Talk:History of Pakistan/Archive 1

2002/3 Talks

I've fixed the BBC poll results that somebody added so they tally with http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2017631.stm - if there is some other survey which matches the figures which were given here, then a source should be given for it. I also have very severe doubts about some other changes recently made by the same user (see http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=History_of_Pakistan&diff=439956&oldid=439933 ) - unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to fix this up myself. --Camembert 03:28 Nov 23, 2002 (UTC)

---

UserPakAtheist removed:

India defeated Pakistan in all the three wars that it launched.

A recent survey conducted by Mori for the BBC, found that 61% of Kashmiris would prefer Indian citizenship, 6% would prefer Pakistani, with 33% undecided [1].

--

I disagree. While all surveys are inherently biased, it is still useful information. It should up to the reader to beware the potential for error. I think the BBC can be trusted enough to not further any political purpose. Are there any other surveys by different organizations supporting or debunking these results? Those would help...

And what's wrong with that general statement? Isnt it true?

--Jiang 21:44, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Poll:

The problem with that particular poll is dual, first it counted votes only in indian held kashmir, secondly it the only muslim concentrated area that it gave importance was areas sorrounding sirinagar.

Secondly If you are going to mention a poll in an article about "history of pakistan" which forces the user to conclude about a contentious issue which has taken more then 50 years to resolve, then it could only be a poll which takes the whole population into account without being under the influence of pakistani or indian governments.

The second statement that i deleted was about the three wars, it was because the if you mention such a generalized statement then you should better come up with your authentic references, because you can only be sure about the 70's war the other two.... you cant.

A survey by an indian organization finds 74% people want freedom!!!

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2000/20001008/j&k.htm#2

[I think whoever gave this link here should consider taking a course in English!] ~rAGU

POV

Some user has recenty edited the article drastically to make it conform to the theory that Pakistan was never a part of India, apart from small intermittent periods from time to time, and that Pakistan was always a separate entity. One example is this: "When the Abdali kingdom weakened early in the 19th century due to internecine warfare, Pakistan did not revert to Indian control but instead an independent kingdom arose in Punjab headed by the Sikh leader Ranjit Singh....."

These edits seem to convey a point of view that Pakistan always existed as a separate nation for thousands of years, which was colonized by India from time to time. Someone please read the article thoroughly and make it less POV. 130.203.202.156 30 June 2005 00:37 (UTC)

I can do it myself too, but I am tired of vandals who would come again and restore the changes, and perhaps also get me blocked. 130.203.202.156 30 June 2005 00:39 (UTC)

Another gem:

So far one of our objects has been to underline the fact that right from the days of the Indus Valley Civilization down to the end of the Ghaznavid rule at the fall of the 12th century A.D. over a period of more than four thousand years, Pakistan has been invariably a single, compact, separate entity either independent or part of powers located to her west; its dependence on or forming part of India was merely an exception and that too for an extremely short period. It was only when the Muslims established themselves at Delhi early in the 13 century A.D. that Pakistan was made a part of India, but not in the pre-Muslim period. And once Muslims' successors in the sub-continent, the British, relinquished power in the middle of the 20th century, Pakistan reverted to its normal position of an independent country. Indian propaganda that the division of this sub-continent was unnatural and unrealistic is fake and fraudulent. Muslims had joined this region of Pakistan with India in the early 13th century A.D. when the Delhi Sultanate was formed; again Muslims have disconnected it from India giving it the normal and natural form which its geographical, ethnical, cultural and religious identity demanded.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.203.202.156 (talk • contribs) 30 June 2005 00:44 (UTC).

I believe the article needs to state facts instead of judgement from any viewpoints. I agree with the comments above, that some sections, especially the Vedic Civilization section, needs rewording and possible removal of some "quotes" to remove POV. For example, the section "Vedic civilization"'s last part, the para from "It may be of interest to mention here that so long as the Aryans stayed in Pakistan, they did not evolve that particular religion called 'Hinduism' with its caste system and other taboos." is a plain example of POV, and even somewhat hilarious. --Ragib 30 June 2005 00:45 (UTC)

I'm the guy who made some of the changes actually. It's in the Oxford History of India and isn't my POV. In addition, Vedic civilization's geography and the fact that it's religious hymns makes it difficult to place:

http://www.answers.com/topic/vedic-civilization

I also added the periods that appear to have been deleted including within the Islamic period that were completed ignored up until the Mughal Empire.

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 00:55, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not the existence of rule by Muhammad Ghori, Mahmud, Muhammad bin Quasim. The issue is the tone you write it. Just state the facts, which should speak for themselves. The sentence I mentioned is POV, no doubt about that. The section "Vedic civilization" seems ok until judgement and theories about the emergence of caste system start to creep into the article. By the way, you referenced Answers.com which is actually a wikipedia mirror. I don't find the article Vedic civilization contain any of the "references" on aryans-were-good-until-they-entered-current-day-India theory. Please stick to the facts. Thanks. --Ragib 30 June 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Okay that's fair enough. I'm going to rewrite it. I can't really reference the Oxford History of India as it doesn't seem to be on the net. I just googled it regarding Central Asian origins. I'm going to remove that part. I'm also going to edit those sections regarding Ghori, Mahmud and Qasim, but in addition the Sassanians aren't mentioned and nor are the Turkic slave dynasties before the Mughal Empire. Nonetheless I'll make changes and see what people have to say.

--Tombseye 01:05, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-It would be nice if the "Pre-Colonial History" section be edited drastically so it doesnt assume the existance of India and Pakistan (as is today) in those ancient times. Also, its not like the area now known as the Republic of India had a complete common history of its own when much of it was also ridden with different history in different parts of the country (ie: Assam and southern India). -[[Afghan Historian 19:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)]]

article focus

see Talk:History of India; the pre-1947 material should be merged in History of the Indian subcontinent. The division into Pakistan vs. Indian Republic is only aged 60 years, and it is inappropriate to organize articles about early history guided by it. Before the RoI and Pakistan, there was the British Raj. Before that, it was just a collection of shifting kingdoms anyway, so the only thing that unites it are geographical criteria. dab (ᛏ) 10:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that it should be merged. It's like merging all of Europe together as a subcontinent of Eurasia. One series of events takes place in what is today Pakistan and something else in Central India. Pakistan is mostly on the subcontinent, but most of Baluchistan is on the Iranian plateau. Furthermore, western Pakistan has a history and culture that is very closely aligned to that of Afghanistan rather than India. In fact, before the British came there was little concept of India so much as that of empires both old and new. Religion, language and regional affinities were more dominant than a national identity. While Pakistan is invaded and part of the empires of the Persians, Greeks, Arabs, and others most of India has a different history. Why should that be merged? Pakistan is a modern creation indeed as are most nations, but it's history is also that of two civilizations at least and cannot be neatly placed into a single monolithic category.

Tombseye 13:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I somewhat agree. Baluchistan belongs to a greater Iranian nation, legitimately belonging to Iran, occupied sometime in History by the British. North West Frontier Province (was earlier called Afghania) , again occupied by British, identifies with Afghanistan which has been closer to Central Asia in the modern times. The rest of Pakistan, consisting of an overwhelming population of Pakistan, and all that we identify today as Pakistani culture has always been a part of India. India, afterall, is named after the Indus river. Afghanistan is also included an a Greater India, which is a socio-cultural rather than a political concept. Nations are not made of kingdoms. Even if you somehow fabricate a history which shows that Pakistan was ruled for long periods by people who did not rule large parts of India, you cannot deny that most of what is today Pakistan was (and in large part still is) socially, linguistically, economically, ethnically, culturally inseparable from India. Muwaffaq 20:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

You mean part of the overall Indian (or Indo-Aryan language) linguistic and cultural sphere and I would agree that that is a consideration. The problem is that language alone does not make for a "Greater India" alone as that would make the Czechs a part of Greater Russia due to Slavic similarity (and the notion of Pan-Slavism). That's what that becomes when talking of a Greater India, it's a similar notion ot pan-Slavism rather than a more solid concept based upon history. The history part diverges and due to geography the Czechs have more to do with Germany than Russia and Sindh has more interaction with Iran than it does with central India, but maintains the cultural ties that you speak of that are obvious to note. However, the history aspect is separate at times or simply intersects with corresponding areas of India's extreme northwest. The concept of "India" as a nation does not arise until the 19th century as the most vague conceptions include references to "Hindustan" or Hind largely by Muslim invaders. Indians refer to a more vague region called Bharat. However all of that aside, Pakistan as a state today constitutes a separate nation and has a local history and that's really the point. In addition, parts of eastern Afghanistan intersect with Buddhist tradition and a brief period of Hindu rule in Kabul did take place under the Iranian Hindu Shahis, but this is so brief in terms of context and for most of its history Afghanistan is basically part of the Persian sphere of influence to the point that the Avesta is believed to have originated there. There is of course correlation with the language of Sanskrit and the Avestan Iranian dialects that makes for overlap. One can mention the many points and how the western part associates with the Iranic world and the east associates with South Asia of course. Nations and nationalities tend to man-made obviously and perception becomes a matter of view. I think the way this article is written it pays homage to the fact that Pakistan is an overlapping region rather than a historical state. I would agree though that the Panjab and Sind are culturally, linguistically, and, in part, ethnically related to corresponding regions of India, but keep in mind that there is a large Baluchi minority in Sind and there are Punjabi Pathans who overlap as well. It's a messy border region, but the article doesn't shrink away from making the point that for example, the Sikh empire arose in Lahore even though the Sikhs were a minority. Or that Hinduism and the related religion of Buddhism were predominant in the region. What can perhaps be surmised from all of this is that while the west is clearly part of Iranian civilization and the east is an extension of Indic civilization, religion and local history has also given rise to a regional civilization and a modern nation that can best be termed as Indo-Iranian as a result. This removes the notion that many people have that Pakistan seeks to emphasize the Arabs and Islamic period as that seems to me about a limited way of approaching this. Indeed, most articles emphasize the ancient ties and connections as well. What makes this difficult is that historically the western Punjabis and Sindhis have been ruled by "western" empires and this has inevitably made changes that included conversion to Islam that did not take place in India proper. Overall though, I see nothing inaccurate in what you have said. Tombseye 14:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

all I mean is that the same topic is covered several times. Both History of India and History of Pakistan have sections on the IVC, Vedic civilization etc. dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. There are in-depth articles and then there are brief summaries. What part of the History of India talks about the Durrani Empire or the Mongols controlling Pakistan west of the Indus? The reality is that there is cursory mention because while on thing takes place in what is today Pakistan, another takes place in India. The Vedic section is short at any rate as are the other sections, while overall one gets the real sense that there is a regional history, which is the point as opposed to promoting the idea that Bengal and Baluchistan had the same history which is absurd.

Tombseye 02:07, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed another POV Gem:

"The five thousand year history of Pakistan reveals that the Indus Valley Civilization of Pakistan and the Gangetic Valley Civilization of India have remained always separate entities. In fact, ancient Pakistan based governments ruled over northern India more often and for much longer periods than Indian based governments have ruled over Pakistan territories. What is more important, ancient Pakistan as an independent country always looked westward and had more connections ethnic, cultural, linguistic, religious, commercial, as well as political with the Sumerian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Central Asian civilizations than with the Gangetic Valley. It was only from the Muslim period onward that it became subservient to northern Indian governments. Even this period is not devoid of revolts and successful assertion of independence by people of Pakistan. In the pre-Muslim period, India’s great expansion covering large portions of the South Asia took place only during the reigns of the Mauryas (3rd century BC), the Guptas (4th century AD), Raja Harsha (7th century AD), the Gurjara empire of Raja Bhoj (8th century AD) and the Pratiharas (9th century AD). It is important to note that except for the Maurya period lasting barely a hundred years, under none of the other dynasties did the Indian based governments ever rule over Pakistan. They always remained east of river Sutlej. Persian Achaemenian Empire conquered ancient Pakistan and it remained part of Persian empire for more than two hundred years. Alexander the Great also conquered Indus satrapy, modern Pakistan, and did briefly cross into India but returned after his army refused to advance further into India. Ancient Pakistan remained part of the Hellenic world for next hundred fifty years. During the Arab rule, the territories of Pakistan were known as 'Sindh' and Indian territories were known as 'Hind'. The Arab dynasties ruled Pakistan from Baghdad in Iraq and from Damascus in Syria for more than two hundred years." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.61.18.228 (talk • contribs)

acronym

surely, the acronym is a backronym, and the word was not "also captured in the Persian language", but rather built on it? dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Gupta Empire

-Sindh was not merely a tributary state. Most archaelogical evidence shows that the area now known as Sindh was an integral full part of the northwestern regions of the Gupta empire, without the tributary states. Most maps excluding the tributary regions also show the area around the southern Indus river as an integral part of the empire. -User: Afghan Historian

Peer review

The article has been listed for a peer review by the History Wikiproject. Green Giant (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Menander

I see that the article is locked, but the following meaning does not make sense.

The Indo-Greek Menander I (reigned 155-130 BCE) drove the Greco-Bactrians out of Gandhara and beyond the Hindu Kush, becoming a king shortly after his victory

Menander was a Greco-Bactrian himself, though ruling in the Indian provinces of their short-lived empire. He surely did not drive out any Greco-Bactrians; what he did was to take control of some territories that were previously ruled from Bactria. And these territories were most likely mainly in south-eastern Afghanistan, not Pakistan. And this is supposed to have happened at the end of his reign. The paragraph about Heliocles I is also outdated; since 50 years, scholars agree that a separate king named Heliocles II ruled in Pakistan.

I request a temporary unlocking so I can re-write the Indo-Greek sequence in accordance with the main article. (To which I am one of the main contributors). Kindly, Sponsianus (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is only semi-protected, which means that established users like yourself can edit. However, at the present time I am considering removing most of the pre-20th century history because it is not really as relevant to the history of Pakistan itself as the 20th and 21st century history is. Green Giant (talk) 18:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

pakistan

Pakistan got the first..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.148.129 (talk) 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

copy edits

Because the article is locked, I couldn't figure out how to make copyedits, but I noticed a few things that should be changed in the last few paragraphs. maybe someone else can can make them? Thanks!

"A General Election was held in Pakistan" . . . should be "general election" uncapitalized.

"On August 7 The deadlock between ruling parties ended when the coalition government of Pakistan decided to move for the impeachment of the President and then head for the restoration of the deposed judiciary. moreover they have decided that the President of Pakistan now faces charges of weakening the federation, creating economic impasse and violating the constitution.[101]"

"The" is capitalized unnecessarily, and the first sentence is too long and should be broken up. "Moreover" should be capitalized.

"Also He had been required to seek the vote of confidence from the senate and parliament"

"He" shouldn't be capitalized, and there should be a period at the end.

--72.93.0.112 (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. --GDibyendu (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Dominion Status

I was looking for some information on why Dominion Status prolonged till 1956, but this article did not help: only thing it said is the date when it ended in 'First military era (1958-1971)' section. Main articles listed in the section are 2 biographies and one on Bangladesh Independence War.--GDibyendu (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indus priest image

I put it there, because its one of the most important images representing the Indus Civilization followed by the dancing here. Since the article contains the Indus Valley era, it's important to keep the priest image here.03:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Taeyebaar (talk)

scope, length

This article is too long. About half of its content is also offtopic and rehashes material treated elsewhere (WP:CFORK). All the material pertaining to periods pre-dating the Pakistan movement should be exported, and at best be summarized very briefly. "History of Pakistan" parallels History of the Republic of India, it is fallacious to compare it to History of India. dab (𒁳) 14:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This has been argued by many contributors as can be read in the archives. I think contents should be merged to Balochistan, History of Balochistan, Sindh, History_of_Sindh, Punjab, History_of_Punjab, and Indus_Valley_Civilization. Andries (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I have had similar concerns about the content for some time, so I have removed about 25 KB of ancient history. Green Giant (talk) 12:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your concerns are unfounded. Every country article on Wikipedia has a prehistory section which goes into detail. By Omitting information, you are showing a distinct bias. This IS the history of Pakistan. The fact that Pakistani people were involved and this took place in Pakistan is not being questioned. You are simply questioning the relevance of this because you dont agree with the partition of British India, hence consider this as part of Indian history? Dont make this into a "Political history" article. This is as relevant as it gets. Omitting relevant information is clearly a biased stance, and hence vandalism. Xinjao (talk) 21:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Xinjao, first of all, I would like to politely ask you to refrain from making accusations of vandalism against established, hardworking editors who have worked constructively for several days to copyedit and improve this article to a great extent. Vandalism is something entirely different and maybe you can read this to know more about it. Secondly, to reiterate what dab said, "History of Pakistan" should be more about the modern republic, since the name "Pakistan" came into existence in 1947, and the article content can justifiably be on the lines of History of the Republic of India. Nevertheless, there is a "Prehistory" section in this article highlighting significant details with relevant links to various other related articles, which the reader will click on if she wants to know more. I request you to go through this talk page and its archives to understand the rationale of well-meaning editors before making significant unilateral changes to their work. Thanks for your time. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 04:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

In defence of Xinjao, perhaps it is seeing edits like this edit to the Xuanzang article gave rise to the idea that some are trying to Indianise (so to speak) the history of the subcontinent :-) Pahari Sahib 05:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Pahari Sahib, you are again falling prey to the same fallacy as your defendant. "India" refers to a much larger region in a historical context; it most certainly is not meant to refer to the Republic of India which, like the Islamic Republic of Pakistan came into existence in 1947. Are you honestly saying that this part of the world was known as "South Asia" at the time of Xuanzang? Every book, every reliable source, every historian, every shred of evidence attests to the fact that the subcontinent was called "India" or "Hindostan" or a variant of the same since the time of ancient Persians and Greeks. That this is a matter of discomfort to certain editors, even after knowing the fact that ancient India and Republic of India mean different things, should not be of any consequence to Wikipedia, should it? The carving out of separate nations was a very recent event in the scheme of things. I would urge you to not put a nationalistic spin on this by applying the modern phenomenon of partition with retrospective effect as an excuse to "de-Indianize" articles. Thank you. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 08:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Max, I am certainly not saying that this area was known as "South Asia" at the time of Xuanzang, and I am certainly not trying to put any such nationalistic spin on things (my comment on Indianising was meant in good humour) - but South Asia is certainly a more accurate title in this context. South Asia, does not exclude Indians - whereas "India" is open to ambiguity. And in fact is of consequence to Wikipedia as it would be to any encyclopaedic work. Pahari Sahib 08:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pahari Sahib, thanks for the clarification. While it is true that a reference to "India" can be ambiguous, my point is that we can't keep changing all references to historical "India" with "South Asia" or seemingly PC, inclusive terms. If earlier historians, writers and travellers knew this region as "India", we should report it as such. It is not an attempt at Indianisation but, like you said, at encyclopaedicity. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pahari Sahib, so now that you've moved the History of India article to History of India and Pakistan (which was moved by Ragib to the more sensible History of the Indian Subcontinent), I presume you would not be averse to shifting the "Prehistory" section from this article to the article about the history of the subcontinent. Then we can let History of the Republic of India and History of Pakistan talk about independence era events and the history of the subcontinent article can take care of the ancient ones. Will wait for your views on this. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 10:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand what you mean. "History of Pakistan" is not only the political history of Pakistan. I am not here to argue what has been included in the History of India article, but why do you insist on removing relevant information from the history of Pakistan article?
Imo, "The rise of the Muslim League" doesnt belong in this article in the first place. This is all political. And as for using the term "India" for the whole subcontinent, it is obviously very misleading, but its not what this argument is about.
I ask you to expand the pre history content. A lot of people worked very hard for this relevant information to appear on the right page. Its very disheartening that people who know very little about the region can remove huge chunks of information because they dont like it. I assume good faith and want you to realise that "History of Pakistan" involves pre 1947 events too. Thank you for reading and regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xinjao (talk • contribs) 12:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Xinjao here that pre-1947 events including pre-history should be in this article (without bloating it) - I think it should be something like the History of the United States - which detail events well before the uprising against the British began. Also Max by the way my Initial move of the history of India was a little hasty (being bold you see), I was primarily thinking of 1947 - forgot all about Robert Clive and Bangladesh. And when I did realise, I found out that Ragib had already taken corrective action. Pahari Sahib 04:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no issues about the hasty move, but it is still not clear to me why you would want "Pre-history" in this article. Would it not be better if we dump "Prehistory" in the History of the Indian Subcontinent article since we've all agreed that it's a shared history, and let this article focus on Pakistan during the British rule/partition/independence/post-independence, just like the Republic of India article does? Well anyway, I've been bold and tried something like that. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 04:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not about shared History Max. The point is that this information is relevant and belongs on this page. In the past nobody had a problem with an extensively detailed pre history Section. And even now, the pre history section is included, but a tiny amount is said about it. This simply doesnt add up. If you go to any Pakistani Government site, they acknowledge the Indus valley and Ghandara as Pakistans ancient history. There is no question about whether this information is relevant, but some users are just not happy adding this information here because they want it to be a strictly political article. The correction here is that this is a History article. This article suits the description of Political History of Pakistan. When readers search for History of Pakistan, that is simply not what they are looking for. I am assuming good faith in you, and please help me make this article more relevant. Xinjao (talk) 11:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Comment: I'm not sure what you guys are argueing about. However, I do support including a pre-history section that includes information starting with the Indus valley. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support Unknown. I am just trying to point out that countless of people worked very hard to include relevant information to this article, but along come some other people who remove the information and insist on it only being included in the History of India article even though all this took place in Pakistan. We are not arguing the content of History of India article, but the fact that the modern nation of Pakistan has obviously been affected by its 5000 year old past. Is there any reason not to include it besides Politics and Nationalism? Unless someone comes up with an amazing reason not to include the Indus Valley and Ghandara stuff in this article soon, I will go ahead and expand this article. Thank you. Xinjao (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Max today responded by further removing EVERY reference to the Pre history and making this purely a Political article. This is a first, and I will personally report this vandalism if you remove information from this page again. Please see above, people are agreeing to expand the Pre History section, not remove it entirely. Xinjao (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, keep the pre-history it certainly had a place here and the images are just as important. If politcial history then maybe we can start a seperate article called politcial history of Pakistan and write about history of Pak politcias, but since this is a general history, everything relivent should stay here. Taeyebaar (talk) 03:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree that Pre-History in this section is too long. Also if you look at the official timeline of Pakistans creation by the Pakistani government, was during the time of Qasim's conquest of Sindh and parts of Punjab. Also there can be a pre-history before 1947 but should be mainly of the Islamic history of the Subcontinent. Anything before that is neo-Pakistani nationlism and goes against what the founders vision of its history. Look at the History of the Republic of India article which does not have much reference about pre-1947 or pre colonial. The land forming the Republic of India has its own long history, but is not mentioned because it is no needed, the History of India article covers that. The History of India article covers Republic of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh so I see no reasons that History of Pakistan should have a long pre history section. It should focus more on after 1947 because Pakistan is a major player in present world politics. Putting pre-1947 history puts it in conflict with other articles in Wikipedia. Thankyou User Talk:Dewan357

Changed The Article Setup

I've went ahead and changed the setup of the article, and added some early history to the introduction page. I would request everyone to please look over my edits because I may have made a few mistakes (which I think I may have). I think this set up is much easier to read and more organized. I hope we can further add to the article from this point onwards. There are still many spelling mistakes and errors I've noticed throughout the article so I request everyone to please look into them. Thank you.

--MirNaveed (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts MN. Pre-partition history of the Pakistan-specific and very adjoining regions is needed here. Good Job! But, it will be nice if more information is highlighted by competent Wikipedians on the local kings and sons of the soil, who faced the invasions and their aftermaths. Only a few, like Porus, Dahir, Rai kings and the 'Sikhs' find some mention; some have been dismissed as anonymous 'petty kings' in the narrative, perhaps inadvertently. Making Pakistan region central to the historical account will make this article very informative; it is now mostly an 'exocentric' account, highlighting the invaders from the West and the East, great may be their feats, though. This is my humble opinion. Personally, I contribute mainly copy edits here.Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment that the princely state of kashmir illegaly ceded to india is utterly blasphemous . Can you please be neutral and not promote divisive and agenda based wetern version of our history ?

more info

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/01/arts/arts-artifacts-textiles-as-rich-and-varied-as-the-history-of-pakistan.html?pagewanted=1 Mughalnz (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Sapta Sindhu needs to be mentioned

Please mention Sapta Sindhu which was Pakistan's original name. It is from Sapta Sindhu the names Indus and Hind were derived from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.90.213 (talk) 04:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For crying out loud, what is the problem!!!!

Are some people trying to be exceptionally smart by removing half of the information as "irrelevant"? This has to be the most vandalised page on Wikipedia. I urge moderators to take action. Certain people with blatant bias insist on removing large parts they dont "like". Truly pathetic. --Xinjao (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

=get back in your taxi

I suggest you get back in your taxi indian and concentrate on making ends meet instead of wasting your precious time on Pakistani Wiki articles. The region of Babylon was never called Iraq shall we assume Iran has claims to it now? You indians are ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by NHPak (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Merge INDIGENOUS PAKISTANI history with this article

I came onto this page hoping to find some information on my native Sindh, but could find absolutely nothing, It came to my attention that another article has been made on this matter. Pages on the History of Sindh, Balochistan, Punjab, and so on and so forth need to be merged with this please, remember the Indigenous people of these regions are the ones who are currently tagged as Pakistani, most of the peoples whos ancestors contributed to this history are also tagged as Pakistani therefore we have a right our ancient history be merged with the history of our country, Also there seems to be an Anti-Pakistan presence in all Pak related discussions on wikipedia, as with most other sites, Id kindly like to remind you this isn't the website for bias so please step out and stick to your anonymous forums, people who actually come from within Pakistan should be given responsibility to look after this page and edit it as the readers demand.thanks.Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yassinbaloch091 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there a mechanism here to check the edits?

This article, as also other articles on Pakistan, are modified so often reflecting some nationalistic 'ajenda' against them. It harms the articles as well as the reliability of Wikipedia. I wish editors could appoint a group to monitor Pakistan-related articles regularly for such biased edits. Is it Possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.100.114 (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Point of view is not neutral.

"Ordinance XX was introduced to limit the idolatrous Ahmadis from misrepresenting themselves as Muslims." This is an opinon, not a fact. Who is the writer to say Ahmadi's are idolatrous and are misrepresenting themselves by calling themselves Muslims? 30 July, 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by InaniloquentES (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Afghan Empire

This article is incomplete. It does not include the foundation and eventual establishment of the Afghan empire to which Pakistan was an integral part. Infact, the founder is believed to have come from a city in modern day Pakistan. This important component of Pakistan's history needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.132.39 (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Why no mention of Hindus?

My ancestors are Hindus from Sindh, Pakistan. Why is there no mention of Hindus?

25% of Sindh's population was Hindu at time of partition in 1947. Even though there was no violence in the streets, it only started when the mohajirs started to pour into Sindh. They started looting the homes of Hindus and we lost everything. They took our homes and businesses. It is a horrible crime and it should be acknowledged and respected in this article.

There should be respect for Hindus there is common ancestry between Muslims of Pakistan and Hindus of Pakistan.

what you write may be true however this is not the appropriate place for it. Political history needs to be kept out of scientific and anthropological history-99.227.90.213 (talk) 06:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thats because, the hindus and other minorities of Pakistan were native to the soil. While they were a small minority, They identified more culturally with the native soil of pakistan culturally and linguistically. This religious nationalism that you speak of does not exist for the hindus of Pakistan. They are Pakistani's, Sindhis etc.. and consider themselves Pakistani's and part of ancient Pakistan's history. There is no specific hindu period in Pakistan unlike the rest of South Asia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.90.132.39 (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Zia ul haq.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zia ul haq.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

File:Marathas 1758.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Marathas 1758.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Marathas 1758.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Bogus and factually incorrect Achaemenid section

• The IP started this section on the top, I've moved it to the bottom as it would probably have been left unnoticed like before. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Little to nothing is known about the Achaemenid subordination and control over parts of the Indian sucbontinent. All of what is known to academics is presented in this paper published by the University of Cambridge: http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdf. However, for some unknown reason some users here insist of writing-up a bogus and fantasy section for Achaemenid rule over parts of modern Pakistan. The only facts known to historians are that Darius I inherited or even invaded himself the Indian subcontinent and defeated the petty Indian kingdoms he encountered along the Indus and subodinated these to the Persian Empire, thus requiring the Indians to pay tributes to the Persian Kings. Nothing is known however about the administration or anything else about these Indian tributaries as there is only scant mention of them in either Persian or Greek sources and there is not a single achaeological site anywhere in Pakistan that has been positvely identified with the Persian Empire. Why on Earth therefore some people want to write-up some fantasies about the lands now forming Pakistan as being "the most populous and richest" satrapies of the Achaemenid Empire when this is entirely bogus and not cofirmed by any historical source is very puzzling indeed.

Some strange person even added the Achaemenid satrap of Media as including Pakistan which is totally absurd as Media is located in the northwest of Iran which is thousands of miles away from the Indian subcontinent. Totally preposterous!

Below i have re-written the section, all of which has been sourced from a paper on the subject published by the University of Cambridge. Regretfully though, some people keep reverting the changes and want to stick with their psuedo-history and personal fantasies of Pakistan being at the center of the Achaemenid Empire when in relaity the Persians paid little or no attention to their subordinated Indian tributaries. The only role "Pakistan" played in Achaemenid history was paying tributes to Persia after the Persians had came, invaded and defeated the Indians in war.

My re-write:

Little is known about the Achaemenid Persian invasion of modern-day Pakistan as historical sources and evidence are scant and fragmentary containing little detail. There is no archaeological evidence of Achaemind control over modern-day Pakistan as not a single archaeological site that can be positively identified with the Achaemenid Empire has been found anywhere in Pakistan, including at Taxila . What is known about the easternmost satraps and borderlands of the Achaemenid Empire are alluded to in the Darius inscriptions and from Greek sources such as the Histories of Herodotus and the later Alexander Chronicles (Arrian, Strabo et al). These sources list three Indian tributaries or conquered territories that were subordinated to the Persian Empire and made to pay tributes to the Persian Kings: Gandhara, Sattagydia (Thatagus) and Hindush .

Gandhara and Sattagydia (Thatagus) are listed amongst the provinces inherited by Darius when he seized the throne in 522 BC in his commemorative Behistun inscription, however, the dates of the initial annexation of these two regions is not certain. The locations of Sattagydia and Hindush and the extent of their boundaries have not been identified either though it is certain that these two tributaries existed along the river Indus as the name Hindush is analogous with the Indus and was derived by the Persians from the Sanskrit word Sindhu.

Additionally, much of what constitutes Balochistan province in southwest Pakistan formed part of the Achaemenid satrap of Gedrosia . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.179.188 (talk • contribs)

That is not your rewrite, your version included removal of whole chunks of content without a given rationale. Kindly stop edit warring please and discuss here what you have objections to, and what for. Mar4d (talk) 07:34, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

You've many unexplained removals under the edit summary of doing a rewrite. That amounts to vandalism. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Warning to all parties concerned: the blanket reverts (+3,450 bytes, -3,450 bytes, etc.) need to stop. This goes for both sides. Take it bit by bit, and explain precisely what you object to in each passage. Anybody found to be making yet more blanket reverts involving multiple unrelated differences across the whole article (like here will be blocked, and for a longish period. The same goes for anybody who accuses the other side of vandalism.

I am semi-protecting the article to keep the socks out. If the IP user 92.4.179.188 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who instigated the contentious rewrite, wishes to continue taking part in the process, they are advised to create an account. If you contact me under your new account identifying yourself as this IP editor, I will tag your account as "confirmed" so you can immediately edit through the semiprotection like the other participants. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your intervention. Everything about the present revert is objectionable as it is all factually incorrect. Lets start with the satraps:

• Media_(Persian_province) - This is the most absurd inclusion in the present edition. Media was located in northwest Iran, over a 1000 miles away from modern Pakistan. Its own article here on wikipedia is self-explanatory on its geographical location: Media_(Persian_province)#Achaemenid_Persia.
• Saka - Saka is not the name of an Achaemenid satrap. If the reverters would just click on the link to that article they would already know that Saka (Scythians) is the given name for a conferation of nomadic tribes of Iranic orign. Hence, why the non-existent satrap of 'Saka' was removed from this article.
• Taxila_(satrapy) - Taxila was not the name of an Achaemenid satrap. Taxila was the name of a city located in an Indian kingdom called "Hindush" by the Persians according the very source which that article cites as a reference - "Taxila was the capital of a kingdom that was called Hinduš (or Indus-country)" - http://www.livius.org/ta-td/taxila/taxila.htm - This is why this section was removed. Additionaly, the wikipedia article Taxila_(satrapy) itself should be deleted as it is factually incorrect.
• The rest of my edits and removals are all explained in the article http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdf as my edits were based primarily on that source, in addition to an article published in the book http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/The_World_of_Achaemenid_Persia.html?id=wckVQgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y. The articles state that the Darius I inscriptions list only 3 Indian satraps, - Gandhara, Sattagydia/Thatagus and Hindush.
• Finally, i have removed Zoroastrianism from this article as this religion is wholly foreign to Pakistan. This is attested to in Achaemenid and Sassanid sources (see Aniran) which list the lands of the Zoroastrians and Iranians, which modern Pakistan is not apart of, and also Greek sources such as Arrian's Campaigns of Alexander which clearly states that the religion and priests the Greeks encountered in what is now Pakistan during Alexander's invasion were Brahmans, not Zoroastrians like the Persians. Furthermore, its removal from this article needs no real explanation if the reverters would only read about the establishment of the first Zoroastrians anywhere in South Asia / Indian subcontinent which is documented in the Persian-Zoroastrian book Qissa-i_Sanjan which i mentioned in an edit summary. In brief, the first Zoroastrians arrived in the subcontinent in the 10th century CE, and that was to western India. There were no Zoroastrian communities anywhere in South Asia prior to their arrival. 92.4.179.188 (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Was not the Achaemenid Empire's mainstream religion Zoroastrianism that was totally destroyed by Alexander, including its scriptures? Was not the religion resurrected and remnants of its scriptures put together by later rulers in what is now the Parsi religion that reached Sanjan, India centuries later? Can any scholar of this great faith's history enlighten us on these points that I read in some books I do not remember now? Wiki dr mahmad (talk) 16:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. Zoroastrianism had no written scriptures during the Achaemenid period as every sacred hymn was learnt by heart and transmitted orally by the Zoroastrian priesthood. Also, Zoroastrianism was not destroyed by Alexander, but yes it was dealt a severe blow in Iran that took a century or more to recover (at which point aspects of the faith were no longer the same as it had been before Alexander's invasion of Iran). The many Zoroastrian texts that make-up the Zend-Avesta were committed to writing only during the Sassanid period. But that has nothing to do with this page/topic as Zoroastrian history is not shared by Pakistan which was never inhabited by Zoroastrians. Anyway i have made an account as requested and am still waiting for a response to my revision of the Achaemenid section to this article. Thanks. اردیبهشت (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I note this dispute has been listed for a Third Opinion — but I'm not sure it's suitable for the 3O process, because it appears that more than two editors are already involved in the dispute. It also looks to me like the issues involved are way more complicated than a typical random 3O commentator would be able to sift through. In addition to the other dispute resolution procedures, I would urge everyone to work carefully through the points in dispute — giving others the benefit of the doubt, and if others insist on disagreeing with what you are convinced is the plain and obvious truth, consider the possibility that you may not have explained your position adequately (or that you may not be fully understanding what they are trying to say to you). — Richwales 00:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

With regret, I removed the 3O request because more than two editors are already involved in this dispute. This is not intended as an evaluation of Ordibehesht's desire for dispute resolution — only a recognition that the dispute fails to satisfy the requirements for this particular dispute resolution forum. I hope people will continue to try to deal with this content dispute in other ways — such as, perhaps, dealing with individual pieces of the overall dispute one at a time rather than trying to handle the whole thing at once. Also, please try to concentrate on content, not the perceived conduct of other editors; the fact that others disagree with you does not necessarily mean that they are acting uncivilly. — Richwales 06:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. The issue is not complicated at all though as i have clearly explained the problems with the present version in bullet-points. All it takes is a brief glance by a neutral 3rd party over the issues ive raised and the sources/references i have provided. I will revert to my version if the points ive raised above go unanswered. اردیبهشت (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadi Change

I have changed the line "prevented Ahmadis from misrepresenting themselves as Muslims" to "calling themselves Muslims" since i believe the previous line was blatantly POV. Hope nobody minds 120.56.163.227 (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

pakistan is the country of happiness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.201.167.66 (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

before 1947

was this region ever known by the name of Pakistan before 1947? If not then this article is not in tune with wikipedia's ideas. the title of the article should be changed immediately. All history textbooks give the name as Indian Subcontinent and that will be the right article to include this information. What some authors here are trying to do is spinning their notion of being an ancient country to others. The information being conveyed is totally inaccurate at the moment.

Appeal to "before 1947" commentator: Information is always welcome, even at the cost of duplication, if any. It does not hurt any one if pre-partition history is presented here with more emphasis on the region and nation of Pakistan. Please remember that, this region has been the battle ground, or the backyard, of neighbouring kingdoms and mighty empires since ancient times; it can be considered a part of Greater India, Greater Iran or Greater Central Asia, with equal justification, on that count. It is after nearly two and a half thousand years of subjugation to outsiders, that the sons of the soil are ruling their motherland for any length of time as per their ethos, in spite of all odds. Let the world know that these people exist and have existed all these year, and know their chequered history too. Do not bury it under the megalith of Indian Subcontinent. Your wellwisher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.190.219.54 (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt, People like to read unbiased history mostly supported by unbiased third party scholars. I can see that in this page there is no contribution by foreigners, 3rd party scholars etc..because they don't trust this page and they don't participate in your discussion. Probably you have lost your readers and you are trying to convince yourself of history. This will rather increase your problem, as world can still look into history and your credibility is at stake.

when you say, "It is after nearly two and a half thousand years of subjugation to outsiders, that the sons of the soil are ruling their motherland for any length of time as per the...". Who were these outsiders and what was their religion at the time of attack? Who were those insiders ? So, where did the outsiders go? did outsiders went back to Iran /saudi Arab? Did they gave rewards to local inhabitants after winning wars or looted land of local inhabitants and drove them out of their homes ? Where did hindus go with women and children after their kings lost wars and their men were beheaded or made slaves? Did Hindus cherished their rights and religion after loosing wars? Is there any source in history of pakistan which says that after wining wars , women and children were highly protected by invaders and honorable position was maintained? Was there no chaos post war. Did peace came post war, and people lived with smiling faces?

you may also say, " people who actually come from within Pakistan should be given responsibility to look after this page and edit it as the readers demand..." .History has nothing to do with religion/nationality/feelings. History is only related to facts and events without biasness. sorry this is not confrontation but, only truth should be accepted everywhere. History has cultural importance and connections. Wiki is for everyone, it has nothing to do with Pakistan but only the truth.

These are questions of millions of readers of history. When they don't find answers in your history, they look into facts supported by neutral 3rd party scholars. The history writers of pakistan don't mention about what happened after dreaded events of war !!! you may say " this is not the appropriate place for it " but , history must not forget its people and legitimacy of history is in revealing not hiding. Hiding history is not legitimate under any situation or logic.

Put your hands on your heart and then say that you respect or beleive in vedic history of indus valley !!! Can you associate yourself with them? Is there any respect for their culture in modern independent pakistan? Indus valley culture is still respected in India by majority and they can put their hands on their heart and say that their ancestors lived there. It is a part of their modern day culture and tradition.Dr Prashanna Jain Gotani (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If there is hiding of history, then next generation of pakistan will never learn to live in peace with India bcz for them we are not legitimate.

"Greater India", "Greater Iran" or "Greater Central Asia" are not valid national/civilizational names. These are all constructs of modern 20th-21st century nationalism! The region of what is now Pakistan consists of the Indus Valley (including adjacent Punjab), the foothills of the Afghan mountains, the HImalayan regions of Kashmir and the Baluchistan desert plateau. All of these are different and were part of varying empires. But they are nevertheless connected and viewed in toto as constituting a sub-region of a particular part of the world, the Indian subcontinent or South Asia. Pakistan is basically the frontier of the subcontinent. Just because certain languages are spoken there, does not make it part of an "ethnic bloc". "Greater Iran" was never a real unity but a varying region of where Iranian languages were spoken (not just the plateau but in the steppes of Central Asia too). Persian nationalism considers it homogenous but this is BS. In fact, the Khyber region and eastern Afghanistan were often aligned with other border cultures in South Asia proper, rather than being monolithically tied to a "Greater Iran". "Greater India" is also a modern construction of a supposedly unified culture based in the subcontinent. This is just as erroneous. There was no "India", eternal and ever lasting. There were various related or disjointed civilizations in a common region for thousands of years that the British sowed up in their empire. But this general confluence of regions was always defined as being the gateway to the Indian subcontinent, for both Central Asians and Middle Easterners. It was never viewed in any other capacity other than that. I'm sorry but that's how it is. It does not make the idea of "Greater India" viable but it shows how the area was perceived as being part of a loose region or "subcontinent" that was considered to be of economic value. All of you grow up. Afghan Historian (talk) 00:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ghauri, Mamluk, Tughlak, Khilji and Sayyid Dynasties.

I think these Dynasties deserve to get some space separately in the article (maybe as sub heading under Major heading of Dehli sultanate). Period comprising of these dynasties was very important one as Science and Literature was thriving in the area during that time, and played major role in forming the modern day Pakistani culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suhayb.Manzer (talk • contribs) 14:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

nony moshen

tida pati — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.185.189 (talk) 13:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Should Gupta Empire section be in the article?

According to the current reference http://www.webcitation.org/5kwqOxl5F, the empire stretched upto Indian Punjab and Rajasthan. There is no point Gupta Empire" getting a long section in History of Pakistan. So should be the section be completely removed or there should a mention of states that paid tributes to Gupta Empire? --Fasi100 (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

ČČ

Pakistan

Pakistan was made in 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.154.151.214 (talk) 13:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes,agree,Pakistan's history starts from Pakistan movement,the area which Pakistan has has rich history cause it was part of India.Ovsek (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Pakistani Areas were not part of India untill , Britishers Annexed these regions of Sikh and Afghan Empires into "British India". Infact there was no "India" untill Britishers Created it. Can u proove the existance of India before Britishers came here??? Come on, grow up. "Greater India", "Greater Iran" or "Greater Central Asia" are not valid national/civilizational names. These are all constructs of modern 20th-21st century nationalism! The region of what is now Pakistan consists of the Indus Valley (including adjacent Punjab), the foothills of the Afghan mountains, the HImalayan regions of Kashmir and the Baluchistan desert plateau. All of these are different and were part of varying empires. But they are nevertheless connected and viewed in toto as constituting a sub-region of a particular part of the world, the Indian subcontinent or South Asia. Pakistan is basically the frontier of the subcontinent. Just because certain languages are spoken there, does not make it part of an "ethnic bloc". "Greater Iran" was never a real unity but a varying region of where Iranian languages were spoken (not just the plateau but in the steppes of Central Asia too). Persian nationalism considers it homogenous but this is BS. In fact, the Khyber region and eastern Afghanistan were often aligned with other border cultures in South Asia proper, rather than being monolithically tied to a "Greater Iran". "Greater India" is also a modern construction of a supposedly unified culture based in the subcontinent. This is just as erroneous. There was no "India", eternal and ever lasting. There were various related or disjointed civilizations in a common region for thousands of years that the British sowed up in their empire. But this general confluence of regions was always defined as being the gateway to the Indian subcontinent, for both Central Asians and Middle Easterners. It was never viewed in any other capacity other than that. I'm sorry but that's how it is. It does not make the idea of "Greater India" viable but it shows how the area was perceived as being part of a loose region or "subcontinent" that was considered to be of economic value. All of you grow up.

The area of Pakistan has rich history, but Pakistan as a nation does not have. It was created, India was not a nation in modern sense, it was Civilizational unit, binded by Indian religions, a Tamil from South india and a Bengali from East India despite massive differences shared one similarity, that was common religion. Pakistan has nothing like this.117.201.124.179 (talk) 17:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if we consider your personal analysis for a minute (which is unfortunately not the source of wikipedia), Republic of India is no more historical India than Pakistan is. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Republic of India / Modern day India adopted the name of ancient India as its name as a country after the Independence of British India to signify its cultural connections. Although Ovesk is right about the history of modern day Pakistan starting from Pakistan Movement, civilizations like Indus valley civilization have existed in the region as distinct civilizations from any other Indian civilizations. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on History of Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120203203510/http://www.pas.gov.pk/first-las.htm to http://www.pas.gov.pk/first-las.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080823011004/http://www.thenews.com.pk:80/updates.asp?id=52487 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=52487

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in History of Pakistan

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of History of Pakistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Ferishta":

• From Sabuktigin: "AMEER NASIR-OOD-DEEN SUBOOKTUGEEN". Ferishta, History of the Rise of Mohammedan Power in India, Volume 1: Section 15. Packard Humanities Institute. Retrieved 2012-12-30.
• From Pashtuns: Muhammad Qasim Hindu Shah (Firishta). "History of the Mohamedan Power in India". Persian Literature in Translation. Packard Humanities Institute. Retrieved 10 January 2007.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on History of Pakistan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928044049/http://www.guimet.fr/Indus-and-Mehrgarh-archaeological to http://www.guimet.fr/Indus-and-Mehrgarh-archaeological
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pd
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100830031416/http://www.aisk.org/aisk/NHDAHGTK05.php to http://www.aisk.org/aisk/NHDAHGTK05.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571624/gupta_dynasty.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204082030/http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ANCINDIA/GUPTA.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ANCINDIA/GUPTA.HTM
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606120407/https://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=2179&order_by=year&showdescription=1 to http://archnet.org/library/places/one-place.jsp?place_id=2179&order_by=year&showdescription=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927121217/http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/mughals/ to http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/islam/empires/mughals/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616183117/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-2-2004_pg3_6 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-2-2004_pg3_6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110419012150/http://www.chaudhryrahmatali.com/now%20or%20never/index.htm to http://www.chaudhryrahmatali.com/now%20or%20never/index.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080616183117/http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-2-2004_pg3_6 to http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-2-2004_pg3_6
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304115412/http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/june/loveaffair.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2002/june/loveaffair.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130402133212/http://dawn.com/2013/03/28/times-of-the-signs/ to http://dawn.com/2013/03/28/times-of-the-signs/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111104121828/http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A091&Pg=2 to http://www.storyofpakistan.com/articletext.asp?artid=A091&Pg=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080906000514/http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0%2C%2C30200-1298932%2C00.html to http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0%2C%2C30200-1298932%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070828034546/http://www.angus-reid.com/tracker/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=15363 to http://www.angus-reid.com/tracker/index.cfm?fuseaction=viewItem&itemID=15363
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130610120218/http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130516/news-world/article/nawaz-sharif-be-nuclear-pm to http://www.deccanchronicle.com/130516/news-world/article/nawaz-sharif-be-nuclear-pm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on History of Pakistan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024151850/http://www.marymount.k12.ny.us/marynet/stwbwk05/05vm/earrings/html/emanalysis.html to http://www.marymount.k12.ny.us/marynet/stwbwk05/05vm/earrings/html/emanalysis.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071225094623/http://www.quaid.gov.pk/politician2.htm to http://www.quaid.gov.pk/politician2.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120211132925/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS085.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS085.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722001847/http://www.mhhdc.org/html/system_blame.htm to http://www.mhhdc.org/html/system_blame.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 16:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits by User:Capitals00

Capitals00 has been removing content from the article without providing a clear and proper explanation. When I reverted the edits back to the official last edit, I was told Don't create empty irrelevant sections, get consensus for your edits. As I have mentioned earlier, and for those who are unaware, I have taken a break from editing the History of Pakistan to avoid confrontation and to avoid getting banned. I made it clear that I would begin editing again sometime in December. I added many sections which I would eventually come around to and added an "expand section" template. Without any explanations these sections were removed. Also, within the context of removing these empty section, small edits were made to the top note whereby the part that reads "this is about the history of the Indus Valley" was replaced with "this is about the history of Pakistan". Also, the first sentence "The history of Pakistan (Urdu: تاریخ پاکستان) encompasses the history of the Indus Valley" was edited to "The history of Pakistan (Urdu: تاریخ پاکستان) the history of the region constituting modern-day Pakistan." once again with providing an explanation. Could Capitals00 please provide a reason for the last two edits. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yet you are exactly doing the things that will lead to ban. Your treatment of the word "Indus Valley" as synonym for Pakistan is itself meaningless because Indus Valley refers to mature Indus Valley Civilization which covered large amount of North Western India and North Eastern Afghanistan[2] and it didn't covered a lot of territories that constitute present Pakistan. When you can't expand the section right at the time when you are making them, you have to just back off from creating them. And what you are creating? Don't need any sections for princely states since they that lacked total power in administrating the regions. You are trying to claim that princely states ruled Pakistan along with British raj, but none of these claims are correct and you are only engaging in revisionism. Lorstaking (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You've made a mistake in confusing the term Indus Valley (or Indus River basin) with Indus Valley Civilization. These two terms are NOT the same. The Indus River basin, as seen in these maps [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] covers much of what is today Pakistan...almost 85% of the territory falls within the Indus River basin (ie. Indus Valley). Just because some territory of the Indus basin lies in northwestern India and parts of north eastern Afghanistan (which barely makes up 5% of there territory and has negligible affect on there history) shouldn't negate the fact that Pakistan prior to 1947 was essentially the Indus Valley. Moving on to your second point, which princely states are you referring to exactly? Dir State, Chitral State and Hunza State are far from "princely states"...all three were established in the mid 1700s, well before any British misadventure in the region occurred. Yes, they were ABSORBED into the British Raj, but that doesn't mean they didn't exist prior to British rule. The first instance of British rule in the Indus Valley (what it today Pakistan) is the Fall of Sindh in 1842 (Battle of Miani). Kindly explain how Dir State (established in the mid 1600s) is a Princely State then? This would be akin to saying that Poland today is a German satellite state because it was occupied by Nazi Germany in World War 2. Doesn't make much sense at all. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Pakistan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121120093649/http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/Ancient/Other/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE3NDIyOQ%3D%3D to http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/Ancient/Other/~~/dmlldz11c2EmY2k9OTc4MDE5NTE3NDIyOQ==
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120519044446/http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdf to http://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/bannu-archaeological-project/petrie2007_02.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080219222201/http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/23march2007/index.html to http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/spedition/23march2007/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Pakistan. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603004232/http://www.borobudur.tv/avadana_07.htm to http://www.borobudur.tv/avadana_07.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216052138/http://www.aspr.ac.at/epu/research/rp_0807.pdf to http://www.aspr.ac.at/epu/research/rp_0807.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

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.[2][3]'

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

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)

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 Wikipedia policy by starting a new thread. State what you need to in the thread above. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:38, 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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 [8]? 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 Wikipedia, in this post from April 2007 Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Have no bone in the dispute but the same Nichalp who was site-banned by the ArbCom for, let's just say, some pretty interesting stuff? Not even considering that it was over 15 years ago, an eon in internet-era. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

TB, Nichalp was a respected editor and admin on India articles and is responsible for a lot of content. Yes, he was site banned, but that was after he had stopped contributing as Nichalp, and stopped contributing to India articles. It had nothing to do with his content work on Wikipedia and many of us "old fogies" continue to respect his work. Regardless, I agree with Pat that we shouldn't be using what he left behind as a standard for where we want to be. Best to make independent comments on the content or structure of articles. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:28, 2 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 [9] (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 Wikipedia 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)

This was the state in which I left it in April 2007. It had 9,500 words, beautiful pictures, and balanced content. (It is one of the things, I believe, that Mar4d (mentioned by RegentsPark above) gave me the Pakistan Barnstar of National Merit). I am not of course advocating a return to then—for one the sourcing standards were very different then—but the article's version of this morning had 14,500 words. The sections on neolithic Mehrgarh and IVC, for example, were smaller than their counterparts in the History of India page! But these other kingdoms had picked up the slack.

I've reduced it to this version, and will be reducing some of the post-1947 content as well until the article size is down to approximately 10,000 words Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

On the overall, I agree with the thrust of your reversions. There was too much detail about Rai Dynasty, Brahman dynasty etc. but they do need to be mentioned, probably compressed to a couple of lines. Soomra dynasty about which we know nothing of significance definitely doesn't deserve a section. There are too many quotes including in the section on Hindu Shahi etc. which can serve as further grounds for trimming. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

My only issue is with Fowler&fowler's editorial methodology here: first, the indiscriminate and blanket reverting of the last 6 months worth of edits [10][11][12] to his last version, as a preliminary to getting on with his own preferred edits (typical WP:OWN). This shows total disrespect for the contributions of others: 6 months worth of contributions cannot be all wrong (usually...), and some content was probably valuable and legitimate as also suggested by User:Johnbod and User:TrangaBellam. If some undue content has been added during this period, the least would be to start from the latest version, and start improving from there. This is what collaborative editing is about. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Patliputra, you have been making the same excuse for their gray-zone edits for quite some time. Here is their post from 2019: Talk:Neolithic/Archive_1#PLOS_citation_and_image_spamming where they were spamming the article Neolithic with blatantly copied text and images:

If you think the wording has to be improved, why don't you edit in a collaborative manner as we all do? Mass deletion and edit-warring is certainly not the way to go, and I think you know it. Best पाटलिपुत्र (talk) 12:44, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

It was in response to that remark that Johnbod had written in the same section:

I agree with F&F. Frankly, using your methods you add so much content that checking probably takes longer than adding it. It tends to unbalance articles. Detailed stuff like this is better in lower-level articles, but your additions are nearly all to very high level articles. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Please also note my post at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor#Hindu_nationalist_POV where too Patliputra and an editor, Packer and Tracker, have been latterly active. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

• I can't afford to get into the weeds here, but I'll note that if the "six months of edits" introduce a lot of content that is subsequently disputed, the onus to reach consensus for inclusion is on the editor seeking inclusion, not removal. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:I don't think this is a case of WP:BRD, in which one bold new addition by an editor would be challenged, removed, and then require consensus and discussion on the Talk Page. Here, in effect, User:Fowler&fowler is blanket-removing the last 6 months of edits [13][14][15] made by numerous different editors, so as to return the article to his last version of 6 months before, as a preliminary to making new edits of his own. He is indiscriminately removing any edits that are not his own, good or bad, on the pretext that there is "too much WP:UNDUE material in the recent edits" [16], without making the effort to distinguish regular maintenance or improvement edits from the "recent" edits he considers to be undue. I cannot see this as anything other than WP:OWN and a rather uncollaborative and lazy approach to editing, as he is in effect wiping out all contributions that are not the result of his own actions. I doubt that this kind of behaviour, which disregards all contributions by fellow editors, is condoned by Wikipedia policy. Please note I am basically uninvolved here, as during the last 6 months I only made one small edit back in May [17]. Looking forward to your clarification. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

You have a long history of disputes with me, Pataliputra, including several unsuccessful RfCs and ANIs Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I am the main author of this page, the editor who has maintained the page for 16 years. Because of Covid and my partial absence from Wikipedia (advertised both on my user page and talk page), I did not get around to monitoring it robustly. Also, some of the edits were not transparent and it took time to figure out what had been added. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The article has most definitely not been whittled down to my version. There is a difference between Stewardship and Ownership. Please see WP:STEWARDSHIP. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, in an ideal world F&F would have checked the combined diff and preserved the maintenance edits while reverting the content ones, but in an ideal world you would have reinstated them instead of complaining about it. BRD still applies to the content, as does WP:ONUS, an actual policy. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:In an ideal world, administrators are supposed to make sure proper Wikipedia procedures are respected. As far as I know, mass-blanking 6 months of edits to reinstate one's own last version is generally not proper practice on Wikipedia: the least would be to ask Fowler&fowler to be more careful and selective about his deletions. And suggesting that I should partially revert Fowler&fowler's edits and that I should be the one trying to separate the good from (what he thinks is) the bad, inspite of his blanking, amounts to promoting WP:Edit Warring I'm afraid: we are supposed to discuss these things on the Talk Page, and administrators are supposed to help with resolution. पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I already asked you to discuss things on the talk page above; you took issue with that, for reasons that aren't yet clear. I don't see what you're trying to achieve here. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

पाटलिपुत्र, the reality is that we're all volunteers. If there are many bad edits mixed up with good ones, it would be nice, of course, if someone separated them out, kicking out the bad ones but retaining the good ones. But that is a lot of work and there is nothing wrong with reverting to a "last best" version and then letting other volunteers work on restoring the good ones. My suggestion, you do what you're asking fowler to do: identify these maintenance edits and restore them. Or just let this go. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93:@RegentsPark: The arbitrary blanking of 6 months worth of edits did not just remove valuable "maintenance edits", but also what User:Johnbod described as "maybe some good ideas" [18] and User:TrangaBellam as elements that "do need to be mentioned" [19], especially the "Rai Dynasty, Brahman dynasty etc..." (these comments were in reaction to Fowler&fowler's blanking). All this in the absence of any explanation by Fowler&fowler as to what he considers "Undue" and for what reason: he simply reverted to his preferred version of 6 months ago. Everybody agrees that some trimming was necessary, but certainly not mass-blanking of 6 months of work. In order to show some regard for the contributions of others, I suggest that Fowler&fowler should restore the most recent complete version and start his trimming from there, with a minimum of explanations as he moves forward. We usually try to respect the contributions of other editors, and so should he... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Pat, I'm not so sure. If, as Fowler suggests, there is a whole lot of undue stuff added, it does make sense to revert to a good version and then rework in the useful edits rather than the other way round. Removing undue content should have a higher priority. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The Lady doth protest too much, methinks. For someone who states, "Please note I am basically uninvolved here, as during the last 6 months I only made one small edit back in May [10]" that's a lot of Wikilawyering. If your concern is my behavior, my purported uncivil manner, and so forth, you should be making that case somewhere else, not on this talk page. If you want to discuss content, I am happy to do so about any aspect of Pakistan's history. If you don't I will come away feeling that you are still griping about the pound of flesh you did not get in the various RfCs, ANIs, and AN threads you have attempted against me. For someone who is uninvolved and has contributed no content by their own admission, that is a huge time sink on the talk page, which has produced a lot of volubility, a lot of repetition, a lot of prolixity, none of which will improve the content of the article. May I respectfully suggest that you defend principles of content restoration on pages in which you have created content, which again, by your own admission, you have not here. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Section break

• I (finally) looked at History of the Republic of India which contains only the history post-1947. History of Pakistan, on the other hand, is overloaded with pre-1947 history. Almost to the extent that it duplicates the History of India article. This doesn't make much sense, shouldn't this article, like the analogous India one, contain only post-partition history or am I missing something?--RegentsPark (comment) 21:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

  HelloRP, Not sure this is what you were asking, but let me attempt an answer.

  1. History of Pakistan == History of India, where "==" means congruent in scope. Similarly History of Bangladesh starts with the paleolithic.
  2. History of Islamic Republic of Pakistan redirects to History of Pakistan (1947–present) (it redirects as there was the interregnum of the Dominion of Pakistan with George VI and Elizabeth II as its head until 1956; the latter's coronation in 1953 shown much during the recent TV coverage showed her bearing allegiance as among other things Queen of Pakistan ; similarly, History of Republic of India redirects to History of India (1947–present), India's interregnum being shorter (1947 to 1950).
  3. As you point out or imply, the post-1947 bit in the History of India is token, whereas that in the History of Pakistan is substantial. The reason for this is that in the early years after my arrival on WP both traditional India-POV editors and traditional Pakistan-POV editors were dickering with it, and denying Pakistan its ancient heritage, each for their own POV. So, the post-1947 bit has retained its current bulk and focus. I agree, it needs to be vastly reduced.
  4. The history of Pakistan in the sources has included ancient history for many decades, witness Raymond Allchin and Bridget Allchin's, Rise of civilization in India and Pakistan, Cambridge, 1982, the classic on the subject. Ahmad Hassan Dani's journal, Ancient Pakistan founded in 1964, is found in even in the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI)'s Central Library in New Delhi
  5. A related problem is Mehrgarh. It was discovered and excavated by the French archaeologists Jean-François Jarrige and Catherine Jarrige in 1974, long after the Partition of India. No Indian archaeologist has excavated there, yet it is the basis of all pre-history on the subcontinent, the South Asian Neolithic from which the Indus Civilization sprouted (though the ASI has been busy after the Partition in divining ancient history in every shard of pottery found in India above the Vindhyas).
  6. A third problem is that the ASI for the first 50 years after the Partition did not allow foreign archaeologists to excavate in India (because of "colonial" associations and suchlike sensitivities.) Pakistan, on the other hand, whose official history began after Mhd bin Qasim's arrival on Sind's vaunted shores in the eighth century CE, was all to happy to pass the Indus hot potato to the western archeologists, such as Mortimer Wheeler, George Dales, Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Rita P. Wright who all excavated there and whose work gave the notion of ancient Pakistan the sanction it needed in the sources. I mean they couldn't very well excavate there, rely on the courtesies of the government there, and call their report "History of ancient India."
  7. Archaeologists sometimes use "ancient" and "South Asia" as in Ancient South Asian World, a middle-school/high-school book published by OUP and authored by Kenoyer and Kimberly Heuston, or Himanshu Prabha Ray's Archaeology of Seafaring in Ancient South Asia, CUP, 2003., but there is no appetite for the all encompassing history to be South Asian on Wikipedia, the least not on WP India.

  Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  PS The long and short of it is that the old notion that the History of India is the History of the geographical India as constituted by the British by 1874 (when Baluchistan was inducted), that the Republic of India by virtue of having the same informal name as the India of the British Raj is the only successor state of that history is long gone. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hmm. Perhaps, and this will not go down well methinks, we need to reorganize the history into History of South Asia - pre 1947 history with token representation of post 1947 histories; History of India (post-1947), History of Pakistan (post 1947 with token history of East Bengal); and History of Bangladesh. My unscientific observation is that most universities now use South Asia (as in South Asian Studies) for the entire region (even though most histories use India) so this would be in line with current thinking. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  That's a perfectly sensible comment in terms of the current Western academic view (I suspect your "most universities" doesn't = "most Pakistani universities"), but would be a nightmare for monitoring WP editors, ushering an era of trench warfare as pov editors load up the History of South Asia article with stuff from their modern state's area, plus tending to make the very serious length issues worse. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  I tried my darnedest in 2007 to have a real History of South Asia article (as RP suggests), but (beyond the length as Jb rightly points out which at that time was not a biggie,) there was the issue of what regions to include as South Asia is properly: (sometimes Afghanistan), Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim before Indian induction, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and the Maldives. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:16, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  South Asia has become important again in the context of Indian Ocean (trade) histories. So a History of South Asia still awaits being written—its content not so much about what was happening within the constituent (present-day) states as between them. I think Sugata Bose and a few others may have written such histories; upstairs, I have already mentioned Himanshu Prabha Ray whose book title has "seafaring." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  Based on ad-hoc scrolling through the article, the amount of the page devoted to the Pakistan movement + post independence history is about 30% of the article. 70% for material that is not Pakistan related seems excessive. Ideally, those numbers should be flipped.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  It is no different from the India page, where even more, 90%, is devoted to what is not India today, which came into being in 1947, just as what is today Pakistan came into being then. As you've yourself said, what was there before was informally called India, but it was really the British Raj, its geographical extent being the creation of the British. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

  I think I see where I'm getting confused. I'm comparing History of Pakistan with History of India (1947–present) not realizing that there is a parallel History of Pakistan (1947–present). The confusion arose because, in the History of India, the link to post-independence Pakistan was to this (History of Pakistan) article rather than the post-independence one. I've fixed the link but, clearly, this plethora of articles is a messy way to go about things.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

• It is fairly clear that most (if not all) of the uninvolved editors feel nothing terribly amiss with F&F's reversions even though some of the reverted content might have belonged in some alternate form. That said, what does P propose to restore? Then, we can discuss such additions individually from a content-centric POV. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

@TrangaBellam: Mainly what you suggested I think, especially the period between the Gupta Empire and the first Islamic invasions, ie the "Rai Dynasty, Brahman dynasty etc..." [20], as well as the Alchon Huns, who have totally vanished in the mass-blanking. Also the whole part about the Sassanian Empire (Kushano-Sasanian Kingdom, Hind (Sasanian province)) has disappeared... पाटलिपुत्र Pataliputra (talk) 05:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

TrangaBellam said in the link you have provided, "There was too much detail about Rai Dynasty, Brahman dynasty etc. but they do need to be mentioned probably compressed to a couple of lines (at most)." Please suggest a couple of sentences, without illustrative spam. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:03, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Please also suggest two sentences for Kushano-Sasanian Kingdom and Hind (Sasanian province) without illustrations of coins and we can discuss if they are notable for Pakistan. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Prima facie, those pages, are dubious gray-zone histories, what Ms Sarah Welch had termed POV-y histories. No content of due weight, only illustrations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Continued mass reverting of the article

If an editor has made changes you don't like remove them, don't disruptively mass revert articles and reintroduce errors and unreliable sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:09, 1 January 2024 (UTC)