Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institutions of learning in Pakistan during antiquity

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 07:08, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Institutions of learning in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is a WP:CONTENTFORK of Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent, which already exists. LearnIndology (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/Merge into Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent per nom (WP:CONTENTFORK). LearnIndology (talk) 19:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent. Pakistan is a part of the Indian subcontinent and the institutions of learning mentioned here are ancient Hindu and Buddhist universities at a time when the areas in Pakistan were culturally, religiously and politically a part of India (Pakistan was created just in 1947 through the partition of India). Much of the content here is a WP:CFORK of Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent repeated word for word. The creator of this article seems to have initiated a move war when the article was expanded to include the rest of the Indian subcontinent. Wikipedia has no place for nationalism. Knox490 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Knox490! Pakistan is undoubtedly a part of Indian subcontinent. But the purpose of creating this article was to highlight some aspects of history of learning in Pakistan, not of wider south Asian region I.e this article was meant for institutes of learning in Pakistan only. I tried my best to provide maximum reliable sources for the topic. And actually claims that Pakistan is a part of India are form of "nationalism" which should not have place on Wikipedia. Moreover, the content in this article has not similar topic as "Ancient institutions of learning in Indian subcontinent", it is meant to highlight aspects of a particular region only, not of whole South Asia. I didn't intend to start any edit warring here, but I want to keep the topic according to the purpose. In short, I don't think it fulfills Criteria for deletion. If you have any suggestions for improvement, I will do my best to implement them. Kindly try to see other ways instead of deleting/merging this article; I think that it can be improved instead of removing. Aglrochisat (talk)
• Hi LearnIndology! I already suggested you to create a new article on the topic of wider south Asian history; and I don't think it is form of WP:CONTENTFORK because Pakistan and India cannot be thought as necessarily having shared history and institutes; the purpose of creating this article was to highlight some aspects of history of learning in Pakistan, not of wider south Asian region I.e this article was meant for institutes of learning in Pakistan only. Your thoughts will be appreciated for the improvement of the article. Aglrochisat (talk)
• Support per nomination. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent per Knox490, who's opinion I totally agree with. Also, I don't think it's historically correct to say these places had anything to do with Pakistan when they were around in pre-Pakistanian times. Anymore then it would be accurate for the United States to be cited as the originator or location of anything to do with pre-Colonialist Native American cultures, higher intuitions or otherwise. Doing so would both come off as nationalistic and original research. That said, I'd cavate that the problem could potentially be solved through renaming the article and editing it to not have a nationalistic, original research bent to it, and I'm willing to give the creator the benefit of the doubt that they did not intend to write it that way, but I don't think it's necessary compared to just merging or redirecting it into the other article. Since keeping the article, especially as currently is (but even if it was heavily modified) clearly isn't the best option here. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent. Originally it was Bharath, not Pakistan. Panini, Jivaka, Charaka are Pakis Pakistanis? my, my. --Whiteguru (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not use slurs. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Whiteguru: Please strike the "Paki" word or remove it. See this. LearnIndology (talk) 18:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi fellow wikipedians ! Looks like the approach to delete this article is backed by idea of nationalism and to refuse existence of Pakistan and its history. Like user Whiteguru has used slurs just to show his hatred, and user Adamant1 thinks that Pakistan cannot claim its history. By creating this article, I didn't expect so much edit warring and such, because it was meant to highlight educational aspects of history of Pakistan. Whatever, if this article gets deleted then I request to change the title of Ancient institutions of learning in the Indian subcontinent to Ancient institutions of learning in the South Asia, as it would be more comprehensive and neutral. Aglrochisat (talk) 19:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Whiteguru probably isn't aware of the meaning of that term (even I wasn't some time back). Paki is not used as a slur in India, but simply a short form for Pakistanis without any derogatory meaning attached to it. It is used as a slur in western countries. So I have asked him to strike or remove that word.

  Talking about "South Asia", it is too wide to be used here as South Asia includes Afghanistan and Afghanistan is not in the scope of this article. Even if any institution was located outside subcontinent, "India" still would have been preferred for post IVC developments. LearnIndology (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a bit of eisegesis going on here, reading into a text what is not there. I am not aware of that term as a slur, and did not present this in any derogatory fashion. I have lived in India, and the term is indeed short form of Pakistani. I have many, many Muslim friends in South India. My credo is sathyam vada, priyam vada, speak the truth, speak sweetly. That was my intention. So don't go jumping up and down with your interpretation, it is way off course. Sathyam vada, priyam vada --Whiteguru (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  From my perspective I could care less about the history of Pakistan. I do care about not subscribing ythings as having origins in or coming from Pakistan that predated it though. But like I made clear in my "vote" that goes for anywhere and has nothing to do with Pakistan. I'd make the same arguement for any similar article about any other country. I know its a lot easier to malign people over some imagined hatred of Pakistan or claim I think they can't claim simply because I don't think everything in the world (or in history) orginates from them then it is to admit you made a bunk, bias, and historically inaccurate article though. Adamant1 (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Really misleading argument. By going with it, one can claim that colosseum existed in ancient Rome, and Italy cannot claim it or acropolis existed in ancient Athens, and Greece can't claim it. You would have to admit that taxila and sharada are in Pakistan, and part of its history. Countries are created, divide and merge throughout history, and what matters for a particular thing is where it is now. There is nothing bias or historically wrong in it, although it hurts some nationalistic sentiments. Aglrochisat (talk) 00:34 ,13 May 2021 (UTC)

  Not really. The Colosseum article only uses the word Italy three times and it's not to claim ownership of the colosseum by the Italians. Nor does the Acropolis of Athens make any claim of ownership of the Acropolis belonging to Greece. Aside from saying it is located there in the infobox. More importantly, Acropolis of Athens isn't called Italian Acropolis of Athens. Nor is that how anyone refers to the Acropolis of Athens. More related , [[1]] says "Some of the earliest ancient human civilisations in South Asia originated from areas encompassing present-day Pakistan." Again, there's no claim of Pakistan owning anything there. Let alone that those ancient civilizations or things related to them are in anyway Pakistani. Except for being located in what is now present-day Pakistan.

  So, there's two ways you could look at this, either your framing of claims to ancient history by modern nation states is wrong or the editors of Wikipedia just have deep seeded anti-Greek/Italian/Pakistani/pick any random modern nation state sentiment when it comes to their histories. Personally, I'm going with the first one. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/redirect as above suggested. It would be feasible to convert this to a list article (similar to a disambiguation page), rather than a plain redirect, so that links are made to the articles or sections on individual institutions. Using Pakistan for anything before 1947 is anachronistic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.