Talk:Pakistan Armed Forces

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I want to talk about Israel. You see how many innocent children are being killed there. Our first Kaaba is Al-Aqsa Mosque.People are not allowed there. Why Pakistan Army is silent, we are Muslims, our job is to help our Muslim brothers and sisters. We will fight and Israel will conquer. We can do it, God is with us.We have the power of faith. Please think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jatteatty (talk • contribs) 03:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

This article seems to be the target of POV edits in favor of Pakistani nationalism. Unfortunately, the links provided do not seem to discuss the topics referenced (meaning that the claims are apparently unsourced) so I reverted. siafu 21:54, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response[edit]

I didn't originally write the sentence in question, so I'm nto exactly married to the wording. However, the sources I was able to come up with just by searching the BBC website do seem to indicate that the Pakistani military has recently been targeting civilians as part of their support for Bush's war on terror. [1], [2] The original edit, which as far as I'm able to tell was placed here, seems to be exclusively in reference to Balochistan, but much of what I'm finding is in reference to Waziristan; here's another on that subject from Amnesty International. siafu 03:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Which is why the "brutal" human rights violations is POV ,serious human rights violations probably have been made and duely noted but not against a whole province and/or an ethnic group.Plus the operations mentioned were small scale in Balochistan hence dont even suffice a mention here unlike Operations in Waziristan which are still ongoing but have been left out of the article.The human rights abuses here sholud be carefully reworded if the overall view of the editors is that there is lack of such evidence.--Raju1 06:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "brutal" is in reference to the massacre in Bangladesh. For that, there is ample evidence. siafu 14:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No its not the sentence reads as follows:Recently the army has been engaging in similar human rights violations in Balochistan. The Army of Pakistan's Operation 2005, as reported by the BBC is one of the most brutal in recent years by any country.
Which is obviously taken out of context and not supported.--PrinceA 00:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Major Editing[edit]

I have made several major edits to the article including removing/rewording controversial material, adding some information, grammar editting and designating special headings for article layout. Personally, I think the article is approaching good encyclopedia standards and the neturality tag is not needed as I have reworded, removed or given counter points to much of the unverifiable and unfactual information. Hopefully this dispute is resolved now. Please tell me what you guys think about these edits. Thanks.--Anonymous editor 01:19, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes thank you for your participation.I believe its much much better than before and all parties concerned have their view points in the article.So Good job.Thank you!--PrinceA 03:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. Well I'm satisfied. :)--Anonymous editor 03:50, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
made some edits , in the previous version it seemed like the indians have done nothing & its the pakastinis that have made "the bomb" & "the missiles" for no reasons . For Bangladest U can read any new books by the generals & solders at that time . Farhansher 04:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The reference to "Indian agents" is quite dubious. Please refer to the book "Witness to Surrender" by Major Siddique Salique, who was the PR officer of Pakistan Army and was posted in Dhaka to aid General Niaji, Tikka Khan and Rao Forman Ali. It's quite an interesting book, where Salique discusses the war from the eye of a Pakistani Army officer, one related closely to the top command. It has quite detailed references to Operation Searchlight. Here are some more references on the topic:
Surely, the independence of Bangladesh was India's benefit, and they supplied Mukti Bahini with arms and help to fight the Pakistan Army. But to say the massacres of Bengalis by Indians is quite a distortion of history. I do understand that the war was unfortunate, and resulted in bad decision in part of the Pakistan Army and some politicians, but denying the massacre of 1 million to 3 million people is quite a big distortion. The number 3 million is disputed, but that's the official Government of Bangladesh figure. Other credible sources put the number to at least 1 million to 1.5 million. Here is a good link to many different sources for the number of dead. --Ragib 05:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay. I edited some things and also reworded the allegation ("Indian agents") because we should try to avoid POV. I also want to find some sources for the rest of the material here. Ragib, feel free to add what you said to the article (India benefit thing). Thanks. --Anonymous editor 04:37, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Further editing proposals[edit]

User:Farhansher, please don't get me wrong, I do not intend to vilify the Pakistan army beyond reasonable doubt here, and I'd definitely like to remove POV from the article. The issue about the 1971 atrocities belong to Pakistani Civil War a.k.a. Bangladesh Liberation War. However, the sentence that "Indian agents added hatred in East Pakistani's against West Pakistani's" is again somewhat of an overstatement. I am not pushing for putting a huge detailed list of allegation/counter allegation here, as it is not the place for that sort of discussion. But please do not attribute the 1971 war on "Agents", there are more complex socio-economic history behind that. I do propose a major rewrite of the article, which currently looks quite messy. Here is my proposed structure:

  • History
  • Structure
    • Detailed structure (units, brigades, headquarters)
  • Rank Structure
  • Equipment
    • Details on equipment
  • Major conflicts
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1948 (brief detail, with link to the article on the war)
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 (brief detail, with link to article)
    • Pakistani Civil War (brief detail, with links to article)
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 (brief detail, with links to article)
  • Peacetime activities
  • Political links
  • See also
  • External links

How does this sound? --Ragib 05:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NO hard feelings man , I am searching for the sources right now . Actually I have read a lot of these things ( what I added to the article...the generals' claims )in Daily Dawn & Daily Jung & seen them on local media , but as I can see uptil now , resources are scarce on the net . So feel free to undo what U like . Farhansher 05:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Overall, I like your idea about the organization of the layout greatly. I think very brief info should be given on the major conflicts (like you said). Here is my proposal of the structure below. Please note the changes and tell me what you think. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 05:56, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Introduction (keep similar to what it already is)
  • Structure (Vital information about organization)
  • Detailed structure (units, brigades, headquarters, includes rank structure)
  • Facts section (keep similar to what it already is)
  • Equipment
  • Details on equipment (very brief)
  • Major conflicts
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1948 (brief detail, with link to the article on the war)
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1965 (brief detail, with link to article)
    • Pakistani Civil War (brief detail, with links to article) + including the allegation of agent involvement and sources given
    • Indo-Pakistan war of 1971 (brief detail, with links to article)
  • Peacetime activities

(Mainly Africa peacekeeping: Rwanda Genocide, Cote d'Ivoire, Bosnia, etc.)

  • Recent Issues
  • "War on Terrorism" and its controversy
  • See also
  • External links
Well sounds very good . Although peace time activities can also include brief describtion of other events , like bosnia etc .Farhansher 06:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ofcourse. There we go, I added that to the proposal. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 06:05, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd just say that for the war, we should focus on the facts of the war, not causes/effects etc. For example, in the Bangladesh Liberation war/Pakistan Civil war part, we can mention the start, the number of army/navy/airforce deployed, locations, major battles, who was in charge, number of fatalities (again, not focusing on allegations/counter allegations of massacre/indian agent provocation etc)/outcome etc. This would be definitely a way to stick to facts rather than pass our own judgements on who started the war and who provoked it. A possible wording may be that "Military of Pakistan was involved in the Pakistan Civil war between March 25 and December 16, 1971. It was an armed conflict between the military and the East Pakistani dissidents, rebel factions of East Pakistani members of Army, guerrilla force called Mukti Bahini. Total number of personnel deployed was (90k??). Major battles took place in x,y,z. Total civilian fatality is claimed to be officially 3 million by Bangladesh Govt, but some other sources put the number to between 1 million to 3 million. Military command was headed by Tikka Khan, later replaced by Gen Niazi. The later part of the war between Dec 3 and Dec 16 overlaps with Indo-Pak war of 1971 (see below). The outcome was the surrender of Niaji to Muktibahini-Indian Army joint command on Dec 16 (see below)". By this type of wording, we can be brief, neutral, and also state the facts in a non-POV manner. How does this sound? --Ragib 06:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's good. Lets start the editing. --Anonymous editor 20:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)


I have made several edits, improved and tidied up the page added pictures from other articles related to the Pakistan Military and listed the future plans of the Pakistan military Faraz 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed structure[edit]

I have a skeleton for the article at Military of Pakistan/Temp. Please check it out and start filling out the empty sections. Thanks. --Ragib 05:42, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What do you think of my proposal, I think that the minor modifications I made to the layout might fit the info of this article a little better simply because of the type of info involved. Well anyways tell me what you think and then we can start implementing this the temp and eventually to the original. Thanks. --Anonymous editor 06:03, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Marines[edit]

I just got here; isn't there now a Pak Marine Corps?—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 06:09, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC) No! there isn't any. --SMS Talk 09:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, Pakistan has a marine corps under the Pakistan Navy. Source.Pk-user (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PAF Awards for Valor[edit]

What is the source for Squadron Leader Muhammad Mahmood Alam's credit to 4 IAF kills in under 30 seconds? Please add it if the source is reliable as 4 air to air kills in less than 30 seconds sounds very dubious. (Bobbo9000 (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Vandalism: one caption refers to "General Humza Saeed, gay rapist"[edit]

I've deleted the last two words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.25.38 (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Name Change[edit]

I think that the name of this article should be changed to "Pakistan Armed Forces", since that is the official name of the Pakistani Military, and "Military of Pakistan" should redirect to the page.

Reenem (talk)

Also, the name in Urdu script does not match the name in the Urdu name written in Roman Urdu. The roman Urdu name should be Pak Musalah Afwaj.


Pakistan army[edit]

(discussion is from Pakistan )... the same applies here as well... I won't comment the line here, but just mention that a citation is needed.. Please note that the citation provided in Pakistan was unreliable...

"The armed forces of Pakistan are the sixth-largest in the world.[66]" ...

1) The reference leads to some blog!

2) Please read List of countries by military expenditures ... A country which does not/cannot spend nearly as much the top 10 countries in the list can obviously not have a top 10 military!

3) Placing Pakistan at #4 will mean placing some of the following other nuclear powers below it, which is absurd to even comprehend! (USA, China, UK, France, Germany, Russia, India, Israel, <N. Korea>) Especially considering the economic status of the country!

4) Though I'm not going to base by judgement on the ratings given [3], it is nevertheless a MUCH better citation to base an article on!

5) As long as we don't have a credible source like a CIA report or something, we need to base our conclusions on Military spending.

  • Even according to List of countries by number of troops, it's 7th largest! So, it's either 7th largest or the citation is wrong or both... But the two can't be accurate at the same time....

Now, we need not care about what a country or it's citizen thinks! I'm of the view that Pakistan deserves to be #1 considering the disproportionate passion of it's people. But unfortunately that is not the case and what is not true "cannot" show up on wikipedia as long as I'm not blocked! Based on these arguments I'm going to comment that statement because that's much better than terming the whole section/article disputed! Please escalate the matter to an admin or find a better citation and undo/uncomment the statement.

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Issue resolved... someone changed it to 7th largest which is accurate... Thanks a ton... did not expect someone to do it so soon :)

Amartya ray2001 (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BaburCruise1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:BaburCruise1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PakArmy.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:PakArmy.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • 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.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 February 2013[edit]

Gwadar Port is not on the hormuz straights

218.188.93.140 (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.- Happysailor (Talk) 20:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Book for further reading section[edit]

By Princeton's Aqil Shah:

*{{Cite book |last= Shah |first= Aqil |year= 2014 |title= The Army and Democracy: Military Politics in Pakistan |location= Cambridge, MA |publisher= [[Harvard University Press]] |isbn= 978-0-674-72893-6 }}

Added. -- SMS Talk 07:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2014[edit]

Someone please fix the flags on all of the countries that are listed as foreign suppliers; an additional good addition, time-permitting, would be the inclusion of the actual rank structure of the Pakistani armed forces, to include pictures of ranks and titles. 128.97.229.200 (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article is no longer semi-protected, but under Pending changes, so you can make these edits yourself, but they will be reviewed before they become part of the article. Arjayay (talk) 09:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current Deployments[edit]

I was meaning to modify the caption on the map in this section as the writing is... less than perfect, but having looked at the image itself, the resolution is so low it's not entirely clear what it's trying to illustrate. Is it just there as a map of the region, and if so, why a 1997 map and why the link to deployment? Either way, is such a map necessary and if so is it worth trying to source a more clear and perhaps recent image? DoctorAdjective (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Pakistan Armed Forces/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I think the article is well written and oragnised well therefore; it deserves to be A class. Faraz 15:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Substituted at 18:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Copy edit Jan 2017[edit]

I noticed this article was removed from the copy edit backlog on 2 Jan, but I see a few small issues with it so I'll do what I can over the next day or two. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC) Ok, finished my copy edit of the article. Here are my notes:[reply]

  • Style: this article uses dmy dates, serial commas, spaced en dashes (MOS:NDASH), and Pakistani English. Defence seems preferred to Defense, so I made that change, as well as colour and a couple others.
  • So many acronyms! I believe they're all defined in the prose now.
  • Are "service" and "branch" official hierarchical designations or loose, informal descriptors? They aren't always applied consistently, but if they're informal they might not have to be.
  • There seems to be widespread misuse of Inter-Services. As I read it, the three main service branches are Army, Navy, Air Force. "Inter-service" means "between services" so should only apply to something that involves two or more of those three. For example, Inter-Services Public Relations does PR for Army, Navy and Air Force. Inter-Services Intelligence is a combined intelligence service, coordinating army intelligence, navy intelligence and air force intelligence. But the Army, Navy, Air Force are not themselves inter-services.
  • A fair amount of linking/piping work, so that it's clear what is being linked. Military service, for example, is an article on serving in the military, not an article on a branch of an armed forces. Khaki was incorrectly linked to Khakistocracy. Lots of redirects. Also, it's not recommended to have multiple links immediately adjacent to each other, which can confuse the reader. Trimmed a lot of overlinking (eg: Universal Camouflage Pattern linked four times in a paragraph).
  • Links to Eastern Pakistan seem to redirect to what is now Bangladesh, so if somebody could find a better link that'd be great.
  • There's some material about military technology which should probably be moved from § Main branches to § Defence industry
  • Under § Organization, At the JS HQ, it forms with... and lists various offices and directors. But it doesn't say what they are forming or how, making it uncertain how they are related.
  • There is a section where the Navy provided 43,850 kg of food and relief goods to flood victims in the context of a nationwide operation over five years. Is there a copying or unit error there? That's only two truckloads of weight, hardly a multi-year national mobilization.
  • The Islamabad-based Strategic Force Organization (SFO) has a three-tier system which forms by combing the Nuclear Command Authority, Strategic Plans Division (SPD), and each of three Inter-Services strategic force commands. I'd guess that "combing" is a typo of "combining", but not sure if it might be listing the three tiers of the "system". Also, "forms" makes the relationship confusing. And there seems to be some ambiguity between SPD and SPD Force there and in the sentence afterwards.
  • There is conflicting sourced information regarding the number of Marines battalions deployed at Sir Creek. A timeline might help.
  • Another unclear passage: the strategic arsenal are kept under an inter-services own strategic commands

That's about it. If you have any questions or comments, please post them here. I'll keep the article on my watchlist for a while and will try to be available for follow-up. Thanks. - Reidgreg (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Current CJCSC[edit]

As of 2017, the current Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee is Zubair Mahmood Hayat. The infobox needs to be updated. I can't seem to find 'edit' option for the infobox.

- Jan 8, 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.88.232.94 (talk) 16:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1971 Bangladesh genocide[edit]

I attemted to add information about the 1971 Bangladesh genocide. When doing so I made the egregious typo of putting the death toll at "300 000 to 3 000 000 000" which was properly recognized as an obvious error. I apologize for this and have now addded the information again, with the proper death toll, and with proper sources in both academic books and news articles. If someone finds fault with this information or the sources I encourage them to modify the sentence accordingly - many more sources are listed in 1971 Bangladesh genocide. It seems clear, however, that some mention of the genocide should be made in the History section. Hotchpotcher (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Pakistan Armed Forces. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 16:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Pakistan Armed Forces. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 21:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing In Defence Minister[edit]

Khawaja Asif Is not A defence minister Please change it , Current Defence minister is 'Khurram Dastagir Khan'. Tayyabsiddique (talk) 14:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relations strained under Donald Trump[edit]

Since his election, Trump has been critical of providing more military and financial aid to Pakistan since its real motive of participating in anti terror operations in now in question since Osama bin Laden was busted and killed in a US marines covert operation unknown even to Pakistan top brass, near Pakistan Army Area in Abotabad, Pakistan, while Pakistan army had continually repeating that Osama has not been in Pakistan since long and was living in Afghanistan. This was further darkened by long history of Pakistan Army and ISI being blamed for terrorism across its neighbour India. This even resulted in protests across Pakistan including burning effigies of Donald Trump. There is no artcle for this on the page as these are recent developments. AbhinavKumar1998 (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This not a forum. Please be specific with what you wish to edit. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism wing of pakistan army[edit]

There is a wikipedia page about the topic which is directly related to the this page, edit was reverted without any discussion, before revert lets discuss the issue and than make changes Selfprjectiontube (talk) 10:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the referenced page, clearly mentioned that ISI is the terrorist wing of pakistan armed forces Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_terrorism#Inter-Services_Intelligence_and_terrorism Selfprjectiontube (talk) 12:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments: Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference (and FWIW the claim you make does not even appear in that article). All articles with material that is likely to be challenged need secondary, reputable, verifiable sources. A neutral point of view is required with all material. The ISI is *not* the "terrorist wing" of the PAF; no reputable source will support that claim. There is certainly evidence (such as the statements of former President Musharraf) that Pakistan sponsored militants entering a number of foreign zones of conflict, and that would be appropriate for this article, but this is an entirely different issue than that of the claim you inserted.--Goldsztajn (talk) 08:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Pakistan Armed Forces[edit]

Just now I added a starter section called "Criticism" near the end of the article. Soon after, a IP wants to remove it. Since it is an IP, it has become a pending change. I guess I can't do anything about that since that would be besides the point of the review and akin to pushing. But I do intend to understand why it can't stay if it goes, and that consensus should be sought properly. What's wrong with a little criticism? DTM (talk) 11:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not correlated with pak armed forces but as I checked at wikipedia policy "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies" many of claims and stuff can be contributed to according to who and also can be into body of article under other sections. Wikipedia is not soapbox for promotion or advocacy of any way and any sort, and some stuff can go more for some blogs or personal websites. Brzikraken (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This applies for the entire article. Each section is promoting an aspect of the Pak Armed Forces. As per user being blocked, I have restored the criticism section. It doesn't seem undue. DTM (talk) 08:18, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But then that line written by the sockpuppet also makes sense of distributing the content under respective sections rather than create an entirely new one. Let's see how to go about this. DTM (talk) 09:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before being blocked, Brzikraken took reference to Wikipedia:Criticism in this edit writing in the summary "As per wiki policy WP:NOCRIT". However, WP:NOCRIT is an essay. While this is only an ESSAY note must be made that "Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints."... accordingly the essay has to be understood in terms of this article and to what extent this applies as a norm/minority viewpoint rather than a policy or guideline over here. DTM (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel: Since you have been really helpful with policy, please help me navigate this. Am I in the affirmative here or does Brzikraken have a point. I would have linked Bharatiya29 but seems they are blocked, they had given an affirmative during the AFD for the criticism. How do I counter what Brzikraken wrote? DTM (talk) 10:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A "criticism" section can be well avoided since such sections do attract negative POVs. As for the IP disruption, I have requested ECP on RFPP now. I will be back here soon. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 15:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer a section called "Dominance in Pakistan" or something similar, in place of "criticism". Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 15:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it sounds good about "Dominance in Pakistan" eventually instead of "dominance" "influence". 109.93.105.4 (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 May 2020[edit]

Change infobox national military (SERVICE BRANCHES): delete "Paramilitary forces", "Pakistan Marines", "Pakistan Coast Guards" -- these are not the official 3 branches of the Pakistan Armed Forces. The 3 branches of the Pakistan Armed Forces are: Pakistan Army, Pakistan Air Force, Pakistan Navy. [1] Xeed.rice (talk) 05:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Branches that are contained within other branches are usually included in infoboxes - see United States Armed Forces. Just like with the US Marine Corps, the Pakistan Marines are part of the Pakistan Navy. I think cases can be made for the exclusion of the Pakistan Coast Guard and the Paramilitary Forces, but all such changes would be too controversial to make without a consensus. — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PAKISTAN Army is professional army — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.188.223.248 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.ispr.gov.pk/

Pakistan Marines[edit]

They are part of the navy and not independence, not sure why this is in infobox. Shadow4dark (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assalamualaikum[edit]

What kind of page is this?? I mean how can it help me? I wanna get some website that will inform me about pakarmy updates Ayeshafarhan1947 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Staff_Headquarters_(Pakistan)[edit]

Gamg 111.119.178.168 (talk) 05:35, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reserves[edit]

I can't seem to find good sources on reserves of the Pakistani military. None of the book series The Military Balance I've consulted seem to contain this info (eg 2010, 2021 etc). Additionally, they list the National Guard of Pakistan under "paramilitary". According to The Military Balance 2021, Pakistan has 291,000 paramilitary consisting of:

  • The National Guard (185,000)
  • Frontier Corps (70,000)
  • Pakistan Rangers (25,000)
  • Airport Security Force (9,000)
  • Maritime Security Agency (2,000)
  • Pakistan Coast Guard (unspecified)

But nothing about Pakistan's reserves. Are these reserves part of the army? What are they called? Where are the figures in Pakistan Armed Forces#Troop strength coming from? Pinging @Mar4d:, @Yeahitsali:, @Gog the Mild:, @Zeex.rice:. VR talk 03:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Pakistan has something called "Army Reserve North" and "Army Reserve South". Are those part of the "Active personnel" or the "reservists"? VR talk 03:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:10, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medical[edit]

I am go to Army Because I love Pakistan 39.36.213.234 (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Computer[edit]

Any one job plz 103.167.158.84 (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023[edit]

active military 780,000 reserve force 1,000,000 defence budget 15.0 billion Mustaqim raja (talk) 22:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 23:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israel[edit]

I want to talk about Israel. You see how many innocent children are being killed there. Our first Kaaba is Al-Aqsa Mosque.People are not allowed there. Why Pakistan Army is silent, we are Muslims, our job is to help our Muslim brothers and sisters. We will fight and Israel will conquer. We can do it, God is with us.We have the power of faith. Please think about it. Jatteatty (talk) 07:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

REUNION CONTRACTOR *(TOTAL_COMMANDER)[edit]

NSG SOLDIER OR SOLDAT HOW MANY TRY TO AD ME ONE TITLE LEGIONNAIRE IN CONTRACT OF SWAT....MANY TRYING ON PUBLICATION IN LAW OF MINE SERVIS PUBLICATION CAN REALIZE MANY GOOD THINGS LIKE IS RESPECT AND HONOUR OF FRIENDSHIP OR ENIMIES...THANK GOD 109.245.38.178 (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post application for.naib Qasid[edit]

Okara 39.45.161.121 (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2024[edit]

edit 

2001:999:404:DE28:AF74:6460:EF0E:3447 (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2024[edit]

edit 

2001:2003:F0C2:DD00:29FE:3586:5AB1:9EB4 (talk) 03:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pakistan_Armed_Forces&oldid=1214622904"