Difference between revisions of "Talk:Pakistan"
From Conservapedia
(→discuss: new section) |
(concerns) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Bytemsu: Could you please discuss why you have chosen to remove and modify verified entries, and replaced them with what could be considered contentious and mostly opinionated statements in your recent editing? - RepublicanRichard. | Bytemsu: Could you please discuss why you have chosen to remove and modify verified entries, and replaced them with what could be considered contentious and mostly opinionated statements in your recent editing? - RepublicanRichard. | ||
| + | |||
| + | :RepublicanRichard, it seems that your version it trying to paint the Pakistanis as victims, which is rather disingenuous. I know some of the civilians are just stuck in this situation, but the majority do not seem to be so passive in the matter. You also are removing sourced material with your version, for no particular reason I see. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">DavidB4</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 14:39, 20 May 2020 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 18:39, May 20, 2020
Relations with US
In light of the Osama bin Laden situation, and the military strikes throughout the Obama administration and late in the second term of the Bush administration, the parts of the article pertaining to the US/Pakistani relationship need to be updated. I added some information on the bin Laden raid, but the article could use a bigger rewrite. KingHanksley 14:53, 8 May 2011 (EDT)
discuss
Bytemsu: Could you please discuss why you have chosen to remove and modify verified entries, and replaced them with what could be considered contentious and mostly opinionated statements in your recent editing? - RepublicanRichard.
- RepublicanRichard, it seems that your version it trying to paint the Pakistanis as victims, which is rather disingenuous. I know some of the civilians are just stuck in this situation, but the majority do not seem to be so passive in the matter. You also are removing sourced material with your version, for no particular reason I see. --DavidB4 (TALK) 14:39, 20 May 2020 (EDT)
