Talk:Karachi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karachi article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
This article is in the following WikiProjects and selections:
Good article Karachi was a nominee for Geography and places good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Requests: Media section - local newspapers, television stations, radio stations
  • Copyedit: Refer to Copyeditors League after through internal review
  • Wikify: Avoid sections not used by other good and featured articles
  • Verify: Find and add citations from reliable sources
  • Cleanup: Check for discrepancies and factual errors, plus image copyright tags
  • Expand:

    Culture section - annual cultural events, sites of interest, religion, local food and drink, local customs

    Education section - educational statistics, other schools, and libraries
  • NPOV: Eliminate the use of flowery tourist-guide language
  • Infobox: Generic infobox added Y
  • Other: Standardise all references

Contents

[edit] Why is Karachi in Sindh?

Hello, just wondering why is Karachi included in Sindh by the Government? Its history suggests that it was settled by Baloch tribes and economically, like Sindh, Baluchistan plays a major role in Karachi's economy due to Hub River and electricity produced there and other economic activities that take place.

Is this going to change in future? Because Karachi is planning to get expanded into Lasbela District of Baluchistan in near future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik357 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Use of standard infobox

i noticed that in WIKI they has a infobox: pakistnai cities and that is use in some other cities of pakistan to show information about them but in this page that is not use.. i like to ask what all other think. Faraz Ahmad (talk) 05:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the infobox earlier on today because I believe we should use the generic Template:Infobox Settlement which is much more flexible and comprehensive. I am working on another article at the moment but I will change all Pakistani cities to this generic infobox asap. Green Giant (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I have mentioned this on the talk page for Green Giant (talk · contribs) to use the {{Infobox City Pakistan}} rather and to suggest changes for the genericness of the mentioned template. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some one is Deleting the uploaded Pictures and Articles

Hey well all Karachities and Pakistanis should unite against these culprits who are trying there best to harm Pakistan and the Image of Karachi on this Internationally viewed site by deleting the articles and Picture being uploaded! we all should add more and more articles and more Standardized pictures of Karachi as many as we can to show the clear and better Image of Karachi thanks! plz Kindly add some more articles!! and i request the Wikipedia authorities to take strict action against those who are involved in deletion of articles and pictures from Karachi. Paki90 —Preceding comment was added at 12:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason your images keep getting deleted is because you keep breaking copyright law and you refuse to try to understand what people are trying to explain to you. To put it simply - STOP UPLOADING OTHER PEOPLE'S IMAGES AND CLAIMING THEY ARE YOURS. STOP COPYING TEXT FROM OTHER WEBSITES BECAUSE IT BREACHES COPYRIGHT LAW. Is that simple enough for you? Green Giant (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Paki90, you can't just upload any picture you find on a search engine. Only pictures with the proper license can be uploaded. Also, make sure the pictures you upload are appropriate to an encyclopedia. Zaindy87 (talk) 01:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Today an admin has finally started deleting Paki90's images en masse - all because s/he would not follow the rules. I'm all for enthusiasm but it is simply not acceptable to try to pass of images as your own work when the only work you have done is to click the mouse for a copy-and-paste-job. I hope you realise the error Paki90 because it is a waste of our time trying to ensure you obey the law too. Green Giant (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

Article is a good, solid 'B-class' article. Unfortunately, I don't think it meets the Good Article criteria at the present time. The language and prose is actually reasonably good, and it's well written, although there are a few cases in the article where some overly flowery language is used, which could be toned down a bit (e.g. try not to sound as much like a tourist guide). The biggest issue with the article is lack of references; most sections are completely unsourced (history, culture, education, sports, shopping, transportation). I also see at least two serious errors in the article as well:

  • "In 1864, the first telegraphic message was sent from India to England when a direct telegraph connection was laid down between Karachi and London." -- this implies that the first telegraph lines ever constructed were here, which is not the case. It may have been the first telegraph line in the region, but I don't think it was the first line ever. The sentence should be rephrased, and cited.
  • The population information in the last paragraph of the history section does not agree with the population in the infobox, or with the population in the demographics section.

A copyedit for reference citation formatting should be done. There are some cases where the citation appears after the cited sentence but before the punctuation (like this[1].). There's also some cases where the reference appears after the cited sentence with no punctuation whatsoever. The proper format is to put the citation after the cited sentence and immediately after the punctuation, with no space (like this.[2]).

I don't think the article is exactly complete. The culture section is really short, and I'm sure a city with a population of several million would have a lot more to do with the culture. More information about annual cultural events, sites of interest, religion, local food and drink, local customs, etc, should be added. I'd get rid of the shopping section; as written, it just doesn't look all that exciting. Lots of cities have shopping centers -- whoopdeedoo! You probably could talk about some of the bazaars, which might be a regional flavor of shopping center, somewhere in the culture section (sites of interest, for example).

The education section could use more discussion on the educational statistics, other schools, and libraries.

I'm not getting the listing of towns in the government section. Are these neighborhoods or boroughs within Karachi, or are they suburbs (separate cities and towns adjacent to the city)? I would recommend merging this information into the geography section, and possibly adding a subsection there on 'cityscape' or 'neighborhoods', with more discussion about these. I'd also move the government section lower in the order of sections, probably closer to transportation & education. It's not quite as important as things like history, geography, and economy.

There's no section discussing local media in Karachi. Are there any newspapers, television stations, radio stations, etc? This is pretty standard info for city articles.

I'd move the real estate section into the history section, or maybe geography. Although most of the text seems to be historical in nature. Same thing with the challenges section. These two sections seem to have been tacked on at the end and I'm not sure what their purpose is. The content seems notable, but I don't think it's quite important enough for their own sections.

You could probably reduce the 'see also' section a bit. It's mostly a long list of lists. You can start off by removing any links that are already included earlier in the article, such as List of universities in Karachi (per WP:MOS). Also, move the sister projects templates down to the external links section; most articles put them down there, since they are technical "external" to wikipedia, even though they are related sites.

Eliminate the 'notes' section with {{1911}} link in it. If information from the 1911 brittanica is used in the article, it should be cited using inline citations. 'General references' like this, which supposedly back up large sections of text without being specific, are not acceptable.

The lead section could also use a little touching up. It's decent, but a little short, and doesn't really adequately summarize the content of the article, as it should. You might want to review WP:LEAD for tips here.

I didn't really check all of the image copyright tags, which is also a requirement for GA status. But you should go through and insure that every image does have appropriate copyright tags, preferably free ones, like GFDL or creative commons tags.

Hopefully this will help editors improve the article. I think the article reads reasonably well, and once the article satisfies the citation and completeness requirements, it can be nominated again for GA status. You might also want to take a look at some of the templates and guidelines at WP:CITIES (while there's not really a template for international cities, there is one for UK and US cities, which might provide some useful information).

Cheers! Dr. Cash (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Sindhi channels

If someone removes the names of Sindhi TV channels from the list, then I'll remove the names of Urdu TV channels. I hope names of Sindhi TV channels will not be removed.

Aursani (talk) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make your meaning clearer. I understand what you are trying to convey based on past experience but the statement above reads like a threat and that is not something we want to encourage in Wikipedia. On a sidenote, if you must add weblinks, please do so using the full citation method so that it lines up with the other citations in the article. Green Giant (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I do not uderstand why the complete section added by me was removed ruthlessly

I am again adding the section Karachi in Popular Culture of Sindh. This is the only section in the article that presents Karachi as a city of Sindh. Do not remove this without any sound reason. Aursani (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

Aursani, Karachi is not Sindhi in pure sense. Sindhis are a small minority there. Besides, the city was historically Baluchi, not Sindhi.

Regardless, I do agree, your section would be a good addition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik357 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Why declare Karachi 4th worst city to live in?

I keep on removing this false claim but unfortunately some user(s) keep on undoing my edit. Any poll is not accurate and has a high chance of being biased. I challenge the poll by the following:

. Who was asked this question? Were only Karachiites asked or outsiders who don't live in Karachi?

. Did economist take into consideration of cities such as Mogadishu, N'Djamena, Sanaa, Kabul, Kandahar, Harare, Nuakchot, Bamako, Dili, Pyongyuang, Bhopal, Baghdad, Pristina, Grozny, Basra, Sulaymaniya, and many other cities which are clearly worse than Karachi?

. How was the poll conducted? Which kind of people were interviewed? Was the poll an online poll in which anybody could answer? Were 10 people asked or 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000, 1,000,000 or 10,000,000,000? Were the people asked just normal native civilians or well known critics of their own governments such as activists?

. How many cities were asked? Only 10? Only 30? If you were to compare half wonderfully rich, high tech cities with poor cities, guess how your results will look.

Signed, Mik357 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mik357 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor, please bring new discussion to the bottom of the talk page. The methodology is included in the article source. You say "I can name you many more worse cities", but that's original research. The fact is this is a peer-reviewed source that's making a notable statement about the city. To actively choose not to include it based on personal opinion is bias, original research, and image-contriving censorship.--Loodog (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Loodog,

But how can you be sure that Economist is not biased or presents a non-censored result? This is not personal opinion. Based on 5 categories is not sufficient to say Karachi is the 4th worst city to live in. Besides, Economist is just a journal/magazine not an organization like UN or World Bank. I am sure there are sources (please search yourself) where Karachi ranks higher than 4th last (and that too in positive light).

To me, just to say straight off that Karachi is the 4th most unlivable city is very subjective and misleading. 4th most unlivable among what? How many? 4th last among just those polled? Than that is even more misleading because the statement I removed read '4th most unlivable city' which clearly implies 4th most unlivable city in World.

Regardless of peer editing of Economist articles, this poll does not represent World opinion and in contrast, provides censorship as it does not take into account the list of clearly worse cities I provided. To say Mogadishu, Dili, N'Djamena, Baghdad, Kabul are better than Karachi is censorship and personal bias and personal opinion, not the other way around. Neither me nor you need to visit cities like Mogadishu, Dili, N'Djamena, Baghdad to say Karachi is worst than them. This is not 'original research' but a known fact.

Please don't misuse the term 'original research'. I am not bringing forth new findings merely re-iterating something well known. To say a human can live without chocolate but not without water is not 'original research' but is a well known fact.

Mik357 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't misuse the term common knowledge, especially when a published source differs with you. There is no published source saying people cannot live without chocolate. This means that everything above is your personal argument, AKA original research. It will cease to be original reseach when you can produce a source affirming that Karachi is indeed a very livable city comparitively. Since you haven't, your deliberately blocking of a peer-reviewed and published result based off of what you think is bias, censorship, and even city image manipulation.--Loodog (talk) 13:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Loodog,

Here is my counter link:

http://bwnt.businessweek.com/interactive_reports/livable_cities_worldwide/index.asp?sortCol=rank_2007&sortOrder=ASC&sector=&country=undefined&pageNum=1&resultNum=100

Mik357 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. The source you provide ranks Karachi 175 out of 215, confirming the low livability of Karachi. We can also include this in the article.--Loodog (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Loodog,

The argument (incase you forgot) was about whether the statement 4th worst .... should be included or not. I showed it was not valid and besides the link I gave you it was NOT 4th last and that was for international business executives.

In the mean time this argument remains unsettled, I have removed it not due to censorship (before you call it that) but because you are misrepresenting statistics (by saying livability ranking while business week is for international executives living standard --- read the business week article).

If you do include both, it violates the Wikipedia rule of contradiction as according to one, it says 4th worst while the other doesn't.

Mik357 (talk) 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this is why you're not understanding me. I'm not arguing that Karachi is the 4th worst city to live in, because major publications will all be a bit different rankings; I'm arguing that Karachi has low "livability", which has been confirmed by both sources. There's no contradiction.
Also, I don't see how you can claim the first source to be invalid because you've produced another. Why would one be given more credence than the other? Especially when you claim they are so different as to be called "misleading" when included together.
As for the international executives aspect, that was a matter of differences in methodology. The ranking was still "livablilty". You yourself produced this one under the guise of it providing livability information.--Loodog (talk) 02:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Loodog,

just do whatever you want. Thanks God I ran into people like you proving to myself Wikipedia is not an informational or valid source. I am not an ambassador of Pakistan and could care less of what others think of Karachi or Pakistan let alone on the Web. On the other hand you can't live with it as you have some personal problems with Karachi.

Having a nice sleep, consider this issue closed. Mik357 (talk) 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with Karachi. I approach this piece of information as: Is it notable and sourced, regardless of positive or negative light? The answer was yes. I really don't understand your basis for wanting to negate it. If I did, I would probably feel as you do, that it shouldn't be included.--Loodog (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Loodog,

Likewise I don't understand your basis for including such trivial, controversial, provocative, subjective, and childish statements. Why don't you do some visiting on 'real encyclopedias' and see if you can find things of such low standard.

You are simply engaged in mud slinging and refuse to realize it. I know your types so it's okay. Besides, arguing with your types is not even in my favor because you would simply refuse to think otherwise.

And besides, what is the point Loodog. Suppose you do realize that Wikipedia doesn't need such trashy statements. There will be other countless people you would start making similar goofy statements.

I could come up with sources (regardless of positive or negative light) who say Karachi is the next big thing in the world of economics and I could go down there and snap up pictures which make Karachi seem like the next Dubai. But I won't as it would misrepresentation and bias even though I won't be doing anything wrong.

Regardless, like I said, keep on continuing answering back. I have equal authority to remove your edits on the Karachi article but won't. I feel more satisfied by not winning stupid battles. You my friend, will be going to interesting places with that attitude of yours.

From me, the last edit on this otherwise 'editable' website. Continue on thinking yourself as superior.

Mik357 (talk) 03:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to make any of this personal. Please assume good faith. I edit articles on 80 cities regularly, I have no agenda against or for any of them. Karachi is not the only city to have something negative reported about it. Detroit's article mentions its crime rate. Los Angeles has an entire section dedicated to its pollution and environmental problems. Cleveland's article mentions poor quality public education and poverty. You seem to think that mentioning anything negative is low quality and against wikipedia's guidelines, despite the information being both notable and coming from a peer-reviewed reliable source:
“ A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. ”
There is no guideline saying "don't include it if it's negative". You can read wikipedia guidelines on NPOV and see this.--Loodog (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think these are facts and we need to recognize them! there should not be any dispute on this! --SMS Talk 15:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
4th worst city in the world to live in? It's amazing how these people will jump to write anything negative on Pakistan, yet fail to recognize all the positives happening in Pakistan. Wikipedia is full of ignorants and hypocrites.-- BK2006 talk 2:59, 26 March 2008

[edit] Problems/challenges section

Mik, I'm not sure this is your intention, but everytime you change the section, you remove the sources that are there, replacing them with [number]. When you add new material, please keep the existing sources.--Loodog (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Pashtuns are plotting to take over Karachi", Kamal tells NPR

I saw this article yesterday about Karachi: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2008%5C06%5C06%5Cstory_6-6-2008_pg12_1—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.229.17.239 (talk • contribs) 12:54, June 7, 2008

Good article on the conditions of Karachi but really crap about "Pashtuns taking over Karachi". --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)