This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pakistan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23Auto-archiving period: 3 months

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator.

view · edit Frequently asked questions 1. Can I add/remove an image? or Why was my image removed? Yes, you can add and remove images but you might want to take some points into consideration before doing that. The images were carefully chosen in balance to represent the text in a neutral way from all parts of the country. All images have also been thoroughly checked for their copy right licenses while some are added to a switch code so that each time the server cache is refreshed, the image changes automatically to the next one listed in the code. Image removals and replacements are in most cases likely to be reverted due to such reasons. Please consider starting a section regarding the image on the article talk page and discuss how it should be added so as to get a consensus. See also Talk:Pakistan/Archive 13#Positioning, adding & removing images. 2. Can I add ___ or details about ___? or Why was my text removed? All text in Wikipedia has to be verifiable through reliable sources. Any content that does is not published in an independent reliable source can be removed. This article is specifically maintaining a much higher standard after it has been worked on in detail in such terms to keep it from becoming an original research. Also note that while your additions are notable they still might be reverted per WP:WEIGHT. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. In case of such reverts, please use the talk page to discuss the content Also search or take a look through the archives listed on the talk page to see if that has been previously discussed to prevent a discussion going in circles over time. 3. Why no subsection for ___ or ___? Please see WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Everything related to Pakistan can not have a separate section as it would be undue to give it a mention at length. However, most related topics' main article is linked to in the article and the topic covered per its due weight. The main country article has much broader scope about the country rather than specific issues which might probably be occurring at a specific point of time of the country's history or a small part of it. If you still think some thing can be added to further improve the article or that subsections can be further improved, please start a discussion at the talk page with your proposal. 4. The map of Pakistan is incorrect! The dark-green area shows the total area constituting Pakistan while the area shaded in light green denotes Jammu and Kashmir – territory that is claimed, but not administered, by Pakistan. This geographic detail is per neutral point of view and does not adhere to the Pakistani, Indian or any other government's descriptions of territory. 5. Terrorism/Kashmir/any other controversial topic should be mentioned more! Such topics are already covered in the article in terms of their actual issues or effects on the country. If you think any detail is missing, use the talk page to discuss that. Bluntly adding such details to the main country article is generally considered inappropriate.

This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

	Pakistan is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 29, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 10, 2006 Good article nominee Listed March 11, 2006 Peer review Reviewed March 25, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted April 22, 2009 Featured article review Demoted January 24, 2010 Peer review Reviewed March 29, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed January 14, 2012 Peer review Reviewed March 25, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 6, 2017 Good article nominee Not listed Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 14, 2004, March 23, 2005, August 14, 2005, March 23, 2006, August 14, 2006, March 23, 2007, August 14, 2007, August 14, 2008, and February 5, 2011. Current status: Former featured article

This  level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Pakistan Top‑importance This article 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.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. South Asia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Asia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia 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.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles 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.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by SheriffIsInTown, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 19 April 2024.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors Previous copyedits: /  This article was copy edited by Bejinhan on 8 July 2010. This article was copy edited by Stfg on 22 April 2012. This article was copy edited by Corinne on 28 April 2017.

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

Please change GDP Nominal from 2024 to updated 2025 which is 411 billion also GDP PPP is jot correct and GDP per capita of both GDP nominal and GDP ppp is not correct please the reference from Pakistan economy from wikipedia as well 203.128.29.139 (talk) 08:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a reliable source or reference? Toast1454_TC 13:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. M.Bitton (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you don't know how to search for a GDP of a country ,ok here is the source official Pakistan Bureau of Statistics Website https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/press_releases/2025/Press%20release%20for%20114th%20NAC%20Meeting.pdf 103.157.88.128 (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also here is imf link https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/PAK?zoom=PAK&highlight=PAK 103.157.88.128 (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I want to create the link of "Parliamentary Republic" in table of Pakistan Article so readers can reach the article on Parliamentary Republic and get know what is it. 103.157.200.85 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Do you think you can be more specific as to where this link will be located, such as which section and/or sentence of the article the link will be located in?

I've been going through the article, and noticed a few links to information regarding parliamentary republics. Although, there may be certain areas that lacking such a link, and I hold no ill-will on fulfilling your request should it be valid. (for additional information on how to format your change request, see WP:MAKINGEREQ) — Alex26337 (talk) 00:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

pakistan current GDP is 411,800 B US Dollar. Ref. https://www.finance.gov.pk/survey/chapter_25/Highlights.pdf Dr Mustajab (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Cannot get your linked PDF to load, but per the [IMF] the current rates appear accurate. Nubzor [T][C] 18:25, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

full disclosure: I'm not south Asian, I'm Brazilian, I believe it's arguable now that Asim munir now has the most powerful position in the Pakistani government, but this is a very subjective opinion of mine and due to India-Pakistan animosity could be cause or start a argument, so I want to float the idea but thread cautiously LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 20:56, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is accepted my argument is that it effectively makes him into a similar type of paramount leader as the Chinese equivalent especially during the Deng Xiaoping era LeTommyWiseau2000 (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, Munir should be the first leader listed in the infobox. See for example Reuters describing him as “widely regarded as the most powerful figure in the country,”[1] in the context of his bilateral meeting with President Trump, even before the recent constitutional amendment giving him even more power.[2] Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support this move. Do we have any other example where a head of the armed forces is listed in the infobox of a country article? No matter how powerful he may be regarded, he is not the head of state or the head of government. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:15, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One comparison I can think of is China, where CCP General Secretary is always listed on top because it is understood in reliable sources to be the most important office, even though it is not necessarily the official head of state or head of government. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is an apples-to-oranges comparison. China has a completely different system. We are talking about the head of the armed forces. Pakistan has always had powerful army chiefs, yet we have never added them to the country infobox. How is it any different with Munir? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown The 27th amendment vests even more power into him since he is now Chief of Defence Forces, and the fact that the Defence Forces are powerful in Pakistan. Ligh&Salv (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@THEunique Please stop edit-warring and visit this discussion. You do not determine what is necessary and what is not. Consensus does. Ligh&Salv (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If I recall correctly, the infobox used to name the Army chief. This would have been many years back, hence my memory is foggy, and I'm also not sure when it would have been removed. I personally see no harm in listing the CDF, given that the head of the army (and now defence force) has historically been one of the key decisionmakers. If we are listing the Senate Chairman and National Assembly Speaker in the infobox, both of whom have much limited influence on the country's governance, we may as well add the CDF. Or we can copy the example adopted in India, and list only the President and Prime Minister who are the main political figureheads constitutionally at least. Mar4d (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Removing the Speaker, Chairman Senate and Chief Justice would be the proper course of action, instead of adding the CDF, as there is no precedent for that. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:54, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

because Pakistan is mentioned in the Vedas on numerous occasions the possibility of a "Medieval Pakistan" is certain.

The language diversity of "Medieval Pakistan" are also certain.

19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Toterre6&7 (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GDP of Pakistan is 42nd while it is showing 44th on Google please correct it Rahmanubutt15 (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Nergis Mavalvala.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown what exactly is the your issue with the IMF source? It's the very same source which has been used in virtually every Wikipedia article for 2025 GDP figures. If you think it is unreliable, then please go and achieve consensus for it instead of making blanket reverts. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:41, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi Dude the IMF is like the best source for GDP? Abni (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking or telling me? But yes, it is usually considered reliable for GDP figures and economic activities so its repeated removal appeared odd to me. Sutyarashi (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi Telling Abni (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sutyarashi Wait repeated removal? He has repeatedly reverted stuff? Abni (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown, as long as the data from the IMF was published in 2025, it is, and I quote from your own edit summary, "real economic data" for 2025. I support @Sutyarashi's stance that the IMF is a reliable source and that you need consensus for your changes. Abni (talk) 07:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to understand who bears the responsibility for consensus under WP:BRD. Please read and understand the guideline. Any new addition may be reverted by any editor, after which it is the responsibility of the editor who introduced the change to gain consensus through discussion. The IMF link clearly states "World Economic Outlook (October 2025)". An outlook means this is not actual data but the IMF's projection. Projections for 2025 should not be preferred over actual 2024 figures. We simply need to wait a little longer for the actual 2025 figures to be released, after which they can be used. Nobody is saying the IMF is unreliable. The World Bank is an equally reliable source, and we are using it for actual 2024 figures. Once actual 2025 figures are available, the data can be updated. Until then, there is no need for repeated back and forth on this issue. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but it doesn't seem that you're getting what I or ​Ababajoni told you. There is community consensus that this IMF source can be, and is being, used for 2025 GDP figures across Wikipedia, and on Wikipedia articles regarding all national entities. No one has raised any objections over its use, which by its very definition, means community consensus. If you disagree with it, feel free to take it for discussion but you cannot unilaterally oppose its use on this article solely by going against community consensus.

So far you have changed your reasoning for reverting from I don’t see gdp ppp of 1.67 for 2025 in that source. (when it was very much there) to Whatever the case, update the body first and then the infobox, avoid sources in infobox (when the main body had been already updated and having source cited in infobox was not even an issue worth reversion) to now claiming that you reverted it because it is mere projection? Honestly I'm not making much sense of your conduct or reasoning here. You have also overridden the 3O by another editor and deliberately ignored 1R rule for contentious topics by twice reverting the article.

If you think this source is unsuitable for use, then please achieve consensus for it since the present community consensus is otherwise. If you do not want to, then I hope you will restore previous revision yourself. Sutyarashi (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The IMF's projection is still data?????????????? Abni (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown, it does not matter if the World Economic Outlook is the IMF's projection, it is still, and I quote once more from your own edit summary, "real economic data". Your opinion on the IMF's stance on this article does not matter in the sense of you reverting @Sutyarashi's edits, consensus' opinion does. If you want this article to not use the IMF's, and I quote from your own reply, "not actual data", please achieve consensus to put these changes into effect, which at this time, you do not have. Abni (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Improvement Projects - Pakistan - Wiki - Data Updates - Lets Have a Merry Time. Xcalibur19 (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SheriffIsInTown reverted @Marxsafe's edit linking, in the article's Government and politics section, 'Executive' and changing Judicature to Judiciary (I support this change of the edit specifically as the following paragraph about the judiciary does not use 'judicature' once but judiciary thrice). May I ask why? Abni (talk) 04:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]