh Raj section. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 06:09, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

• (In response to SamTr014 (talk · contribs)'s comment) Please add your comments to the appropriate section. My comment on the dispute being over refers to the comment on the last section left by admin Seth Ilys (talk · contribs). If you do not like that, add your comments there, rather than replying automatically and out of context to each and every comment from me. As for others, can you comment on the point I raised above about which is the first secular nation in modern world? Thanks. --Ragib 06:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

vandalism accusation

SamTr014 (talk · contribs) has accused my change as "Vandalism". I would suggest you talk here in the talk page before putting some possibly POV remarks on the article. I do suspect you do this due to your biased views, which are clear from your comments in the edit summary. Please refrain from any POV attitudes and rise above your religious or national affiliation while editing an article. Also come to this talk page before putting in your edits. Thanks. --Ragib 02:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You reverted my addition without contradicting the content. Facts cannot be called POV.

• Also Pakistan has come into international spotlight due to the Nuclear proliferation racket run by A Q Khan to Iran and North Korea.

Is this wrong? Also support to Talibans and Kashmiri militants is undisputed and pretty open. Do you say it didn't happen? SamTr014 03:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you continue to revert , I am quite suspicious of your actual agenda here. Would you suggest we put every sort of speculation and other information at the top level page of a country? Do I see similar wording in any other country, say India, Bangladesh, United States or otherwise? If you are hell-bent on expressing your views, please create an article like "Pakistan's link to terrorism" and link it here at the top level country page. The top level country page is not the place to vent your POV based on your national or religious origin.

And also, your wording of the disputed section is clearly POV, needs no other comments. --Ragib 03:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since I have made 3 reverts so far, I am stopping any further reverts, but I would ask for someone neutral to mediate in this issue, and stop this meaningless revert-cycle. Also a discussion in the issue is very much welcome. Thanks --Ragib 03:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its interesting that instead of attacking the facts I mention, you indulge in questioning my personal motives. Please answer the question and continue discussing the subject instead of attacking me personally. Also interesting is the fact that you do not remove pakistan playing important role in war on terror. Why not add facts in the beginning for which the country is known(famous) for? SusanPowL0 03:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is CERTAINLY interesting. I commented to SamTr014 (talk · contribs)'s edits, and I got replies from SusanPowL0 (talk · contribs). No offence, but the edit pattern and other activities do suggest multiple identities (a.k.a. Sockpuppet). I also would like to question the actual intention here, isn't your view POV? How are you certain that "Pakistan is famous for Terrorism"? Please try to be neutral. I am not a pakistani, and yet have maintained parts of this article for some time. I also had to face persons acting the opposite way, adding biased and POV comments in Pakistan's favor. Please try to rise above national and religious affiliations while editing articles. As for "why I didn't remove the line on war on Terror", I think someone put that there long ago and that line was a consensus during editing a couple of months ago. Thanks. --Ragib 03:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I got my girlfriend interested in the article, and sometimes she forgets to sign off. Any way, continuing discussion in the next section you created. SamTr014 03:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What should be in the top page of a country page?

I have discussed this here and elsewhere that a country's top level page should be free from POV comments, "facts" or other information as much as possible. Pakistan may or may not have relations with terrorists, taliban whatever, and its human rights record may be or may not be good. But that doesn't mean that that type of "information", claims or views should be vented on the top level page, even at the top paragraph. The Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries show a particular format for country level articles, and that should be followed as much as possible. For example, even Afghanistan's page do not have claims and labels in its top paragraph. Accusations of terrorism or abetting in terrorism can be made against many countries, including India, Pakistan, Bangladesh even France. That doesn't mean someone should put that type of claim in the first paragraph. Personally I do not have any stake in defending any particular country, e.g. Pakistan, I'm not even from Pakistan. My country even had a bitter independence war with Pakistan, but that doesn't mean that I should put my personal beliefs in editing/contributing to Wikipedia articles. I regret that SamTr014 (talk · contribs) has continued to add disputable claims or "facts" at the top of the article. I am not against the issue of dissemination of facts. Pakistan's possible links can and should be put at articles titled "Terrorism support by Pakistan" or similar, but continuous insistence on putting the "Pakistan is a terrorit country" label at the very beginning of the article is not the way wikipedia should be written. Thanks. --Ragib 03:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph SHOULD include what the country is best known for. The facts I mention are the the ones for which pakistan is best known for today. So they have to be included in the first paragraph and no reason to make them obscure. Also stop attacking me personally. Thanks SamTr014 03:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think there are a lot more people who would disagree with your notion that Pakistan is known for "being a terrorist country" etc etc. By your notion, anyone can claim country X is known for atrocity Y, based on personal conviction. That doesn't make that view universal or a "fact". I am not attacking you personally. But it seems that you are quite stuck to that notion, and not willing to give in to discussion. Please see POV, and wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. Thanks. --Ragib 03:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When did I ever say that "Pakistan is a terrorist country". I am only saying that Pakistan is as much known for the support to taliban as for playing the central role in the war on terror. Agree? There is no reason to include the later and exclude the former. SamTr014 04:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, here is a hypothetical situation, should the main level article for the United States start with "The US is known for the killing of native americans"? Or India should start with, "India is known for riots"? Both statements here can have "facts" associated with them, but the issue is, is that "fact" or claim the single most important factor about the country? Looking into common precendent in Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries, and other country level articles, I do not see such statements, "facts", claims put in the first page of any article. That is my point. I am not disputing your "fact" or claims. You can write up articles on the topic to your heart's content, and put a reference in see also section. You are assuming that your view ("Pakistan is known across the world for supporting terrorists) is the only view held by all people of the world. That is what a POV is, and that is what Wikipedias Neutral point of view policy tries to avoid. As for the line on support for war on terror, I didn't put it there, and it had been there for a couple of months or so. Removing that should be just fine in my opinion. I reiterate, the top level article for any country should be brief, consist of facts and not POV ... or claims about "best known for its support to terrorists". Thanks. --Ragib 04:12, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then why did you remove just the mention of support to taliban and kept role played in war on terror?. Why didn't you remove both if you claim to be a neutral person and attack me for being biased? SamTr014 04:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I DID remove both comments in my first edit today, but hey, it was *you* who accused me of vandalism. Please refer to this diff. [1]. The article is protected now, but I will remove the "war on terrorism" sentence when it becomes unprotected. Anyway, you still have not been able to justify the POV that "Pakistan is known for X", x being this or that. Wikipedia's Neutral point of view is a good thing and possibly the main factor in keeping an encyclopedia neutral and credible. Thanks. --Ragib 04:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see. I accused you of vandalism because you removed the text without arguing about its validity. You say I haven't justified certain claims. So which of the two sentences you say are invalid and I need to justify? 1)Also Pakistan has come into international spotlight due to the Nuclear proliferation racket run by A Q Khan to Iran and North Korea. 2)Pakistan became known in the west after 9/11 for its support for the Islamic fundamentalist groups like Talibans and Kashmiri Militants. I included these two sentences because I saw the other things mentioned too, such as "war on terror". SamTr014 05:04, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, lets see, am I too confusing in my words? I have no judgement on your 2 sentences, my point being these are only 2 among a thousand other factors for which Pakistan is "famous for". Lets see, Pakistan is famous for Mohenjo-daro, famous for Cricket, has become known in the west long time ago as a country with many many dictators etc etc etc. I could just go on and on and on. Don't you see my point? Also, I can easily show you that your point is not valid. For ecxample, Pakistan has been in the spotlight ever since its existence and its wars with India. And please show an opinion poll or other statistics that validate your claims that people didn't know of pakistan before and only know because of the 2 facts you mentioned. As I said, there are many many things a country is known for, and it is fallacious to be adamant that your claim is the only one, and one so important that it HAS to be mentioned whenever you write the introductory paragraph of a country's page. You had put the same argument last month about insistence on adding several sections on Pakistan's human rights record, and other issues. I am sorry to say that from your edit history, it seems that you may have a personal grudge against Pakistan, and hence the POV. I am not affliated with Pakistan and have even wrote sections of Pakistani history remarking on the Atrocities committed by Pakistani Army during the Bangladesh Liberation War. But still my personal grudge doesn't mean I should write "Pakistan is known for killing 3 million Bengalis in 1971". That is a fact, but that is not what is relevant in the top level page of a country. There are appropriate sections to mention that, which I did. And there are appropriate sections for mentioning Pakistan's relation to militants, and that is where you should put your comments/claims/facts, not on the top paragraph where the country is introduced. Now, does my point make sense to you or would you still stick to "my-claim-is-what-everyone-MUST-believe-so-put-it-in-the first-paragraph" attitude? Certainly that's not what I am disputing. Thanks. --Ragib 05:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You seem to have habituated of calling people biased if they don't agree with you. Please do not indulge in personal flamewars and try to stick to the subject. You never contradict the facts and cannot argue logically which I find frustrating. Let me copy again what I wrote before: 'You say I haven't justified certain claims. So which of the two sentences you say are invalid and I need to justify? 1)Also Pakistan has come into international spotlight due to the Nuclear proliferation racket run by A Q Khan to Iran and North Korea. 2)Pakistan became known in the west after 9/11 for its support for the Islamic fundamentalist groups like Talibans and Kashmiri Militants. I included these two sentences because I saw the other things mentioned too, such as "war on terror".

So you are saying we need to produce statistics for every single sentence? Just ask people around you what Pakistan is known for today. SamTr014 05:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Note, the above comment signature changed from SusanPowL0 to SamTr014).

Sorry, I was talking to SamTr014 (talk · contribs). I am quite confused, two users, both replying to the same dialog !! (sockpuppet alert!!!). Please use only one account to answer, and refrain from using the Fake sockpuppet accounts. Anyway, I made my point fair and clear. You do not get my point, see above for whatever that is. To remind you again, "Please do not put speculation and claims in the top level paragraph of country articles". By speculations I refer to your claim that people know Pakistan for your 2 "facts"/claims. The validity of the two points Isn't my point clear yet? Or do you want a "1000 things Pakistan is known for" list at the top paragraph? Certainly even a small sample population of 10 people would disagree on what Pakistan is known for, so you can't point out ONE single issue at the top of the page. Thanks. --Ragib 05:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This increases my suspicion that you don't even read replies to your 'arguments'. quoting from the paragraph above. I got my girlfriend interested in the article, and sometimes she forgets to sign off. Any way, continuing discussion in the next section you created. SamTr014 03:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SamTr014 06:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I copied and pasted the paragraph was not that I wanted you to dispute the claims or I thought so. I just wanted you to continue the argument you started (You wanted me to justify something). CLEAR YET?? SamTr014 06:11, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, it is impossible for others to see when the identities switch between you and the other user, and why the same thing happens again and again. But I would take your word for it on why the same thing happened again. Thanks. --Ragib 06:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

• This discussion is turning into a dialogue, so I would invite neutral mediators, possibly Administrators and others (not sockpuppets, though)to look into the discussion. I rest my case based on arguments placed above, namely my objection against putting unprovable speculation about the "reason country famous for" in the top paragraph of country articles in Wikipedia. Until then, I stop my part of the "dialogue" .Thanks. --Ragib 06:14, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

'The unprovable speculations about the "reason country famous for" in the top paragraph of country articles' are 1)Also Pakistan has come into international spotlight due to the Nuclear proliferation racket run by A Q Khan to Iran and North Korea. 2)Pakistan became known in the west after 9/11 for its support for the Islamic fundamentalist groups like Talibans and Kashmiri Militants. I do think these are extremely important and need to be in the introduction. Ragib certainly don't. SamTr014 06:22, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been viewing this page recently and Sam I have to say that Ragib is absolutely right when he does not include this information in the article. For example, thats like writing in the first paragraph of the USA article that the US is a country that has started all the recent wars, supports dictatorships and enjoys bombing countries for their own economy. What you wrote is highly POV and the fact that you think that international spotlight came on Pakistan only because of these incedents means that you have nothing more than an anti-Pakistan POV. This is not needed in the intro of the article. --Anonymous editor 06:33, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sam. The sentences correctly point out what Pakistan is known for today. Ragib's attempt to make these two points obscure are regrettable. The sentences MUST be included. 24.126.17.155 06:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but I would want to know if this was yet another identity being switched, because the history listing of the article on Pakistan show a clear transition between SamTr014 (talk · contribs),SusanPowL0 (talk · contribs), and 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs), the similarity in comments left in edit summaries and that in the past (On May 21, 2005) , similar "coincidentally" consecutive edits have been done by SamTr014 (talk · contribs) and 24.126.17.155 (talk · contribs). I again say I may be wrong, but such "accidentally" consecutive edits and almost similar type of edit summary comments do indicate a single user. Sorry if I was wrong. Thanks. --Ragib 06:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I ofcourse agree with Sam. Why hide what Pakistan did? Especially an act that is so important and so relevant today? Add the two lines. SusanPowL0 06:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In this case, how are we sure that this is a different user, after frequent the switching of identities between SamTr104 (talk · contribs) and SusanPowL0 (talk · contribs) that occurred in the previous sections of the talk?. --Ragib 07:02, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I cannot agree more with SamTr014 and the other two commentators. Ragib's attempt to hide things is condemnable. Add the statements. 128.125.20.94 06:55, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam did tell me to comment here. Anything wrong with that? See above. SusanPowL0 07:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SAM, please stop talking to yourself. This is a serious issue. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:21, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

RFC:What should be in the top page of a country page?

I have listed the dispute at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. I hope that will bring some neutral and "actual" users to the discussion. Thanks. --Ragib

It should never go into the section, let alone the first sentence, what a country is best know for. This is only a comment, and the facts should go first. In addition, the question by whom? comes to mind. Also for reasons of consistency of country articles, these should start with a semi-standardized intro, giving the basic facts. --Pjacobi 09:03, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

I agree completely with Pjacobi. In addition, saying that Pakistan is known for terrorism shows US or, more generally, Western bias. Surely Indians, British people or the Pakistani themselves would also think of very different things. It's probably best to avoid mentioning such sensitive and subjective judgments in the lead paragraph. Imagine if we started the article Germany with 'Germany is best known for murdering six million Jews'! Even if it's true it doesn't belong in the intro. Of course you need a substantial section on terrorism, but as I understand it that's not the issue here. Junes 10:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed - "Susan"/"Sam" appears to be a POV warrior. (Perhaps from India, Im guessing.) India by the way "is best known" for its curries, slums, and relgious extremism. :) -SV|t 21:46, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are not from India, but no points for guessing where you come from. SamTr014 23:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC) So you think its a POV? Strange that nobody including you disputed the validity of these lines, some only said its inappropriate for the sections. SamTr014 00:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Pjacobi, Junes, and Stevertigo; "is best known" sentences are inappropriate, and probably original research to boot - is there a poll that shows that a plurality of the 5 billion people in the world know Pakistan for this? Further, I'd argue that the slightly more neutral sentence "In recent years, Pakistan has been playing an important role as an ally of the United States in the "War on Terrorism"." that is currently at the end of the intro para in the protected version also does not belong. Aside from a long-running, stable relationship, describing a country in the intro section in terms of its relationship with another is both non-neutral and inappropriate. Here, it is evidence of strong US-centric bias, wherein countries are described in terms of their links to the US. CDC (talk) 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no "best known for" sentence! in the first place. I too think "best known for" is inapproprate. What I propose to include in the intro section, along with "major role in war on terror" (which is included already!) is these two lines. Ragib's assertion that I want to have the article open with these lines is a lie. I just want to have these in the opening paragraph. Thats all. 1)Also Pakistan has come into international spotlight due to the Nuclear proliferation racket run by A Q Khan to Iran and North Korea. 2)Pakistan became known in the west after 9/11 for its support for the Islamic fundamentalist groups like Talibans and Kashmiri Militants. These two should follow the assertion that Pakistan is playing a major role in war on terror(which is included by the way). SamTr014 23:47, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In response to Junes, part of what you may be saying is the very crucial point that we must not confuse a regime or government/administration with the country, or more importantly, the nation/people its geographically contiguous with or proports to represent; moreover, for instance, the validity of such representation may be a majority only by a small margin. ~ Dpr 07:04, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I just wanted to stop by and give my input. Someone earlier suggested that facts can't be POV. This isn't exactly true. While facts themselves may not be POV, the inclusion of certain facts and their prominence can be POV. I think that subjective statements shouldn't really be included in the first paragraph of an article such as this. Some people may know Pakistan for their nuclear program. Some may know it for its role in the US "war on terror". Some may know it for harboring/supporting the Taliban. Some may know it as the country involved in the dispute with India over Kashmir. Some may know it as the country with some really tall mountains. It's hard to say. So, don't say. Mention the relevant facts in the first paragraph, but leave the subjective stuff for presentation later in the article. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 07:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Having been asked to come give my opinion, I just want to second what Kmccoy said. While I suspect the assertion that is being put into this article is quite true, and could probably go into the article somewhere, it is not neutral to put it in the first sentence. Something like Australia's (The Commonwealth of Australia is the sixth-largest country in the world by area) or Canada's (Canada is a country in North America, the northern-most in the world and the second largest in area), I suspect would be more appropriate. Ambi 08:26, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The notion that Pakistan is best known for supporting terrorism is very odd, and sounds like someone generalising rather wildly from her own (somewhat limited) knowledge. It's astonishing that there should even be a debate about this; such a sentence anywhere in the article would be unacceptable (being unverifiable personal research at best, but in fact almost certainly false (and PoV). The idea that the article should start with it... words fail me. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:28, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • To be fair, there seems to be some misunderstanding as to the nature of the proposed changes. As can be seen in SamTr014's comments, the sentences do not say 'best known'. Also, the article is not supposed to start with them, although they're supposed to be in the introduction. Still, it's not acceptable IMHO. Junes 11:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes. To be honest, I had trouble following his comment, so skipped over it. Going back to read it with your comment in mind, I can see what he meant. I still think that the material shouldn't be included in the article, much less the first paragraph. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan has a military dictatorship, possesses a stockpile of WMD openly, has proliferated them openly to renegade countries, has openly supported radical islamist groups. Its a unique country which has done it all. Is it not? It should come through clearly. Thats all I want. SamTr014 20:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, so I suppose that the United States article should note that the U.S. has recently become widely known internationally as a country widely regarded as being renegade and possessing a stockpile of WMD openly, has openly supported vicious dictatorships and violent terrorist groups, which has illegally invaded Iraq, has flouted the Geneva convention, including torturing prisoners, has instituted draconian domestic laws that run roughshod over human rights, and that it executes minors (I believe that Saudi Arabia does the same, so the U.S. isn't completely unique, it's true — but at least it's unique among Western states). No? I assure that it is widely known for all those things, and more, and that they're all claims that can be and have been backed up by numerous citations. Should they appear in the introduction? Should they be emphasised in the article? Or should we forget all this xenophobia and naive politicking, and get back to writing an encyclopædia? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You level so many charges on the US that its hard to take seriously. The last one especially, putting US and Saudis on the same plane on human rights issue is ridiculous. SamTr014

Opinions

I don't think that the statment about Pakistan supporting the Taliban or being associated with terrorism should be put in the fist paragraph. For the same reason I don't think mentioning Pakistan's support the War on Terrorism should be in the first paragraph either. IMHO, the first paragraph should only include a basic overview of the country as you would with any other article otherwise I consider it a POV. Falphin 16:30, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one. Perhaps the "War on terrorism" should be put in recent events. I am against writing large portions on support for the Taliban; that is not needed. The United states supported the Taliban too during Soviet invasions, perhaps that should be put into the first paragraph of the USA article? Ofcourse not, that belongs separated and briefed - perhaps in history-related section of this article. --Anonymous editor 17:02, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Its a progress that you agree that the statements are true. (You said "US supported Taliban TOO"). Also the validity of AQ Khan racket should go undisputed. Do you think they are not significant or relevant today? Pakistan has a military dictatorship, possess stockpile of WMD openly, has proliferated them openly to renegade countries, has openly supported radical islamist groups. Its a unique country. Is it not? It should come through clearly. Thats all I want. SamTr014 20:58, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

SamTr014 please learn some history. What I said was during the SOVIET invasions meaning Afghanistan. Both the US and Pakistan helped the Afghans (including Taliban) fight against the soviets during the soviet invasions. My statement has nothing to do with the current situation now. What you don't understand is that there is no place for your anti-Pakistan point of view in the article and you fail to understand what does and does not belong in first paragraph of the article. This is similar to saying UK got international attention with the mad cow scare, maybe we should start the UK article off like that? USA, Russia, UK, Israel, India, etc. also possess stockpile of WMDs openly, also every country in the world has had many situations that put them "into the spotlight" and makes them "unique", does that mean we should start off all of these articles that way??? Failure to understand is the difference between you and other editors of this article. --Anonymous editor 21:17, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

The things I mention are a LOT more significant and relevant today than the mad cow disease, and hence pakistan cannot be compared to anybody else. SamTr014 21:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We never recognised Talibans, let alone supporting them. We never had their embassy or ambassador. US may have TOLERATED pakistani support to the talibans during that period, thats all. Don't put US and pakistan in the same league on that. SamTr014 21:35, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please go learn some history. The US was the larger supporter of the Afghans including the Talibans when they were fighting against the Soviets. Pakistan was involved in the war as it was its neighbor country being attacked. I thought one could look at the map and realize that. The fact that you think the things you mention are more relevant is your own personal POV and therefore gives other editors more ground not to incorporate that into the article. Every country has had its moment that put it into the "spotlight" somewhat; that does not mean that the opening paragraph has to say that. --Anonymous editor 23:00, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Before advising me to learn my history, please produce sources which say US recognized/supported taliban regime. I would like to know which school teaches this kind of history. Pakistan on the other hand not just recognized and supported taliban regime, they infact trained and armed them! My earlier remarks are right on the mark. We tolerated it that time. SamTr014 23:40, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC) Thanks for admitting that Pakistan was involved and did support the taliban regime.SamTr014 23:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I never denied anything, you assumed I did. I was arguing against your extreme POV against Pakistan and speculation about how it came into the "spotlight". Now about US support, this is from our own Afghanistan article on Wikipedia:

"In August 1978 the American government commenced funding anti-government mujahideen forces with the intention of drawing the Soviets into intervention; with the government in danger of collapse, the Soviet Union intervened on December 24, 1979. Faced with mounting international pressure and losses of approximately 15,000 Soviet soldiers as a result of mujahideen opposition trained by the United States, Pakistan, and other foreign governments, the Soviets withdrew ten years later in 1989. For more details, see Soviet invasion of Afghanistan."

The mujahideen (freedom-fighters) were many Afghans including the Taliban. There you go, my friend, I hope you are happy that my previous point has been proven. Now maybe you can move on and productively edit the article rather than make speculations and insert POV. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:57, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Funny that even the best cition you could come up with does not say US recognized and directly supported TALIBANS. SamTr014 00:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Funny that you still deny it, when my quick citation clearly says that the US TRAINED the Afghan opposition which includes the TALIBAN. Read the Afghanistan article for yourself. Surely even training is supporting, everyone knows that. Please read correctly before trying to make personal attacks. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 00:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think I wrote talibans in capitals? SamTr014

There you go, look up to my last response. I didn't think you needed this much clarification to understand. Now maybe we can move on.--Anonymous editor 00:19, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? I repeat, why do you think I wrote talibans in capitals? SamTr014

Getting off track

It seems to me that the discussion is getting slightly off track. While this may be an important discussion to have, it's one to have when the page isn't protected. The key issue right now is to try to find a way to stop the edit war that caused an admin to protect the page. It sounds to me like there are two controversial statements in the first paragraph of the article -- one listing Pakistan as an ally of the US in the war on terror, and one listing Pakistan as a country that proliferates nuclear weapons and a recent supporter of the Taliban. Could the solution be to just remove both statements? Maybe find a few benign facts to beef up the intro, but facts which aren't controversial? Or maybe just leave it without either statement, just end with "and the OIC"? Then the page could be unprotected and further discussion can be held here as to where that information may be best presented later in the article. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 00:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries (which cites Netherlands as a good country article), and it suggests for the intro section this:

The article should start with a good introduction, giving name of the country, location in the world, bordering countries, seas and the like. Also give other names by which the country may still be known (for example Holland, Persia). Also, add a few facts about the country, the things that it is known for (for example the mentioning of windmills in the Netherlands article).

Looking at the Netherlands article itself, it says:

The Netherlands is one of the most densely populated and geographically low-lying countries in the world (its name literally means "Low-lands") and is famous for its dikes, windmills, wooden shoes, tulips, bicycles and perceived social tolerance. Its liberal policies are often mentioned abroad.

So, the things it cites are neither controversial nor "in the news" type of statements. I doubt that section is updated during a trial at The Hague to say that it is "well-known for the trial of Mr. Johnson, the alleged war criminal", or whatever. Maybe what I jokingly said earlier about mountains would be a good thing to mention. Or something similar. It just seems like if a statement is controversial to the point of creating an edit war, it should go later in the article in a section devoted to that topic -- if a topic is that controversial, a single sentence can't possibly sum it up. How can we find a consensus so that we can get this article unprotected? kmccoy (talk) 01:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe that is a good policy for all types of articles, thanks for researching into it. Falphin 03:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree to Kmccoy's point, that a top level page for a country should start with standard things, and not anything that may be considered a POV. The debate started on the sole point on adding the unnecessary "facts"/opinions on the first paragraph. While the Pakistani association with Taliban may or may not be true, (I do not have any judgement or opinion on that), raising that issue as "known for" in the first paragraph introducing the country is incorrect, and not a good thing. My opinion is that country-level articles in any encyclopedia should not sound as a partisan news coverage, any association with any sort of regime, or any alliance with other countries can be placed in the history section or appropriate places elsewhere in the article. The edit war is an unfortunate thing, and it is regrettable that resulted in the article being protected. I completely agree that the two sentences on the "ally in war of terror" and "supporter of Taliban" both do not count as "important" facts to present in the top page. I think the majority opinion so far has been so, and using the standard policy for country-level articles should be followed always. I would urge SamTr014 to continue his edits according to the established standards, if links to taliban need to be mentioned, ample opportunity to do that is to create an article titled "Terrorist links to Pakistan" or something like that, and place a link to the article with a small summary in the history section's-subsection of Pakistan. It seems the majority opinion is also in favor of this. Thanks everyone for their neutral opinion, and I just hope this article would be NPOV and unprotected pretty soon once we get over this. Thanks. --Ragib 03:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting that Ragib wouldn't even agree that the two lines I mention are true after all this discussion! Lets discuss validity of the lines first in that case. SamTr014

Sam, the article is sitting protected due to an edit war. Articles being protected are generally harmful to the wiki process (see m:protected pages are considered harmful.) In order to unprotect the page, I'm proposing that we remove the references which seemed to be in dispute (the one about Pakistan being an ally in the war on terror and the ones about it supporting the taliban and such, and any other versions of those) from the intro paragraph and agree not to revert those until a consensus is reached on this page as to what statements should be included in the intro paragraph. Does this sound like an okay proposal? Please address this issue FIRST, before moving back to a discussion of the truth value of the controversial statements. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 04:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please read above where I wrote -

While the Pakistani association with Taliban may or may not be true, (I do not have any judgement or opinion on that)

Where part do you see where I say the lines are not true? I said may or may not, and also that I am not in denial or in favor of these sentences, and have no judgement on that. Also, the issue at stake here is whether these sort of "information" can be placed in the first paragraph of a country-level page, and in that matter, most of the people has opined negatively. Do not get off-track in the discussion. Almost all of the neutral commentators have commented in favor of keeping the top paragraph and lead section of the article free of such comments, and you have so far not shown anything to establish why we should move away from established convention and precedent in wikipedia in case of Pakistan. If you are so incensed about the information, is it too difficult to create an article on that and add a short summary in the history/current affairs section of the main article, rather than continuing the argument over and over here? I have mentioned earlier that my association with Pakistan has been only to keep it NPOV and conformant to Wikipedia:Wikiproject Countries, and I hope this country level article would be treated just as any other country level articles, without any bias to any particular ideology. In case my call for conformance is still "interesting", I would refer to the comments of the other users in this RFC. Since they all more or less opined the same, why pick on me only? Thanks. --Ragib 05:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personal charges leveled on me by Ragib of having a bias or picking on him are regrettable. I have been patiently replying to all the users who disagree with me. SamTr014 05:11, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

kmaccoy's suggestion is fine by me, the line about the war on terror (which already got in, inspite of Ragib's continuous vigil) should be removed and the article unprotected. But the discussion on this issue should continue. SamTr014 04:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

Just for clearing the record, the line you mentioned (on "war on terror",that "got in, inspite of my vigil") was added, in a different wording, on June 4, by anon user 203.130.13.242 (talk · contribs). See Diff The line was reverted by ESkog (talk · contribs) in the next edit. The line was reinserted in its current form by Falphin (talk · contribs) in this edit. After the suspiciously similar edits by 3 users, I removed the top paragraph additions, including both the assertions in question ("war on terror" and "taliban, 9/11 links") in this edit, with an edit summary "POV, please discuss your view in talk page, not on the top level page of a country article". However These edits were marked as "vandalism" by User:SamTr014 and reverted in the next edit. Here is the story in brief. --Ragib 05:34, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

As some sort of resolution appears to have been reached by the disputants, Pakistan has been unprotected. - Seth Ilys 05:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I haven't added the lines as I promised until we finish the discussion here. I think the article on Pakistan could open differently than the article on Netherlands since the two nations are vastly different in almost every respect. Lets settle first what Pakistan is known for today and then see whether it is appropriate to have it in the opening paragraph or not. Name two things that come to your mind when I mention Pakistan. I urge everybody to drop a line or two. SamTr014 18:19, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are serious logical problem with your "Name two things" idea, and "vastly different". Why should we create separate standards for different countries? Please justify the "proposed" double standard. Then again, "Name two things", is arguably a bad idea and a potential seed-bed for POV. Can you go ask even 100 people and get a better picture? Then even if you can do that, it would reflect what people know at that particular day/month/year. An encyclopedia is not a news paper, showing current headlines at the top. And double standards in country level articles are not good either. Thanks. --Ragib 18:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controversial section

Okay, here are the many problems with the section that SamTr014 wants to add. The section should not be included until DISPUTES ARE RESOLVED:

• "Pakistan is the only country which supported Taliban fighters." - When exactly did Pakistan support Taliban fighters aside from soviet invasion of Afghanistan in which the US supported them too.
• "Pakistan had taliban embassador till taliban were crushed by US led coalition." - Obviously this is not a professional statement ("crushed"?)
• "Pakistan continued to support Kasmiri militants by training them and arming them." - Highly controversial and must be acknowledged as an allegation by India, one that Pakistan strongly denies.
• "In 1994, Mulla Omar, the Taliban leader fled to the neighboring Balochistan province of Pakistan, from where he emerged in the fall of 1994, reportedly with a well-armed and well-funded militia of 1,500 followers, who would provide protection for a Pakistani trade convoy carrying goods overland to Turkmenistan. However, many reports suggest that the convoy was in fact full of Pakistani fighters posing as Taliban, and that the Taliban had gained considerable arms, military training, and economic aid from the Pakistanis.Talibans" - Completely unsourced, unverifiable, and most of all, the history/events concerning the Taliban clearly does NOT belong in the Pakistan article. Almost sounds like a highly twisted story about an event.

Hopefully these issues are resolved so this article is not locked again. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 06:24, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

An important first step is to stop reverting. Editors on both sides absolutely need to stop reverting. The only way to find a compromise is to edit towards it. How can we solve this? Anonymous Editor, do you think that Pakistan should have absolutely no mention of the Taliban? Sam, could you maybe find some references for the Taliban involvement in Pakistan? kmccoy (talk) 06:27, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse not. I just think that the proper issues with this section should be addressed, rather than inserting POV, and the history/events of a movement (the Taliban) needs to be in the Taliban article not in a country (Pakistan) one. Also recently disputed issues between countries should be avoided. The Taliban can be mentioned in a minor, accurate, and NPOV manner. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 06:30, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Then, let's address them. Try giving an example of a section about the Taliban's involvement in Pakistan which you would find acceptable, and where it would fit in the article. kmccoy (talk) 08:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please don't blank the section without any reason. It is vandalism. Most of the text is from wikipedia Taliban article. It is extensively discussed, sourced there.SamTr014

Sam, Anonymous editor gave plenty of reason. To insist that he's blanking without reason is disingenuous. You may not agree with his reasons, but he left a clear edit summary and then explained his objections on the talk page. Calling it vandalism is not only inaccurate, it serves to drop the civility level in this discussion. kmccoy (talk) 08:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• The edit war is getting ridiculously out of hand, I think the article needs either protection or detailed involvement of administrators. Both of the above parties involved here are getting involved in violation of 3RR. I suggest a multi-way discussion on this, like one that at least partly resolved the previous issue of the starting paragraph. Thanks. --Ragib 06:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, with due respect, I would ask King1 (talk · contribs) to verify that s/he is not a sockpuppet of SamTr104 (talk · contribs), because several occasions in the past, both their edits, and also edits from a particular IP address occurred in a suspiciously consecutive manner, and resulting in similar/identical edits to texts of different articles. I am sorry if I am wrong, but clarification of the matter doesn't hurt, right? Thanks. --Ragib 07:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, please note that I have not violated 3rr while user Sam has violated it and was attempting to use one of his sockpuppets to make further POV additons to the sections he added. These 2 sections are highly disputed, unverifiable and unneeded and should be removed from the protected article. I am hoping that admin can remove this from the article in its protected state. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 07:04, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Clearly the sections are wanted by some editors. Can we find a compromise, perhaps a rewording of the sections? See my comment above. kmccoy (talk) 08:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm looking some at the sections some more. It seems that some of the information might certainly be included in the recent history of Pakistan. Their relationship with the Taliban is certainly noteworthy. I'm not sure that it warrants an entire section. Also, the wording itself needs to be cleaned up, both for NPOV and for grammar. But there is no mention of the Taliban in the article other than those sections, which seems odd to me. What sort of wording could you guys agree on? kmccoy (talk) 08:12, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ofcourse I agree Kmccoy, the point I was trying to make is that the support Pakistan gave to the Afghans (including the Taliban) was during the Soviet war. That is when the US, Pakistan and 90% of the Afghans fought against the Soviet invasion and both the US and Pakistan provided training and support for the Afghans, with the US also being the larger donor. Later, because of civil war, the Taliban came to power several years later. But since the people of Afghanistan were not distinctly divided into Northern Alliance, Taliban and other factions during the invasion, taliban does not need to be mentioned in extensive speculations and other unverifiable, disputed, unsourced info that Sam keeps wanting to add. The information about the soviet invasions of Northwest Pakistan and the support of the Afghan fighters is already given in the section here [2]. I am willing to add more information to that in a brief, accurate and NPOV manner, which respects the view of all parties involved. The rest of Sam's anti-Pakistan POV edit about Kashmir is allegation (as I said before) and is not verified. So that is pretty much where I stand on this article. For some reason, I seem like the "other" party in this disagreement, when all I want is NPOV and originally came here to mediate. Furthermore, I appreciate your mediation here Kmmccoy. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 17:06, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Pakistan does not support Taliban any more. So there should be no mention in the essay. OmerFa

Also Why doesn't the essay say pakistan is a democratic country now. OmerFa

Pakistan supported Talibans but now pakistan does not support Taliban. In the paragraph, it should be mentioned that pakistan does not support taliban after 9/11, then it will be neutral and acceptable to all. Also moral, deplomatic and military support to Kashmiri freedom fighters should be emphasized and given in detail. It is extremely important to Pakistani people. It is always in the news and people in pakistan talk about it all the time. OmerFa 11:03, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with OmerFa's suggestion. The article Taliban has been stable and most of the material regarding Pakistan there, which is almost all of it, has gone uncontested for quiet a while now, which is why I thought it is appropriate to base that section on that material. Anon, if you have objection to the material, apart from a couple of lines I inserted, please post there on Taliban article too, not just here. I think it is absolutely necessary to have these things highlighted in Pakistan article instead of filling out the article with harmless but also useless and uninteresting collection of facts. As OmerFa pointed out, it is an important part of Pakistani nationhood and should be presented as such. Please keep in mind that I am only trying to help the project and trying to make it NPOV (from my standpoint ofcourse). SamTr014 18:09, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I appreciate that you're just trying to include information about Pakistan which you think is important and relevant. What everyone needs to understand is that a dispute like this is solvable if you don't revert. Instead of reverting, change the text. Reword it, move it around, etc. Complete, blind reversion simply leads to a revert war. So, now that we've stated our positions, we need to get to the details of how to insert this information without a revert war. The article is protected, which is harmful to both sides and especially to Wikipedia and its wiki process. How do we fix that? Enough rhetoric, let's get a solution figured out now. kmccoy (talk) 18:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anonymous editor is trying to undermine our support to Kashmiri freedom fighters. He says he converted from Christianity to Islam which is lying fully. Unfortunately people who are writing about Pakistan have never come in pakistan. There should be big section about our support to Kashmiri freedom fighters and Afghani freedom fighters. If you come in Pakistan you will know how much we feel for Kashmiri freedom fighters. Also Sam, please note that now Pakistan is an allay of US which should be mentioned at the beginning only. OmerFa 01:28, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now it is becoming clear that OmerFa is a sockpuppet of SamTr014. He is attempting to establish a false Pakistani POV in order to support his claims of Pakistan supporting so-called "freedom fighters", which he identifies as militants, and also to support his move to add a "big section" about this. This is truly sad especially when the article is locked. Sam you are only undermining any attempts to get this article inlocked. Wow, how "ironic" is it that the exact same thing OmerFa is saying is that which Sam agrees with and vice versa. Please stop this nonsense, Sam, your numerous other sockpuppets have been caught and this only further complicating matters for yourself. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 01:43, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

You Bangladeshi people are puppets of Indians. Surely you never came in Pakistan. Did you? Please answer this question. If you never came here, how can you write about it? Any article on Pakistan is incomplete without mentioning plight of the Kashmiri people. Please use your energy to talk about India's human right record in Kashmir. India article is highly biased, but Ragib did not let me and called me a Vandal. Please include a big section on Kashmir in India and Pakistan articles. OmerFa 02:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I call everyone's attention to this diff of India and this diff of my user page, and this diff of Wikiportal Bangladesh. You vandalized 3 pages, and have been warned by admins for that. Let the diffs and edit histories speak for themselves. Thanks. --Ragib 02:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow! Yes, the edits do speak for themselves. Surely OmerFa (aka SamTr014 + others) has something against south asian people. He is definitely NOT from Pakistan, Bangladesh or India. --Anonymous editor 02:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Democratic Pakistan

Pakistan should be called a democratic country now since we have prime minister. It should be clearly mentioned in the essay. OmerFa

Sikh Raj section

Can someone take a look at the correctness of a sentence this section,about the Sikh State of early 19th century being the first secular state in the modern world? The First French Republic was secular according to this, and also the United States was a secular republic according to the US Constitution. Any comments on this? Thanks. --Ragib 06:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would say that there is little harm in using less declarative language, like "the Sikh State has been called by some the first secular state in the modern world", or "the Sikh State was among the first secular states of the modern world." That retains the intention of the information while letting the reader know that there is some disagreement about that. kmccoy (talk) 06:31, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Saying that 'one of the earliest' secular states might resolve the issue.. Legendijk

I agree, how about rewording it as "The Sikh state was among the first secular states in modern world", as kmccoy has suggested? Anyone has objections to that? Thanks. --Ragib 07:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I changed the wording as discussed here. Thanks. --Ragib 02:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Terrorist and militant outfits

Hi guys, I have started a section on terrorist/militant outfits in Pakistan. The section is highly incomplete. Please contribute. It could give brief review of the topic that is so important in today's Pakistan. Thanks. King1 07:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This section of the talk page was deleted by OmerFa (talk · contribs), I have restored it because I believe all views, even POV need to be heard, and debated. Let truth take its own path rather than blanking. Thanks. --Ragib 10:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lashkar is a outfit of freedom fighters. We Pakistanis give them full diplomatic moral and military support. But they are freedom fighters. OmerFa 10:53, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kashmir!!!!!

Unbeleivably Pakistan article does not contain any reference to Kashmiri freedom struggle by FREEDOM FIGHTERS. The Martyars who gave their life for Pakistan and Kashmiri people deserver a honourable mention. Also the Kashmir issue should be written in detail. Not mentioning the Kashmir issue and calling the freedom fighters terrorists is exactly what indian want. Honest people should not fall pray to Indian propaganda. Indias state sponsored terrorism need to be written in India article. I have proposed to Pakistanis so that we can have a separate section in India article which gives details about atrocities by India in Kashmir. Please add content there. OmerFa 03:25, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protected again.

Barely an hour after I unprotected the article, I've been asked to protect it again on account of continued edit warring.

This is sad, and reflects (I believe) immaturity on multiple sides of this dispute. I suggest everyone involved take three steps and 24 hours back from the issue to think about things with a level head before spinning into a frenzy again. This is an encyclopedia, not the end of the world. We have the luxury of taking time for congenial and civil discussion.

And for goodness sakes, listen to kmccoy when he says to stop edit warring. He knows what he's talking about. -- Seth Ilys 07:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

RfC

There's no way I'm going to wade through all the above - I don't have the time. So in the interests of clarity could I ask the disputants to clearly and briefly outline what they want in the article? This way I can see exactly how the land lies. Thanks in advance! Dan100 (Talk) 22:31, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Haha. I know how you feel. But I think the best way for you to find out what currently the largest issue is, is to go to the section above labelled "Controversial Section". That should clarify the current state of affairs. In the first message under that section, I have outlined the disputed material and my/other editors concerns with the material that one of the users wishes to add. Hope that helps. --Anonymous editor 22:35, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take this spot to insert my RfC response. None of the material that's apparently being discussed belongs in the lead section. That means the alleged support for terror, the alleged support for the "war on terror", the relationship with the U.S., and the nuclear capacity. I also agree that referring to what a country is known for is problematic. If I'd been asked, I would've said that Pakistan was best known for its long-running dispute with India over Kashmir, and second-best known as an example of nuclear proliferation. Both these subjects, along with terrorism, should be covered in the article, but none in the lead, and with no attempt to second-guess the world or the West as to what people would think was prominent.

When terrorism is covered, as with any controversial subject, care must be taken to follow NPOV. Here's the current wording:

Pakistan is the only country which supported Taliban fighters. Pakistan had taliban embassador till taliban were crushed by US led coalition. Pakistan continued to support Kasmiri militants by training them and arming them.

The first two sentences seem to present valid information in a biased way. I gather the following is true: "Pakistan was the only country that had diplomatic relations with Afghanistan while that country was governed by the Taliban." The second sentence should probably be: "Pakistan has been accused by India of training and arming Kasmiri militants who are fighting to make Kashmir part of Pakistan." Unless the government of Pakistan says it's doing this, it should be presented as an attributed claim, whether by India, the UN, or whoever. JamesMLane 01:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I read that section AnonEd, thanks for pointing out which bit of this page was the most important - very hard to tell otherwise. As I see it, the ball is really in Sam's court - he needs to provide some solid evidence for his edits under Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Verifibility - just saying "the Taliban article says so" isn't enough.

Taking a broader view, I must agree that the lead section is not the appropiate place for such material - it is a relatively minor feature of Pakistan's history. Dan100 (Talk) 10:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Summary and solution

Let's find a way to solve this. I think there's some confusion as to what everyone wants, so let's summarize. Could the interested parties sum up what they feel is at issue here, and how they can solve it? Let's put it in nice, pretty little boxes to make it easier to read, like this:

Please put your issues and solutions in a separate box for each user. Be sure to sign them. kmccoy (talk)

Okay, I've gone through the comments that people have made and decided to give an edit a try. I copied the current (protected) version of the page into Talk:Pakistan/Temp, and then edited from there. You can see what I changed at this diff. Please edit that page if you feel that it needs changing, but I'd like to strongly suggest that we don't do any reverting. If someone makes a change that you disagree with, find a way to compromise and incorporate that change in another way, perhaps by rewording or repositioning. Please try to cite sources and keep the scope of this article in mind. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 03:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is my stand point: There must be a uniform way of editing and creating country level articles. A standard followed in most of the articles should not be violated just because someone feels so. Disputed statements that can be claimed as POV should not be put in the opening statements of country level articles. Country level articles should list both positive and negative sides of a country. Claims need to be supported with proofs. Proofs should not include news papers, or websites that may be alleged to be partial in any direction. Country level articles should also be made smaller with sections beginning with links to detailed versions of those sections (e.g. History of Pakistan giving a summary and a link to the "History of Pakistan" article for interested readers). Editing along religious or national lines should be avoided. Neutrality is the main issue, which should supersede over bias. Thanks. --Ragib 02:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with what Ragib said & I would also like to call attention to the disputed section ("Controversial section") in which I outlined the major concerns with the section. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 02:24, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I agree this is an excellent idea. I already have written down what is an acceptable version to me.

I want to have the following text in 'Links to Taliban' section. During the late 1990s, Pakistan was one of three countries which recognized the Taliban government and the first to recognize it, and specifically Mullah Mohammed Omar as the legitimate ruler of Afghanistan. Pakistan provided economic and military aid to the group as early as 1994. Pakistan had taliban embassy and Taliban ambassador till taliban were crushed by the US led coalition. Pakistan continued to support Kasmiri militants by training them and arming them. In 1994, Mulla Omar, the Taliban leader fled to the neighboring Balochistan province of Pakistan, from where he emerged in the fall of 1994, reportedly with a well-armed and well-funded militia of 1,500 followers, who would provide protection for a Pakistani trade convoy carrying goods overland to Turkmenistan. However, many reports suggest that the convoy was in fact full of Pakistani fighters posing as Taliban, and that the Taliban had gained considerable arms, military training, and economic aid from the Pakistanis. Most post-invasion Taliban fighters are new recruits, drawn again from Pakistan's madrassahs (madrassah means "school" in Arabic).Added by SamTr014 17:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Though I am not entirely happy with it, I would accept it. The Taliban article which has gone largly undisputed for a while does say these things. User Ragib is only writing platitudes (also interprets his posts for us in a condescending way) and has not bothered to write down what would be an acceptable wording to him. Also user Anaonymous editor is only indulged in personal flamewars. I urge him to write down what would be an acceptable wording to him for the section. If a separate section is not acceptable to him or to others, I have yet to hear where exactly he wants to put the material and what would be the wording/content about Talibans. What is it that would be acceptable to all? Lets negotiate and not fight. SamTr014 17:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for "interpreting" my standpoint! Any wording devoid of bias and not treating a country in a different way is acceptable to me. You interpreted my points as "platitude", but I do not want to take sides, I have defended introduction of bias in both India and Pakistan related articles almost equally, probably that's why my stand point doesn't sound exciting to any of the hardliners. I'm fairly happy with my points and I believe Wikipedia's official policy is also to maintain neutrality and to be color/religion/nation-blind. Thanks. --Ragib 18:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I moved your box up with the others and put your name in it so that it's clear that it's your position, I hope that's not a problem. :) kmccoy (talk) 18:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The problem with Sam's position (in my point of view), is that it is simply a long extensive and unverifiable history of the Taliban that does not belong in the Pakistan article. The history of the organization clearly does not belong in the Pakistan article, as it is already in the Taliban article. If it needs to be said that the US and Pakistan supported the Afghan defense and Mujahideen from the Soviet invasion, then that should be added in the soviet war section already found in the article in a brief, sourced, and verifiable manner to avoid POV. The Kashmiri militancy allegation is unverified and is a claim by India. That is all. I support what I said before on my post in the "controversial section" discussion on this user page.Thanks. --Anonymous editor 21:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the boxes reserved for position statements -- one box per user, you can edit it if you need to. If you want to respond, respond below the box. This way, it'll be easy to understand what each user wants.

Of course, this is just all my idea -- maybe I'm being too formal about this. I'd just really like to see this page unprotected. :) kmccoy (talk) 01:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's an excellent idea Kmccoy. I might have to steal it :-) Dan100 (Talk) 10:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

OK, Sam has put his suggestions on the table. I guess it's now up to other editors to show what (if anything) is wrong with his suggested additions - but please provide links to relevant material to prove your points. A "he's wrong/I'm right" won't help anyone! Dan100 (Talk) 14:02, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I've stuck a suggested solution in my box up above. Please go take a look and comment. Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 00:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Kmccoy, thanks for arbitrating (babysitting?;)) us, however your version deleted two sections instead of just one about which we have been arguing. Please lets just focus this discussion on one section, the content of the taliban section. I am not in favor of widening the scope of this argument especially since the article is protected. I urge everyone to write down what you think should be included (a section or just a regular text). Incase you do not want ANY mention of Taliban, say so above. We might be able to reach a consensus. SamTr014 21:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it deleted three sections, although the information in them was merged into the rest of the article. Why don't you go and change the temp page to how you think a compromise could be reached? kmccoy (talk) 23:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I'm just amazed at the hatred towards Pakistan

These days there are talks all over Pakistan and Pakistani media about how cozy Pakistan's relationship is starting to get with India, or should I call it by its real name "Hindustan", which means 'Land of the Hindus'?

But having read this page, it's clear to me that many Indians (such as our dear friend Sam and his countless sockpuppets), still have a visceral hatred and deep-seated contempt for Pakistan, the land of the pure. Pakistanis cannot rest easy for a minute and think that India will ever accept it as a successful, independent, sovereign nation, with powerful friends like the US and China. Luckily for Pakistan, it's not Pakistan's problem, what India thinks or doesn't think. That's only India's problem. Pakistan is here to stay, and there's nothing Sam, his cockpuppets, and any people of Sam's ilk can do about it.

It's funny, just prior to 9/11, India and US were getting so warm and fuzzy towards each other, since with the demise of the USSR, US didn't need Pakistan anymore, but it saw in India an obvious partner to counter an emerging China, a country that Pakistan held and still holds as one of its best friends. But then 9/11 happened and found US on its knees. It was an atrocity in which close to 200 Pakistanis also died, many of whom were waiters in the Windows to the world restaruant. I personally knew two people who died on one of the plane's that hit the WTC.

As usual, when in trouble, the US again came knocking on little old Pakistan's door, for help in defeating the taliban and capturing Usama. And like a jilted lover, India was left standing like a bride at the altar, teary eyed, with the groom having eloped with Pakistan (to I'm sure, Sam's great dismay). Such is fate.

The global tremor that was 9/11, left the world shaken - it changed Pakistan and most Pakistanis are somewhat different poeple today. They know that if the lone super power in the world can be humbled by a ragtag team of only 19 unarmed buffoons with murderous brainwashed minds, then their nuclear arsenal of less thant 500 atom bombs, which although can launch strikes on every Indian city, will not really protect them, since India has the same capability[3]. Hence the desire to let bygones be bygones, and be friends. A point, apparently lost on Sam and the sockpuppets.

To Sam and sockpuppets, now that you know your country can never eat Pakistan, and live to tell about it, why not purge yourself of the hate and come to grips with the ground realites:

• Pakistan will NEVER rejoin India. Please stop having wet dreams about this pal. Ain't gonna happen. Now now, not ever.
• Neither taliban, nor Pakistan had any direct role in Global Terrorism, the kind that happened on 9/11. If Pakistan did, the US would've invaded Pakistan alongwith Afghanistan. The US ONLY went after taliban, because they would't hand over Usama. Had those idiots handed him over, they would STILL be ruling Afghanistan and US wouldn't give a rat's ass about it. Musharraf tried to tell them dumb fu**ers that, but they didn't listen to him and paid the price.
• Pakistan is doing its best to fight Global Terrorism, for the betterment of the entire world, including India.
• Absulutely NO, country has played a bigger role in combating terrorism since 9/11, than Pakistan. And EVERYONE knows that.
• If Pakistani spies ever sold nuclear secrets, it was only PRIOR to 9/11 and was NOT for money - it was done to acquire technologies vital to Pakistani national security - technologies like ballistic missiles to shower India with, in case it ever let its greed and avarice make it forget that Pakistan may be a pill that it can swallow, but it'll be a poison pill.
• If the US hadn't shunned Pakistan and had instead fulfilled its ligitimate defence needs, like its doing now (keep those F16's coming baby, yeah!), the alleged proliferation may NEVER have occurred. The US refused shipment of F16's to Pakistan and like a hudd-haram, also kept Pakistan's US $ 650 million, which Pakistan had already paid in advance. Guess what happend to Pakistan's F16's? They were stored out in the open desert for years, until they were resold (the US kept some for its own use).
• The 9/11 commission report also advises the US to never desert Pakistan again.
• Pakistan is vital to US national security now more than ever before.
• Regarding Kashmir - Kashmir case is one of a regional struggle for independence. And one man's terrorist, is another man's freedom fighter. Why doesn't your country get a hint and get out of Kashmir? Don't you understand that the Kashmiris want you to get out of their land, that you have been shamelessly occupying like a hudd-haram? Take a hint pal. Nobody in Kashmir wants you. Get out, NOW.

So, there you have it - my two cents' worth.

Attitudes like Sam's sadden me, and make me feel quite pessimistic that Pakistan can ever count on India ever being its true friend.

If I've offended anyone with my remarks, I deeply and truly apologize. Please remember, it is just my own personal ever so humble opinion. And btw, I'm a 100% pure Pakistani and a thankful muslim (thankful that I was born a muslim).

To Ragib: I'm sorry for the way your people were treated by west Pakistanis. How could they? It's shameful and frankly unislamic. And mega congrats on the Aussie win. Way to go Bangladesh!!!

Adios, amigos! And may peace be upon all you wikipedians.

Note: Hudd-haram is Urdu slang for someone who is totally shameless and guttless.

Note: The previous unsigned comment was left by 193.251.135.123 (talk • contribs).

I agree with you 100%. I think Indians, Bangladeshi and american people have hijacked this discussion. Please contribute to my section on Kashmiri freedom struggle and let world hear pakistani standpoint. I agree with you, Pakistan will never rejoin India, but one day if they attack us, india will become part of Pakistan. OmerFa 04:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) OmerFa 04:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think genocide of Bangla people is an Indian propaganda to divide muslim people. They are trying to divide and rule. But Bangladeshi people and Pakistani people will fight India together. Please note how India is regularly invading in Bangladesh now. Divide and rule! Please don't believe Indian propaganda. OmerFa 04:37, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am ignoring your comment as you are obviously trying to add troll-fodder here. Your comments speak for themselves. Nothing further. Thanks. --Ragib 04:47, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OmerFa, stop trying to create conflict between different ethnicities of people. The fact that you change sides from anti-Bangladesh to pro-Bangladesh and anti-Muslim to pro-Muslim is further indication that you are not an actual editor but rather a sockpuppet. Thanks for showing us this. Btw, I think that the user who started this section with the message of the top was simply trying to be sincere in the end of his message. --Anonymous editor 04:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I urge all Pakistani/Kashmiri/muslim writers to contribute to the Kashmir section that I have created. Let us stop fighting among ourselves and show India in its true colours. OmerFa 05:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where exactly did you create this section? --Anonymous editor 05:12, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I created the section in India article but Indians revert it back. Please add it again if you care about thousands of muslim freedom fighters and martyars. OmerFa 05:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just a little while back you didn't even think I converted to Islam. You didn't think I was Muslim. Also, why do you seem so keen on creating ethnic conflict between editors from South Asia? --Anonymous editor 05:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion as to what the point of this article is. It is not to promote a point of view. It is not to correct historic wrongs. It is not to memorialize anyone. It is not to provide a place for only Pakistanis to edit. It is to inform a reader about Pakistan in a carefully neutral way, presenting controversial topics without bias, and keeping within a reasonable scope of topics that are directly relevant to Pakistan. It's very important to keep in mind that there are myriad articles that are dedicated to the very topics which are being discussed here, such as Kashmir, Taliban, or India. It's also important to understand that we all should be working to create a good encyclopedia -- if that's not what you're here for, you should go to another project. Editing this article isn't limited to Pakistanis or Bangladeshis or Americans. The only real requirement to edit this article is to speak English (this is the English Wikipedia, after all). This article needs to get unprotected, and ALL the discussion on this page should be focused on finding a way to resolve the dispute so that it can be unprotected, please. Thank you. kmccoy (talk) 06:15, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I feel the same way as kmccoy and after reading all of this I have noted uptill now most editors have been decently reminding each other of editorial mannerisms and agreeing to disagree with few (if any) serious solutions offered.I understand the kind of tension editors here are going thru but no one should put up with User:Sam (aka Whatever?) as it can be clearly seen that this editor does not regard anyones view point or even solutions to the problem presented by others which if finally placed in the article will be eventually be vandalized again by the user SAM or his sock puppets.--Sheikhu 07:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have to say I admire the spirit of the 'outburst'. Unfortunately the purpose of the article on Pakistan is to present a correct picture of the country and not to achieve world peace. But I admire the candor and the spirit, I may not agree with all the points, but I agree with most. OmerFa, other users have rightly ignored you. Thanks for your contribution, especially for its entertainment value. SamTr014 22:30, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) I assure you, I am not from any of the south asian countries. SamTr014 22:33, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed in the history, "luckily I am not from the South Asian countries", which you then tried to hide. Being Singaporean, I must now ask, what kind of bigot are you? -- Natalinasmpf

YES, I too noticed that. SamTr014, you have proven your bigotist attitude. Evidence here [4]. Please stop this now as it puts all your edits into the "spotlight" and does not ease the disputed matter. Lets find a way out of the dispute without resulting in bigotry and other "non-wikipedian" actions. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 23:16, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

This isn't going to help solve the dispute. This isn't a "battle" that's going to be "won" by belittling the other person, or finding some character flaw, or whatever. Settle down and be civil. Sam posted what he wants included in the article above. Instead of trying to attack Sam's character, why don't you guys go and respond to what he wants included, and see if we can find a way to compromise. kmccoy (talk) 23:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But it does shed some light on the nature of his edits. I've been observing this neutrally for a while, but I don't think I can stand it any longer. -- Natalinasmpf 23:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then come up to the previous section and help us find a solution with regard to the content of the article. :) kmccoy (talk) 00:07, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not Many suggestions have been put on the table nor a solution is in sight (at least in the fore seeable future).The case placed by SAM &/or OmerFa is weak and in no way legitimate (in wording ) ;but to have their "piece" in this regarding Pakistan's involvement in Taliban and Kashmiri Militants is right ,however, not exactly the way they want which is POV as the Pakistani Government strongly denies involvement with them and it is only India's strong contention that they were involved in some support to Kashmiri Militants (which is Understandable as both have fought 3 wars over kashmir)--Raju1 04:16, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC).

Please check above, or look at this edit. I've tried to offer a suggested solution. kmccoy (talk) 04:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We are not cowards like Indians to deny our support to Kashmiri FREEDOM FIGHTERS. Indians like cowards and bad people. One day we will spread light of Islam in jungle of India, country of cows and cowards. Sam I do not understand why you want material on Taliban included but not the material on Kashmiri freedom fighters. Pakistan have helped US very much. Then what else we should do?????? OmerFa 04:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The sugesstions and proposed changes by kmccoy appeal to reason and cover the topics/points that all wanted.I dont know what OmerFa is talking about it seems he is talking to someone who is not there .--172.151.198.94 04:50, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was talking to Raju1 clearly. Please write by your name. Do not act like Indian cowards. OmerFa 05:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OmerFa, you do not speak for all the Pakistanis, the Pakistani Govt, and similarly Sam does not speak for all the Indians (and he claims to be "lucky" that he is not from South Asia!!!). Raju1 clearly made a rational, neutral comment, which one of the most important factors if we are to make a good encyclopedia here. Please try not to write provocative gibberish, start by *actually* contributing something good. Thanks. --Ragib 05:10, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As if there is a person who can speak for ALL the pakistanis or ALL the indians or ALL the Americans. I did not claim to speak for any country much less for India in particular. I speak for myself. Since you tell me to *actually* contribute, let me bring to your notice what I think is the truth and an important NPOV content appropriate for the article is out there posted above. I haven't yet seen a version from you. SamTr014 21:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Again, Sam, you confuse me a lot!! Read the comment, you'd see clearly that the comment was clearly for OmerFa, and NOT for you, unless you and OmerFa are one and the same person. This is the second time when you responded to a comment for a different person. Let OmerFa reply himself for him, not you. Or are you OmerFa? Thanks. --Ragib 21:59, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ragib, quoting you, "...similarly Sam does not speak for all the Indians ... ". Trust me, I wouldn't be nearly as naive even if I tried. I think he is a kid (or a cleric ;)) with a computer, so I ignore him. SamTr014 22:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article ,OmerFa forgets,is about Pakistan a country and not about MerFa's animosity towards India (if that is what this person delibrately wants to portray himself as a Pakistani who has a kind of extremist agenda here) dont take it personally but you have not made a very good point here in your discussions.Now I respect everyones point of view but ones with facts and the fact is that Pakistan has always said that it had nothing to do with Militant outfits (or Freesom Fighters as you prefer) and still does.And Finally please OmerFa could you atleast write what you propose should be done rather than calling Indians or for that matter anyone as cowards.What point does that have to do with the subject at hand anyway?? Thanks!--Toba1 05:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

        Has anyone looked at the changes proposed by User:kmccoy at 
Talk:Pakistan/Temp--Sheikhu 05:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This wikipedia article about Pakistan is about the whole country and society, not myopic issues like Taliban or Kashmir. Also this is a place of knowledge not agendas. Pakistan-obsessed people like Sam need to go to their Indian messageboards where myopic topics and agendas are the only thing they talk about. Please dont pollute wikipedia with Indian hatred and ignorance. Note: The previous unsigned comment was left by 4.153.245.60

Prehistory and the dawn of civilization & Ancient Pakistan

Souldn't this section be treated as a separate article leading from Pakistan's Main Page?? (just a suggestion) Please let me know what you all think?--PrinceA 05:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the history section has grown too big, almost half to 1/3 of the whole article. --Ragib 05:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unlock

If you have read the additions of kmccoy in the Temp. page ,I agree that I couldn't have stated the facts better.However,I have noticed that the argument hass gone cold for sometime.I think now that there seems to be no further disagreement then the article should be unlocked and the appropriate changes be finalized for now.Thanks--PrinceA 01:14, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No it is still continuing, its just that now the arguments are easing a bit. I think the dispute should be cleared in a couple of days. I want the article to be unlocked too, ofcourse, as there is still a large amount of disputed, unfactual material that is on the protected article. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 01:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Hold on right there. Do you mean you want to do large edits AGAIN after the article is unlocked? What is the point of having this discussion then? Do you not think the resolution reached here, whatever that might be, should be abided to? SamTr014 20:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article will continue to evolve. It's a wiki. Hopefully the article can evolve without revert wars. I strongly encourage everyone to look at WP:1RR. The key to working this out is not to find a version of the article which everyone agrees with, but with finding a way to stop the revert wars, and a version of the article which suits Wikipedia standards. I think you both are trying to improve the article, it's just a matter of taking a step back when someone adds something you find questionable. Don't immediately revert it, look at what the person is trying to include, and see if there's a way you can tweak the wording. And sometimes one side or the other is just going to have to suck it up and compromise. This isn't a competition. kmccoy (talk) 20:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam has done nothing to contribute to this article besides making an article halt at a point which shouldn’t happen to any Country’s Main Page. Claiming to be a Non-South Asian and at the same time bashing the Pakistani Image by attributing things that are not factual and/or controversial without the other sides view point being mentioned is being inconsiderate and definitely not neutral!! Now every country has events in their history that they are not happy about but it doesn’t take away their right to be a Proud Nation I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be .Sam by deliberately associating Pakistan with terrorists and trying to brandish it as the same does not hide the truth that Pakistan today is known as a very strong ally of the USA against terrorism and is a victim of terrorism itself. So most here as you have probably seen through this talk page know the exact opposite of what you are saying to be true! Which I am sorry to say shows your ignorance and that is true!!--Raju1 04:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I am afraid that Users Sam and OmerFa are being unreasonable with this debate about Pakistan’s association with terrorists. Unfortunately it’s like banging your head against a brick wall (i.e. no resolution to the problem).They seem to me to be of only one view which is their way or No way and will resort to vandalizing once the article is unprotected again. What we have got here is failure to communicate!!!And what we need are editors with perseverance who will not let such actions go unnoticed. I hope you will all continue to keep this article non POV as much as possible for the sake of wikipedia as it was meant to be.--Sheikhu 04:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Amen. Word was left on my talk page about this happy hoo-haa. Folks, there is no more neutral source of information online than this one. Facts are facts whether you agree with them or not. Rampant nationalism has no place here. As long as the facts are presented fairly and accurately, flatteringly or unflatteringly, this shouldn't turn into the donnybrook that it has. I'm an American, a conservative and patriotic to the core but on Wikipedia, it doesn't matter. If there is anything unflattering about the country or the President or our system of government on this site, so be it as long as it's true and presented fair and neutral. OTOH, if there's a bunch of jingoistic, flag-waving rhetoric, that's got to go. Doesn't matter which country. Now that I've invested my two cents, I think I'll mosey on over to Pakistan to see what's happening...asuming that it isn't blocked from editing, of course. - Lucky 6.9 17:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Despite the significant possibility that the revert wars will just flare up again, I've nevertheless unprotected this page, as protection doesn't solve anything in the long run, and the discussion does not seem to be progressing beyond the usual "I'm right, you're wrong" arguments. Please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes if you have a problem; remember first and foremost that the encyclopedia is not here to support the article as you want to see it, but to produce an article that is as good as possible for everyone. Anyone who engages in persistent reverting, in violation of the three-revert rule, risks being blocked. You don't want that. JRM · Talk 09:49, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

I count 3 reverts per user by both User:SamTr014 and User:Anonymous editor. Please discuss your disputes in the talk page, any further edit war today will result in a 3RR violation. I thought a compromise was reached, then why this revert war!!!! Thanks. --Ragib 18:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any compromise was ever reached.. The article shouldn't have been unlocked. SamTr014 19:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you are adamant about Not-reaching-a-compromise-ever, you'd never accept that. I guess most others have agreed to the temp version as put forward by Kmccoy. It seems to me *only* you disagree any compromise. In any case, both you and anonymous editor are violating 3RR by going into full scale revert war. Just because the article was unlocked doesn't mean you have to revert any time a change occurs. You could have brought the matter to the talk page rather than reverting each and every revert of Anon (Same goes to him too). Please stop this endless, meaningless revert war, or the article would go to protected status again. Thanks. --Ragib 19:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In order to stop the edit war, I propose we combine the three sections being deleted to one section and present that information in a NPOV way to which all parties agree. This is an atrocious waste of time if everybody involved doesn't put their cards on the table now. SamTr014 19:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I count 4 reverts each between you and User:Anonymous editor. The article is becoming a tug of war, and 3RR violations are clear and evident. --Ragib 19:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that the reverts do not all concern the same thing; the 3RR was not yet violated according to a strict interpretation. However, edit wars are harmful, and this cannot be allowed to continue. I haven't blocked anyone; please don't give me pressing reasons to. JRM · Talk 19:49, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

This article has to progress. This is a wiki. It changes. User:SamTr014 cannot enforce his ideal status quo against everyone else, continuing to claim that people such as User:Anonymous editor are making edits "unilaterally". That is not the case; in fact, only Sam showed any real opposition to the temp page offered above as a solution, but he did not offer another compromise version. As it stands, the rest of the editors have compromised towards Sam's position by including the text on the temp page, which is essentially Sam's text reworded and placed in its relevant historical section, rather than in a separate section which disrupts the chronological flow of the history section as a whole. Therefore, I'm going to edit the article to be the version found on the temp page that has been up for several days. Sam, I'm hoping that you can understand the need to find compromise on this issue. Failing that, we'll have to discuss further options on this talk page. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 22:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with both Kmccoy, JRM and Ragib that the dispute wars are against progress. I was acting in goodwill as proposed by kmccoy's mediation, by substituting the compromise (temp) version of the article for the disputed one. All previously disputed parts were reworded and entered into that version before to encyclopedia standard. Sam insists on reinserting the same disputed sections plus adding another section into the article without any discussion on the issue! So far he even deleted the compromised part of the article and replaced it with his own. I believe that is unfair to me and all the other editors who were involved in the dispute with him and clearly this shows that he does not want to solve disputes on the article. Please review edit history to see the additional sections that he added and the long-line of prior discussions on the talk page. Btw, I was originally there to mediate too, but this issue has escalated with Sam's countless arbitrary decisions. Thank you. --Anonymous editor 22:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but only Anonymous editor vocalized his support to your version, that too on your user page. Nobody else commented. No? SamTr014 02:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then I'm going to correct you. User:Raju1 suggested that he disagreed with the way that you wanted the information stated, though he didn't comment on the solution I proposed. The same with User:OmerFa. User:Sheiku asked people to go look at my proposal, which could indicate support, especially since Sheiku didn't comment negatively on it and, at the same time, criticized your position in the debate. User:4.153.245.60 indicated opposition to your text. User:PrinceA indicated support of my text. So, even if you only want to count User:PrinceA, that's still more than just User:Anonymous editor. Also, there was obviously no strong support for your version as written, since that's what led to the revert war and protection in the first place. kmccoy (talk) 02:43, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Lucky 6.9 supported my text which was in the blocked version. OmerFa thought there was need for a separate section and so did a couple of IP addresses. Susan is by girlfriend and would support me too if (you count her). Just because Anonymous editor was more vocal does not mean your version as was posted in the temp page had a wide support. SamTr014 03:24, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Protection and progress

I don't think any compromise was ever reached.. The article shouldn't have been unlocked. I saw no discussion going on at all, and barely any editing of the temporary article. Nobody can edit while the page is protected; protection is a very nice courtesy we provide users as a way to prevent them from being distracted by edit wars while they're discussing. It won't last forever, though, and I decided the time for this one was up.

My original warning stands. Nobody is to keep reverting this article while not offering any more to others than a comment of "we discussed this". Too bad. Discuss it again. Propose new versions on the talk page first and discuss those—without chucking them in immediately, of course.

Sam, you simply cannot insist on wholesale removing sections you disagree with. If the facts are wrong, dispute them, and demand references. If the sections are incomplete and POV, amend them. Simply deleting them is flat-out not an option. Of course, the others are better off discussing it here with you than just reverting them back in, but that doesn't make it acceptable. As it stands, you would not want this matter to be evaluated by the community as a whole, because you're simply not making any visible attempt at cooperation. Please try it. Again if you must. Discussion requires patience. Reverting does not, but neither does blocking people for reverting, which I have no qualms about doing. If you insist on doing nothing but deleting sections without offering any hint to compromise, you do run the risk of being blocked on your own as engaging in vandalism, and don't expect much sympathy. I'm telling you about this specific condition right now to avoid any accusations of bias against me (since I have no interest in the article content at all). Do not simply delete sections again. Disagreement is fine, but find some other way to express it.

Other administators may deem it more appropriate to protect the page instead. That is their prerogative, and you are always free to go back to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you want to have another go. I will state up front that given the lack of anything happening in the last protection, I don't think that will do much. So regrettably I resort to threats instead. JRM · Talk 00:01, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

I DID NOT blank the sections! I was in favor of keeping them. SamTr014 02:07, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Would you believe that it was late? Is anyone in favor of me stepping away from this page now, given my capacity for enormous blunders?
Obviously, scratch what I said above about unilateral removing, at least where it comes to being the perpetrator. The block threat cannot apply anymore, since multiple people have been removing those sections, and apparently under the impression that consensus was to remove them. I still strongly discourage simple removal, mind you. JRM · Talk 02:26, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

I want to be clear about something here -- the sections aren't exactly being blanked. Their information was reworded and merged into the recent history, rather than having separate sections. Sam, I'm not sure what you expect to happen anymore. There was clearly no real support for your wording in the blue boxes further up on this talk page. I made an attempt to merge the information which you wanted included into the rest of the article, and I offered that solution on a temp page. I asked you to edit it towards a compromise if you still felt it wasn't accurate. Instead, you just complained about it, and when the article was finally unprotected, you enforced your version through an edit war, again. If this is going to be solved, what are we to do, Sam? kmccoy (talk) 02:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote earlier today. 'In order to stop the edit war, I propose we combine the three sections being deleted to one section and present that information in a NPOV way to which all parties agree. This is an atrocious waste of time if everybody involved doesn't put their cards on the table now. SamTr014 19:05, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)' Would anybody agree? I think you deleted more than one sections without discussion in your version and trivialized the material to the point of being insignificant. Do you not think these are an important part of Pakistani history and deserve a subsection? I certainly would go by the majority decision, and being born in a democratic country helps, but I thought head counting is not how wikipedia works. Any way let me know what you and others have to say on my earlier post which I quote. I do not insist on a separate section on Taliban now, I only want merger with an earlier section on AQ Khan. SamTr014 03:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just go make the edit. As long as you're not just reverting back to the old version, trying to find compromise through edits might just work. You're right that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but if an issue boils down to four editors against one, and neither side is willing to compromise, the four editors can just "out-revert" the one. But a better solution is to find a version that everyone has had some input into. I understand your point about trivializing these things, but I disagree. The article makes a decent mention of the AQ Khan issue and the Taliban issue, and people can link to those articles to learn more about them (I hadn't heard about AQ Khan, in fact, so that's what I did -- I went over to the article about him to learn about the issue.) I'd like to see the entire article revamped and an article on the history of Pakistan spun off, but I don't have the energy to devote to such a task. :) Thanks again for working together on this. kmccoy (talk) 03:23, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I deeply regret and am offended at your use of the sentence "and being born in a democratic country helps". Please do not display "I'm/my country is better than all" attitude, which you previously shown by denigrating people from South Asia (Quote "Luckily I am not from south asian countries"). Anyway, Kmccoy did not get rid of the alleged Taliban/Nuke links, rather it was given its proper due. I'd also suggest having a see also link to that section to any article focusing on Pakistan's nuclear proliferation and Taliban link. But cluttering a country level article with a section just because you are rigid about-having-the-section-your-way is not a way of solving things. Nor is the attitude that you are born in country X, so you are blessed with "wonderful democratic ideas" which other poor souls from other parts of the world lack. Please do not belittle other people or countries. Thanks. --Ragib 03:26, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't agree with you Sam. In my personal opinion this current version that Kmccoy proposed is very good and, with all due respect, the only one left disputing this version is you. The Taliban and AQ Khan have already been mentioned adequately and most of the "proposed part" that you want to insert is massive, largely unverifiable, and highly POV. These long list of allegations against Pakistan don't need a large section devoted to them. Also, just for the record, why exactly do you insist on adding this info??? Just wondering...--Anonymous editor 03:31, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

'For the record' I have made it adaquately clear why I want a separate section. I want it because it is true, and it is important. Incase you are not willing to negotiate at all, I am wondering why I changed my position. SamTr014 03:36, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No you never really said why and I was always willing to negotiate, but you reverted several times to include your own versions before discussing them on the talk page at all. I said in my very first edit since this article was unlocked that any sections should be discussed before added, but you seem to love edit wars. If you are not willing to discuss, how can we negotiate? Thanks. --Anonymous editor 03:41, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ragib, Talking about belittling other users, would you count how many times you called me bigoted/rigid? How many times you have questioned my motive? How many times you doubted in my character? SamTr014 03:39, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Calling your attitude rigid doesn't mean I say so because you are from country X or Y, it is because you are not willing to any compromise in the issue. Could you please show me where I said "Luckily I am not from Country X", or "I am from country X, so I am lucky/truthful etc"? I don't want to belittle you in any way, and I do not care the national origin of any user so long as the users actions are neutral. But lets get back to the original discussion without referring to countries of origins. --Ragib 03:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see, I apologize in that case and I did not mean to offend you or anybody for that matter, which is why I deleted the word "Luckily" even before anybody objected. Did I not? What is your opinion on deleting the section "Tax incentives to the IT industry" ?SamTr014 03:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I think "Tax initiative ..." section was a little too detailed and can be merged with the economy section, after shortening it suitably. Same goes to other parts of the economy section ... sometimes it is better to be brief than long and boring. That part can go to Economy of Pakistan. --Ragib 04:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for separate section on nuclear proliferation issue, I looked into India, France etc, I do not see separate sections in those articles talking about it. Yes, Pakistan have nukes and perhaps, their development of the nuclear program was somewhat connected to dealings with North Korea and later other countries. But is it a big factor to require a separate section? Since other established country level articles show a different precedent, I believe that we should stick to common principles in creating country level articles. Thanks. --Ragib 04:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What happened to the period between the Central Asian Kushan invasions and the Mughal Empire?!

I added the periods that appear to have been deleted including within the Islamic period that were completed ignored up until the Mughal Empire, which gets the same amount of mention as the short-lived Sikh Empire?! The Durrani Empire lasted longer and covered the whole area by contrast. In addition, the Vedic Aryan Invasion theory is contested by many academics, some of whom even believe the Vedic Indo-Aryans either were in Central Asia or Iran still or were somewhere in the Gangetic plains.

Also, no mention of the Sassanian control of the southern western regions of Pakistan prior to Muslim invasions. It's as if the western parts are being deliberately left out.

All of my edits can be checked out and verified. Just google Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud of Ghaznavi, Muhammad bin Qasim, Ahmad Shah Durrani and the rest. And then check out the various views of ancient Pakistan. --Tombseye 01:29, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removing material from a talk page

I believe that admins can, and have, removed talk page material that they find to be sheer vilification and vandalism. I don't think that ordinary editors can do that, or should do that. Someone added a diatribe against Pakistan and another editor deleted it, with angry comments. I don't think the regular editor should have done that. However, it might have been appropriate to call an admin to to judge re the appropriateness of the offending remarks. Which were offensive! Zora 4 July 2005 00:20 (UTC)

Zora, while you referred to the second revert by User:Natalinasmpf, I also did a revert before that. The reason I justify my revert is obscene language, evidenced from the title "pakis - one of the most ugliest individuals of this EARTH & YES I mean it", which clearly is a vandalism, or trolling at best. I would like to know the official policy on Vandalism of talk pages, I tried to look it up in the Vandalism page, but didn't find any info on it. If it's an official policy, then I would support your comment about asking admins to remove content from talk pages ... but the edit in question, wasn't that clear vandalism? Thanks. --Ragib 4 July 2005 01:13 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's appropriate to remove talk page material, I'd like to ask everyone to keep this as civil as possible. Edit summaries like "do shut up, you moronic nationalist: rm racist comments" really only serve to make the entire process seem closer to a school-yard brawl than a respectable project. kmccoy (talk) 4 July 2005 03:35 (UTC)