Talk:Wagah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I really hope someone adds to this (if I never do). I've seen this on various shows like Michael Palin's 'Himalaya' as well as elsewhere. It is one of the most fascinating things I've ever seen. The pomp and symbolism of beating the retreat is really powerful. I added that Wagah is pretty much inbetween Lahore and Amritsar, though I'm not sure 'Indo-Pak' is desirable for an Encyclopædia it was redundant to say India and Pakistan twice. I also added the Hindi and Urdu, looking them up in BBC:Urdu and BBC:Hindi, so I'm not 100% sure they are correct - especially as they don't correspond. I'm thinking واگهه makes more sense. In any case the Gurmukhi is also in order, ਵਾਘਾ, ਵਾਹਗਹ, ਵਾਘਹ, etc? I also added the link to the pictures of Pakistani Rangers. I wish an Indian or Pakistani near Wagah would take a day trip there and take some pictures to put up here! Khiradtalk 04:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Doesnt Michael Palin talk in his documentary how even though it looks aggressive its carefully arranaged between both the pakistan and indian border gaurds.Corustar 00:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Both sides have given up 'aggressive posturing'. To refer to India alone implies that the Pakistan side alone insists on maintaining this stance. The sentence clearly hints at anti-Pakistan prejudice by whomever added it in the first instance.
If you can substantiate the claim that Pakistan has also abandoned its aggressive posturing, please do so. Since there is a news item that states that India has given such posturing up, it has been mentioned in the article; it does not imply any anti-Pakistan bias.
I'm sorry but the suggestion that the Pakistan side maintains 'aggresive posturing' in the absence of the same on the Indian side is completely absurd. It is well known that the ceremony is closely choregraphed by both sides working in co-operation. The implication of the sentence is clear. It is intended to reflect your own wider perception / prejudice that Pakistan (as a whole) has an aggresive stance towards a friendly India. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but I'm afraid that it has no place in a Wikipedia article.
I disagree that there is any implication that Pakistan continues to be 'hostile' to a 'friendly' India. The information that India has given up its 'aggressive postures' is clearly substantiated by the news item to which the link has been provided. If there is verifiable information that Pakistan has also foregone such posturing, it is welcome to be posted in this article. (And please refrain from using adjectives like 'absurd'; Wikipedia discourages the use of such terms in discussions). Subravenkat 21:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion that India has given up "aggressive posturing" has not been substantiated. A single sentence 'news item' included in an online Indian nationalist newspaper, which offers no justification or elaboration on the point, hardly represents an impartial or appropriate source to cite from for such a serious event. The sentence in the article has very obvious underlying implications and is clearly designed to be provocative. It has no natural place in the article, which as it stands offers a fairly concise summary of the topic. Once again, please act in the best interests of the articles and refrain from using Wikipdedia articles to push your own agenda, whatever that may be. Thank you.
Labcoat 10:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This image can be uploaded and can replace the present one. http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=88581751&size=o Chanakyathegreat 16:46, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
