| Revision as of 22:22, 1 October 2022 editVanamonde93 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators80,222 edits →The article is not the history of Pakistan as a state: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 12:36, 28 July 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,067 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:History of Pakistan/Archive 1) (bot |
| (77 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{calm}} |
|
|
{{Pakistani English}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=History|class=B}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|importance=Top|History=y}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Pakistan|class=B|importance=Top |History=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject History |importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B |
|
{{WikiProject British Empire |importance=High}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject India |importance=High}} |
| ⚫ |
}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Bangladesh|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject History|peer-review=no|class=B|importance=Top|portal=yes|B-Class-1=yes|B-Class-2=yes|B-Class-3=yes|B-Class-4=yes|B-Class-5=yes|B-Class-6=yes}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{contentious topics/talk notice|ipa}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(31d) |
|
| algo = old(31d) |
| Line 20: |
Line 21: |
|
{{To do}} |
|
{{To do}} |
|
{{archives}} |
|
{{archives}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions","appear":{"revid":188878597,"parentid":188876748,"timestamp":"2008-02-03T20:53:17Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":824844413,"parentid":824055114,"timestamp":"2018-02-09T21:13:00Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"The Shahi Kingdoms and the Muslim invasions","appear":{"revid":188878597,"parentid":188876748,"timestamp":"2008-02-03T20:53:17Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":824844413,"parentid":824055114,"timestamp":"2018-02-09T21:13:00Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Geography == |
|
== Opening paragraph of this article == |
|
|
|
|
|
I am trying to improve this article by amending the 1st paragraph which isn't very inspiring. The first paragraph starts by saying Pakistan has a shared history with its neighbours. This is a very weak start to another wise good article – I mean can you name any country on the planet that doesn’t have a shared history over the centuries with other countries which share a border? This sentence about shared history is so general as to render it meaningless. |
|
|
|
|
|
Can I sugggest the opening paragraph later on in the first paragraph when it states: 'The region of present-day Pakistan served both as the fertile ground of a major civilization and as the gateway of South Asia to Central Asia and the Near East.' |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks ] (]) 16:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually it was improved. Then deleted for no reason whatsoever. This obsession with removing any mention of the Indus Valley in relation to Pakistan is slightly concerning. It's almost as if an agenda is being sought after. The original intro read as ''The '''history of Pakistan''' encompasses the region of the ],<ref>{{cite book |last1=Young |first1=Margaret Walsh |title=Cities of The World |publisher=Gale Research Company |isbn=0-8103-2542-X |page=439 |edition=Third }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Cilano|first=Cara|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=w3a3AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA101|title=National Identities in Pakistan: The 1971 War in Contemporary Pakistani Fiction|date=2014-06-03|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-135-22507-0|language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=COUNTRY PROFILE: PAKISTAN |url=https://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/cs/profiles/Pakistan.pdf |website=Library of Congress |publisher=Library of Congress – Federal Research Division |access-date=1 April 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Babb |first1=Carla |title=Ancient Pakistan Civilization Remains Shrouded in Mystery |url=https://www.voanews.com/east-asia/ancient-pakistan-civilization-remains-shrouded-mystery |website=VOA News |access-date=1 April 2020}}</ref> which spans the northwestern expanse of the ] and the eastern ].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://chrehmatali.com/books/Fatherland_of_the_Pak_Nation.pdf|title=Pakistan: Fatherland of the Pak nations|last=Rehmat Ali|first=Chauhdry|access-date=|archive-date=8 November 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201108173128/http://chrehmatali.com/books/Fatherland_of_the_Pak_Nation.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref> The region served both as the fertile ground of a major civilisation and as the gateway of South Asia to ] and the ].<ref name="Srinivasan2007">{{citation|last=Neelis|first=Jason|editor=Srinivasan, Doris|title=On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kuṣāṇa World|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dCz8NczNbcMC&pg=PA55|year=2007|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-90-04-15451-3|pages=55–94|chapter=Passages to India: Śaka and Kuṣāṇa migrations in historical contexts}} Quote: "Numerous passageways through the western frontiers of the Indian subcontinent in modern Pakistan and Afghanistan served as migration routes to South Asia from the Iranian plateau and the Central Asian steppes. Prehistoric and protohistoric exchanges across the ], ], and ] ranges demonstrate earlier precedents for routes through the high mountain passes and river valleys in later historical periods. Typological similarities between Northern Neolithic sites in Kashmir and Swat and sites in the Tibetan plateau and northern China show that 'Mountain chains have often integrated rather than isolated peoples.' Ties between the trading post of ] in ] (northeastern Afghanistan) and the lower ] provide evidence for long-distance commercial networks and 'polymorphous relations' across the Hindu Kush until c. 1800 B.C.' The ] (BMAC) may have functioned as a 'filter' for the introduction of ] to the northwestern Indian subcontinent, although routes and chronologies remain hypothetical. (page 55)"</ref><ref name="Marshall2013">{{citation|last=Marshall|first=John|title=A Guide to Taxila|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=JEMbH2aDO0UC&pg=PA1|year=2013|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-1-107-61544-1|pages=1–|orig-year=1960}} Quote: "Here also, in ancient days, was the meeting-place of three great trade-routes, one, from Hindustan and Eastern India, which was to become the 'royal highway' described by ] as running from ] to the north-west of the ]; the second from Western Asia through ], ] and ] and so across the Indus at ] to Taxila; and the third from Kashmir and Central Asia by way of the ] valley and ] to ] and so down the ] valley. These three trade-routes, which carried the bulk of the traffic passing by land between India and Central and Western Asia, played an all-important part in the history of Taxila. (page 1)"</ref>''. I don't see what the issue here is. --] (]) 18:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The version in place is a longstanding one of dozen-odd years. The history of Pakistan is not just the history of the Indus Valley (the broad alluvial plain of the Indus); Baluchistan, for one, lies outside this alluvium and more properly on the Iranian plateau as does NWFP (Taxila, Takht-i-Bahi) Best regards, ]] 22:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::NWFP hasn't existed since 2006. You know nothing about the history of Pakistan. --] (]) 23:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Not 2006, but 2010. See ]. I obviously know that; it was an abbreviation used for an edit summary to save time. Neither Peshawar, nor Taxila, are in the Indus Plain. Your racist edit summary besides is not helpful. Notifying some admins {{ping|Doug Weller}}, {{ping|RegentsPark}} ]] 23:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Riwat 55 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Princesssasha2|Indianbandar}} Please stop trying to insert references to ] into the lead or Palaeolithic section. Nobody is disputing that the site is ~50k years old, but this is utterly unremarkable: there are many, many Palaeolithic sites in Pakistan, and many that are ''much'' older. This is already stated in the article, ''right after the sentences you are trying to insert''. It makes no sense to say that the prehistory of Pakistan "started" with Riwat 55. It's not even the oldest site at Riwat... – ] <small>(])</small> 18:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion == |
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: discussion | 2022-02-10T09:09:04.620435 | South Asia (orthographic projection) without national boundaries.svg --> |
|
|
Participate in the deletion discussion at the ]. —] (]) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The article is not the history of Pakistan as a state == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What step took Muslim rules to resit British ] (]) 05:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
The lead that is currently in the article has been in place for nearly 15 years. History if Pakistan is the history of the region that is today Pakistan. In other words, "ancient Pakistan" is an apt term. The old notion that Pakistan exists only after 1947 was settled long ago in many discussions both on this talk page and in the History of India and History of South Asia pages. It was decided that History of India is the history of the region that is today the Republic of India; if is UNDUE to include Mohenjo-daro or Gandhara or Taxila beyond a cursory mention in a history of India; the same applies, for example, to Dacca ] and the deindustrialization of Bengal. It is mostly a part of the history of Bangladesh. It is also UNDUE to claim the region of Pakistan in the realms of all sorts of Indian kingdoms the evidence of whose sovereignty in Pakistan is meagre or nonexistent. ]] 14:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|User:Fowler&fowler}} Could you actually point me to the supposed "consensus" in question that you claim as the reason for your mass deletion of content ? And anyway is all this 6-months material you are indiscrimately reverting in contravention of this supposed consensus? This seems like a pretty cavalier way of managing article content.... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]]</span> ] 14:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::It was summarized by ] admin and arbitrator, the editor who was responsible for nearly 20 India-related Featured Articles on Misplaced Pages, in from April 2007 ]] 14:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:So I see the issue is the lead. I was concerned about the mass removal of content. I tried to contribute in improving the article and was confused where my contributions were wrong ] (]) 14:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::The lead is a DUE summary of article content, and in some sense a template of what the content should not stray beyond. I believe your additions were UNDUE. ]] 15:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{ping|User:Fowler&fowler}} The 15-year-old post by ] seems to be a common-sense comment, not a "consensus" as you claimed. Anyway, can you specify which new content in the introduction, or specifically which content in the body of the article, you consider might be "undue"? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]]</span> ] 15:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It is very much the consensus. It has been followed scrupulously both on the ] page (in many discussions, which you will have to find yourself on ]) and on the ] pages. Why do you think both pages, especially the ] page concentrates only on the history in the region that is today the ]? |
|
|
::::I have told you again and again, please do not ping me. ]] 16:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I have removed more ] content, and as I state below in reply to Johnbod, I plan to bring the prose size down to 10K words. ]] 17:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::{{ping|User:Fowler&fowler}}The way you have been doing this is beyond common sense I'm afraid, and shows complete disrespect for the contributions of others: first you start by deleting the last 6 months of edits (by the way, you are already at your 3rd revert here, on the verge of breaking, again, the ] rule), and then you go on with a flurry of edits. It should be the other way around: you should edit from the '''''latest version''''', taking into account the edits from the last 6 months, and then trim as necessary. But instead of that, you are simply blanket-deleting the efforts of all contributors from the last 6 months: how to you expect these contributors to react? This is the opposite of collaborative editing: don't be surprised if you are reverted again by multiple users. ] too said that valuable content may have been added in the last 6 months: these contributions have to be respected and deserve more careful analysis. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]]</span> ] 18:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Johnbod is saying politely that the article needs to be reduced drastically. They certainly did not say "valuable content." I know I am at 3RR, I say in my edit summary that sometimes you have to take that risk when Misplaced Pages norms of ] and ] are being violently violated in the worst possible way, when India-POV history consisting of the smallest kingdoms described without supportive sources in one-sentence sections are being added to the History of Pakistan. It is a little ridiculous when the Maurya Empire section in the History of Pakistan has twice the geographical extent in its map and is described in double the prose needed in the lead of the ] page. Those are the sections I have removed or reduced. I wrote his article long time ago. It has changed a lot since, but I don't intervene unless I see gross WP violations. I know I am following WP policy in the best interpretations of ARBIPA. ]] 18:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Again, please do not ping me Patliputra. What is it you do not understand? ]] 18:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Also, ] is going through a very difficult time right now, with floods ravaging the country. This is not the time for Indian editors or India-POV-promoting editors to gang up on Pakistan-related pages. I see no Pakistani editors opposing here. Very likely they are preoccupied with real life. ]] 18:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I am asking for admin help here {{re|Vanamonde93|El_C|Bishonen|RegentsPark}} ]] 18:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::I confess I cannot figure out what the dispute is here; would anyone care to summarize it? <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] (])</span> 22:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Fasial masjid kis ne Azad karwaya == |
|
== Recent big reversion == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fasial masjid kis ne Azad karwaya ] (]) 09:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
. Firstly, the article was already too long at the 180K raw bytes version that F&F reverted to, and now is 218K, which is just far too long. As far as I can see, the bulk of the difference is a series of edits by ] and ] in August and September, mostly copying over material from satellite articles such as those on various medieval kingdoms. Some of this may be a good idea, but there is too much of it. At the least the material needs to be thinned out. ] (]) 14:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{ping|User:Johnbod}} Yes, my main issue is with the indiscriminate reverting. If there is some undue material, someone could at least have the courtesy to go and edit the content accordingly. 6 months worth of contributions cannot be all wrong (usually...). Best <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]]</span> ] 14:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I wasn't paying attention to the article size reverted to, only the lead. I agree that there is too much extraneous material, and I'm happy to revert it farther back. The new material is mostly India-POV history being applied Pakistan-related geography. It is the result of Pakistani editors disappearing from Misplaced Pages. ]] 14:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I've reduced it further. Despite my reduction, it still remains in very poor state. It seems that long and biases histories are being written ''here'' about empires that would not be possible on the empire's own pages because those are being better monitored for UNDUE ]] 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:The page's prose size was 14,371 words. The most obscure Indian kingdoms which are not mentioned anywhere in ] make their appearance here. I have removed the UNDUE additions and brought the size down to 11,507 words. It needs to be reduced further to 10,000 words. The size of the ] page, for example, is 10,662 words ]] 17:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Content removal == |
|
== History == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
پاکستان کے وجود کے لیے اسٹیبلشمنٹ کے کردار پر تح تحقیق کریں ] (]) 08:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
{{ping|User:पाटलिपुत्र}}, {{ping|User:Fowler&fowler}}, {{ping|User:Sutyarashi}} Fowler reverted some recent edits because of "too much WP:UNDUE material". My question is why my contributions got deleted. I believe I literally improved the page with my contributions. Could someone explain to me how my edits were wrong? ] (]) 14:30, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
:I have opened a thread above. Please don't disrespect Misplaced Pages policy by starting a new thread. State what you need to in the thread above. ]] 14:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC) |
|
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
