Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:06, 2 October 2022

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Pakistan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for History of Pakistan: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2010-05-24 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Summarise the precolonial sections Copyedit : The whole article needs a thorough copyedit Expand : The post-1947 sections Verify : Provide inline citations wherever possible Other : * Optimize number of images - make use of the rotation template Request a peer review soon Give more importance to the events that lead to the emergence of modern Pakistan and the events after 1947 Give less importance to the ancient and precolonial histories that are better covered in the relevant articles Try to keep this article as a summary, and create relevant daughter articles where necessary Protect this vadalism-prone article from malicious edits

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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 Za1255 (talk) 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 Indus Valley, which spans the northwestern expanse of the Indian subcontinent and the eastern Iranian plateau. The region served both as the fertile ground of a major civilisation and as the gateway of South Asia to Central Asia and the Near East.. I don't see what the issue here is. --199.71.174.200 (talk) 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, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

NWFP hasn't existed since 2006. You know nothing about the history of Pakistan. --2607:FEA8:A380:789:8052:5A1B:4F6C:B40F (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Not 2006, but 2010. See North-West Frontier Province. 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 @Doug Weller:, @RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

References

1. Young, Margaret Walsh. Cities of The World (Third ed.). Gale Research Company. p. 439. ISBN 0-8103-2542-X.
2. Cilano, Cara (2014-06-03). National Identities in Pakistan: The 1971 War in Contemporary Pakistani Fiction. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-135-22507-0.
3. "COUNTRY PROFILE: PAKISTAN" (PDF). Library of Congress. Library of Congress – Federal Research Division. Retrieved 1 April 2020.
4. Babb, Carla. "Ancient Pakistan Civilization Remains Shrouded in Mystery". VOA News. Retrieved 1 April 2020.
5. Rehmat Ali, Chauhdry. "Pakistan: Fatherland of the Pak nations" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 8 November 2020.
6. Neelis, Jason (2007), "Passages to India: Śaka and Kuṣāṇa migrations in historical contexts", in Srinivasan, Doris (ed.), On the Cusp of an Era: Art in the Pre-Kuṣāṇa World, Routledge, pp. 55–94, ISBN 978-90-04-15451-3 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 Hindu Kush, Karakoram, and Himalaya 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 Shortughai in Badakhshan (northeastern Afghanistan) and the lower Indus valley provide evidence for long-distance commercial networks and 'polymorphous relations' across the Hindu Kush until c. 1800 B.C.' The Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) may have functioned as a 'filter' for the introduction of Indo-Iranian languages to the northwestern Indian subcontinent, although routes and chronologies remain hypothetical. (page 55)"
7. Marshall, John (2013) , A Guide to Taxila, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–, ISBN 978-1-107-61544-1 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 Megasthenes as running from Pataliputra to the north-west of the Maurya empire; the second from Western Asia through Bactria, Kapisi and Pushkalavati and so across the Indus at Ohind to Taxila; and the third from Kashmir and Central Asia by way of the Srinagar valley and Baramula to Mansehra and so down the Haripur 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)"

Riwat 55

@Princesssasha2 and Indianbandar: Please stop trying to insert references to Riwat 55 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... – Joe (talk) 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:

• South Asia (orthographic projection) without national boundaries.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is not the history of Pakistan as a state

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 Muslin 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@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.... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It was summarized by user:Nichalp admin and arbitrator, the editor who was responsible for nearly 20 India-related Featured Articles on Misplaced Pages, in this post from April 2007 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 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 Jamal047 (talk) 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: The 15-year-old post by user:Nichalp 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"? पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

It is very much the consensus. It has been followed scrupulously both on the India page (in many discussions, which you will have to find yourself on Talk:India) and on the History of India pages. Why do you think both pages, especially the India page concentrates only on the history in the region that is today the Republic of India?

I have told you again and again, please do not ping me. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I have removed more WP:UNDUE content, and as I state below in reply to Johnbod, I plan to bring the prose size down to 10K words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@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 WP:3RR 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. User:Johnbod 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. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 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 WP:DUE and WP:NPOV 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 Maurya Empire 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, please do not ping me Patliputra. What is it you do not understand? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, Pakistan 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:52, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I am asking for admin help here @Vanamonde93, El C, Bishonen, and RegentsPark: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I confess I cannot figure out what the dispute is here; would anyone care to summarize it? Vanamonde (Talk) 22:22, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm with Vanamonde93 on this. Happy to help if someone can give a (very brief) summary. Also pinging @Mar4d: who may be able to help (unfortunately WT:Pakistan appears to be moribund). --RegentsPark (comment) 23:36, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello Vanamonde, In the main, India-POV editors have been editing it prolifically adding regions of Pakistan to realms of little-known Hindu, Buddhist, Central Asia-based or India-based kingdoms of the past, especially of the early medieval era. The article had not only become bloated with 14,500 words, but also unduly weighted toward that early medieval (pre-Islamic) period, thereby also giving an opportunity for editors to spam this history of Pakistan page with Hindu- or Buddhist-related images of sculpture, reliefs, or coins—images that would never appear in the history of India or South Asia. There were also some Islamic regional kingdoms whose bloat was not so extensive.Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I've reduced it to 11,500 odd words and plan to reduce it further to about 10,000 words which is the size of the FA India. I had written the History of Pakistan page long ago. It has changed quite a bit, of course, since then, but the edits of the last six months have been outsized, i.e. caused the article to be unduly weighted by this underlying POV. I sincerely believe that much of it is caused by the absence of active Pakistani editors. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent big reversion

This one. 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 User:Jamal047 and User:Sutyarashi 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. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

@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 पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 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 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 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 India#History 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 Indai page, for example, is 10,662 words Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:05, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Content removal

@पाटलिपुत्र:, @Fowler&fowler:, @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? Jamal047 (talk) 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. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Top-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistani history articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Unknown-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• B-Class history articles
• Top-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists