Template talk:History of Pakistan

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History This template is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Pakistan This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. This template is supported by WikiProject Pakistani history.

Arbitrary heading

Mehrgarh period dating is off. Articles and citations referencing the Mehrgarh place is much earlier than the template, in the 9000-7000BCE era to begin. Mathlaura (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppetry

See [1]. I'm willing to protect if it continues. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent expansion

@Joshua Jonathan and LouisAragon: can we discuss this please? What are the issues with the IPs' version of the template? Off-hand, it seems to me that it lists the topics covered in the History of Pakistan article. I agree that it is a bit too long, but that can be solved by using collapsed subsections. Where is the disruption? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the IP on thier reply "If you don't know the history of Pakistan, don't vandalize our templates. Thanks." to LouisAragan's previous edit-summary: "They're relevant because you think they're relevant. You just scouted every other article that had 1 inch of soil in what is present day Pakistan and added it to the list. None of these had any significant impact on the area, or are already covered." Not the way to discuss changes. For the links themselves: my knowledge of Pakistan history is too limited to judge on this, though Parthian Empire may be too much here. By the way, the template would be better off with collapsed lists. See Template:History of Iran, which also uses aligned tables with links on the left, and dates on the right. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The disruption is there in the usage of 1) numerous IP socks [2][3][4][5] 2) using personal attacks throughout the IP hopping/warring spree(s) [6][7] 3) as well as clear WP:SPA edit warring, just to name a few. The last time the user was active on his account, he created numerous bogus articles as well (e.g. "Macedonian Pakistan"), that had to be speedy'd. All in all, he clearly isn't here to edit constructively, based on these points. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, the entities that had a noted impact on the area that constitutes the area know as Pakistan, are already listed. The user who initially added all those links literally scouted every single article that had "Pakistan" listed in the "today part of it" parameter, and just added it to it. Regardless of the entity in question having had literally 0.0% impact on the area, or simply no representation amongst mainstream scholarship. It's like adding the Roman Empire to the "History of Russia" template or the Ottoman Empire to the "History of Eritrea" template, hence, in my opinion, pure WP:UNDUE weight pushing. That minor information that could possibly be lacking about the "impact" they had on the area, should be added to the article of the entity in question, and on the "History of Pakistan" article. They don't separately belong on such templates. - LouisAragon (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-written template

I took around 2.5 hours to completely re-write the template. The old template was simply to vague and a mess. Many of the years were wrong and some of the Kingdoms were actually sub-kingdoms of a larger group. For example Gandhara/Swat Culture was separate in the first template, but in the revised template I wrote, it's under Vedic Civilization. Also the old template was very Mughul/Punjab centric, with zero emphasis being made on other empires and dynasties (from Sindh and Gilgit-Baltistan) in particular. I also revised the years, which were for the most part wrong. Please don't simply revert it back to the old template, if possible, I'll be happy to edit the template if there is a dispute and we can come to a consensus. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PAKHIGHWAY:, looks really good actually. Well done! - LouisAragon (talk) 02:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 23:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with the template now was that it unnecessarily provided eras on every single sentence and cherry picks few territories and dynasties under the listed entity. It is just a template and should not be treated as an article. And many important names like Pala Empire, Maratha Empire, State of Bahawalpur, Bombay Presidency, etc. had been removed. Capitals00 (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that @Mar4d: has restored the POV version of the user who has been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE, which itself shows seriousness regarding the problematic edits that he has made. Can you show consensus against the long standing version? "template was very Mughul/Punjab centric" is not a valid reason. I would rather prefer restoration of the removed entities / entries, no WP:ERA spam, and no sub entities. After that it will look like Template:History of Iran. Capitals00 (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC

Please see this diff. Your edit unilaterally removed a large chunk of links without an explanation, in addition to mass reverting all formatting and other changes. If you believe there are missing articles, please propose them here rather than removing other content from the template. Mar4d (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: don't throw the word "unilateral" like a garbage. I had provided the explanation, on both talk[8] and edit summary,[9] its a pity that you can't read or recognize it. Don't expect me to propose the names here when the original WP:NOTHERE editor did nothing like that. Removing "other content" is also required because this is a template, not an article. Capitals00 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reverted you, since you have failed to describe how his version was superior than the long standing one that we already had, especially when you can't even argue how his POV version was any justified at all. Since he got blocked for being WP:NOTHERE, we can't just treat his version as orthodox that is full of POV pushing and lacking standards. Capitals00 (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also flaws with the periodization on the Pakhighway's version. Such as he extends "Classical" period from 90 BCE to 999 CE, despite Classical period is only from 200 BCE to 5th or 6th century CE, after that early medieval period starts. And modern period doesn't begins with 1700 either, but early modern. A lot of empires have been unnecessarily included, giving them WP:UNDUE weight, I would mention the more modern ones like he included Makran (princely state), Phulra, Swat (princely state) when they were already included under British Raj, that's why new entries make no sense. It would be same as putting Hyderabad State (1724 - 1948), Gwalior State (1731 - 1948), etc. on Template:History of India. Capitals00 (talk) 10:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop undoing the edits made by others. The collapsed version, as suggested by User:Kautilya3 above (and then commended by User:LouisAragon) is far cleaner and easier to read, and this new page is ruining page formats by re-introducing an unnecessarily long infobox. Stop inserting your own opinions and demanding that other people respond to yours. You are unilaterally changing the page yourself, and then demanding that we address your own issues. You need to demonstrate your own point instead of inserting yours and then placing the burden on others to disprove whatever you allege. And I see no problem in the logic that the previous version was too-Punjab centric, because it appears PAKHIGHWAYS was probably right in that respect.

Do not make drastic unilateral changes. I agree with your point about the classical period extending to 999CE as being too long. But dont undo the whole thing. Makran and Swat should stay because they were princely states until even after Pakistan's independence, and so dont simply fit under british raj. Makran lasted until 1955, Swat until 1969. Phulra lasted until 1950, so it technically shouldnt be limited to British Raj either. Pala_Empire#Geography doesnt show anything about Pakistani territory, so I dont know why your demanding its inclusion. Perhaps you didn't note this part "The identity of the Kamboja prince is also uncertain. While an ancient country with the name Kamboja was located in what is now Afghanistan, there is no evidence that Devapala's empire extended that far. Kamboja, in this inscription, could refer to the Kamboja tribe that had entered North India" Bombay Presidency should be included because Sindh was part of it until the 1930s. Marathas were almost entirely inconsequential to Pakistan - they invaded, and were kicked out after only a few years and left essentially zero trace or consequence of their rule. In the region's 5000 year history, their presence is essentially negligible and should not be added, as it givens undo emphasis to their effect on the region. WP:UNDUE doesnt actually address what you insinuate. It talks about neutrality, not historic importance.Willard84 (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By canvassing the editors who have already made a many edits after nearly a day when Capitals00 edited the template, and misrepresenting their position, that Kautilya3 agreed with the version of a disruptive user is not making your case. It is clear that you are here only WP:WIKIHOUNDING the edits of Capitals00 and you are not helping but causing greater disruption. The template is defective and has unnecessarily provided undue weight to empires in order to deflect the Pakistan history under Hindu empires as well as British colonization, and no such POV pushing is not allowed. Satpal Dandiwal (talk) 04:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't understood what I wrote, so please read again and demonstrate what specifically is wrong with what I said.−. And don't accuse me of hounding when the same accusation can be made of you.

No one mentioned the British as being an issue aside from the obvious fact that states that existed after British rule can't neatly fit under the British category. But you've made clear your desire to emphasize Hindu suzerainty. This is actually POV. Nothing I said was meant to diminish Hindu rule. I in fact agreed with much of Capitals00, if youll care to actually read what I wrote. And what I wrote about the Pala empire is backed by the Pala's own page on here. Willard84 (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not wikihounding when someone is "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy", But it is when someone is reverting constructive edits, something that you are doing. You can't expect people to get consensus for making edits against a WP:NOTHERE indeffed editor whose version is full of POV pushing. Your usual modus operandi to find ways to reject facts is becoming even more boring. Pala Empire's map and infobox clearly says that some parts of it lies in present day Pakistan. Capitals00 (talk) 05:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

break

I don't think you understand that you don't get to decide by yourself what is constructive - which is what you've clearly done. And it's really quite hilarious for you to accuse me about rejecting facts when you wasted days rejecting the fact that Devanagari isn't used for Shina.

And you're pointing to a map to prove prove your point - while I'm actually noting the sourced text. But in a mindset of self-serving interest, its obvious you'll favor whatever suits your POV, as you amply demonstrated on the Talk:Shina language page. And the map doesn't really show that which you claim (not surprising). Maybe a tiny sliver near Ikhlaspur. But obviously not enough to mention in the text. Regardless, pointing to a few square miles of land doesn't warrant inclusion for this template because it's such a tiny sliver and we don't even know how long it was occupied. And this obviously doesn't take into consideration how accurate the map is, or how accurate the data is to support the lines drawn. But again- tiny sliver of land at most according to your map source. So let's not exaggerate it's importance. And the infobox, unsurprisingly isn't sourced. But regardless, a tiny sliver of land for an unknown number of years isn't significant enough for inclusion, nor your reversions to get it placed like you want. Especially since you argued that Swat state doesn't deserve to be mentioned under Pakistan though it very clearly existed until 1969 and very clearly within the boundaries of Pakistan well after British rule ended. It's a collapsible box, and if users click on Pakistan, then they should see what is part of modern Pakistan's history. Under your system, they'd have to click on British to see that such a state even existed (until 1969). But Pala? Whose location in Pakistan is questionable? Whose effect on this region is negligible (no Pala archeological ruins even in Pakistan)? This is more relevant than Swat to modern Pakistan? That's ridiculous, and demonstrates a self-serving set of criteria.

And you may dislike PAKHIGHWAYS, but he's made thousand of constructive edits about Pakistan's roadways and railways.so it's not accurate or fair for you to call him "not here..." Willard84 (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PAKHIGHWAY got blocked for being WP:NOTHERE. "Because I was correct about Shina language I am correct about anything", clearly that's what you are saying and it doesn't makes sense. Stop this WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, especially when you have been blocked 3 times for edit warring and socking this year alone. You are just throwing enough mud at the wall, and hoping some of it will stick, since Pala empire "extended across most of northern South Asia as far as Kamboja/Gandhara"[10] it plays significant role in Pakistan history. Capitals00 (talk) 06:26, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And nowhere on his block did it say his edits are henceforth to be deemed unfit. But yes I suppose you were right calling him that. And I was blocked, big deal. WP policy stated once a block is over, it's over. And I pointed out Shina debate to highlight YOUR behavior.

But your actions there come up again with your new ironic accusations. You offered numerous unreliable citations, and tried to cite the same Rajapurohit source by masking the true source by using others (Cardona?). You tried to use numerous unreliable citations in hope one would work. That is the very definition of the phrase you used.

And the Kamboja piece was already mentioned above. And in the page text. It's not certain if it referred to Afghanistan. And as further noted, mere suzerainty doesn't mean significance. Please elaborate on how this empire has played a significant role in the history of Pakistan before making grandiose statements.

Willard84 (talk) 06:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care what you did on the article of Shina. What we care here is that you are reverting to a terrible version of an incompetent editor and treating it as consensus version when multiple editors have already removed it. He edited the template to make Pakistan look like it was always under Muslim empires and never conquered again by any non-muslim empires since 7th century, and also in spite the rule of Bombay Presidency (not mentioned), British Raj, Pakistan was still divided as couple of independent/sovereign nations in the form of princely states. Do you really believe such utter nonsense? Apparently you are pushing the same POV and you will get blocked for the same reasons as him. This talk page is not for demanding the historiography of Pala Empire, if you have objections (not just pseudohistory) you can raise them on Talk:Pala Empire, and also consider removing "Pakistan" from every single empire that you don't want to list here, in place of directly disrupting this template just because one of your opponent had recently edited it. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am not blocked, I am here, alive and well. Secondly, your personal insults are unacceptable and I am going to report you. Thirdly, my edits stand corrected. If I made a mistake somewhere, provide a counter argument so that I can go ahead and change it. So far all I am reading is a big hissy fit. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since I didn't have enough time to look at this yesterday, I would like to note that WP:BRD should always be adhered upon. Capitals00, unfortunately you did not explain your contentious revert which actually resulted in blanket removal of not some, but several important pages from the History of Pakistan template. The old template, a more top-down version, was significantly toned down and excluded several key sub-topics, which the updated periodized, collapsible version is able to support as many others have noted. Please note that such massive deletions, particularly on a high-use template, are obviously problematic as you can see, and require a detailed explanation or discussion. You should be very specific in listing those articles which you think require inclusion, along with any reliable sources/supporting sections where relevance, historical influence and obviously chronological order are concerned. In addition, as this is Wikipedia, please note that if you want to be taken seriously, comments should be limited to the content, not contributors. We're here solely to discuss content-based reasons as far as this template goes, therefore if there are legitimate concerns on that, only those will be acceptable for review and forming WP:CONSENSUS. Edit warring on any other pretext cannot be entertained. Lastly, if all else fails, there are of course third options and alternatives. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 13:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I urge not to waste time by asking explanation for the things that have been already explained. Reasons have been provided for removing the useless entries and we can agree that there are excessive problems with the template, why there is a need to ask for others to get consensus against the version when the POV version of a blocked editor lacked consensus? Even right now it is 3 of us are agreement of removal, while only 2 of you want to preserve it. The problematic editor in question had not left this this talk either for promoting his disruptive agenda, I am surprised that he was even allowed to edit the template without proposing his version on talk. I am seeing no explanation against that. The "massive deletions" mostly concerns the spam of {{#if: {{{AD|}}}|AD|CE}} There is no sense in removing the non-Muslim entries from medieval period, neither there is any sense in inserting more links under the entry. Why Khanate of Kalat, Talpur dynasty("Semi-autonomous domain of Mughal Empire") were added? Cherry picked princely states cannot treated as sovereign nations when Pakistan was entirely under British Raj, there is nothing "important" about them. Apart from the useless inclusion of the laundry list of irrelevant empires, what's with the inclusion of the Lower Paleolithic site "Riwat" at the top of the template as civilization or community of people by calling it "Riwatian Culture"? No way we should keep such utter nonsense on template. If someone wants to make a "collapsible" version, it can be done but without reverting to the blocked editor's version. D4iNa4 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure where you invented this 3-2 figure, and your attempt to claim an "agreement" is a joke considering you made your first comment at 14:52 and went on with your trigger-revert four minutes later only to have Kautilya3 restore. The rest of your comment was simply a rant about a (no-longer blocked) editor, and a veiled threat at Willard84, and we really don't need that utter tosh. To all, please follow due process of WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS here and not make this your playground. The "spam" you cited is the periodization, which is essentially the same as the format used on Template:History of India. I've also noticed one thing in common, the constant claim about "non-Muslim empires" excluded from the template; I have yet to see which article/s and POV some of you are alluding to, and you better explain this damn well, given that from the older version, all the following are apparently listed: Vedic period, Gandhara, Mauryan Empire, Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, Indo-Scythian Kingdom, Indo-Greek Kingdom, Indo-Parthian Kingdom, Kushan Empire, Sasanian Empire, Gupta Empire, Hephthalite Empire, Rai dynasty, Kabul Shahi, Brahman Dynasty (an addition), Bombay Presidency and Sikh Empire (in that order). The only articles I see excluded are the following: List of Rajput dynasties (which is a list, not article); Pala Empire (who's relevance was questioned above); and Maratha Empire whose periodization per the prior version is from 1758–1760 (two years) which as Willard84 pointed out, is a very small and inconsequential period across 5,000 years. Now if this is what you and Capitals00 are edit warring and spewing crass over, clearly both of you have major competence and conduct issues. I'm just going to put this out for the final time, any attempt at edit warring will be taken as disruption. I will leave it to @RegentsPark: to take a look at this. Mar4d (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mar4d: Actually at that time 3 editors had removed the version, while only 2 of you had reverted with terrible reasons. So I was correct with the assessment of "3-2". Actually you have exhibited a clear WP:IDHT tendency and have issues with WP:COMPETENCE, and your claim that Capitals "did not explain your contentious revert" despite the the lengthy explanations above, can you convince us how you are not gaming the system? It seems that you are now trolling in front of us by saying that you don't see exclusion of Seleucid Empire, Indo-Sasanians, Bombay Presidency and your failure to provide explanation of huge laundry list of princely states that are being given equal weight to British Raj. Nothing has been "questioned" regarding Pala Empire, as long as the main article shows Pakistan and such nonsensical argument has been clearly refuted by Capitals00 above providing a source.[11] You seem to be treating Willard84 as an academic source, but that really doesn't quality WP:RS. I don't see any serious reason with you supporting this problematic version, but then it is very common when POV pushing is concerned, you go ahead to protect copyright violating images just because it helps pushing you a POV.[12] D4iNa4 (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Aah, I see. Basically all that content blanking, edit warring, disruption, disparaging remarks about users, empty allegations of "POV pushing", "pseudo-history", "removal of major empires" (quote) and other jargon was a reference to these three articles: Seleucid Empire, Indo-Sasanians, Bombay Presidency. Thanks for confirming. Over to RegentsPark. Mar4d (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what's going on here. Clearly, the removal of 5380 bytes from a template is less than trivial so, ceteris paribus, needs to be discussed. Equally, bringing up the block history of editors is not exactly a productive way to work on the discussion. So, please discuss the changes here, seek consensus, and then only make any consensual changes on the template. And comment only on the changes, not on individual editors unless the behavior being commented on pertains to this template. Otherwise, blocks will follow. --regentspark (comment) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The main History of Pakistan article for the most part needs to be massively edited...I only re-wrote the introduction, prehistory and early civilizations upto Indo-Greek Kingdom. The rest needs to be edited because there a lot of stuff in this article which has no relation to the Indus Valley history. For example, Gupta Empire had a minimal presence in the Indus Valley...and the Maratha Empire barely had control of Punjab for 2 years. I only started editing History of Pakistan last month, before I got into admin trouble. I decided to take a break from editing History of Pakistan to cool off. During the winter break, I will be back to editing the article. As for the template, I don't understand what's wrong with it. Indo-Sassinian Empire does not include all of the Indus Valley, but the sub kingdoms and provinces do, hence why I wrote them. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

• @RegentsPark: After looking at this content dispute, I have decided to propose the edits that I believe will solve this dispute. I would support the version that contains the following edits:-
• Exclusion of Lower Paleolithic site Riwat mentioned as Riwatian culture. Because there are 100s of similar sites found everywhere in the world, they are not included in history templates.
• Inclusion of Seleucid Empire, Indo-Sasanians, Pala Empire, Maratha Empire, Bombay Presidency. Since the main article on History of Pakistan has sections and these are heavily discussed in academic literature.
• Exclusion of sub-entities of Indus Valley Civilisation, Vedic Civilization, Mughal Empire. Since their histories are shared with India, Afghanistan, these entities looks nationalistic and are cherry-picked under main entity and they further sound like an understatement. Also exclude the sub-entities of Sasanian Empire, except Kushano-Sasanian Kingdom, because they include a list of regions.
• Exclusion of semi-autonomous domains and princely states. Princely states lacked any power or significance since empires had the power and later British Raj had. The exclusion will include domains of Mughal Empire such as like Khanate of Kalat (and both princely states listed below), Kalhora dynasty and Talpur dynasty. And we need to remove princely states like State of Bahawalpur, Yusufzai State of Swat (redirects to Swat (princely state)), Dir State (Dir (princely state),) Chitral (princely state), Phulra ("minor Muslim princely state"), Kharan (Kharan (princely state)), Makran Makran (princely state).

--1990'sguy (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Qualified support per my comments above. Capitals00 (talk) 04:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree with the proposer on all points. —MBlaze Lightning ^T 16:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not exactly what I was thinking, but definitely an improvement. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No way (Strong Oppose) -- This proposal makes no sense whatsoever. Indus Valley Civilization should be "excluded" because it is shared with India. Maratha Empire, based in India that barely touched Pakistan, should be "included" for whatever reason. What kind of logic is that? This template should include all the happenings in history that were of significance to the region that is now Pakistan. Period. As far as I can see, PAKHIGHWAY's version did that. I can't understand what we are discussing here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed template makes far more sense than the present mess. Who talked about excluding Indus Valley? Proposal said exclusion of entries under Indus Valley, we have detailed article for it Periodisation of the Indus Valley Civilisation, when you read main article you would find these subentries to be making no sense. Maratha Empire has separate section on History of Pakistan, and had considerable area of present day Pakistan was under Maratha Empire. There are many other empires on template that had small duration, Suri Dynasty (15 years), Arghun Dynasty (24 years) and others. And "significance to the region" doesn't justify list of regions and princely states that are totally undue and unique only to this template. See Template:History of India for an idea. Capitals00 (talk) 01:56, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am only responding to the proposal above by 1990'sguy. If you want to make a more sensible proposal, please go ahead. But do it separately. All these discussions here are knotted up and it is hard for any onlooker to understand what is being talked about. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Incomplete and indeed Pakistan-centric. Apart from already noted, the template also ignores Iranian empires like Saffarid dynasty, Safavid Empire, Timurid Empire that controlled substantial portion of Pakistan. I am in support of the proposal, it will cut a lot of clutter. Excelse (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - significantly better than the status quo. --RaviC (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - Don't see a reason why Bombay Presidency which was an administrative part of the British Raj needs to be listed. Also, don't see a reason why sub-entities of IVC need to be excluded when it serves the purpose of showing it's presence in early period in what is now Pakistan and how it flourished eastwards. Talpurs & other princely states of the region is exactly what should be in a template called History of Pakistan. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 01:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The main History of Pakistan article should not be used as a source...it needs to be massively edited, which I only begun last month and only reached Indo-Greek Kingdom. The rest below it needs to be edited en masse. Your suggestions however also don't help. These edits will not help the template, but rather just make it more confusing and portray a wrong picture. The exclusion of Palaeolithic might be warranted, but even still, the sties are specific to the Indus Valley (Pakistan). These are not shared with any other country. Moving on, the inclusion of the empires you listed should be listed if they had some impact on the region. Seleucid Empire had minimal impact on the Indus Valley because the Mauryan Empire beat the Seleucids as both were trying to conquer the Indus Valley as the original Macedonian Satraps gave up rule. Selucids never had any control of the Indus Valley, rather they came to an agreement with the Mauryans. Indo-Sasanians are already listed. As for Pala Empire, could you please provide a source about what provinces/states/kingdoms were underneath this empire in the Indus Valley? I have found none...the Pala Empire article itself states that the geography varies from source to source. It wasn't a concrete empire with a proper central government. Moving on, the Maratha Empire had minimal influence on the Indus Valley. At most they conquered Punjab and only hung on to it for two years before losing to the Sikhs. Battles are one thing, but having an established writ of government and proper states/provinces is another. Marthas had none of that. Moving forward, Sind province was formed out of Bombay Presidency if I remember correctly, so I don't see what the big deal is. Sind Province links to history which states Bombay Presidency in the article. Moving on, there is no need to exclude sub-entities of Indus Valley Civilisation, Vedic Civilization, Mughal Empire. IVC is the central cornerstone of History of Pakistan...its based here, it should be discussed and highlighted in detail. Vedic Civilization should also be discussed in detail on the template, considering the fact Vedic culture was born in the Indus Valley. All the original Vedic tribes are based from the Indus Valley...the few that migrated to the Ganges Plains (North India) gave rise to Brahminism and what is today North Indian Hinduism. The ones which remained continued with Vedic culture. Moving on, why would you remove sub-entities of Sasanian Empire, except Kushano-Sasanian Kingdom, because they include a list of regions when they are specifically part of the Indus Valley? I don't understand. Moving on, Exclusion of semi-autonomous domains and princely states? Princely states regardless were still states...if I remember correctly, you wanted us to list Maratha Empire on the template, which literally had ZERO influence on the History of the Indus Valley, yet want to remove Princely States which actually had a proper functioning government, taxation system and sense of belonging. I'm confused. Hence, I oppose. I think my edits on this template were well done and should remain. Infact, some of my edits were damaged due to previous vandalism...could someone please make the corrections for me, as I've stated below. Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Princely states had no influence and a number of other influential empires have been excluded in the new version which is defective. The proposal lays out correct argument. Lorstaking (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly explain what influence the Martha Empire had on the Indus Valley during its powerful 2 years of rule in Punjab? --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support far more factual than the present version and more historically correct. Knox490 (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above in my previous comments earlier from September listed above.Willard84 (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter now since PAKHIGHWAY made his problematic edits without consensus and other users were generous enough make a civil discussion over it and gain clear consensus against his problematic version. You have no reason to WP:STONEWALL. Lorstaking (talk) 02:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What consensus? A proposal was made by 1990sguy (not pakhighways), and no consensus has been reached. Please don’t try to force your changes without consensus. None of the aforementioned issues have been addressed, such as whether the Palas even ruled the region of Pakistan, and @Kautilya3: or @Mar4d: concerns above, or whether the 1.5 years of Maratha rule are significant enough to warrant inclusion. One editor above said the pre-proposal format was an attempt to portray Pakistan as only being under Muslim rule. Not only does this imply that editors own POV in including even non-Muslim empire like the Marathas who had a negligible impact on Pakistan, it’s also untrue. I don’t see anyone arguing the British or Sikh periods should be removed. Kabul Shahis either. But there are valid reservations above which haven’t been addressed. Thus consensus cannot have been reached because consensus building requires these issues to be addressed. Specifically the issue of Palas, Marathas, and need for a separate section on Bombay Presidency when the proposal also suggests removing princely states on shaky grounds, and the ludicrous suggestion that the Indus Valley Civilization can simply be wiped away because it’s history is “shared.”

When these issues aren’t addressed, it’s premature for you to claim that consensus has been achieved. I think it might be helpful to review WP:Consensus first. Willard84 (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any more edit warring will lead to blocks. Anyone can make proposal, so if you think that proposal had to be from a POV pusher like PAKHIGHWAY, then you are just kidding. Just because he canvassed you by engaging in sock puppetry it doesn't means you should be now engaging in stonewalling. His version was defective and entries were cherrypicked. As for your analysis of consensus, there is clear consensus against his POV version. Add my support too. — MapSGV (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you shouldn’t be making threats when a debate about consensus is ongoing. Nor do you alone get to decide when consensus has been reached. Please review the Wikipedia page regarding formation of consensus. You havent address these issues, and so your bombastic proclamations are false. Don’t confuse consensus with “majority”. There is no “clear consensus.”

And keep in mind your sort of behavior has lead to blocks. You’ve been on Wikipedia for 8 days after a very long hiatus - if this goes higher, I assure you that arbitrators don’t look kindly upon newbies/infrequent editors threatening more senior and consistent editors. Willard84 (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are totally perfect and so are my actions and misconduct is judged upon what was done than who did it. I am editing from 2014, but thanks for proving you can't do simple math, let alone analyzing consensus where you agree that "majority" agreed against the version of a topic banned socking editor. He canvassed at least 10 editors and he could only convince you to edit war for him itself shows the strong opposition against his POV version. — MapSGV (talk) 01:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

”Totally perfect” is your own description. Simple math? Where does this come into play? And you’ve just demonstrated that you think majority means consensus when WP:Consensus directly contradicts thus belief. And the requests weren’t made by PakHighways, they were made by DNA4i. And there are real problems which haven’t been addressed, and so there is no consensus. And not to mention, the changes that were made were not even the changes made in the proposal. And I’ve been on this talk page for several months, so stop accusing me of showing interest in this page only at the behest of others. So stop your personalattacks, and please familiarize yourself with the steps required to achieve consensus.Willard84 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New section

A new section needs to be added since the medieval period didn't last until 1947. An appropriate cut off for medieval would be after the fall of the Delhi Sultnate. "Pre-modern" until the British perhaps? History of provinces also doesn't appear to be very useful.Willard84 (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval section actually is right, it's "Dir State, c. 1626 – c. 1947" which is the problem. I don't think it ended in 1947...but at least 200 years earlier. Problem is I couldn't find any reliable sources. As for history of provinces, they should remain in my opinion, because the individual provinces go into more depth about history of the region. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 23:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, maybe we could change the History of Provinces. It does in fact look a bit off. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 5 October 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Kindly add two stars (**) to Paratarajas, c. 120 – c. 300 and also to Ummayud Caliphate so the setup of the template is proper. During the vandalism, someone decided to delete this part. Thanks. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC) PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done with {{Tree list/final branch}} in both cases. Cabayi (talk) 14:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Lock on template with request edits?

Hello,

Although PAKHIGHWAY is my account now, many years ago (back in 2008 I think) I also edited this template. Of course, I didn't have an account back then. Point is, if you look at the history of this template, it has to be one of the most (if not the most) vandalized template on Wikipedia. I propose that a permanent lock be placed on this article and that admins/moderators be given the freedom to edit as per requests. There is simply no other way to prevent the vandalism...some have an agenda and it simply won't stop due to pleading. Just a suggestion.

Also I am open to having my edits changed, but there has to be some civil discourse. One editor above basically stated that we shouldn't waste our time trying to explain our edits. This is totally unacceptable, however I must thank that editor for a nice laugh. I was thoroughly amused.

Yours Sincerely --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already done a couple of weeks ago. Cabayi (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

It seems this template was unblocked and disruptive edits were made by D4iNa4 without consensus. Is it possible to have the edits reverted back to the last official edits and have the template locked again? This has to be the most vandalized template on Wikipedia. The new edits really don't make much sense either. Seems politically motivated.--Ratatatain (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2018 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PAKHIGHWAY.[reply]

Your attempts to obscure your identity with this brand new WP:SPA are obvious. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for reversion of Template to status quo

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is an ongoing debate about proposed changes above, yet a change was made here without consensus being reached. In fact, the changes made aren’t exactly the changes that were being discussed, so no consensus could have been achieved since we didn’t discuss the actual changes made. Debate has existed for many months. Some of the propose changes that were questioned (such as the inclusion of the Maratha Empire which was questioned by at least 3 other editors), weren’t addressed. For whatever it’s worth, the Pakistani editors seems to be in unison that these changes were not warranted, though despite this being a template on Pakistani history, Pakistani editors’ opinions are actually in the minority here.

As per WP:Consensus, proposed changes must be discussed before consensus is reached, yet the inclusion of the Marathas (as well as Palas) werent addressed, and so consensus cannot have been reached. The page was reverted and then finally the changes were once again inserted here despite no consensus. After the final change back to the non-consensus, the page was locked here because of disruptive editing hanits. So the new changes without consensus was locked in, while the status quo page that existed while the issue is being debated has been changed. I request a reversion back to the status quo as it was here. Thanks for your time and consideration. Willard84 (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Willard84 Once a page/template is locked for a content dispute the editors need to get a clear consensus what the new version should look like. This or that version was the one with consensus is not correct nor is the pact that all Pakistani editors (why does this matter?) want one version and so that is the right one. I should remind you that Wikipedia is an open community and we do not restrict editors to only edit pages of their nationality. Unless the template has grossly misleading/offending/copyright information, which it does not (from the gist of it seems to be an argument about a few dynasties which ruled 3-4 years over Pakistan), there is no reason to edit the page before a consensus is reached. You are a senior enough editor to know this fact and not to go forum shopping as you did here on the admins talk page who locked the page (User_talk:Ferret#History_of_Pakistan_template). On the contrary, I would urge you to guide the current consensus process towards a logical conclusion. For the record, I was the one who asked for the lock and am thus replying here. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made the point of Pakistani editors being in the minority only because this is under Wikipedia Project Pakistan. Please don’t insinuate anything else from that. The version prior to this all was the status quo version since October - that is the page I’m requesting the editors move back to because consensus has not been reached. You’ve been here long enough to know that consensus building requires discussion of issues and topics raised. The fact that the Marathas, for example, ruled for about 1.5 years actually is an issue of discussion noted by 3 editors above - so please don’t downplay this. And then there’s the issue whether the Palas actually did rule as far west as Pakistan - yet that was included into this controversial edit before it was convincingly demonstrated.

Most of this discussion has been centered on which empires are relevant to be included on to this list, and so yes, those dynasties do indeed matter. That’s a large part of the discussion. Hence without consensus to include those minor dynasties onto an already lengthy list, the page should be reverted back to its status quo before the changes made in late February. These changes were essentially snuck in with the false premise that consensus had been reached, and locked in place because of conflicting editing that resulted in a lock once the controversial edits had been restored.Willard84 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please get consensus above. The other set of editor(s) can easily argue that their version was the correct one or the one with consensus and this is can go on. IMO, I would spend more time and effort towards a conclusion of that discussion rather than trying to get a version which you assume to be consensus or trying to convince other admins to do so. The issues are important but not pressing in terms of time since they are not offensive. Let the consensus play out or propose a formal RfC. This has been done before on many pages and this is not first time this is happening here. Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re misunderstanding why I placed this request. I wanted to go back to the status quo because there is no consensus for the changes made. I’ve made this abundantly clear, so I’m not really sure why you’re accusing me of trying to convince the editors that my preferred version is the consensus version. I’m saying there was no consensus, and so should go back to status quo. Not that they advocate whatever position I want. The debate can carry on as you suggest once this non- consensus version is reverted. Once it is locked into place, it typically becomes more difficult to remove. So preserving this non-consensus version does a disservice to the debate.

The burden is not now shifted onto me to gain consensus to revert it back, because it wasn’t a change that should have been permitted in the first place, because again, there was no consensus for it, and it essentially got locked into place because of fortuitous timing between it being edited and then locked into place.Willard84 (talk) 00:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see a consensus above which contradicts your request and am declining your template edit request accordingly. Please feel free to continue discussing above. If you do not believe the above is representative of a true consensus, you should pursue an RFC. --Izno (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 27 June 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The picture of History of Pakistan should be removed and be replaced with a more relatively cultural photo of example the Mughals and or the Ghaznavids instead of ancient bhudda history. Maligbro1223 (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Izno (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 26 September 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Template:History of Pakistan/doc has been created. Please apply Special:Diff/873426915/980505754. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please disambiguate Kabul Shahi by replacing with Hindu Shahi. Certes (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for Image

Would it be better for the template image to be this?

Titan2456 (talk) 22:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]