Talk:Monarchy of Pakistan

Provincial monarchs

The provinces of Pakistan did have monarchies until recent times. Sindh definitely had it's monarchy. That info should be added in.99.226.203.145 (talk) 00:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Hold on a tick. This article is concerned with the Dominion of Pakistan, not the various princely states. Sindh and the various other princely states such as Baluchistan and Kalat should have separate articles of their own.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Source

Pgs. 3, 14,15 The Grand Delusion: Britain After Sixty Years of Elizabeth II By Stephen Haseler [1] "Then the Archbishop asked of Elizabeth, Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?' She then pledged to maintain the laws of God and true profession of the gospel' and the 'inviolable settlement of Church of England

Pg. 45 Queen and Country: The Fifty-year Reign of Elizabeth II By William Shawcross [2]---lilpiglet 08:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilpiglet (talk • contribs)

It seems you have already done the needful. I would just quote Ali Muhammad Rashidi, how he described the monarchy during a debate in Constituent Assembly of Pakistan:

“ ...In a Republic the Head of the State is a person who is elected by the country itself and the sovereignty vests in the people. In the case of a Dominion the sovereignty vests in the British Crown. Just at the moment we have the Governor-General, who is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen. All our ambassadors go under the Royal Sign Manual, which is signed by Her Majesty the Queen. ... ” — Marjorie M. Whiteman, Digest of International Law - Vol. 1

-- SMS ^Talk 00:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hash it out, here

It would be best to bring the dispute 'here', on this talkpage. Would you both argree @DrKay: & @Peter Ormond:? -- GoodDay (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Monarchy is a system of government, even a child knows it. And if I were edit warring like them, I would've been blocked. Peter Ormond 💬 01:50, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Peter Ormond, please explain why you removed the citation needed tag for the title term and the Original Research template. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Narutolovehinata5 (talk) 01:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Article issues could not be addressed within a reasonable timeframe.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Pakistan was a monarchy from 1947 to 1956?
  Source: [3] Kumarasingham, Harshan (2013), THE 'TROPICAL DOMINIONS': THE APPEAL OF DOMINION STATUS IN THE DECOLONISATION OF INDIA, PAKISTAN AND CEYLON, vol. 23, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, p. 223
  • ALT1: ... that Queen Elizabeth II was the monarch of independent Pakistan from 1952 to 1956?
  • ALT2: ... that the Muslim-majority country Pakistan had an independent Christian monarchy from 1947 to 1956?

5x expanded by Peter Ormond (talk). Self-nominated at 05:49, 25 August 2021 (UTC).

• General eligibility:

• New enough: - Small parts of the article were copied without attribution from Dominion of Pakistan and not attributed
• Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Article is new enough, long enough and sourced. Unfortunately I think some of the text was copied from Dominion of Pakistan without attribution but it wasn't expanded 5x which makes it ineligible. This would have to be fixed.

No copyvio (false positives though) and qpq is not needed. I replaced a source in the article with a better source, and added it to the hooks which are cited and interesting. ALT1 is the most attention-grabbing imo. BuySomeApples (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

BuySomeApples, Peter Ormond ALT2 is the most interesting IMO. But is it WP:SYNTH or have sources made a similar claim?VR _talk 05:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"As Queen of Pakistan and of Ceylon, Elizabeth was the first British monarch to be crowned as sovereign of countries that were overwhelmingly non-Christian, but only minimal concessions were made to this new reality." Quoted in Westminster Abbey: A Thousand Years of National Pageantry, 2011, p. 177, ISBN 9781847650825 Peter Ormond 💬 17:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Nikkimaria in the hopes that she can determine just how much of this article was copied from Dominion of Pakistan without attribution, and if so, that will tell us how long the current article will need to be to qualify as a 5x expansion of that copied material. (It may qualify now; we don't know yet.) Also, the "citation needed" and "failed verification" templates in the first sentence need to be addressed, as does the OR template, before the nomination can be approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

It appears there was also content copied from other articles - for example the wording about "fount of justice" appeared in the Monarchy of Canada article before it appeared here, and "formally superior to the archbishop" etc came from Defender of the Faith. So aside from the question of length, this will need proper attribution for every article from which it has copied, and we need to know all of the articles copied to be able to assess length. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Would it be possible for the article to simply be brought to GA status in order to make things simpler and ensure eligibility? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:16, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

That would get around the length issue, but attribution would still be required. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Peter Ormond: Do you think you will be able to bring the article to GA status, and to address the attribution concerns? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I would be able to do that, as I don't consider myself an experienced editor, it's only been a year since I joined Wikipedia. Maybe some other experienced user can do that. Peter Ormond 💬 06:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@BuySomeApples and Nikkimaria: We'll probably need a decision now on what to do with the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

• if the nominator isn't going to bring this up to DYK standards, this should be probably be closed (unless someone chooses to adopt this nom). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)