Jump to content

Talk:Pakistan Armed Forces/Archives/2024/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Response

I didn't originally write the sentence in question, so I'm nto exactly married to the wording. However, the sources I was able to come up with just by searching the BBC website do seem to indicate that the Pakistani military has recently been targeting civilians as part of their support for Bush's war on terror. [1], [2] The original edit, which as far as I'm able to tell was placed here, seems to be exclusively in reference to Balochistan, but much of what I'm finding is in reference to Waziristan; here's another on that subject from Amnesty International. siafu 03:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which is why the "brutal" human rights violations is POV ,serious human rights violations probably have been made and duely noted but not against a whole province and/or an ethnic group.Plus the operations mentioned were small scale in Balochistan hence dont even suffice a mention here unlike Operations in Waziristan which are still ongoing but have been left out of the article.The human rights abuses here sholud be carefully reworded if the overall view of the editors is that there is lack of such evidence.--Raju1 06:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "brutal" is in reference to the massacre in Bangladesh. For that, there is ample evidence. siafu 14:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No its not the sentence reads as follows:Recently the army has been engaging in similar human rights violations in Balochistan. The Army of Pakistan's Operation 2005, as reported by the BBC is one of the most brutal in recent years by any country.
Which is obviously taken out of context and not supported.--PrinceA 00:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Major Editing

I have made several major edits to the article including removing/rewording controversial material, adding some information, grammar editting and designating special headings for article layout. Personally, I think the article is approaching good encyclopedia standards and the neturality tag is not needed as I have reworded, removed or given counter points to much of the unverifiable and unfactual information. Hopefully this dispute is resolved now. Please tell me what you guys think about these edits. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 01:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes thank you for your participation.I believe its much much better than before and all parties concerned have their view points in the article.So Good job.Thank you!--PrinceA 03:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Well I'm satisfied. :)--Anonymous editor 03:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
made some edits , in the previous version it seemed like the indians have done nothing & its the pakastinis that have made "the bomb" & "the missiles" for no reasons . For Bangladest U can read any new books by the generals & solders at that time . Farhansher 04:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The reference to "Indian agents" is quite dubious. Please refer to the book "Witness to Surrender" by Major Siddique Salique, who was the PR officer of Pakistan Army and was posted in Dhaka to aid General Niaji, Tikka Khan and Rao Forman Ali. It's quite an interesting book, where Salique discusses the war from the eye of a Pakistani Army officer, one related closely to the top command. It has quite detailed references to Operation Searchlight. Here are some more references on the topic:
Surely, the independence of Bangladesh was India's benefit, and they supplied Mukti Bahini with arms and help to fight the Pakistan Army. But to say the massacres of Bengalis by Indians is quite a distortion of history. I do understand that the war was unfortunate, and resulted in bad decision in part of the Pakistan Army and some politicians, but denying the massacre of 1 million to 3 million people is quite a big distortion. The number 3 million is disputed, but that's the official Government of Bangladesh figure. Other credible sources put the number to at least 1 million to 1.5 million. Here is a good link to many different sources for the number of dead. --Ragib 05:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I edited some things and also reworded the allegation ("Indian agents") because we should try to avoid POV. I also want to find some sources for the rest of the material here. Ragib, feel free to add what you said to the article (India benefit thing). Thanks. --Anonymous editor 04:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Further editing proposals

User:Farhansher, please don't get me wrong, I do not intend to vilify the Pakistan army beyond reasonable doubt here, and I'd definitely like to remove POV from the article. The issue about the 1971 atrocities belong to Pakistani Civil War a.k.a. Bangladesh Liberation War. However, the sentence that "Indian agents added hatred in East Pakistani's against West Pakistani's" is again somewhat of an overstatement. I am not pushing for putting a huge detailed list of allegation/counter allegation here, as it is not the place for that sort of discussion. But please do not attribute the 1971 war on "Agents", there are more complex socio-economic history behind that. I do propose a major rewrite of the article, which currently looks quite messy. Here is my proposed structure:

  • History
  • Structure
    • Detailed structure (units, brigades, headquarters)
  • Rank Structure
  • Equipment
    • Details on equipment
  • Major conflicts
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1948 (brief detail, with link to the article on the war)
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 (brief detail, with link to article)
    • Pakistani Civil War (brief detail, with links to article)
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 (brief detail, with links to article)
  • Peacetime activities
  • Political links
  • See also
  • External links

How does this sound? --Ragib 05:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NO hard feelings man , I am searching for the sources right now . Actually I have read a lot of these things ( what I added to the article...the generals' claims )in Daily Dawn & Daily Jung & seen them on local media , but as I can see uptil now , resources are scarce on the net . So feel free to undo what U like . Farhansher 05:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overall, I like your idea about the organization of the layout greatly. I think very brief info should be given on the major conflicts (like you said). Here is my proposal of the structure below. Please note the changes and tell me what you think. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 05:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Introduction (keep similar to what it already is)
  • Structure (Vital information about organization)
  • Detailed structure (units, brigades, headquarters, includes rank structure)
  • Facts section (keep similar to what it already is)
  • Equipment
  • Details on equipment (very brief)
  • Major conflicts
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1948 (brief detail, with link to the article on the war)
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 (brief detail, with link to article)
    • Pakistani Civil War (brief detail, with links to article) + including the allegation of agent involvement and sources given
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 (brief detail, with links to article)
  • Peacetime activities

(Mainly Africa peacekeeping: Rwanda Genocide, Cote d'Ivoire, Bosnia, etc.)

  • Recent Issues
  • "War on Terrorism" and its controversy
  • See also
  • External links
Well sounds very good . Although peace time activities can also include brief describtion of other events , like bosnia etc .Farhansher 06:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ofcourse. There we go, I added that to the proposal. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 06:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd just say that for the war, we should focus on the facts of the war, not causes/effects etc. For example, in the Bangladesh Liberation war/Pakistan Civil war part, we can mention the start, the number of army/navy/airforce deployed, locations, major battles, who was in charge, number of fatalities (again, not focusing on allegations/counter allegations of massacre/indian agent provocation etc)/outcome etc. This would be definitely a way to stick to facts rather than pass our own judgements on who started the war and who provoked it. A possible wording may be that "Military of Pakistan was involved in the Pakistan Civil war between March 25 and December 16, 1971. It was an armed conflict between the military and the East Pakistani dissidents, rebel factions of East Pakistani members of Army, guerrilla force called Mukti Bahini. Total number of personnel deployed was (90k??). Major battles took place in x,y,z. Total civilian fatality is claimed to be officially 3 million by Bangladesh Govt, but some other sources put the number to between 1 million to 3 million. Military command was headed by Tikka Khan, later replaced by Gen Niazi. The later part of the war between Dec 3 and Dec 16 overlaps with Indo-Pak war of 1971 (see below). The outcome was the surrender of Niaji to Muktibahini-Indian Army joint command on Dec 16 (see below)". By this type of wording, we can be brief, neutral, and also state the facts in a non-POV manner. How does this sound? --Ragib 06:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's good. Lets start the editing. --Anonymous editor 20:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


I have made several edits, improved and tidied up the page added pictures from other articles related to the Pakistan Military and listed the future plans of the Pakistan military Faraz 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Name Change

I think that the name of this article should be changed to "Pakistan Armed Forces", since that is the official name of the Pakistani Military, and "Military of Pakistan" should redirect to the page.

Reenem (talk)

Also, the name in Urdu script does not match the name in the Urdu name written in Roman Urdu. The roman Urdu name should be Pak Musalah Afwaj.


Pakistan army

(discussion is from Pakistan )... the same applies here as well... I won't comment the line here, but just mention that a citation is needed.. Please note that the citation provided in Pakistan was unreliable...

"The armed forces of Pakistan are the sixth-largest in the world.[66]" ...

1) The reference leads to some blog!

2) Please read List of countries by military expenditures ... A country which does not/cannot spend nearly as much the top 10 countries in the list can obviously not have a top 10 military!

3) Placing Pakistan at #4 will mean placing some of the following other nuclear powers below it, which is absurd to even comprehend! (USA, China, UK, France, Germany, Russia, India, Israel, <N. Korea>) Especially considering the economic status of the country!

4) Though I'm not going to base by judgement on the ratings given [3], it is nevertheless a MUCH better citation to base an article on!

5) As long as we don't have a credible source like a CIA report or something, we need to base our conclusions on Military spending.

  • Even according to List of countries by number of troops, it's 7th largest! So, it's either 7th largest or the citation is wrong or both... But the two can't be accurate at the same time....

Now, we need not care about what a country or it's citizen thinks! I'm of the view that Pakistan deserves to be #1 considering the disproportionate passion of it's people. But unfortunately that is not the case and what is not true "cannot" show up on wikipedia as long as I'm not blocked! Based on these arguments I'm going to comment that statement because that's much better than terming the whole section/article disputed! Please escalate the matter to an admin or find a better citation and undo/uncomment the statement.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


Issue resolved... someone changed it to 7th largest which is accurate... Thanks a ton... did not expect someone to do it so soon :)

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

File:BaburCruise1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BaburCruise1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

File:PakArmy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PakArmy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

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

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014

Someone please fix the flags on all of the countries that are listed as foreign suppliers; an additional good addition, time-permitting, would be the inclusion of the actual rank structure of the Pakistani armed forces, to include pictures of ranks and titles. 128.97.229.200 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: This article is no longer semi-protected, but under Pending changes, so you can make these edits yourself, but they will be reviewed before they become part of the article. Arjayay (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Copy edit Jan 2017

I noticed this article was removed from the copy edit backlog on 2 Jan, but I see a few small issues with it so I'll do what I can over the next day or two. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Ok, finished my copy edit of the article. Here are my notes:

  • Style: this article uses dmy dates, serial commas, spaced en dashes (MOS:NDASH), and Pakistani English. Defence seems preferred to Defense, so I made that change, as well as colour and a couple others.
  • So many acronyms! I believe they're all defined in the prose now.
  • Are "service" and "branch" official hierarchical designations or loose, informal descriptors? They aren't always applied consistently, but if they're informal they might not have to be.
  • There seems to be widespread misuse of Inter-Services. As I read it, the three main service branches are Army, Navy, Air Force. "Inter-service" means "between services" so should only apply to something that involves two or more of those three. For example, Inter-Services Public Relations does PR for Army, Navy and Air Force. Inter-Services Intelligence is a combined intelligence service, coordinating army intelligence, navy intelligence and air force intelligence. But the Army, Navy, Air Force are not themselves inter-services.
  • A fair amount of linking/piping work, so that it's clear what is being linked. Military service, for example, is an article on serving in the military, not an article on a branch of an armed forces. Khaki was incorrectly linked to Khakistocracy. Lots of redirects. Also, it's not recommended to have multiple links immediately adjacent to each other, which can confuse the reader. Trimmed a lot of overlinking (eg: Universal Camouflage Pattern linked four times in a paragraph).
  • Links to Eastern Pakistan seem to redirect to what is now Bangladesh, so if somebody could find a better link that'd be great.
  • There's some material about military technology which should probably be moved from § Main branches to § Defence industry
  • Under § Organization, At the JS HQ, it forms with... and lists various offices and directors. But it doesn't say what they are forming or how, making it uncertain how they are related.
  • There is a section where the Navy provided 43,850 kg of food and relief goods to flood victims in the context of a nationwide operation over five years. Is there a copying or unit error there? That's only two truckloads of weight, hardly a multi-year national mobilization.
  • The Islamabad-based Strategic Force Organization (SFO) has a three-tier system which forms by combing the Nuclear Command Authority, Strategic Plans Division (SPD), and each of three Inter-Services strategic force commands. I'd guess that "combing" is a typo of "combining", but not sure if it might be listing the three tiers of the "system". Also, "forms" makes the relationship confusing. And there seems to be some ambiguity between SPD and SPD Force there and in the sentence afterwards.
  • There is conflicting sourced information regarding the number of Marines battalions deployed at Sir Creek. A timeline might help.
  • Another unclear passage: the strategic arsenal are kept under an inter-services own strategic commands

That's about it. If you have any questions or comments, please post them here. I'll keep the article on my watchlist for a while and will try to be available for follow-up. Thanks. - Reidgreg (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Pakistan Armed Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Criticism of Pakistan Armed Forces

Just now I added a starter section called "Criticism" near the end of the article. Soon after, a IP wants to remove it. Since it is an IP, it has become a pending change. I guess I can't do anything about that since that would be besides the point of the review and akin to pushing. But I do intend to understand why it can't stay if it goes, and that consensus should be sought properly. What's wrong with a little criticism? DTM (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not correlated with pak armed forces but as I checked at wikipedia policy "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" many of claims and stuff can be contributed to according to who and also can be into body of article under other sections. Wikipedia is not soapbox for promotion or advocacy of any way and any sort, and some stuff can go more for some blogs or personal websites. Brzikraken (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
This applies for the entire article. Each section is promoting an aspect of the Pak Armed Forces. As per user being blocked, I have restored the criticism section. It doesn't seem undue. DTM (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
But then that line written by the sockpuppet also makes sense of distributing the content under respective sections rather than create an entirely new one. Let's see how to go about this. DTM (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Before being blocked, Brzikraken took reference to Wikipedia:Criticism in this edit writing in the summary "As per wiki policy WP:NOCRIT". However, WP:NOCRIT is an essay. While this is only an ESSAY note must be made that "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."... accordingly the essay has to be understood in terms of this article and to what extent this applies as a norm/minority viewpoint rather than a policy or guideline over here. DTM (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@Aman.kumar.goel: Since you have been really helpful with policy, please help me navigate this. Am I in the affirmative here or does Brzikraken have a point. I would have linked Bharatiya29 but seems they are blocked, they had given an affirmative during the AFD for the criticism. How do I counter what Brzikraken wrote? DTM (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
A "criticism" section can be well avoided since such sections do attract negative POVs. As for the IP disruption, I have requested ECP on RFPP now. I will be back here soon. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 15:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I would prefer a section called "Dominance in Pakistan" or something similar, in place of "criticism". Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 15:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree, it sounds good about "Dominance in Pakistan" eventually instead of "dominance" "influence". 109.93.105.4 (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023

active military 780,000 reserve force 1,000,000 defence budget 15.0 billion Mustaqim raja (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan_Armed_Forces/Archives/2024/June&oldid=1244709077"