User talk:Spasage

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See archives at ->> Archives

Contents

[edit] Revert on Muslim culture page

Hi, I got reprimanded for posting a bunch of recipes on Mulsim culture of Hyderabad. I will be reverting the page so if your edits go away...I'm sorry :( User:Salmaakbar.


[edit] Sargodha

It's usual to list all schools, museums, universities, etc., in articles on towns; why are you deleting them? --Phronima 19:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Contributors were adding schools and colleges which may not be well know even in Sargodha. They were on the list because someone know them and have access to add them in article. We can list all the universities, museums but when it comes to schools, colleges, make sure that they are well known in Sargodha, otherwise list will get very long. --Spasage 04:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
The criterion is verifiablity, not notability. A long list isn't a problem, surely (we don't have to worry about paper). --Phronima 17:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
How will you verify? --Spasage 10:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Qaumi Tarana

Hi there, I just wanted to tell you of my intentions with Qaumi Tarana. I asked for it to be speedily deleted because I want to move Pak sarzamin shad bad to Qaumi Tarana as I udnerstand from several websites that Qaumi Tarana is the actual name of the national anthem and Pak sarzamin shad bad is just the first line. If you find the article Qaumi Tarana has been deleted, please don't add a restart it. Thanks. Green Giant 22:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. --Spasage 04:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Swat

Salam. I was cleaning up articles about Pakistan, including categories. Do we need a category Swat? I had also been adding articles in wrong hierarchies until recently, but now I know how it's supposed to work (or so I think). For example, the city Swat shouldn't be in Category:Pakistan, it should be in Category:Cities in Pakistan, which should be in Category:Pakistan. That way when you go to the Category page of Category:Pakistan, you'll find sub-categories like Cities in Pakistan, Rivers in Pakistan, Valleys in Pakistan (which btw needs more articles in it). I'm not sure how does category Swat fit in. What do you think? Discuss with Green Giant as well.

Also, we need a category about Districts in Northern Areas. The Northern Areas have a very poor categorization, I cleaned up the Category:Northern Areas and made a Category:Cities in Northern Areas, and a Category:Regions in Northern Areas (that lists places like Hunza, excluding Hunza (Karimabad) which lies under cities). But we need more Categories under Category:Northern Areas. Waqas.usman 05:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes we need category Swat. It is district of NWFP and there are many articles related to Swat. So categorizing them helps. --Spasage 05:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
But do you see my point, if there is a category for Swat, then is there a category for Hunza (that has articles on Hunza river, Hunza valley, Hunza sate)? Is there a category for Jhelum? I don't think it should be like that.
Also, about Northern Areas, I created a new Category:Northern Areas, Pakistan and created sub-categories of "Cities in Northern Areas, Pakistan" and "Regions in Northern Areas, Pakistan", because "Northern Areas" is not as specific as "Northern Areas, Pakistan". Waqas.usman 06:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Swat is district of NWFP, so we have category, we can add many different articles which are related with Swat. As far as Hunza is conern, it is part of Northern areas, we can have cat for it.--Spasage 06:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You're right, I should have consulted before, and discussed, but I did mention it to Green Giant, and in this case of Swat, I consulted you before doing anything (coz you created it).Waqas.usman 07:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You are doing great job, but when you add/edit/delete any thing from any page in wikipedia (category, article, special page etc), check discussion page or any source which is available. I don’t want to discourage you, but I was going through some of category changes you have made and I have some doubts. Otherwise you are doing good job, keep it up. --Spasage 07:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Which specific page are you talking about? (except for the two I mentioned above). About Gilgit agency and NA, replied at Talk:Gilgit AgencyWaqas.usman 14:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lahore/Karachi district

My understanding is that the district and the city are now coterminous. Is there a separate district government from the city district government? Are the areas covered different? The situation is similar to the U.S. case of Washington, DC and the District of Columbia. Polaron 11:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

City of Lahore and Karachi does not occupy whole area of district. District usually is area with boundary, city usually grows in District. There are many other areas in Lahore and Karachi district. It is possible that we don’t have much to write in district page, but still Lahore/Karachi city and Lahore/Karachi district are two different entities, and should be treated separately. --Spasage 04:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Usually yes, but now Karachi and Lahore are officially "City Districts", and there is some confusion about whether these cities now extend to the whole of their districts.StMarian 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need Your Help

The concept of Muslim being brother (all for one, one for all) is not a new concept. We being Muslims believe in Khalifat, the concept created by Muhammad (PBUH) and that concept was not created in 1900 as described in the articles with names Pan-Islamism and Muslim Unity. I wish if you can help in doing major modification in Pan-Islamism and Muslim Unity articles. I do not know that what the need of these articles is when a good article of Khalifat already exists. I will really appreciate you help. --- Faisal 20:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renaming of Category:Muslims-related Lists

We're discussing what this category should be named and we'd like to know if it is intended for just Muslim people or more general lists about the religion as well. We'd appreciate your input. Thanks. --JeffW 13:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamic mathematician

Hi, Islamic mathematics is an established term used by historians of mathematics to refer to a certain place/period (see the article for details). Islamic mathematcians don't have to be Muslims strictly speaking, so you can't simple merge the two categories. I can't say anything about astronomy/geography/etc. with any authority, but I suspect the same applies here as well. Cheers, —Ruud 13:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where merger is going on. But you are correct, Islamic mathematics is different. Also, Muslim Mathematicians/Astronomers/geographers are Mathematicians/Astronomers/geographers who were Muslim. --Spasage 05:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Pakistani television stations and List of Pakistani television and radio channels

Don't merge. The Television and radio stations in Pakistan must have sepearate pages. Pakistan with five regional languages and 165 million people will have hundreds of radio and television stations. The online radio stations are also becaming easier and cheaper to maintain, soon people will adding these channels also. The mass media is exploding and one page will not be enough. We must have seperate pages:

List of Television Stations of Pakistan
List of Radio Stations of Pakistan

Siddiqui 12:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we need two pages. Following are two existing page:
List of Pakistani radio channels
List of Pakistani television stations

--Spasage 13:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hill Stations of Pakistan

Why are you changing from Hill stations in Pakistan to Hill stations of Pakistan? Is there a dicision taken somewhere else, which I dont know, or you want to change cat name? --Spasage 12:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember which one you're talking about, I was fixing many categories that were wrongly tagged, some places were tagged as "Category:Hill stations in Pakistan" whereas this category didn't exist. Now I see that both the previous categories still exist (albeit empty), but there's a new "Category:Hill Stations in Pakistan" that has been populated :|. I think it should be with small letters, "Hill stations in Pakistan", as it existed before. Waqas.usman 22:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karachi page

I haved added the info about TV networks removed by Aursani and Green Giant.

[1] Removed by Green Giant
[2] Removed by Aursani

Comment by in Karachi Discussion page:

== I'll remove other channel names too ==
If you remove names of Sindhi channels from the page, I'll remove names of other channels as well. Refrain from
Vandalism. Aursani 17:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Siddiqui 18:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

Hi Why you remove information about General ZI Abbasi

[edit] Categories

Hi Spasage,

I am in the process of changing the (catmore) back to (main), as i have released what I have done wrong. If you have found anymore that have the (catmore) title that should be (main|__) then do let me know.

Many thanks Fast track 19:12 09 May 2006 (UTC)

ok. --Spasage 08:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dhimmi Article

The article in anti-islam and Muslims. The tone of article reflects hate against Islam. I will really appreciate if you could contribute in that article. Read it talk page after looking at the article. I hope to get some help of yours. Best regards, --- Faisal 19:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your revert on National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences

Salam! You reverted these changes without giving any reason: [3]

I don't know why, perhaps you assumed they were bad or what, but please take a look above, the person fixed many typos, urls etc. I'll put the changes back in. I hope you'll be more careful with reverts next time so that useful edits don't get wasted :) Waqas.usman 09:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Spasage 08:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmadis are not only Muslims but better Muslims than other Muslims.

Stop removing word Muslim from Dr Abdus Salam's article. He was a very true Muslim, and you are NOBODY to change his status from Muslim to non-Muslim. In fact your own Islam is completely doubtful on doing such a sinful act of kufr.

Cool down, I did not change any thing in Dr. Abdus Salam's article. Please be precise. --Spasage 05:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh article

You have made wonderful edits in that article sometime back. Now the user named Bharatveer is back. And he reverted our changes. You might need to keep that page in your watch list for reverting backs. --- Faisal 15:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karachi District Category

Hi Spasage,

Just like to know what you mean by your edit "Move this category to Category:Karachi District" on the Category:Karachi category. Do you mean to put all the articles in this Category:Karachi into the Category:Karachi District. Or just place the Category:Karachi in Category:Karachi District. -- User:Fast track 23:42 24 May 206 (UTC)

A province is divided into Districts. I previously used only name of district as category to show that this category is for District, and everything which is in this district should be included in this category, like Karachi is city and it is in Karachi District. So the name of Category was Karachi not Karachi District (category was for district not for city). Similar is the case with Lahore, Lahore is name of city and name of district is also Lahore District. It was creating confusion. So I changed all the category names from say Abc to Abc District, to avoid confusion with city name and district name. I did same with Karachi category, from Karachi to Karachi District, so that there should be clear difference between name of city and name of district. This difference may not appear in big cities like Karachi and Lahore, but it is issue in small cities, where there are other important cities in district apart from the main city, on which name of District is based. When I say, move it to Karachi District, I mean that we don’t need category Karachi, instead to make subdivisions clear, move all the articles in Category Karachi to Category Karachi District. We'll delete category Karachi, after shifting is complete. I hope it make thing clear, but if still there is any question, tell me. I have done same with all other districts in Pakistan. You can browse through them to see it (Category:Districts_of_Pakistan). As there are many articles in Karachi and Lahore categories and there are many people contributing in them, I thought it is useful to announce it to everyone that change is being made. --Spasage 06:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think i understand your point so should all the articles in Category:Karachi and Lahore be shifted to Category:Karachi District just like the other districts you have done? For examples all articles written about Karachi, Lahore or whatever city/town be put in the district of which is concerns so we dont have a category for the actual city but of the district itself? -- Fast track 10:28 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. --Spasage 06:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistan relate articles

Which Pakistan related articles are effected. Siddiqui 13:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

hi

[edit] Transport to Transportation in Pakistan

Your recreation of a deleted category is up for undoing at this link. If transportation is really the correct title, please state so in the discussion and vote keep. Vegaswikian 18:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bhutto and the CIA Coup

The section detailing the CIA's involvement in the coup overthrowing Bhutto is not only unverified, but it can be seen as biased by any neutral observer. Please do not keep adding it. Asad

Yes, it may be true, but point is we cannot rule hands of CIA out, because one of top official of USA once told Bhutto, that “we’ll make example out of you”, I don’t know if it true or not, but support of Zia by America shows that America knew a lot. But no doubt it needs verification. I think it should be there. --Spasage 06:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Z' Black.

Is the Z' Black mentioned in the Mardan article a notable fellow ? Can't find anything in google. Tintin (talk) 05:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I am not sure. --Spasage 05:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I am thinking of deleting it asking for a citation. Tintin (talk) 05:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
go on. --Spasage 05:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman

Thank you for experimenting with the page Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Steve-o 09:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Spasage: If this was a legit blanking, please drop me a note on my talk page with a short reason. Thanks!

Spasage: I rvved it, because it looked like vandalism. This message was simply a request to let me know why you blanked a large portion of the article. I am yet wondering what prompted you to erase parts of the article.

Information in Mir Shakil-ur-Rahman article is like resume. It caries lot of information about newspaper and TV, which looks like ad. Also what you say about sentence like "……. Urdu and English with the largest circulation in the country ….", totally exaggerated and unsourced. Article is full of these sentences. I simply removed them, to make it bit more balanced. Article should talk about person and should not make him hero, which this article is doing. --Spasage 09:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jinnah

Spasage: I would like to know why is it that you think it necessary to hide the truth about Jinnah and his membership in a cult. And why is it that you feel it necessary to delete my passage about Muslim League being founded by Agha Khan

Please be specific. I never intended to hide truth. Make sure that your claim is supported by reliable source. --Spasage 04:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Salaf

Why did you restore the Need Classification section on the Salaf page? Give reasons at the discussion page.

This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject so????? --Spasage 05:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Explain

Would you like to explain this please? For starters, Matiur Rahman's wife Mili Rahman said in an interview that she along with her children were imprisoned in the air force base, rather than "taken refuge at indian embassy". I can dig up the reference.

I also provided the name of the crash cite, with the following reference:

The crash site of the T-33 was later found to be in Thatta, 40 km from the Indian border.<ref name="Banglapedia">[http://banglapedia.org/HT/R_0023.htm (Bir Srestha) Matiur Rahman's biography], [[Banglapedia]].</ref>

And, I formatted the reference section in the style of cite.php

So, I find it strange you chose to revert it without an edit summary. I only assume that you have a very good explanation of that revert, I'd like to hear that. Thanks. --Ragib 07:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don’t understand why we like to take away credit just to prove that it was not worthy. That guy made sure that his plane does not cross his county’s air. Bengalis may not like this event, or see it how Pakistanis see it, but point is something happened which made sure that plane never crosses border. Give him credit for it, even if he is enemy guy. I don’t understand why continues effort is made to undermine his effort. We are continually arguing to portray this event as engineered by Pakistani military to force Rahman man to defect, with references which are as doubtful. Minhas is hero for Pakistan and Rahman is hero for Bangladesh. At time of war, he was a defector (Pakistani view), and may remain same for many years to come. I don’t know what Bangladesh thinks about him, but point remains that Rahman tried to flow plane to supporting India. Indians would welcome him, if he would flow his plane to India. Just image 20 years of age. It takes courage to kill your self for country. Life is last thing you can give, and it is non returnable. You can not come back once you are gone, it is ultimate sacrifice. Minhas went for this, he had choice to go along, but he chose ultimate sacrifice. Ragib, this article is not against single Bengali, or even against Rahman. Don’t start refereeing to books, articles, etc which are written to make whole event look like conspiracy against Rahman. This article is exclusively for Minhas, and should remain like this. You may not great fan of Minhas, you don’t need to be one, but don’t write any thing which is not directly related to him. He did not defect because his family was detained by Pakistani military. Reasons for defection were different. I am not against Liberation movement, it was there right, but don’t paint negative picture. Don’t paint any Party as ultimate villain. I hope you read this in good faith, and help make this article good for readers and concentrate on Minhas. --Spasage 11:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Well, you haven't answered my question at all. I have full respect for both Minhas and Matiur. I am not at all trying to portray Minhas in any negative light. Please refer to the diff I pointed out above. You have not explained why you removed the crash site reference, and reverted back a factual error (that Matiur's family was in Indian embassy, that's not true). And finally, I formatted the references according to cite.php standard, you removed that as well. How do you explain that?
So, I make my point clear, I'm not out to tarnish Minhas or any other hero. I am not adding the last reference (that an airforce base is named after Matiur in Bangladesh). Other than that, the other references/changes I made were improvements to the article, and I am going to do that again. Adding a properly cited reference section, and correcting a factual error is not anything against Minhas. Please refer to the talk page, I've discussed and expressed my respect for this young man. Thank you. --Ragib 14:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Please make sure that what you write is correct. Make sure that reference is reliable. You have all the right to edit any article. --Spasage 10:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I have found references supporting the fact that Matiur's wife was imprisoned for a month at the air force base, tortured, and later returned to East Pakistan in mid/late september 1971. However, out of respect for Minhas, I'd not try to force that information into Minhas' page. But I will remove the false information about Matiur's family taking refuge in the Indian consulate. Thanks. --Ragib 15:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dadu

I just saw that you edited the page for Dadu Title. It was edited including one of the families history .Any specific reason you edited it back ?

please copy link you are talking abou. --Spasage 06:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iqbal

Hi - I appreciate your taking the time to talk about this issue, but please try to understand that there is no nationality or citizenship known as "South Asian" or "British Indian." Iqbal himself talks of "Indian Muslims," and "India." And neither can "Indian subcontinent" be used because its just a broad geographical area that exceedes British India. I appreciate you being civil, and I assure you that I'm not trying to push an Indian nationalist POV. Rama's Arrow 06:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you see the bio I wrote about Mujibur Rahman, I describe him as an East Pakistani politician before citing him as the founder of Bangladesh. Rama's Arrow 06:50, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
As for due credit, both Jinnah and Iqbal are described as Indians, but immediately given credit for founding and conceiving Pakistan. Its not like their significance is being discounted. Rama's Arrow 06:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
You are right, but my point is word Indian or India changed after 1947. Now if we say India, we are talking about present day India. So dont you think, using India or Indian means present day india, which does not include Pakistan or Bangladesh. Can we use some other word? What do you think about it? I feel that using word Indian or India, kind of exclude Pakistani and Bangladeshi from undivided India. They were Indian, but they were part of Undivided India, not present day india. I would like to you comment on it. --Spasage 07:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I've been wanting to discuss this issue collectively with Pakistani and Bangladeshi editors, so as to avoid edit wars and hostilities (and no Pakistan or Indian occupied Wikipedia!). Here's my idea:

The page Indian is a disambiguation - we must simply add the fact that the word "Indian" was used to describe the people who lived in British India, before changing in 1947 to mean only Republic of India. And I will remove the link to India from the bios of Jinnah and Iqbal. Rama's Arrow 07:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Indian Subcontinent is term used by wikipedia to refer to fact you are talking about. I think instead of British India, this land was known simply as India and people living here were refer to as Indian, but it was before 1947. I think this fact should be mentioned in both Indian and India pages. Fact that there is difference between present India and India before 1947 is ignored in many articles. Please recommend names for India and Indian before 1947. --Spasage 07:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
As of now on the Indian page, both your "Indian subcontinent" and "British India" as different from Republic of India are included in the top 3 definitions. I think this is a pragmatic, clean solution as Wikipedia must follow conventions and not promote new interpretations. Indian subcontinent includes Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and perhaps Afghanistan, whose people to the best of my knowledge have never been described as "Indian."
If you would like to undertake a deeper analysis and come up with something different, I recommend that we organize a discussion on a subpage of Portal:Asia, and invite amongst others, Indian, Pakistan and Bangladeshi editors to weigh into the issue. Or we can simply ask people like user:Nichalp, user:Ragib and user:Pepsidrinka to drop by and give us their views on your talkpage here itself. Rama's Arrow 07:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
What is your suggestion, to describe Indian and Indian before 1947? --Spasage 07:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said, the Indian page itself differentiates between "British India" and "India after 1947" - it implies that the word "Indian" has been used to describe different things. As it is in the top 3 definitions, it would serve as a good clarifier. Rama's Arrow 07:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm going offline now, so I'd like to just say that I appreciate that your civility and that you took time to discuss this rather sensitive issue with me. There is a need for a general understanding amongst "South Asian" editors about such a question/issue, based on technical facts and convention, and not politics, bias or revisionist history. Rama's Arrow 07:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so when we mention India before 1947, we can use Indian Subcontinent and when Indian we move to Indian page, there is difination. Is it correct? If it is we can add other user so that same defination is used everwhere. What I understand it is ignored in many articles.

Before 1947

 India -> Indian Subcontinent
 Indian -> Indian, use definations.

After 1947

 India -> India
 Indian -> Indian, use definations.

--Spasage 07:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


Correct on count of "Indian." Not so for "India" - one must use what is accurate as per chronology. There is a big difference between the "Indian subcontinent" of the Gupta dynasty, and the "Indian subcontinent" of the Mughals. Prolly the only thing one can use "Indian subcontinent" for is the Indus Valley Civilization and the Indo-Aryans, Vedic civilization.
There is no need to mention that Iqbal was an "Indian Muslim" when the very next sentence talks of him as a philosopher of Islam. Iqbal also shares the most common Muslim name, so its redundant. I only wrote in "Indian Muslim" in Jinnah becoz he was explicitly a Muslim political leader, who disassociated himself with other people. Iqbal is just a poet and Islamic philosopher.
I must also repeat two things: (1) neither South Asia nor Indian subcontinent correlate with with the people known as "Indians," except unless you're going BCE. (2) Iqbal, Jinnah and most others referred to British India as "India," and themselves and others as "Indians." Most encyclopedias and reputable sources describe it as so, so Wikipedia must honor that convention, and while pointing out the technical differences, not attempt to push a new interpretation. Rama's Arrow 11:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
My point remains unanswered, is it just to link any person before 1947 to present day India, even if he spent his whole or large part of life in present Pakistan or Bangladesh. Yes you are right, they call them self Indians, but in wikipedia, we are directing them to present day India. This is my point. I am not saying anything else. Take example of Iqbal. How much time he spent in present day Pakistan and how much time he spend in present day India. We can refer him as Indian, but where he was living, where he died, is it present day India. We are doing the same mistake in every other article, by referring to anything, anyplace simply by "India" and linking it to present day India. Don’t you think it is unjust, keeping in mind present day boundaries? As you correctly mentioned definitions of word changes, and I think definition of India should accommodate this fact.

I hope you understand my point, THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INDIA OF TODAY AND INDIA BEFORE 1947. --Spasage 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I understand your point of DIFFERENCE - I share that outlook and believe that it must be a clearly understood idea. To again answer your point - no the person must not be linked to Republic of India, but to Indian (a disambiguation page) and specifically to the explanation that the people who lived prior to August 15, 1947, were known as Indians but in British India.
Ok, you say Iqbal lived most of his life between Lahore and Sialkot, both now in Pakistan. He should be correctly described as an Indian who lived in British India. But in objection to your latter description - Iqbal lived/worked/spoke and thought about the issues/situation in British India - 75/80 percent of which became India in 1947. His work, political ideas and effect on literature and poetry has a big place in the history and heritage of the Republic of India - Iqbal's work is widely respected in India, and India has close to 140 million Muslims - the people he was addressing his work and opinions. When Iqbal talked, he always spoke of "Indian Muslims," albeit with the connotation that they were a separate nation. This Fire Burns Always 06:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
What I'm trying to say in the latter bit is that Iqbal's connection with the Republic of India is not insignificant in comparison with what he has in Pakistan. Similar case is Rabindranath Tagore - he is widely respected in Bangladesh, and even though he cannot be described as a Bangladeshi poet, his connection is no less important. This Fire Burns Always 06:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, I am comfortable with term Indian, because it explains what is difference between present day Indian living in Republic of India and person of historically India, which is described in Indian page as Historically, the Indian subcontinent (also known as Hindustan) or a person or attribute thereof . That’s what I am saying. We need different word for Pakistan-India-Bangladesh before 1947, it can be undivided India, Hindustan, British India or Indian Subcontinent. I think we can use Indian Subcontinent for pre 1947 India. I want your comments on this. Indian is clear. There is not ambiguity; ambiguity is in word India when referring to land before 1947, because it links to present day India. Comment specifically on India and word we can use in articles to identify this land. Thanks. --Spasage 09:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On India

I originally used to get very angry if an editor put in "partition of British India," or "Unified South Asia." This was because most historical works I've read talk of "India" when it comes to the Mughal era, the Indus Valley Civilization or European colonies. Iqbal, Jinnah, Gandhi, Nehru, Patel et all refer to the political entity they lived in as "India."

This is the core situation Wikipedia cannot start referring to "partition of British India" or "British rule in Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia independence movement" because it is against conventional use, original research and neologism. We are here to write facts, not evolve different interpretations. Having said that, I completely agree that we cannot speak of Iqbal as someone who lived in the Republic of India - when we describe him as "Indian," it must be clearly understood that this refers to the British colony.

Now Indian subcontinent or South Asia are definitely (IMO) not good - because they refer also to Sri Lanka, Nepal, the Maldives, Bhutan, Afghanistan. These countries were not associated with the "India" Iqbal lived in - nor are people who live in these countries ever referred to as Indians. The terms themselves are entirely geographical in meaning, thus one cannot say that the someone who lives in Ankara as from the Anatolia, or that a native born in Casablanca is from the Sahara Desert.
I think that a reference to "India" in the time of Iqbal should redirect to India (disambiguation), where just like "Indian" it is explained that the term "India" has been used to describe different political entities, and that India of European colonists is different from the Republic. Alternatively, I don't think we can redirect to British India - my only issue with that is the article does not describe the country of British India, but the "British Raj" political system. And since conventional view is that of British India being a colony, I don't believe that it can be used to describe a nationality.
I think the only solution is to create a page where "India" is thoroughly and precisely explained as not "Republic of India" but a geographic, economic, cultural entity that has existed in the Indian subcontinent under different political entities at different times. I realize this is highly controversial becoz it sounds like India is a nation, but we cannot ignore the historical connections between the hundreds of kingdoms, regions, empires that have inhabited this land, and that in fields of economy, geography, culture there has always been a continuity that politics has not provided.
Perhaps this itself is against convention, a new interpretation. I don't know - I think to solve this problem, we must have a group discussion with other editors. This Fire Burns.....Always 20:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
To be mega frank, the sensitivity of the situation arises when Indian editors feel that some Pakistani editors are arguing that there was no "India" ever in history, so as to justify the Two-Nation Theory and disconnect Pakistan's Indian connections. Conversely, some Pakistani editors are irked that by redirecting to the Republic of India, the conventional interpretation imposes the Two-nation theory as invalid for historical purposes. This Fire Burns.....Always 20:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your time and openness in discussing this issue. I think best solution is to have a page describing India, which clearly marks difference between India before 1947 (historic) and partition which led to creation of 3 countries in India. I think we should have page like we have for Indian, where India is define. Present day India is moved to Republic of India, and if user like to read about history he can move to different page, like undivided India, Indian subcontinent etc. What you say?

For example, in India disambiguation page:

Reason for talking with you in such detail is, people living in Pakistan and Bandledesh are as Indian as any one living in Republic of India. This is due to simple fact, that they are Indian. If some westerner sees Indian, he cant distinguish between Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi. He can say he is India. Also culture, history etc are similar. Variation are there due to people and their choice of living, but fundamentally they all are similar. So, again thanks for you time. Please comment. --Spasage 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your idea completely. However, I've asked some other editors to weigh in on this, as we can't make such a big move without general consensus. This Fire Burns.....Always 08:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages are not a good idea as they increase the work for both the editors as well as the readers. I have gone through the above discussion and I only see a "solution in search of a problem." It is highly uncalled for. Also, the right place to discuss this would be WT:INWNB. --Gurubrahma 09:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Would "a _________ from unpartitioned India" do good? I know its contrived, but can't we use that for the sake of political correctness? -- Sundar \talk \contribs 09:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Unpartitioned India is not bad. Gurubrahma I again stress on the same point that everyone living in Pakistan, India (present day), Bangledesh own (whole) India as much as today’s India owns it. Ghandi, Jinnah, Iqbal, Nehru all were Indian, but that India was undivided. We are taking away from them, huge part of land, culture, heritage by just confining them to present day India (Republic of India). I think, for correctness, we should have disamg for India, like we have for Indian. I think it will do justice with everyone living in pre-partition India (today’s Pakistan, Republic of India, and Bangladesh). Yes, we can have discussion on it; we can also invite members from Pakistan and Bangladesh. But this discussion should take place with open mind not to push agenda. To avoid any confusion I state what I am saying again and I would like everyone to comment.

India after 1947 consists of three countries, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. When we use word India, in articles, refereeing to whole India, links are such that they bring us to present day India (Republic of India), reducing size of pre-1947 India considerably. Is it possible that when we refer to pre-1947 India we use a term which encompasses whole India not just present day India? Please comment.

I hope members from Pakistan, India and Bangladesh will take this in good spirit and find come to a good conclusion. --Spasage 09:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


Following are options:

--Spasage 11:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be some help to take a look at the arrangement on the China article:

The term British India can be used only from 1858 to 1947. deeptrivia (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea ... I haven't gone through all the discussion above, but having china-esque disambig pages are necessary. I find it increasingly confusing when India as the modern country is often linked to articles or wikilinks actually indended to mean India the geographic region. Definitely, any person who lived before 1947, such as Tagore, Iqbal, etc. were "Indian", and from "india", but here the word points to the historic region, or may be the British colony, which is a superset of the current day country. We need a clear way to point that out. The discussion above is a step in the right direction. Thanks. --Ragib 14:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
There was no India before 1947. That was why Gandhi was assassinated in the first place! For all articles about events during 1857-1947, I prefer the word British South Asia in the same vein as French West Africa, Dutch East Indies,.. This is because though Pakistan and Afghanistan were included in the Anglo administration during this period, their cultural milieu was more closer to Safavid Persia than Hindustan. Also, remember Russia still had significant interests in this theatre.
For articles about events during 957-1857, I prefer the word Hindustan or Al-Hind. This conforms to the language used unanimously by Middle Eastern scholarship then. Anwar 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
That, my friend, is a bit too much! There was obviously a region considered to be "India" in English and other European languages. Columbus DID sail westward trying to find that. British South Asia isn't correct either ... they had the whole Afghanistan, India, Pakistan, Bengal, Nepal, Burma Sri Lanka etc. under that.
The crux of my argument or my point is that, when talking about persons of the period pre-1947, the word "Indian" is fine when considering the greater region generally known as India, but not the modern post 1947 country called Republic of India. Perhaps something like India (region) may be considered? Calling "British India" is not ok, because officially, the British didn't controll all of India, the princely states were separate though dependent, and but yet, they were part of India, the region.
So, perhaps, as Spasage and others commented above, people in pre-1947 days, let the person be Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist or Sikh, were all Indians (meaning a native of India as a region). Sure, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was born in India (meaning the region), so was Muhammad Iqbal, Mahatma Gandhi, and Rabindranath Tagore and so on. And pre-1947, there was no pakistan, Bangladesh, Republic of India ... rather a greater region to which all three countries belonged. So, adding ownership of people dying before 1947 to any particular country is something we should not do. Hence, Iqbal, Tagore etc. are all Indians when we are talking about the region, but not (Republic of India)ns, (the modern country). Let's settle this thing and end the divisive edit wars in Iqbal/Tagore pages. --Ragib 20:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
China is a special case because of the fact that both Taiwan (Republic of China) and China (People's Republic of China) are called China NOW. There is no other place that is currently called India apart from the Republic of India. In my opinion, China should be a page about the PRC because that's what most people would want when looking for it.
We can have a separate disambig page at India_(disambiguation) (there probably should be one already) and link to it from the India page. References of Muhammad Iqbal being an Indian should go to British India in my opinion. Hope my input helped :) Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 20:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I like the way the China situation is set up, though I think I find myself in the minority. IMO, India should discuss the historical land known as India and the current India page should be moved to Republic of India. I do agree that something must be done in order to disambiguate the term more appropriately, as the situation now is misleading. Pepsidrinka 00:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I am very pleased to read all above comments, because they are in right direction. One fact on which, we all agree is that India before partition (1947) and after (1947) partition cannot be same. So, we cannot link article to present day India (Republic of India) when discussing pre-partition India, as Ragib, User:Pepsidrinka and others pointed out correctly. So, we should have India (disambiguation) page, as China (disambiguation) have. It describes India, historically and present day Republic of India. Also, it should mention Bangladesh and Pakistan and their link with India. I hope no one will disagree with India (disambiguation), it will be a good starting point. For reference please visit America, it is some what similar to what we are discussing. Please comment on India (disambiguation). --Spasage 05:34, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

There's also a substantial example at Britain. It's a never-ending task to fix links so that they point to the correct meaning for the relevant date. (Edinburgh was founded in Scotland, not Britain; Jane Austen was born in Britain, not the UK, etc.) JackyR | Talk 12:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
What point you are trying to make? --Spasage 15:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry, just another eg of how a geographical / cultural area with mutating official status and meaning has been handled organisationally. This eg includes a greater number of entities than China and America, with changes every few hundred years, and is I think tolerably well done. In particular, a writer (say) may have beeen born and worked in one entity, but their work may now be "owned" by several modern entities: lots of piped links to direct the commonly used short term to the correct official term. Isn't that what you're talking about above? No specific connection to India, tho.
By the way, I like the India (disambiguation) page, but would it make more sense to have the modern nation at Republic of India and "India" as the main dab? JackyR | Talk 12:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
PS Arrgh! The discussion has now kicked off at the regional notice-board, so sorry for filling your page with junk. (hangs head) JackyR | Talk 12:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem. --Spasage 15:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next step

Hi Spasage - sorry to convert your talkpage to the village pump! Yes the talks do look good, but I agree with Gurubrahma that the discussion should be moved to a sub-page of Portal:Asia. This Fire Burns.....Always 05:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no issue, it should be moved. --Spasage 05:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/India disambiguation discussion This Fire Burns.....Always 05:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Hi - please check the page again, coz I've made a fresh suggestion. This Fire Burns.....Always 14:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Salafi University

You excised the bulk of the article on Salafi University with the edit summary "rv unsourced". That material was sourced. If you have some other objection to the material, please don't hesitate to say what it is. But please don't say the material was unsourced, when it clearly was sourced.

Cheers. -- Geo Swan 03:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chand Raat

I'm not sure why you reverted the "and India" as vandalism. It's a complex issue and as I understand Indian Muslims do celebrate Chand Raat because the practice existed before there was a Pakistan. Would it be more appropriate to call it "South Asian Muslims"? gren グレン 09:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes to "South Asian Muslims". --Spasage 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balochistan

Hello, can u help me improve balochistan related pages? particularly the districts, as you may have noticed ive started allready by making infoboxes and adding pictures and maps? can u help me by creating infoboxes aswell, and i will add pictures and maps. cheers! your help would be greatly appreciated!

Yes sure, I am working. I saw, you made some very good changes. --Spasage 13:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{db}}

You wrote: "db|Who is this? Somebody wrote about himself. Unknow. Remove it without wasting time."

Hehe!! Also known as {{db-bio}} lol! - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zia edits

I don't understand why you reverted to the original form on the Zia-ul-Haq page. All the images have gotten citations.

[edit] Islamic Military History

I noticed your interest the page on List of Muslim of soldiers, in that case you may be interested in the following pages as well and might think about linking the the pages up with Muslim History and List of wars in the Islamic world.--Tigeroo 11:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll check them. --Spasage 06:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pakistani journalists

Hello - I see you removed the redirect at Pakistani journalists, leaving a blank article. I believe I understand that you removed it because it redirected to a category, which makes sense I think. I also see you've done a lot of work on similar articles. Do you know of any articles that Pakistani journalists could be re-directed to? If not, let me know and I will put it up for deletion. Thanks! --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, reason for removing redirect was that it should not redirect to category. I did not see any article related to Pakistani journalists. But what I understand, history of journalism in Pakistan is very rich and long. There were many people before 1947 which were involved in journalism and contributed significantly Pakistan movement. So, we can start adding contents in this article, and it will surly expand, as there are many big names and events to write on. Thanks for discussing with me. --Spasage 05:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok that's fine, I'll leave it be. Take it easy --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
You can also contribute. --Spasage 05:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I appreciate the offer, but I have zero knowledge of the topic, and besides, I prefer cleanup-type work to article writing. Thanks anyway though! --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] please do not remove the pics

please do not remove the pics on the mohajir page espacially of the 1992 operation

First of all it labels that it was done by pakistan army, I am not sure this is true after reading article. Also, what about validity of this pic.--Spasage 07:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggestions are always welcome

well experienced suggestions are always welcome and should be acted upon. No doubt about it. But it is also needed that others should try not to dictate what one should do and what not...especially if the suggestion is connected not to their contributions, but to their own freedom of speech, act and decision.

[edit] Haripur District changes

I saw you "rvv"-ed my latest addition to Haripur District. I added Pir Sabir Shah, who was the Chief Minister of NWFP under Nawaz Sharif government to give a balanced POV since Raja Sikander Zaman belongs to an opposite political party. If you want to keep this addition out in case it adds poitical bias, that is fine but I guess taking Raja Sikander Zaman out would be fair as well. It wasn't vandalism at all. I added most of the stuff related to Haripur and Haripur District, being a native of it and most of it is referenced and NPOV. Thanks.

LopezKahn 13:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

ok. --Spasage 13:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Should I make those changes again?

LopezKahn 15:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Try not to side with anyone. --Spasage 16:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


== Muhammad Ghori changes ==

"Muhammad, like his predacessors, routinely destroyed non-muslim temples, priests and towns while his armies pillaged and raped their way across the Indus. In Bihari folklore, it is said that his invading armies often destroyed entire towns only to find valuable scrolls and manuscripts in town libraries useless as all inhabitants who could read and write in the language were slaughtered."

I noticed you deleted the line. Please read John Keay's "A history of India." The anecdote is directly from his book.

Also it is important to express Ghori's effect on the non-muslim population of the Indian sub-continent (ie. destruction of Hindu/Jain temples). If you would like to re-word it, be my guest but please do not delete that again because it happens to be a fact.

razumihin

When you write something so serious you check it twice. In those days, it was not unusual to kill anyone or destroy belongings if you are on other side (read if you are enemy). Things were very different in those days. You are talking about Hindus temples, there are many Muslims how killed fellow Muslims, just to grab power. So, this is usually not against any religion but against your enemy. You destroy until enemy gets cripple. Read history of Indian subcontinent. You will find many Muslims killing Muslims to grab power. I am not saying he did right thing to destroy any temple (or any place of worship). Things were different then. Now, if you think that source you are quoting is correct and reliable, you can put it, but it happens so often that source you quote, quotes somebody else and it is usually chain of quotes. One is quoting other, and saying that because he wrote some thing (which I assume correct), so it is true, and I quote it as truth. So be careful what you quote. Try to find more then one source. Also try to read other side of story before you make up your mind. Again, if you think (after doing all research, if you can) it is correct, I have no objection. But make sure it is reliable. Thanks for dropping message. Regards. --Spasage 06:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
The source I am quoting is a British historian (John Keay). He quotes from Ferishta and from various Brahmin accounts - It is as well rounded as possible when it comes eliminating biases in South Asian history. I realize that killing and looting were quite common in those days as many empires of the medieval era participated in such activities. However, the Central Asians of that era were another story (ie. Mongols, Timurids etc.). They were especially harsh (even for their times). Anyway, I will add in the footnote. Take care
razumihin
Ok. --Spasage 06:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on "National symbols"

An anon (Special:Contributions&target=82.0.153.165) has been adding "National symbols of Pakistan" to various pages. He claims that Mango is the national fruit, Rhododendron is the national flower, Khyber pass is the national pass,Dolphin is the national marine mammal, Benazir Bhutto is a national symbol of Pakistan, Lahore Resolution is the national document, and so on. It seems to me that most of these are just arbitrary designations lacking any official status. Could you clarify these? At least, Rhododendron isn't the national flower, right? (google shows Jasmine).

He also added a lot of "provincial language", "regional language" tags to Demographics of Pakistan ... please correct them if those are not the official status of the languages.

Thanks. --Ragib 14:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, many of anon edits are meaningless. What you wrote above is correct. I think best way is to revert his edits and engage him to know what he is unto. You are right, Rhododendron isn't national flower. --Spasage 06:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Umer Sharif biography

Helloo Spasage. Since you are somewhat familiar with Umer Sharif, might you be able to help improve the state of this article by citing reliable sources in accordance with our WP:BLP policy, and perhaps even add a brief rating on the talk page? ;-) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, and thanks for dropping this message. --Spasage 05:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nationality question ?

i thought people from pakistan were also called Pakis (Like when i visited the UK)


Dave , Montana VA

I believe that's a derogatory way to refer to the British Pakistani community. Rama's arrow 00:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Lord!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
To Spasage, for his initiative and candour in resolving a most sensitive question with his fellow editors. Rama's arrow 00:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


I wish you wouldn't slip in a precious gift so quietly! Thank you very much sir. Please accept this token from me - I was most positively impressed by your initiative and candour in the affair. Cheers, Rama's arrow 00:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Pakistan

The project mentioned above could be eligible for deletion as it currently has no members. I strongly suggest that you add yourself to the membership list. Also, you might be able to clarify the goals and activities of the project by various sources, including the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. Badbilltucker 15:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Pakistan

The project you created above is technically eligible for deletion if it has no current members, as is now the case. I noted that you did a lot of work on this page, and wanted to make sure that you were given the chance to keep it active before it was nominated for deletion. Badbilltucker 19:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Have a happy and safe ramadan

All the best to you and your family! Rama's arrow 00:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] review

Hi - Please do me the kindness of visiting and sharing your views at Wikipedia:Editor review/Rama's Arrow 2. I need your advice and criticism, and I would be immensely grateful if you could spare a little time on this. Thank you, Rama's arrow 15:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


Image:WikiThanks.png

When I started my second editor review, I had no idea how greatly helpful it would be to me. Here are people from across the world who I've never met or laid eyes upon, taking their personal time to think about me and offer me valuable criticism and advice. And the stuff I've learnt is more helpful in real life than just on Wikipedia. This is an experiment I will never forget. I thank you most sincerely for your kindness, for helping me be a better person. I am very much in your debt. Rama's arrow 15:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:WikiThanks.png

[edit] National symbols of Pakistan

I will be proposing this page for speedy deletion after discussion. Siddiqui 03:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Join the Wiki Pakistan Project!

Just found a link on the Pakistan talk page that is asking fellow Wikipedians to join so we can start to improve Pakistani related articles, you have done alot of work with sorting out categories and articles so maybe many of us can get together to advance the work further. Check it out - Wikipedia:WikiProject/List of proposed projects --Fast track 16:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article President's Relief Fund (Pakistan), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:President's Relief Fund (Pakistan). You may remove the {{dated prod}} template, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Whpq 01:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/p/a/User_talk%7ESpasage_501c.html"