Talk:Pakistan

Update population in the lead section and the infobox to 247,541,947 as per the complete results of the 2023 census, by adding updated Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir numbers. It has already been updated on the demographics section.

Sources: ^[1][2] Christos1200 (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)Reply

Pakistan now has the largest Muslim population in the world surpassing Indonesia as of 2026. ~2026-56096-73 (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@SheriffIsInTown explain how I was misinterpreting the sources as well, some of them failing verification, some of them do not add any value over what we already have, the line about Mughals is more comprehensive and not a word to word copy... And rest of what you wrote.

If you can't show so, this time your conduct and obvious case of WP:OWNERSHIP is going to ANI. Sutyarashi (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sutyarashi First of all, you are accusing me of ownership while displaying ownership behaviour yourself. Per WP:BRD, you should not be reverting the revert but rather starting a discussion and holding off on the change until you gain consensus. In that sense, in my opinion, it is ownership behaviour to think that you can introduce any change and nobody should revert it for any reason. You introduced a lot more, and I objected to only certain parts, with valid reasons for every part I objected to. Now, let us address each piece of content one by one.

The book titled Human Rights is being used to support the content about Ashoka in the Pakistan article. Per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the book is not written in the context of Pakistan. Although the source was added by me, it was added at a time when there was no source supporting the content to begin with, so, in my opinion, a source was better than no source. However, your changes made me question the inclusion of that content. Since you reverted me and restored it, can you explain why we need to mention Ashoka and the spread of Buddhism in the article on Pakistan when the source itself does not mention that? Where does the source say that he "played [a] major role in [the] spread of Buddhism"? The source does say that Ashoka converted to Buddhism himself, but where does it support what you added to the article? This is one instance of you misinterpreting the source.

I will start separate threads for each dispute. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

In that sense, in my opinion, it is ownership behaviour to think that you can introduce any change and nobody should revert it for any reason.

I think you need to give a good read to WP:OWNERSHIP. Nobody should revert others without a good reason, not any. Odd enough that you don't seem to understand the difference.

Since you reverted me and restored it, can you explain why we need to mention Ashoka and the spread of Buddhism in the article on Pakistan when the source itself does not mention that?

It's because the source made no mention of Ashoka extending the empire, but his contribution to Buddhism. Awkward phrasing aside prior line didn't make any sense since he didn't extend any empire in contemporary Pakistan whatsoever. Sutyarashi (talk) 21:15, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Nobody should revert others without a good reason I had a good reason to revert you. It's because the source made no mention of Ashoka extending the empire, there is no mention of extending the empire but you still reverted it, WP:OWNERSHIP? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:12, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

I had a good reason to revert you.

No, there was no good reason to revert it. You needed to follow source if you meant to use it, it had no mention of extending (expanding?) empire but his contribution to Buddhism.

there is no mention of extending the empire but you still reverted it, WP:OWNERSHIP?

I didn't reintroduce that line. Please go through edit summary again. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The "Extending the empire" part was removed by me here. This was your latest removal of that content. What you removed did not contain any mention of the extension of the empire. Any reason why you kept reverting when the text you disputed was already gone? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:24, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I do think that atleast a line about introduction of Buddhism in Pakistan under Ashoka needs mention. I have readded it with a minor detail and a source, the url is alive and should be accessible. Hope it is fine with you. I will self revert if you think it needs more discussion. Sutyarashi (talk) 04:16, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sutyarashi The line about the Mughals is more comprehensive, as it includes literature, book production, illustration, and architecture, and it is directly supported by the Canfield source. Your claim that it is a word-for-word copy is incorrect. The source says The Mughals - Persianized Turks who had invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis - strengthened the Persianate culture of Muslim India. They cultivated the arts (literary works, book production, artistic illustration, architecture) in the Persianate style, enticing to their courts Persian artists and architects from Bukhara, Tabriz, Shiraz, and other cities of the Iranian plateau (Titley 1983:186); the Taj Mahal, commissioned by the Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan, was indebted to the Persian style. The article content summarizes this as The Mughals strengthened Persianate culture through literature, book production, illustration, and architecture. This is not a word-for-word copy, in my opinion. You initially changed it to The Mughals were a patron of Persianate culture; distinct styles of art, architecture, cuisine, and clothing emerged under the empire. without adding any new sources, and the existing source did not support the new version. Once reverted, you changed it to The Mughals were a patron of Persianate culture; distinct styles of art, architecture, and cuisine emerged under the empire. and added two more sources, making this a WP:SYNTH of three sources in total. You replaced a version directly supported by one source with a version that was a synthesis of three sources. One of the newly added sources does not support the new version at all, while the other fails verification. One would assume that if you quickly came up with sources for the content you added without sources, you would have personally verified them and should be able to provide verification for others to see for transparency. It is the responsibility of the editor seeking to include content to provide verification; see WP:BURDEN. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:18, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is not a word-for-word copy, in my opinion.

You can't copy source word-to-word, you have to rephrase it.

The Mughals strengthened Persianate culture through literature, book production, illustration, and architecture.

You copy-pasted bolded words, as they were, into article. Explain to me how was it not copyvio?

added two more sources, making this a WP:SYNTH of three sources in total

You're misinterpreting the policy.

WP:SYNTH: Do not synthesize meaning from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of those sources.

Where was incorrect conclusion drawn from the citations? Sutyarashi (talk) 21:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

What are you going to propose?

As a sidenote, that paragraph about Mughals need more details regarding their accomplishments such as area expansion, economy and more. Lorstaking (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The Mughals - Persianized Turks who had invaded from Central Asia and claimed descent from both Timur and Genghis - strengthened the Persianate culture of Muslim India. They cultivated the arts (literary works, book production, artistic illustration, architecture) in the Persianate style, enticing to their courts Persian artists and architects from Bukhara, Tabriz, Shiraz, and other cities of the Iranian plateau (Titley 1983:186); the Taj Mahal, commissioned by the Mughal emperor, Shah Jahan, was indebted to the Persian style. This is not a word-for-word copy and is not a copyvio. It is fine to state what they actually did, as supported by the source. I stand by my concern about WP:SYNTH as well. Explain how the new sources support the conclusion and provide quotes from both of your new sources here. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:28, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is not a word-for-word copy and is not a copyvio. It is fine to state what they actually did, as supported by the source.

You literally have used each and every word from source, how's it not copyvio? You're meant to summarise or paraphrase source, not what you did. See WP:PARAPHRASE.

Explain how the new sources support the conclusion and provide quotes from both of your new sources here.

First link (about Mughal art) is alive, and you should be able to access it. I'm not going to copy here two pages. Second source itself is about Mughal cuisine. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sutyarashi Why is summarizing the content about the princely states, which included a proper wikilink to an article representative of all princely states, i.e., The region also included various princely states. is not good enough? Also, when you initially modified it to include Kalat as one of the largest, you did not add any new source, and the existing source did not support it. Once I reverted it, you restored it by adding a new source without providing a link. WP:BURDEN is on you to provide WP:V. If you found a source to support what you initially added without a source, one would assume that you had read and verified the content yourself and would provide a link for verifiability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:39, 28 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sutyarashi You cannot arbitrarily remove longstanding content, as you did here, simply because you have decided to dispute it today. You need consensus to remove it. See this revision from July 2025, the content about provinces and princely states already existed then. We can even go back further. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:56, 30 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

WP:CONSENSUS: An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted.

Here your added content has been both disputed and reverted. You can't readd it without new consensus. Sutyarashi (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sutyarashi The content was not added by me; it was added by User:Johnbod on 17 July 2021 in this edit. Do you really think there is no presumed consensus through editing after it remaining for five and a half years in the article, and do you really think it has lost consensus because you decided to remove it due to your WP:POINTY and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior after some of your new additions were challenged by me? I suggest you self-revert and continue the discussion; otherwise, I will have no option but to escalate the matter to an appropriate forum. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:30, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

The content was not added by me; it was added by User:Johnbod on 17 July 2021 in this edit.

As far as I can see it was unsourced, even if verifiable, addition by Johnbod.

Do you really think there is no presumed consensus through editing after it remaining for five and a half years in the article,

Presumed consensus is not indefinite. Once it comes under scrutiny you need to discuss it.

your WP:POINTY and WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior after some of your new additions were challenged by me? I suggest you self-revert and continue the discussion; otherwise, I will have no option but to escalate the matter to an appropriate forum.

Any third observer going through page history can see who is displaying this behaviour. You can't make unilateral changes to disputed content when talk page discussion is going on without discussing them first. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sutyarashi As far as I can see it was unsourced, even if verifiable, addition by Johnbod. It was unsourced when added, but sources were added later. What you removed was sourced. Presumed consensus is not indefinite. Once it comes under scrutiny you need to discuss it. Really? Do you know how many editors have edited the article in the past five years? Nobody is saying not to discuss it. My objection is its arbitrary removal by you. It can be discussed, and we can achieve a new consensus, but why do we need to remove five-year-old content just because one editor demands a new consensus? It can stay in the article while we work towards a new consensus. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:29, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sutyarashi, is there an ACTUAL PROBLEM with the passage in your opinion, and if so WHAT IS IT? Please state it here very clearly rather than just edit-warring with unspecific edit summaries. Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

Sheriff had removed in subsidiary alliances, with the largest being Bahawalpur and Kalat. Since the prior version was disputed I had removed it pending talk page consensus for phrasing. Moreover, the provinces are already listed a few lines later (including Punjab, North-West Frontier Province, Sind, and Baluchistan); there's no reason to repeat it.

I would suggest you to go through past few days of page history and above threads. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sutyarashi What I removed was newly added by you, for which you need consensus. What you removed had never been disputed since its addition on 17 July 2021. That action constitutes WP:POINTY and WP:BATTLEGROUND. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:22, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

You had removed mention of Kalat as well as Bahawalpur which had been in prior version, and for which I had added additional reference. Your claim that it was not disputed doesn't hold under scrutiny. Also, listing of same units twice in the same section without mentioning any princely state is UNDUE, they are already repeated afterwards. If you want to readd it you do need to achieve consensus for it. Sutyarashi (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sutyarashi So, let me understand your position which is that if parts of your new changes are challenged, you will turn WP:POINTY and remove surrounding content which existed for five years because it would suddenly become UNDUE and you will arbitrarily decide its dueness? Your claim that it was not disputed doesn't hold under scrutiny. Whose scrutiny? Yours? Also, listing of same units twice in the same section without mentioning any princely state is UNDUE The units mentioned later are discussed in the context of Muhammad Iqbal, while the princely states were mentioned collectively, with a wikilink to Princely states of Pakistan. That article lists many states, so why should we mention only two? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:03, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have already addressed most of your objections and I don't think I need to repeat myself. As for why should we mention only two? These two were most significant princely states which acceded to Pakistan, with Bahawalpur being the most populous princely state. According to the source: It was the seventh-largest Indian princely state by area and covered a much more expansive area— including much of the Cholistan desert. It also discusses its artistic and infrastructure projects.

Similarly, Kalat was larger than Sind or NWFP and in my opinion, deserves mention: Nestled in its rugged expanse, Kalat had been the third largest state in the Raj, set apart by its remarkable geography and unusual political structure. (Sam Dalrymple, Shattered Lands, 2026, p. 178). Sutyarashi (talk) 04:36, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Sutyarashi Why are you restoring unused sources and a note when you have already removed the corresponding content? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:52, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Restored your edit. Sutyarashi (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

I would like to suggest an edit in the Globe Map image in the article.

The regions shown under the territory of Pakistan are incorrect.

Though Azad Kashmir, Gilgit-Baltistan, etc. exist, they are in disputed territories, therefore, they should be clearly marked as disputed with light green colour and dashed line rather than showing them as permanent territories of either countries. India, Territorial disputes of India

Please refer to the above links. Kkshoitra (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The map shows Indian Kashmir as claimed territory by Pakistan. Where do you see any error? Lorstaking (talk) 08:13, 4 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The National Anthem of Pakistan is in Persian and not Urdu. ~2026-59223-39 (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

The language of Pakistani National is Persian not Urdu. H0neycup (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Qaumi Taranah calls out that the lyrics are in Urdu. Do you have a source for otherwise? Ravensfire (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2026 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so I live in Pakistan and was always told that the national anthem is in Persian. And it was easy to believe cause it isn't understandable to an Urdu speaker. I never dug deep into it. I've read this research titled "Morphological Comparison of Urdu and Persian in the Pakistani National Anthem - Pakistan Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences", the conclusion to it is that it's heavily "Perisianised Urdu", with a few Urdu words. H0neycup (talk) 07:45, 12 November 2026 (UTC)Reply