تبادلۂ خیال:پاک فوج

آزاد دائرۃ المعارف، ویکیپیڈیا سے
Jump to navigation Jump to search
  • ریفرنس کے ساتھ لکھی گئی باتیں ڈیلیٹ کرنے کی کیا وجہ ہے؟ --بنٹی 13:47, 11 جون 2011 (UTC)
  • This is not a forum for defamation of states or institutions of the state. --Urdutext 16:48, 11 جون 2011 (UTC)
  • I am not defaming anyone, just stating the facts. Please let me know if you are disputing the accuracy of the statements I added. If not, please restore my edits. Thank you. --بنٹی 01:37, 12 جون 2011 (UTC)
  • The article in present form is just a stub. A comprehensive article describing the history and functioning of the pakistan army should be first written. Alleged support of army institution in promoting financial schemes can be mentioned if have solid mainstream references and writing style conforms to wikipedia guidelines. --Urdutext 12:21, 12 جون 2011 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that Dr Aisha Siddaqa's book cannot be considered mainstream or Hamood Ur Rahaman Commission was non mainstream? If that's the assertion, then I fear you will have to remove 80% of the references from all articles. For the writing style, can you please point out the specific problem? I did not use any abusive words, used good grammar and provided references. I am not clear how it did not conform to the writing style. As far as writing a comprehensive article is concerned, you or anyone else is welcome to partcipate in doing so. I will only be able to write what I know. --بنٹی 13:07, 12 جون 2011 (UTC)
  • رونگھٹے کھڑے کردینے والے جرائم کیئے گئے ہیں صاحبو! میرا خیال ہے کہ انصاف تب ہوگا کہ جب ایک مقالہ --- جنگی جرائم --- کے نام سے لکھا جائے۔ ہے اک قلزم خون کاش یہی ہو۔ --سمرقندی 13:14, 12 جون 2011 (UTC)
  • There are authors who are given a lot of coverage in the western media which makes them look bigger than they really are. I have no objection on Aisha'r ref. There is already a separate article on Hamood reoport. You cannot write defamatory stuff on en.wikipedia in the 'US army' or 'Brit army' articles either. Particular episodes can be written as separate articles as is done on the en.wikipedai. I think you have pinpointed the problem: that you do not have a broad interest in the subject -- only certain episodes or auxiliary issues which are loosely related to the main subject. In this case, it is better to write specific articles on the narrow interests. For example, you can write an article on Aisha's book. You can expand on Hamood's report or write on specific 'atrocities' during war under that topic. Wikipedia is not an instrument of truth en:Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not but a reflection of status-quo held views. --Urdutext 13:36, 12 جون 2011 (UTC)
  • Lets keep the discussion objective and refrain from all subjective matters. I understand that you are not refuting the claims in Dr Aisha's book or the ones mentioned in Hamood Ur Rehman commission. The only remaining issue is whether this belongs in Pak Army or a separate article. Please point me to a wikipedia policy stating that it does not belong in the main article. For the practices on English wikipedia, I'll fight my battles there as well, so lets keep the unwritten practices of english wikipedia out of this discussion. Thank you. --بنٹی 13:48, 12 جون 2011 (UTC)
  • Is there really a written policy or not? --بنٹی 12:19, 13 جون 2011 (UTC)

Request[ترمیم]

Please do not revert without showing me a policy. The army never punished anyone for crimes committed in 1971 so this belongs on the army page. Once punishment is served, you can move this to a separate page about the incident. Thank you. --بنٹی 04:04, 17 جون 2011 (UTC)

  • Thank you Urdutext for reverting my change without showing a clear policy. And thank you everyone else for keeping quite on the matter. --بنٹی 13:50, 17 جون 2011 (UTC)

تبصرہ 16 فروری 2013[ترمیم]

zanda bad pakistan army 182.183.135.211 07:42, 16 فروری 2013 (م ع و)

پاک فوج[ترمیم]

پاک فوج کے مضمون کو بُری فوج کی طرف منتقل کرنے کی تخریب کاریاں نہ کی جائیں۔— بخاری سعید تبادلہ خیال 04:32, 26 دسمبر 2017 (م ع و)