Talk:Balochistan

History section

The history section here should be put into the Balochistan (Pakistan) article because it is only speaking about that area. (preceding unsigned comment by Binsaleemz --Hottentot

Spelling

Why must Wikipedia force a nationalist-inspired oddball spelling down our throats every single time? It hurts your credibility. It's Baluchistan. The only context in which the average person might have heard of the place is in "beast of Baluchistan", spelled thus. Are you going to try to make the genus "balochitherium"? You are annoying the hell out of I daresay a lot of us with this nonsense. Ask me why I bother, and I'll say I don't know.

Comments requested

Should article have human rights atrocities in? resources are in edit I did. [1] More resource [2][3][4] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Striking sock comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose The sources being cited are unreliable/blogs. The link from Amnesty website does not support the POV that is being pushed into the article and is being quoted just to provide credibility which anyone can see is lacking. The info from Dawn that is being quoted is being deliberately misrepresented and misinterpreted. This discussion has already taken place here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balochistan#Army.27s_So_Called_Atrocities, but the IP is unable to improve its sources nor the quality of info. Since the past 48 hours, this is the third IP which have tried to insert "exactly" the same info repeatedly. It seem like as if a certain group is carrying out planned disruptive edits by using different IPs. Also, the reasons of reverts made by editors opposing this edit should be seen in the history of the article who have amply tried to explain this point over and again. PakSol ^talk 12:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Nowhere does the sources being quoted says "The pakistani army carries out atrocities against the Baloch people", as if it were systamtic and planned. Moreover, there's a full article Human rights violations in Balochistan on the subject. The IPs can have a field day over there, but not here. And lasty, quoting sources like http://www.balochitvonline.com is laughable to say the least. PakSol ^talk 12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

No blogs [Pakistan's military has escalated its brutal campaign of abduction and extra-judicial execution targeting nationalist rebels in Balochistan province, human rights groups have said. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/28/pakistan-military-campaign-balochistan-hrw] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you bother reading the word accused in the title of the source you are trying to quote? Google doesnt help much, or does it? :) PakSol ^talk 12:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave quote see "Pakistan's military has escalated its brutal campaign of abduction and extra-judicial execution targeting nationalist rebels in Balochistan province, human rights groups have said." 82.11.33.86 (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Already have articles on the Balochistan conflict and Human rights violations in Balochistan. This is an article on the geographic region. It doesn't meet the scope, and it is also highly WP:POV and WP:UNDUE to place that material in the article lead which the editor is doing. If we take other examples, we don't have the Kashmir article going into detail about Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir or the Punjab article discussing the Khalistan movement. Mar4d (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Irrelevant article. Starting this RfC while you are edit-warring in Balochistan, Pakistan is pointless. Faizan (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose we already have articles on the Balochistan conflict and Human rights violations in Balochistan. This is an article on the geographic region and province profile only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.146.225 (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes

Last edits by BoogaLouie hurting NPOV and WP Coattrack. Rashidzaman786 (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rashidzaman786: I've reinstated BoogaLouie's edits as they were of neutral point-of-view and were based on verifiable, independent sources. Regarding WP:COATRACK, the edits do not cause the article to be overly focussed on the (relevant) Balochistan conflict. The added content makes up just two paragraphs of a 15-paragraph article. EdwardH (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I also feel same issues with this as @Rashidzaman786: pointed out. Before concensus i am retoring pre dispute version. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zmaghndstakun: Would you mind pointing out the parts that are off-topic or not neutral? EdwardH (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zmaghndstakun and Rashidzaman786: Bump. EdwardH (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zmaghndstakun and Rashidzaman786: until you can answer EdwardH question I'm going to restore my edits. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Already no concensus was devolped on the issue. Read One section above this section. Please dont repeat rejected concensus cases in new sections. Rashidzaman786 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rashidzaman786: the above discussion does not apply as it relates to adding content on human rights violations in Balochistan, not the Balochistan conflict. There is no overlap between the content added by 82.11.33.86 above and that by BoogaLouie. Also, can you please point out the parts added that were off-topic or not neutral, so that we can get it into a form that is acceptable. EdwardH (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• I would like to challenge both Rashidzaman786 and Zmaghndstakun to explain in their own words what the essay WP:COATRACK is advising editors not to do, and please explain how the content removed in this edit by Rashidzaman786 qualifies. There were other significant and useful changes in these recent edits (such as the tidying up of references, etc) that Rashid is inappropriately blanket reverting. I will point out that it was Zmaghndstakun who wrote "Balochistan should covers gest of Greater Balouchistan movement/conflict and poverty of the region etc." The wikilink to this article was in his original comment. So if, then, he doesn't object to the inclusion of content about conflicts in the region and poverty, what does his preferred content look like? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Naturally I agree. Thank you Cyphoidbomb, --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

what you added was not nuetral when you re worded long Iran insurgency para to a short liner and then giving POV in the article that Iran insurgency is weaker then Pakistan. Obviously that's not an Nuetral and a case of loading refrences and statements for misrepresentation which have WP:COATRACK implications. Rashidzaman786 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rashidzaman786: So, you'd like us to keep sentence "Although Baloch nationalists have never accepted Balochistan as a part of Iran, the governments of Pakistan and Iran insist on sovereignty over their parts of Balochistan"? I have no problem with that—a sentence on the causes of the Balochistan conflict would be very appropriate.

I don't see the bias in saying the Iranian insurgency is weaker. It's based on citations from reliable and independent sources. If you believe the claim is untrue, you may refute the claim in the article with other similarly good-quality sources. EdwardH (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rashidzaman786: (see below)

"Iran insurgency is weaker then Pakistan" comes from Bhargava, G. S. “How Serious Is the Baluch Insurgency?,” (see footnote). Do you have any evidence that what it says is untrue?

The sentence "Although Baloch nationalists have never accepted Balochistan as a part of Iran, the governments of Pakistan and Iran insist on sovereignty over their parts of Balochistan" was removed because it is a broad statement with no source. Do you have a source for it? (Have to disagree with EdwardH here)

The sentence "The British made northern Balochistan part of Afghanistan in order to divide the strength of the Baloch nation." also is pretty accusatory and has no source.

Information about Quetta and major cities should go in geography section. (I put them there in my edit.) Why nothing about major cities in Sistan?

Why did you delete information about population? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

4 days without any reply from Rashidzaman786 I restored my edits. 6 hours later reverted again by Rashidzaman786: "BoogaLouie it is not about four days five days. Its about WP concensus on Talk page" --13:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

two version being disputed

Governance and political disputes (Rashidzaman786 version in article as of 7/31/2015)

Further information: Balochistan conflict

The Balochistan region is administratively divided among three countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. The Pakistani portion of Balochistan is the largest and its capital is the city of Quetta. Other major cities in Balochistan, Pakistan, include Gwadar, Turbat, Khuzdar, Sibi and Kalat. Although Baloch nationalists have never accepted Balochistan as a part of Iran, the governments of Pakistan and Iran insist on sovereignty over their parts of Balochistan.

The British made northern Balochistan part of Afghanistan in order to divide the strength of the Baloch nation. The Afghan portion of Balochistan includes the Chahar Burjak District of Nimruz Province, and the Registan Desert in southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces. The governors of Nimruz provinces in Afghanistan belong to the Baloch ethnic group.

Governance and political disputes (BoogaLouie version removed 7/30/2015)

Further information: Balochistan conflict

The Balochistan region is administratively divided among three countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. The largest portion in area and population is in Pakistan, whose largest province (in land area) is "Balochistan". An estimated 6.9 million of Pakistan's population is Baloch. In Iran there are about two million ethnic Baloch and a majority of the population of the eastern Sistan and Baluchestan Province is of Baloch ethnicity. The Afghan portion of Balochistan includes the Chahar Burjak District of Nimruz Province, and the Registan Desert in southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces. The governors of Nimruz provinces in Afghanistan belong to the Baloch ethnic group.

In Pakistan, insurgencies by Baloch nationalists in Balochistan province have been fought in 1948, 1958–59, 1962–63 and 1973-77 — with a new ongoing and reportedly stronger, broader insurgency beginning in 2003. Historically, "drivers" of the conflict are reported to include "tribal divisions", the Baloch-Pashtun ethnic divisions, "marginalization by Punjabi interests", and "economic oppression". In Iran, separatist fighting has reportedly not gained as much ground as the conflict in Pakistan, but has grown and become more sectarian since 2012, with the majority-Sunni Baloch showing a greater degree of Salafist and anti-Shia ideology in their fight against the Shia-Islamist Iranian government.

Dispute resolution

Since we have been unable to come to consensus, we must move on to the next stage of dispute resolution. I will lodge a dispute resolution request immediately. EdwardH (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Done; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard § Talk:Balochistan#Recent changes. EdwardH (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I had a talk page disscussion over balouchistan Pakistan where my position was oposite from User Cyphoidbomb. All ended with a concensus but now with out being relevant to a dispute (between me and User Jasimkhanum 10 on maintaning pre dispute version of article), Cyphoidbomb started persanol revenge game. 1. He misrepresented me on ANI read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=675320060&oldid=675310006 2. He deleted pre dispute version of Khyber Pakhtunkha and took Jasimkhanum 10 side and voilated WP principle that in case of dispute a pre dispute version will be maintaned. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)