Talk:Islamization in Pakistan

Untitled

Interesting to read ! --Bhadani 16:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

The article repeatedly condemns Zia'a Islamic laws and expresses the author's point of view - that these laws have damaged Pakistan, etc.

While I don't think I actually disagree with the author's assessment, the article might be edited to make it more neutral?

I think it's fine. What good do you suggest came out by forcing the definition of Islam upon people? Some of the things that he did were nowhere near what Islam teaches and merely his own fantacies. Some of these odd biased and prejudiced laws are still in practice in Pakistan, and in clear violation of basic human rights, and the UN has tried many a times to get Pakistan to change them, but in vain. Islam is a universal religion and thus should be attractive to all the peoples of the world in its original form.

umair m

I also agree that this article is 100% fine. If the truth about Zia is hard to endure I guess you should read other articles. 24.90.163.84

It's irrelevant whether you agree with an opinion, really. There -is- a difference between fact and opinion and this needs to be made clear; NPOV is to be upheld even (especially?) when we're discussing the Holocaust or female genital cutting. I'm doing some gnomework to fix the more blatant examples.

Also: please remember to sign the talk page when you post. Ramidel 21:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

File:Zia ul haq.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Zia ul haq.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 3 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Kautilya3's concerns

Hi NadirAli, you have been a series of unexplained edits to a whole bunch pages. What does this edit mean? What are you trying to do? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

To editor Kautilya3: I explained in the edit summary. The previous line implies extreme POV; wheras my edit is more factual. If that makes you unhappy, strive for something more neutral. And for your info, I am still working on the article and will be working on it most of tomorrow. I need to insert more reliable sources there.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Which line? "Pakistan has been carved out of British India"? That is extreme POV? How so? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It was a fight for independence from British Rule. What part of that is POV. And besides, that link leads to a list. It was ruled by the British Empire which granted independence and previously ruled it. That is factual.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

So, all these sources are POV, and you are going to decide how to write it on your own? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:42, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I am going to review them to ensure they are reliable sources and adhere to NPOV. The current edit is more neutral and factual, but like I said I will be editing this article more thoroughly tomorrow.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid what you are engaging in is WP:OR, not WP:NPOV. I hope you know the difference? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes I do since I clearly sourced my edit. More later, but since you are insistent, I added a template so anyone reading will see that you are not satisfied.--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:57, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

NadirAli WP:EDITWARing won't help. The dispute still remains here. The content which you are trying to modify has been staying in the article since several months,[1] in the exact same wording used by multiple reliable sources. Please discuss on the talk page before changing it. Why do you want to change it at all, in the first place? — Tyler Durden (talk) 04:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

If the dispute remains here, why are you trying to remove the tag? Either I get to change the content provided I reliably source it (which I did for the most part), or we can keep the tag here. Note that I explained to you twice about the tag and each time you seem to ignore it, which will not help things here.

One problem here is carved links to Pakistan movement which I provided the correct word it linked to. I did not break any rule by doing so and in fact it is encouraged to keep the link to the actual word rather than misword.

The intro makes it appear as though Zia was the founder Pakistan, so I spaced out introduction and Zia's later takeover and Islamitization policies.

Pakistan had no state religion upon independence in 1947, that came later, but Sharization proper came during Zia's era. I simply don't understand the refusal to acknowledge these basic facts. Why wouldn't anyone with some basic common sense want to add this? Why is this article being used to misprove that Pakistan was founded as a Sharia state when it's purpose is to explain how the state and judiciary became Islamitized?--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That appears to be reasonable. What I don't understand though is that the edit warring seems to be over the lead, not related to the above. Could you all explain which parts you object to in Nadir's revision? Mar4d (talk) 08:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

If this is the Nadirali version, I think it seems reasonable. Let us put this behind us and move forward. NadirAli, please be sure to write clear edit summaries for your edits so that we understand what you are doing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Template

Hello @NadirAli: you have newly added an 'disputed accuracy' template at the top of the article without any explanation in the edit summary. Can you explain what factual accuracy is disputed in the article in its current state, and why? Regards, Tyler Durden (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Tyler Durden, please check the above thread. I hesitate to edit the article for a short duration because of the dispute, but will update it very soon. Until then, I will have to insist that you leave it there. Thank you--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 06:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213213041/http://www.pakistanblasphemylaw.com/?page_id=15 to http://www.pakistanblasphemylaw.com/?page_id=15
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213213041/http://www.pakistanblasphemylaw.com/?page_id=15 to http://www.pakistanblasphemylaw.com/?page_id=15

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's Islamization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rationalistinternational.net/Shaikh/blasphemy_laws_in_pakistan.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150120193323/http://67.199.47.101/economy/islamisation of economy.pdf to http://67.199.47.101/economy/islamisation of economy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Refs

• https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/954130-tackling-a-toxic-legacy

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2022 (UTC)