Talk:China–Pakistan Economic Corridor

Caspian region

The article talks about a link from the Caspian Sea to the Straits of Hormuz. At a glance this looks like some Romney geography, since the Caspian Sea is north of Iran, bordering neither China nor Pakistan. What the source actually says is "Caspian region", but I think they mean something broader than the Caspian Depression ... maybe. And it says it "improves existing links" to the landlocked region. In short, it's not a very good source, making a brief allusion to something that really could use a better explanation. Wnt (talk) 12:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming by Caspian Sea, it is referring to Central Asia which lies north to Pakistan, while Straits of Hormuz is a reference to the Persian Gulf which lies southwest of Pakistan's coast. So it is basically discussing the potential connection between Central Asia and the Gulf region. Mar4d (talk) 12:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Map needed

A map showing the proposed route would really add to this article. JoltColaOfEvil (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree. If I understand the above template correctly, our request should be visible to the cartographically-skilled section of the Wikipedia community. 82.70.49.110 (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Map issue

• Map has been removed as it was showing "Indian administered Kashmir" as "Indian occupied Kashmir" as such terms like "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir" and "Indian Occupied Kashmir" are not be used on Wikipedia articles. --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 14:22, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Central Alignment

The portion on Central Alignment should be expanded. Otherwise it is a mere stub and should be included in the "Other projects" section of CPEC roadway projects. Willard84 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I am restoring it in the light of Planning commission of Pakistan official site. Baltistani478 (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC) block-evading sockpuppet

Motorway tables

A user has been repeatedly inserting motorway tables from the Pakistani Motorways wiki page. The table is not relevant to CPEC in its form since it includes numerous projects not part of CPEC such as the Northern Bypass/M-10 near Karachi which have never been mentioned as part of CPEC at all.

M1/M2/M3 have already been completed and are not part of CPEC either. M7 is not part of CPEC either.66.194.2.2 (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Weasel word insertion

contributor Kautilya3 is repeatedly inserting weasel words in his/her edits regarding Baloch nationalist opposition to the project. The author not only uses the word "Punjabi dominated" government, but also uses words like "miniscule portion" and "internal colony" simply because it was written by some Indian author in a book. Such weasel wording is not permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.40.114.55 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

They are all phrases used in the source. Moreover, there is nothing WP:WEASEL about them. They are terms with reasonably precise meaning. On the other hand, you have been edit-warring, repeatedly deleting well-sourced content based on your personal opinions. This is no good. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 I have looked through the sourcing and I find it beyond poor, a source should be WP:RS before it can be considered to be above reproach and your source is not that. So the next time please take care, not to insert sources without making sure that the source is good.furthermore you have been engaging in personal attacks against this IP and have been asking people about their personal information on your TP, please do not do that again, ever. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 02:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by user Pprcgi

User Pprcgi is repeatedly and carelessly undoing a vast amount of edits. his/her latest revisions completely deleted information regarding groundbreaking dates of Brahma Bahtar motorway, and undid clean up of "major projects" list as well. He/she also repeatedly inserts stubs and appropriates to them a completely new heading for a single sentence. Willard84 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Restored as per your justified objection. Stub issue is not justified. It is a para not sentence covered by secondary level heading. so no issue warrant discussion. Pprcgi (talk) 09:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC) block-evading sockpuppet

It is a single sentence, but that is not even the issue. The problem is that the section is completely undeveloped. Compare your single sentence to the several paragraphs written for western/eastern alignment. 5-7 paragraphs each for those, while your paragraph is just one sentence that is almost entirely comprised of just place names. You can create a Central Alignment section, but PLEASE elaborate on the section. Add more information and not simply the proposed route. You offered no information about construction time tables, funding sources, financing, number of lanes etc etc. If you insist on placing the header, then at least make it a good section and not just a small stub.

Further, your continuous reversions are disruptive as you not only continuously re insert that one sentence, but also undo a whole host of other useful edits with factual information. You deleted new sentence that were relevant in several different sections because you undid a whole host of sourced and useful edits when you tried to re-instate your sentence. Please be more careful when reverting edits, because you're not just inserting your single sentence, you're deleting other useful information.

And further, when you revert you're re-instating extremely biased and un-sourced information added by some other user. Specifically the section "Indian attempts to sabotage CPEC" was re-instated by you, and whoever wrote that paragraph made bold and unsourced claims that India had set up a $300 million fund to sabotage CPEC without offering any proof or source whatsoever to back up that extraordinary claim. Not to mention that the heading itself is extremely biased and does not conform to wikipedia standards. Willard84 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You can expand central alignment. Your contribution will be help full. Heading of Indian sponsored terrorism is correct as per Wikipedia standards. example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict#Pakistan.27s_relation_with_militants . Get consensus before imposing your point of view. Only then re insert your stuff. Pprcgi (talk) 09:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Heading of "Indian sponsored terrorism" is NOT correct because it is biased, POV. It doesnt matter if 50 Pakistanis agree, because it is still biased and POV. The paragraph I wrote which is "alleged indian activites against CPEC" is far more neutral than grand pronouncements of India engaging in terrorism based solely off allegations and an admission of guilt by yadav which no one aside from Pakistan regards as reliable. Also, the link you provide does NOT make such grand pronouncements about terrorism like your section does. The title "Pakistan's relation with militants" is far more neutral than "Indian sponsored terrorism against CPEC."

Next, the section you keep re-inserting makes the claim WITHOUT a reliable source that India has dedicated $300 million to sabotage CPEC. Please stop re-inserting such garbage without verifiable and reliable evidence/sources.

Further your continuous reverts are disruptive because you are reverting ALL changes made. Include links to Dawood wind power project etc. Willard84 (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

One more thing, the "central alignment" section you wrote includes cities which are NOT even listed in the source you cited. Attock, Burhan and Mianwali are NOT listed as part of the central alignment as per your source, so please do not include those cities because that is considered unsourced information. Further, you said the Central Alignment will travel via "Basima, Khuzdar, Sukkur, Rajanpur,Dera Ghazi Khan, Layyah, Muzaffargarh, Bhakkar, Mianwali, Attock and Burhan" when in reality what is stated is that "(central) route will originate from Gwadar and reach Dera Ismail Khan via Basima, Khuzdar, Sukkur, Rajanpur, Layyah, Muzaffargarh and Bhakkar."

So the route does not travel via DI Khan. It terminates in DI Khan. Attock, Burhan, Mianwali are not part of central alignment, even by the source you quoted. Your source states that connections from DI Khan to Islamabad will be via the Western Alignment, not central alignment. Please be more careful when editing, and only include information which is in the source provided.Willard84 (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

An Indian coming to disrupt Pak china economic corridor page. Indian editor why you are jealous and coming on Pakistani pages. Focus on 600 million poor's in India. I saw your editing history. You started in 2009 from Sindudesh (ANTI PAKISTANI RAW SPONSORED SINDH SEPRATIST MOVEMENT) then you tried Balawaristan (ANTI PAKISTANI RAW SPONSORED GB SEPRATIST MOVEMENT). @TripWire: @SheriffIsInTown: this user Willard84 had been adding negative stuff to the page including Baloch nationalist, security risks etc. If this heading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmir_conflict#Pakistan.27s_relation_with_militants is reasonable then why not Indian sponsored terrorism as confessed by on job Indian raw high rank officer on TV viewed worldwide. He gave complete details of Indian plans. Baltistani478 (talk) 17:22, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

This is literally the dumbest accusation I've heard in a long time. Did you not even read what those first edits were? Did you even pay attention to what was edited? Or did you just look at the page and freak out? Actually look what was edited before making such ridiculous accusations based on ridiculous presumptions. By the way, have you noted who is the user who has added the most useful information to this page? Does it seem like an Indian would author huge sections and new pages related to CPEC? Such accusations are entertaining, but very weak.Willard84 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Willard84

When you can form a proper argument without resorting to hysterical abuse as to why Indian sabotage should not be mentioned then I suggest you waste someones elses time on another article. The source is reliable and is a concern to the Pakistani and Chinese government that may not fit your point of view but wikipedia is a free and fair knowledge resource which explains all sides please stop disrupting it. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:185E:14E7:36F3:AD17 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

"Hysterical abuse," are you meaning to say that my intolerance of overtly biased and unsupported allegations is "abuse?" Maybe you can conform to wikipedia standards and not use this as a forum to vent your nationalism? Willard84 (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please take your Indian nationalism elsewhere. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:E5D6:EB1B:468B:5AA6 (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Another one of the dumbest accusations heard in a long time. It's a very sad sign when any balanced approach automatically gets you branded as a traitor, or that you're resorting to "hysterical abuse." Willard84 (talk) 18:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

CPEC.jpg - really open source?

User Baltistani478 included CPEC.jpg onto this page to demonstrate different corridors for this project. He/she states that the picture is direct from the Planning Commission of Pakistan and that it is open source. I suspect that government publications aren't "open source," and that this picture might be uploaded improperly. Willard84 (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Chabahar port Indian comparison

I was just wondering why do Indian editors insist upon adding such huge text about a 500 million dollar port in Iran? I understand CPEC raised allot of eyebrows amongst Indians but this is not the page to compare a mouse to an elephant one day maybe India will be able to invest 46 billion dollars in another country by this is not a competition this is reality there is no comparison at all Indians may try to comfort themselves with these edits but it serves no purpose on this page add it to chabahar port page instead. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 15:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not Indian. It's quite a shame that so many of my compatriots are so easily disturbed. BTW, Chabahar is frequently cited as a rival to CPEC, so of course it deserves a mention here.

Secondly, if you think that Indian investments pale in comparison to Chinese investments, then don't you want the information and data posted here which proves that to be true? Do you have a problem with facts being presented? Because in my opinion, anyone who sees the data will conclude that CPEC is far more comprehensive. That isn't even my bias - it's self-evident when comparing $2.2 billion to $46 billion.

Don't be so threatened by facts, especially if you truly believe you're right. And don't resort to accusations against my nationality based on the facts which I've presented.Willard84 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I am a proud Indian and I must agree with the ip above including small Indian projects and writing massive paragraphs about them is undue. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:7893:E063:E448:7683 (talk) 20:01, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to London. Not buying it. Clubjustin ^Talkosphere 04:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of OR

One user has suggested that including percentage calculations qualifies as original research whicch is forbidden on Wikiepedia. As per Wikipedia, O.R. includes "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. "

The last sentence is key. The calculated percentages are not "analysis or synthesis of material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Calculations do not serve to reach a conclusion not implied by sources.

Further, "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations." Willard84 (talk) 17:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the percentage figure is a fact. But the idea of comparing the two using a percentage figure is your own. In fact, even the comparison might be your own. Is there a source that is comparing CPEC and Chabahar in this fashion? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

If you Google "Gwadar vs Chabahar," you'll find quite a few articles comparing the two. I'm not so clever as to have been the first to make this comparison. Just a simple google search will yield these ones that I quickly found:

"India’s investment of $500 million in the port itself is to be accompanied by a further $16 billion for a “Chabahar free trade zone,” which will incorporate rail links heading north into Afghanistan. But India's additional investment pales in comparison to China’s pledge of $46 billion to develop the Pakistani port of Gwadar, not even 125 miles from Chabahar, along with an accompanying network of railways, pipelines, and roads to connect with western China"

"From a strategic point of view, Chabahar is situated just 100 km from Pakistan’s Gwadar port, the centrepiece of a $46 billion economic corridor that China is building. Though the Indian investment in Chabahar, at $500 million, does not match the scale of the Chinese project, the Chabahar port will act as a gateway for India to Central Asia bypassing the China-Pakistan arc. The long-term potential of this connectivity is immense"::

Regarding the percentages, these are not considered original research:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources.

...

The recursive use of routine calculations, such as summation, products of sequences, or the calculation of averages, also do not count as original research, when interpreted by the article's reader as a summary of numerical data — i.e. when used for well-known (and consensual) forms of "numerical synthesis". In this context, the synthesis of numerical data is not original research by synthesis."

When sources have complex or technical data, and editors need to reproduce data at Wikipedia for normal people, some numerical treatment can be made. Examples:

-Use of error propagation rules when applying "routine calculation" on quantities with error values (ex. multiply 4.26 ± 0.02 by two).

-Recursive use of routine calculation over a list of numbers."

Wikipedia:About_Valid_Routine_Calculations

And more info here that you can read on your own.

Wikipedia:About_Valid_Routine_Calculations#Summary_of_numerical_data

Wikipedia:About_Valid_Routine_Calculations#Routine_calculationsWillard84 (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, you can also read WP:SYNTHESIS which explains how even putting an "and" between two sentences can be an instance of WP:OR. What you are doing here is indeed synthesis.

Both the articles you have cited are on the Indian investment in Chabahar (not on CPEC), and they are trying to give a perspective on where it stands in the scale of things. The first article is even titled "how significant is the Iran deal?". You can't draw those comparisons out of context and insert them here. Moreover, neither of them use a percentage figure, which is your own invention and quite inappropriate for use here.

Comparisons between Gwadar and Chabahar seem perfectly reasonable. They are ports of similar kinds. But even there, it appears to me that the Gwadar port is fully Chinese-owned and Chinese-operated, essentially a Chinese base in Pakistan. That is not so for Chabahar, where, as you yourself have pointed out, it is partnership between India and Iran. Nobody imagines that Iran will ever become a client state of India and give it "bases." Perhaps Chabahar will be a "listening post" for India, but nothing of the kind has been said so far. And India has plenty of its own coastline for naval use without needing a faraway base in the Arabian sea. All these complexities are brushed under the carpet in your simple-minded percentage calculations.

I would encourage you to stick to sources, state what they say and in the contexts they say them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Willard84, your OR is not WP:CALC. Investment commitments are conditional (CPEC has several conditions too). Same is the case with China's commitments as well as India's commitments. So, you can not compare one's initial value with another's end value. And secondly, you are violating WP:SYNTHESIS, i.e.,"combining materials from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". Thirdly, economic impacts are nowhere measured by just adding initial investment values. --Ghatus (talk) 05:26, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually, the Indian demand for the natural gas price seems more like a bargaining position than a "condition." But this in fact shows the commercial nature of the deal. It is not a government-to-government transaction. Once again, apples and oranges come to mind. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like a condition to me, because it was pretty clearly stated as such that India will invest if Iran brings it's price down to the number given by India, without using general words like "lower price." And yes, it sounds commercial. The private consortia investing in CPEC also negotiated rates for which Pakistan would buy electricity from their power plants -some of which like suki kinari area being built on no build operate transfer basis. Sounds commercial to me as well. Pakistan's government is upgrading transportation infrastructure which didn't require commercial bargaining, but even those were not dictated by China - Pakistan is simply constructing the motorway network it envisaged back in 1991. So both projects have an commercial element, but CPEC has an additional government to government component.Willard84 (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya

I think you're misunderstanding a few things:

1) There is no synthesis. The ideas I've presented are in those sources provided. The whole article does NOT have to be about a comparison for there to be a useful - yes, the articles are about Chabahar, but they ALSO do mention CPEC, and so nothing I've done is against the or placed out of context, because both highlight the possible importance of the project, but also acknowledge that it does not match the scope of CPEC. That is exactly in line with what I've written.

2) I think youre confusing significance with cost, and thats why you might think what I've written is against the spirit and message of those srouces.. It might look like I'm drawing unwarranted conclusions, but if you'll note, I did not in any way go against those sources by stating that the project is insignificant. All I did was remain consistent with what they wrote: which is that while being potentially important, they still do not match the value of CPEC. This is in line with both of those sources. Significance and monetary value are not the same thing, and I think you've confounded the two.

3) Refer to the sections I posted about calculations and percentages. These are NOT considered original research. Basic math isn't synthetic. As long as I don't use math to draw an illogical or unsupported conclusion, then I can include those. Nothing about the percentage figures is misleading.

4) I disagree. The port is not owned by China, it is leased to China on a contractual basis. Same with Chabahar and India. Both India and China are also paying for both ports. Implicit in the term "base" is a militaristic angle, and there is just no reliable evidence yet to suggest that. When looking at the projects, the only real difference is that China is using Gwadar as a way out of China, while India intends Chabahar to be a way IN to Central Asia. That in addition to the obvious difference in the amount being invested. You might be right in the future about it being a naval base though, but at best, those are premature conclusions without firm evidence to support that claim.

As for Iran becoming an Indian client, of course that will never happen. Iran is far wealthier and sitting on a huge amount of fossil fuels. And not to mention that Chinese economic ties with Iran are far more substantial than Indian ones. From everything I've heard, Iran is trying to avoid becoming a client state. They even have clarified the neutrality of this project. But if they would chose sides, they might chose the side that is offering way more money (China), as well as China's ambitious Silk Roads project. Willard84 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ghatus - the calculations are not research. Refer to links above that very clearly state basic maths are permitted and are not considered OR. Secondly, yes, there are always conditions. What I calculated was the value of agreements signed. That is a fair comparison.

Next, I can see youve jumped on the synthesis bandwagon. Look at the sources posted earlier in this thread. They state the EXACT same thing as I did, which means I did not synthesize. They state that while Chabaha may be important, the value just does not compare to CPEC. That is an idea found in both those sources and was not OR by me.Willard84 (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Willard84: The wording you have added today is better. As I have said, the articles you cited are trying to give a perspective on the scale. Indian readers certainly need it because this is presumably the first time that India is investing in a major infrastructure project abroad. So, an Indian newspaper certainly needs to point out that it is tiny compared to what China is investing abroad. But that is not what we are trying to do here.

Again, I repeat, comparisons between Chabahar and Gwadar are perfectly reasonable (but not between Chabahar and CPEC; Chabahar is not an "economic corridor.") But here again you may be missing key facts. Chabahar is an Iranian port, for which Iran has already spent $340 million (said to be 70% of the project) and India is doing its bit now, as agreed ahead of time. India's answer to Gwadar is a naval base at Karwar, which it is building for itself at a cost of $8 billion. Chabahar is a side show.

A proper comparison between Chabahar and Gwadar should be between their economic and trading potentials and even how they compete for China's interest as detailed in references like this one. I am afraid you have been barking up the wrong tree. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Willard84. Percentages should be here. Pprcgi (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
• I also agree with Willard84 the percentages give a complete picture of both projects considering its about comparing the two projects percentages should be added. If Indian editors are not comfortable with the fact that Chabahar port is minuscule compared to CPEC then maybe this section is not needed as there is no comparison in scale and cost between the two. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:A4E6:A3F:C283:FD91 (talk) 13:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Willard84, Kautilya3 It's again a RIDICULOUS synthesis. None compares a port with an industrial corridor. It's like comparing Mumbai with Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor Project. Either you bring RS comparing the total economic impact of the proposed route starting from Chabahar to Afghanistan or stop this nonsense. The burden is on you. No need for childish edit wars.Ghatus (talk) 03:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You right Ghatus , I deleted this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltistani478 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

References

@Ghatus"None compares a port with an industrial corridor." Except all the articles posted here which state something along the lines of Chabahar is "India's answer to CPEC." There are several different Indian websites which make similar claims, so clearly not everyone agrees that you can't compare the two. And also read up on India's investment because it's not just about a port. It's India's "mini corridor" that includes a railroad to Zahedan and onwards to Masshad, as well as the Zaranj Dilaram road that India specifically built for this project.Willard84 (talk) 05:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

@Willard84: Among the edits reverted by Ghatus this morning [1], I find material sourced to an "IDSA Comment," which is essentially a blog site. This is not a reliable source. It will be fine to factual information from such sources if they look like reasonably well-informed, but not opinions. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ghatus the vandal also removed comments of the Iranian leader which were sourced from reliable sources. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:5D14:164B:83AE:526F (talk) 11:38, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Article length...some thoughts

We are probably reaching the point where we should be discussing the article's length, as it is quite long. Consider spinning out sub-articles in the future to better organise information and using summary form here. Some sections may also need to be shortened, such as the Chabahar section which in my opinion is longer than necessary. Anyone who wants to know the specifics of Chabahar should just be able to navigate to the Chabahar Port article, really. We have not seen the governments of Pakistan or Iran speculate much on the supposed comparison. It is mostly confined to forum talk, newspaper editorials or talk shows (some of it sensationalised IMO). WP:WEIGHT should be a key factor. Mar4d (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on China–Pakistan Economic Corridor. 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/20151118041734/http://thewire.in/2015/10/09/what-chinas-one-belt-and-one-road-strategy-means-for-india-asia-and-the-world-12532/ to http://thewire.in/2015/10/09/what-chinas-one-belt-and-one-road-strategy-means-for-india-asia-and-the-world-12532/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117081205/http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/ to http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150628003144/http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=258985 to http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=258985
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151222081447/http://www.nepra.org.pk/Licences/Generation/IPP-2002/LAG-292%20Huaneng%20Shandong%20Generation%20Licence%2010-06-2015.PDF to http://www.nepra.org.pk/Licences/Generation/IPP-2002/LAG-292%20Huaneng%20Shandong%20Generation%20Licence%2010-06-2015.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117081205/http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/ to http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117081205/http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/ to http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117081205/http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/ to http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117081205/http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/ to http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117081205/http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/ to http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117081205/http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/ to http://www.brecorder.com/market-data/stocks-a-bonds/0/1223449/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150415100559/http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=262013 to http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=262013

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) 05:49, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion for topic/info inclusion

Considering the size of this project, I suggest that info centered on potential debt issues for Pakistan should be included, as well as counter-arguments for this risk.

CPEC

CHINA PAKISTAN ECONOMIC CORRIDOR 110.224.225.143 (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Gwadar-Kashgar: Crude oil pipeline

I'm doing a research project and was struggling to find sources for the alleged pipeline to China from Pakistan. I'll post some links, but the gist is I found some news articles referencing the pipeline construction as if it is already happening, articles about it's economic infeasibility, and my failure to find any official source about it's construction. If someone finds that this construction is actually happening, great! https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10670564.2018.1433483

https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/china-s-pipeline-dream-pakistan

https://www.aninews.in/news/world/asia/pakistan-cedes-strategic-pipeline-contract-to-china-to-repay-mountain-of-debt20211203230914/

https://www.insideover.com/politics/pakistan-cedes-strategic-pipeline-contract-to-china.html

https://it-it.facebook.com/ChinaPakEconomicCorridor/photos/china-to-build-mega-oil-pipeline-from-gwadar-to-kashgarislamabad-work-on-gwadar-/1725962874338906 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.227.158 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Obsolete

Entire article is based on obsolete news and either needs to be rewritten or deleted. Akedia1 (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The government of Pakistan in collaboration with the government of china initiated ( cpec) project.you required to make a portfolio on cpec project.

inauguration date countries involved beneficiaries Route/ map Length of the route Security measures for the project Potential benefits for Pakistan Foreign threats to the project Impact on employment for local population. 39.43.56.93 (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Potential extensions

Something is missing ...

... maybe a section "Outlook and extensions".

Be aware that the port of Gwadar is not only a port on the Indian Ocean in general, but also represents the last civilized westernmost point in Pakistan before Iran - and is only about 550km from the Strait of Hormuz.

Hormuz, in turn, or the coastal point about 50 km south of Minas in Iran, which marks the shortest distance to Oman territory, is the subject of an agreement and a project between Iran and Oman to build a dam and a bridge there in order to close off the Persian Gulf and establish a land connection between Central Asia and the Arabian Peninsula. In the territory of Oman, which is ruled autocratically by an Ibadite royal family (the Ibadites are close to the Shia, the prevailing interpretation of the Quran in Iran), it is halfway through southern Oman ("Arabia Felix") to Africa. The other remaining half way is through Yemen.

Iran ships significant amounts of oil to China.

Another land connection is conceivable from Yemen to Djibouti. From there, railway connections through Africa would be conceivable. In Africa, the Chinese are already active in many places, sponsoring infrastructure and creating an increasingly effective home power through lending by calling in loans and thus putting local governments under pressure.

Then freight trains could go from the China Sea, from Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Guangdong through China, Sinkiang, Pakistan via Gwadar, Hormuz, Oman, through Yemen to Djibouti and Kenya, Nairobi. And roll to Mozambique, South Africa, Nigeria, West Africa, Dakar, Morocco and also towards Sudan and Egypt and open up the whole of Africa.

According to the tradition of the ancients ... the emperor of China is the center of the earth or the sole ruler of the contiguous land masses of Asia, Europe and Africa. So we here in Western Europe are actually... subject to the Emperor of China... as his westernmost exponents and tributaries. He has the Mandate of Heaven, and unless there are huge wars, great catastrophes or plagues, He rules.

This certainly applies to Xi Jin Ping's autocratic thinking.

I'm sure that planners in China have these connections in their bearings, but just as sure that hardly anyone in the West sees or wants to see these connections. "Speculation!", many will shout. It is also unclear to me whether these connections are suitable for being presented in the WP. There are few sources and reports. The dam construction project to bridge the Persian Gulf to Oman is very specific. The planning process is already underway. - AxelKing (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Blatant disruption - content deletion

A large scale deletion was made in this article on 16 Dec 2022 by a non-registered user with IP Address 111.119.177.11 Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this IP address or network has been used to disrupt Wikipedia. This vandal has been blocked (since June 2022) from editing to prevent further abuse.

The Wikipedia software, it appears, is considering the edits on this article since the deletion to be conflicting with more recent edits and thus not permitting an "undo" operation. All the removed content was from verifiable source and deletion makes the article represent half weighted facts. Requesting admins / users with rollback feature enabled to do the needful.

Considerable time and effort were put into performing the content addition and article improvement. Deletion without adequate explanation or conversation in good faith is not done! This message here on the talk page intends to serve as caution regarding unconstructive edits for this article. All possible attempts will be made to restore the article content from its previous version. If any of the content violates the Wikipedia principles, then feel free to discuss it in this thread. Anand2202 (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Consider making modifications instead of outright deletion.

Dear @UserBk12, Reviewing your edits on 31 Dec 2022, it is observed that you are more inclined to removing the article content rather than modifying or improving it for the benefit of readers. Even though such reverts can be well within exemption criteria for edit-warring, abiding by Wikipedia:3RR Policy and considering your good faith edits (although questionable as in revision 1130723205 at 17:10, 31 December 2022) I am writing to you here on this article talk page as there are already 3 reverts on your recent changes. You are requested to be more cautious on making future changes and contribute productively.

Feel free to discuss here if you have any queries or concerns regarding improvement of this article.

Happy Wiki-Editing! Anand2202 (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@UserBk12 It appears we are on the intersection of difference in opinion. When you find (if, you find) something is not right or inaccurate or not as per editing policies, the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text. You chose not to respond or engage in discussion here but rather go on with your deletion spree as seen on 4 January 2023!

If you think that article content does not belong to a particular section, then it is logical to move it appropriately or create a new section if it is not already present. But you have rather deleted the whole content. This is not at all helpful. (Revision 1131573216, Rev 1131573703 and Rev 1131574137)

If you write moving in the edit summary and in reality you are deleting the content, then this raises question mark on the good-faith assumption of your edits. (Revision 1131575633) This may even be construed as vandalism!

How is mention of Uighur irrelevant? This project is in Xinjiang region. Uighurs belong to this region. There is a well known episode of how China treats them. CPEC risk assessment sees Taliban/terrorism as a potential threat. ISIS has openly declared its stand on this matter. China wants to put this extremist situation to an end by economic development of this Jihad ridden region. And you are deleting this very relevant content from the article? Why do you want to deprive a Wikipedia reader from knowing this perspective? (Revision 1131574963) If content is poorly cited or any source is questionable then removal of added content is understandable. If you have noticed, all the content which you deleted (as mentioned above) were from Academic Journals authored by well educated Pakistani citizens from notable institutions. How it was irrelevant? Have you even tried to make note of the titles of the paper published? They all are regarding CPEC. All other content were sourced from Pakistani media, Chinese media and/or international well reputed media. You may not like it, but a fact is a fact. It is presented with citation to verifiable source.

Earlier, this page did not even mention the word Uighur. Was it deliberate omission? The article did not say quantitatively how China is benefiting from this project. Why was this viewpoint left out? Why were the detailed info on Gwadar resident opposition and Baloch stance excluded? Why was economic implications and debt aspects were not given enough importance? Why was the impact of political fragility in Pakistan on the CPEC projects skipped from the article? Now that some balance in overall content of the article has been restored, why there is a blatant attempt to hide the facts? If you read the previous thread, you will know that few days ago a vandal IP address was involved in massive content deletion in this article when new info was added.

Being sympathetic to your position, requesting you that talking to other editors is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. I am trying my best to maintain civility and avoid edit-warring. Please do not indulge in conspicuous acts of deletion and information suppression.

Hope the good sense prevails. Anand2202 (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

First: I wrote "moving" because I was about to move it in the next edit. Which is visible in the summary. I do this because of my own convenience. Second: Any deletion of content was because it didn't belong under the heading and was forced flooded and read like an unnecessary essay instead.

Third: Who is removing the mention of Uighurs?!? Blatant false accusations on your part. I removed the paragraph that spoke of very irrelevant history from the 1980's to push a more controversial and doomsday point of view. CPEC was launched 7 YEARS ago.

Fourth: I think you've mistaken for another user. I have not made attempts to remove any such content mentioned at the end you've mentioned.

Kindly avoid accusing me of "deleting content without reason" at an attempt to open a sock puppet investigation against me as I've given explanations. UserBk12 (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, you can also consider:

• Improving grammar or more accurately represent the sources
• Formatting or sourcing on the spot
• Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact
• Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced
• Requesting a citation by adding the {{citation needed}} tag, or adding any other appropriate cleanup tags to content you cannot fix yourself
• Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself

Anand2202 (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@UserBk12 Your unabated deletions are disrupting the article.

1. A few sentences on historic background gives a reader the bigger picture which helps in understanding the current situation better. Your deletion of content sourced from a journal here deprives a reader from knowing the context.
2. It is observed that you delete the content in one edit and delete the citation in another. See rev 1132020833 & rev 1132020972 At one place you write "moving" as summary for deletion, and again mention "moved" for the next. Highly inefficient. Prima facie, the content size of both do no match. This has to stop! You hide your clandestine edits under the garb of simple summary like moving in next edit but in reality you are changing the content according to your own views while mentioning Moved. along with some farcical reasons. It appears that small and repeated multiple edits are your way of making it difficult to identify subtle alterations and undo the changes.
3. As seen here, you prefer modification when it suits you. But, the same line of thinking is not evident here as well as here, where you blatantly delete the content with absurd edit summary. You could have modified the sentence, but no! You selectively chose to delete the entire sentence!! Why? Just because YOU don't like it? It doesn't suit you? Very much obvious.
4. Your deletions at one place might wreck havoc on the further citations at another place in the article. You mention "Moved to challenges. Restoring references in next edit" in the edit summary here but you have very cleverly deleted the wikilinks to all those pages that doesn't suit you. This act of hidden vandalism (warned in earlier comment on 5 Jan mentioned above) is not going unnoticed.
5. Your deletion with edit summary "irrelevant" is laughable! The content you consciously removed from the article page says about the steps taken by Pakistan to deal with threats for this project. The verifiable cited source reads - Secret crackdown was started soon after Beijing alerted Pakistani authorities about gravity of threats to workers associated with Chinese projects in Pakistan which according to them prove tempting targets for multiple terrorist groups, operators of ETIM in particular last year. “Such operations are matter of sensitivity. The ETIM and its new allies, Baloch rebels included too, tried to assemble themselves near the CPEC’s routes — but we have almost eliminated ETIM bases on our soil,” one of security operators engaged to monitor the operation revealed. “Some four dozen Uighur fighters were operating in sensitive areas of GB, KP, Gwadar and Balochistan. Kindly explain your stand on its irrelevance to this article. Failure of satisfactory response might lead to consequences.

Enough is enough. Stop your covert acts of suppressing the information in the article. Consider this as a warning. Anand2202 (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are frustrated with my edits because they are at odds with yours. Though I'm not complaining about your contributions to Wikipedia but in case of this article most of your edits are from a critical/negative perspective. I'm just correcting and removing to counter the language used to sound neutral because at many places it obviously DOESN'T. I can also accuse you of "editing when it suits you". Remember, this is an encyclopedia and people with different point of views are allowed to edit, whether they are modifications or deletions. You can explain your stance on why the content deserves to be there and I'll leave it like I've done on multiple occasions. Simple as that. As for the wiki links, I had no intention of removing anything while moving but realized after moving the sources had disappeared, which I restored where needed in the next edit. Lastly, I'll explain my stance if I am to edit in the future like I always do. Not worth explaining anything else UserBk12 (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Dear @UserBk12, your assumption of "my frustration because your edits are at odds with mine" is far from the truth. Your disruptive edits are the basis of my concern. Disruptive editors often seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. Disruptive editors harm Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source and by exhausting the patience of productive editors.

In disagreement with your noticeable edits of deletions, I tried as best I could to explain and hoping to resolve this by requesting you to stop deleting the sourced content from article, not causing more conflict, and so give you the opportunity to consider reply in kind. But civility took a hit in your attempts of simply trying to be forthright. Stubbornness does more harm than good in any collaborative exercise.

Adhering to three-revert rule, and not opting to continuously undo all the disruptive edits you were making, I initiated a conversation here to put forth a dialogue. Even a week was spent away from this article (from 11 Jan) as cooling-off time so as not to repeatedly intervene and thus avoiding escalation. If you read my previous comments in this thread, you will notice that I have always assumed good-faith in your edits in spite of them being suspicious in design and casting obvious doubt. The assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful is a fundamental principle of good editing. Your conspicuous acts of blatant deletion of content in this article and attempts of information suppression point towards presence of obvious evidence to the contrary.

Starting from 13 November 2022 to 14 January 2023, in a span of two months, you have deleted the article content more than 70 times out of your 122 edits. The word "irrelevant" is widely used in your edit summary of many of your deletions. Whenever content was restored with proper explanation, you have always disregarded it and went on deletion spree. It is evident from your deletions that you deliberately want to avoid and suppress any/all matter related to

1. Uighurs - This can be seen in your first ever contribution (deletion is more appropriate word) 00:22, 13 November 2022 where you deleted existing article content cited from verifiable source. Upon restoration of this content with proper explanation, you again deleted the text here on (a) 13:09, 26 November 2022 (b)19:57, 28 November 2022 (c) 20:00, 28 November 2022 (d) 17:29, 31 December 2022 with a very clever and compelling edit summary. It was already explained while restoring the deleted content that this information of few sentences gives a brief historical background and provides any reader with complete picture of the situation. As of 18 January 2023, you have removed substantial amount of information from this sub-section. My comments on Uighurs matter on 5 January 2023 made no impact on your future actions.
2. Baloch Resistance / Concerns of Gwadar Residents - Your second contribution (read deletion) to this article on 00:33, 13 November 2022 was to again remove verifiable article content. You dismissed the source and removed content here on 11:26, 14 November 2022 Your wrongly attributed minor-edit here on 11:31, 14 November 2022 with no summary is an attempt to whitewash. On 13:22, 26 November 2022 you again deleted this matter. Edit on 19:03, 26 November 2022 was once again a whitewash in the name of "neutral tone". Your deletion of well sourced article info on 20:05, 28 November 2022 deprives the reader. Further edits (a) 17:13, 31 December 2022 are reflection of forced clampdown on information. You don't consider information from sources such as reputable newspaper publications from Pakistan?
3. Misleading or fake narratives - You initially deleted this content on 13 November 2022 but when it was restored you again removed it on 13:25, 26 November 2022. Further you acted with your deceptive alteration to the content on 07:00, 13 January 2023 in order to persuade a reader for discrediting or questioning the matter altogether by adding the name of a country (India). The very next day you again deployed this trick with malafide intentions evident in the edit on 01:11, 14 January 2023. These premeditated changes made by you can be traced back to your edits on 03:39, 13 January 2023 and 21:56, 6 January 2023 where you tried to lessen the impact and/or credibility of the information by removing the the name of a country (Pakistan). That's really a clever move.
4. Critical views - You suppressed well sourced information here 13:19, 26 November 2022. These scrupulous deletions and motivated alterations of already existing cited content on (a) 13:29, 26 November 2022 (b) 17:06, 26 November 2022 (c) 17:58, 26 November 2022 (d) 19:01, 26 November 2022 (e) 15:47, 31 December 2022 (f) 16:03, 31 December 2022 (g) 16:08, 31 December 2022 (h) 03:26, 13 January 2023 (i) 04:05, 13 January 2023 (j) 05:12, 13 January 2023 raises question on your rationale. Deletion of well sourced article text while marking the edit as minor here on 11:14, 27 November 2022 is a gross violation of editing principles.

You simply deleted some content here because the link in citation was not opening? This is not how a good-editor works. You might have tried to look for constructive contribution by searching and adding the appropriate link. But no! You prefer removal of entire matter. In a comment on 5 January 2023, you were advised for things which can be done to improve the article instead of outright deletion. You have paid no heed to such advise.

The malicious removal of encyclopedic content is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. All I am trying to do here is to warn and educate you on such actions and its consequences. It is now very easy to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, edits that are detrimental but well-intentioned, and edits (deletions) that are done with ulterior motives. You're using clever summaries for your edits and executing them in multiple steps - example : first deleting the content in one edit, then adding with alterations (deletions) in another edit, providing citations in next edit - all this makes it harder to detect and restore the information in article, which is now hidden among other edits. Stop being sneaky. It is ultimately much easier for others to resolve a dispute and see who is breaching policies if one side is clearly acting appropriately throughout.

It's not that this is your first time and surely, this won't be your last! Your history shows the tendency of repeated offense. Visible on 17 November 2022, @Arjayay and @Editorkamran advised you against disruptive edits and asked not to push your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. You chose to delete this section from your talk page. You were already warned by @MBlaze Lightning on 08:36, 27 November 2022 for your gross remarks pertaining to this article. You again deleted the thread on your talk page. Your talk page reveal that you were blocked indefinitely by @Ad Orientem from editing because it appeared that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Even though unblock request was declined by @Yamla, at last you were unblocked perWP:ROPE But you so badly want to prove the old saying - "Give 'em enough rope, and they'll likely hang themselves."

This entire thread shows your acts have breached policy and evidence to that effect is produced in detail. Though there are processes for dealing with all of these, and sanctions for repeated violation of policy will apply regardless of whether bad faith was involved or not. Requesting fellow editors/admins to take appropriate action on this matter.

(Instead of spending time here in elaborating on the matter-of-fact, I could have invested this time more productively in improving Wikipedia articles. This is really exhausting) Anand2202 (talk) 10:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Anand2202, can you give a brief account of what precisely is at issue here. The discussion is in disarray and too long for me, and I suspect others, to weigh into. Yes, I did warn UserBk12 for their aspersions and presumptuousness back in November of the foregone year, but that's about it. They seem to have had an indef block afterwards, which they successfully appealed. If they're being disruptive again, or indulging in the same sort of presumptuousness, I recommend seeking admin action at AE. But keep it brief, please. Walls of text is burdensome to parse, and ergo self-defeating to boot. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

1. "Whenever content was restored with proper explanation, you have ALWAYS disregarded it and went on deletion spree." Think you need to go through my edit history again thoroughly because this clearly isn't true. Again, blatant false accusations. 2. Another thing, you again complain why I delete content I consider questionable or unsourced (in edit summaries) instead of finding alternative content or sources as replacement? I don't think a rule like this exists anywhere on Wikipedia. You are free to revert my edits with modifications to make the content worth keeping on this page. Like on multiple occasions you have done and I've not touched again. 3. On the Uighur history issue, you keep repeating I've given "clever edit summaries" but you're not interested in clever arguments that can counter my "mischievous" edits. I'm not the only editor on this page that has opposed your version of content under the previous criticism section on this topic and found it irrelevant. I've modified it and moved it to the security section regardless. 4. "Baloch resistance" - you've restored this section after modifications from my side. You gave explanations why some of the content I considered irrelevant deserves to be there and I left it at that. And removed some poorly worded content using non encyclopedia like language . So I don't know what's the issue here now 5. "Misleading or fake narratives" I removed it initially because first of all, suspension of some twitter accounts looked too random,out of flow and unimportant to be on the main body. Plus adding it under Indian subversion looked appropriate to me because the organisation reporting it is Indian and the mentioned country has an anti cpec agenda because it goes against its interests and any state affiliated organization/media of this country is known to propagate an anti cpec agenda (whether true or not). Modifications were to look appropriate for the subheading. If you think another subsection is worth putting it under, you are free to move it. Lastly, I too have disagreements with many of your edits and think they are mischievous and agenda driven in nature. But I'm not here trying to get you blocked over solved issues? If you think any more of my edits don't deserve to be there, just do the edits you think are needed. It's not like I'm going to edit war with you again if your editing is rational and uses neutral language.

UserBk12 (talk) 19:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Repeated Behavior of Content Deletion and Suppression of Information

@Uzek Now you have modified your earlier ID UserBk12.

Despite receiving the stern notices regarding your edits of content deletion, you have resorted to continue with the same behavior. It is highly unbecoming of an editor when attempts are made to suppress information. Your disruptive edit on 9 March 2023 03:42 is similar to those pointed out in previous section of this talk page.

I am restraining myself from reverting your unproductive modifications in the article as it might lead to edit war. I hope you come out with your objections and we get this to a point of agreement as per the editing policies so that the content is re-established in the article page. Escalating this to others and reporting is easier but I am really trying hard to put a genuine effort in making you stop further harm by opting for deletions in article.

1. Your edit summary refer to reverting the changes made in the article by an IP address 182.185.126.2 However, the fact is you have deleted much more content other than the contribution of that IP user. Such things do not help in improving the articles. The incoherent summaries of your edits were earlier pointed out as an example of juvenile form of vandalism. It appears that you are deliberately trying to hide your acts of content deletion under the garb of misleading edit summaries.
2. Tired of upholding the civility and continuously trying to make you aware of your unhelpful edits, I am forced to ask here - Why is there so much propensity in Pakistan to censure Wikipedia and it's content? The content you deleted was from the Criticism section. I can understand your difficulty in digesting the things mentioned. Ironically, your edit here on your talk page affirms it. As an editor you can do good, at least that is my wish for you! You can't hide for long what's true and out there! Facts are facts. They were stated as it is.
3. You are referring W:CONS policy? Are there any legitimate concerns apart from your inclination to suppress information regarding the article content you have deleted? Where is the violation of W:NPOV? Was any of the content you deleted not factual or had a "strong word" or appeared as if it is a "bad writing"? Was the content not properly cited? Were the sources questionable, not verifiable? Was it original research? Was the content not based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Please clarify. It would be enlightening to know your objections point by point on each of the item you have deleted yesterday.

Anand2202 (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Please focus on commenting on the objections I've raised in my edit summaries. All of them had reasoning for modifications/removal. I don't have the energy to respond to your complaining about what I do on my talk page, other such personal attacks and exaggerating stuff. This is not useful in resolving content disputes and one of the reasons why our previous interaction was so unhelpful.

There was nothing wrong with reverting per WP:STATUSQUO. The talk page discussion on this page was always open and you didn't respond to the objections I raised (in edit summaries) about the specific pov content you've restored this time. All I can recall last time is you complaining of me leaving "clever edit summaries" or about my editing style, not counter arguments. You can't just wait for me to drop dead or something in two months and go on with your WP:CPUSH by restoring disputed edits.

Your complaining of reasoning based content removal/modifications and branding them as "information suppression" does not make sense per WP: NOTEVERYTHING (noting that you're also very inclined to go into essay style details instead of essential summarized content on an encyclopedia), and WP:ONUS. And I'm entitled to scrutinise your obvious contentious edits as per wikipedia policies.

I also noticed that you're very habitual of nitpicking so many specific edits of your liking to make a point on talk pages but turn a blind eye to the explanations I've left in my edit summaries to contest your content, for which the WP:ONUS was now on you to prove why it deserves to be there. You can't just pretend like they're not there.

1). Now, regarding: [2] this was not misplaced, as visible in my edit summary [3]. It was intentionally moved under the SECURITY section because it doesn't fit into the CRITICISM section, because this para is obviously speaking of security threats. You have also removed some specific wordings that were taken from this very source. Such as mention of linking these groups to Islamic State, Baloch rebels, claims of Indian subversion, all relevant under security threats. Why? Just because it doesn't fit your preferred narrative?

2). About this [4]. "Islamic" nations is a very generalized term. There are around 50 something Islamic countries. Not all of them are allies of China. Besides, this article is about Pakistan, China, and most importantly CPEC. Only wordings which link the three should be used in the article. Your insistence for including "Islamic" is not relevant to this section.

3). And again you restore this [5] after complaining of me leaving clever edit summaries in this [6] and this [7]. That too under the top of the CRITICISM section? Why? Just. Why. This para is the epitome of irrelevance per WP: NOTEVERYTHING.

4). Now coming over to this [8]. I did not delete this. It was moved to the security heading with accurate modifications from the LEAD of the article. The repulsive looking lead which was 90% negative when I discovered this page. I assume you just want to move it to the top of the criticism section where you place your favourite content, regardless of whether it's WP:DUE. But you're restoring repetition in this case.

5). You also claim this is deleted? [9]. Check the challenges heading.

6). I couldn't care less about wiki links though. They were lost while moving content. Referring to [10]

7). Moving to this. [11]. You're restoring badly worded sentences and a misspelled word "Blochis". Another is fake news with a link which doesn't even open. Go to the TTP Pakistani Taliban page or read about their current leadership or something. They exclusively attack security forces/army men and their only goal is to establish their own version of Sharia based govt.

8). Don't oppose [12]

9). Lastly, [13] and [14] Where is the link to CPEC to these new additions of yours? This should rather go into Xinjiang conflict related articles. The only mention of CPEC/other Chinese investments in Pakistan appears in opinionated text since it is an opinion piece by a journalist named Kathy Gannon. Not as an encyclopedic fact as if CPEC in particular has "bought Pakistan's silence". Read further WP: RSEDITORIAL & WP:NOTNEWS Uzek (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Removal of disputed maps of Pakistan showing Siachin glacier as part of it.

T The removal of disputed maps of Pakistan depicting the Siachen Glacier as part of its territory is a significant geopolitical issue. The Siachen Glacier, located in the eastern Karakoram Range in the Himalayas, is the highest battleground on Earth, where Indian and Pakistani forces have faced off since 1984. Both countries claim sovereignty over the region, leading to ongoing tensions and occasional skirmishes. The depiction of the glacier in official maps can exacerbate these tensions and hinder efforts toward peaceful resolution. Also, the area is administered by India. It's a shame that Wikipedia is publishing articles without proper research. 27.97.236.117 (talk) 22:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

You're edit warring and need to stop. Feel free to provide an alternative map that retains the CPEC-relevant information but shades the disputed territory (see how the Pakistan page approaches this issue). Otherwise -- this is not a country page, nor a page about territory disputes, so unless the consensus develops otherwise, on balance we should retain. JArthur1984 (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

If the photo is unavailable, there's no need to include it, as it violates Wikipedia policy. Additionally, while the Siachin Glacier is not depicted as part of Pakistan in the Pakistan page, but it's shown as part of India in the India article, reflecting India's control over this region. 27.97.236.117 (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2024 (UTC)