Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

James Dobbins

Is severely misquoted, to the point of butchery in fact. Like Hagel, the source used has no mention of Balochistan. And what Dobbins actually says is "the Indian presence in Afghan cities was minuscule and claimed it was “perfectly reasonable” because of their economic and cultural ties." So this really ought to be removed as well 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. He is talking about infiltration from Afghanistan, which clearly means Balochistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

How do you know he clearly means Balochistan? And for all you know he may be talking about smugglers. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Dobbins says, “The dominant infiltration of militants is from Pakistan into Afghanistan, but we recognise that there is some infiltration of hostile militants from the other direction as well. So Pakistan's concerns aren't groundless. They are simply, in our judgement, somewhat exaggerated.” Where in that quote does he claim India is involved with this infiltration? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

India is mentioned prominently in the title of the article and the introduction. I think your level of debate is going down. Better slow down and think harder! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What does India's role in Afghanistan has to do with Balochistan conflict? Bharatiya29 06:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Dobbins is saying that India supports the entry of Baloch militants from Afghanistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Read this. Dobbins said that there is movement of militants from Afghanistan to Pakistan, but he never said that India supports it. When asked about India, he justified its presence in Afghanistan. Bharatiya29 15:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Ok, I have also found a BBC report [1]. There is no connection made between India and the Baloch militants. So, I am removing it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Israel

The first two sources in this section say nothing of Israeli support to Baloch nationalists, or involvement in the province, why is it even there? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |}

Some fantasies of users with much imagination.GreyShark (dibra) 16:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

The following restriction is placed on this article and all others in the India-Pakistan topic area, broadly construed, as a result of this arbitration enforcement request:

• An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.

• A socking accusation restriction Any edit made by an IP or new editor alleging socking or meatpuppetry may be freely reverted and any accusations ignored on article or user talk pages. SPI is the only place for such allegations.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove unsubstantiated claim

The article in the Foreign Section is citing a alleged Wikileaks cable [2] which was later found to be fabricated as can be seen from multiple sources from Pakistan, India and third parties. E.g. [3], [4], [5], [6] among others. Thus the same is proposed to be removed. Any objection/proof to contrary is welcome. Collagium (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The original source was published by The Guardian, not Pakistani media, and I don't see where it has been contradicted by the later sources you mention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, but they didn't specify which cable and the news referred was published on 01.12.2010 and fake cables were exposed around 10.12.2010 i.e. little over a week later. Thus, we need to verify the said source. All wikileaks are searchable through the database but nowhere was this particular leak was found. Collagium (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Here [7]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The source now stands distinguished from all others. Thanks! Collagium. You may speak. 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Karima's claim

Is there any explanation as to why the neutrally worded passage on Karima's claim was reverted back to this vaguely worded one? I do not see how this revert meets WP:WEIGHT (please go through this section carefully). It is generous (and perhaps warranted) to keep the quote, hence I did not remove it for now. Please note that as the spokesperson fails WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE, it would be a stretch to present her views as fact. We do not present government positions as facts either. It's a fundamental WP:NPOV violation. And here, we are discussing a WP:FRINGE source. Therefore, I am going to restore my version which is correct. If you believe Karima Baloch's claims are a fact, you will need to take this to WP:RSN. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't buy the notion that Karima Baloch's statement is fringe. Fringe is relatively easy to decide for topics covered by scholarly research. Some viewpoints are accepted by the scholarly community and others are not. For political issues and opinions, it is not so clear. Since Balochistan is "one of the most underreported in the world," Pakistan known to be "the most dangerous country" for journalists, and Balochistan especially "blacked out", on what basis can we decide whether somebody is fringe?

Baloch Students Organization is said to be the "most influential political group" in Balochistan and this lady is its chairperson. So her view is notable and presumably representative of the Baloch public opinion. Are there sources that say otherwise?

WP:GNG is irrelevant. It gives criteria for including a stand-alone article for a subject on Wikipedia, not for deciding whether a source should be mentioned in an article.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A source's credibility is largely determined by its coverage, prominence of viewpoint, factual basis, and to some extent, impartiality. Sometimes, these lines are blurred in a political context. Which is why we have WP:NPOV. NPOV is very simple and instructs us to present opposing claims by attributing them to their source, not by endorsing a POV. For example, your presumption that BSO is a 'popular' group is true, but your presumption that it is representative of all Baloch public opinion is unsupported WP:OR. As you yourself admitted, Karima Baloch belongs to a political group; that attributes an inherent POV to her viewpoints. Some of her allegations for instance include blaming China for conducting 'genocide' against Baloch, stealing gold and opening naval bases in Balochistan; which is basically what the armed militant groups opposed to any state activity also allege. Thus, it makes her a partisan (one-sided) source, not an WP:IMPARTIAL let alone mainstream one. Mar4d (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Every editor that has inserted Karima Baloch's statement here has attributed it. So I am not sure why you need to mention attribution issue. The other claims of her that you mention (which I haven't seen frankly) are not under discussion. If and when they arise, we can discuss them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Undiscussed page move

SheriffIsInTown, you have moved the page to a new title without discussion. Can you please present your evidence for the claim that "Insurgency in Balochistan" is the COMMONNAME? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am collecting data and intend to reply in next few hours. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, I take note of the fact that Sistan and Baluchestan insurgency, which is essentially a linked conflict, is named similarly. Uniformity in titles would make sense for both articles, since the groups operating on either side of the border pursue similar aspirations. Mar4d (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I, so far analyzed first 13 sources in the article, found the word conflict in only 3 of them while found the word insurgency or a synonym in 8 of them, this is the ratio of 61.54% for insurgency compared to 23.08% for conflict, i will continue to analyze all of them if dispute further existed:

1. First source in the article describes the Balochistan situation like this:

Some 60 percent are concentrated in Pakistan's southwestern Baluchistan Province, where they seek autonomy and have been in the grips of a violent insurgency -- their fifth in modern history

2. The third source in the article describes the Balochistan situation like this:

The insurgency has been precipitated by a combination of ethnic, sectarian, economic, and political problems.

3. Source number six describes the Balochs as rebels hence insurgency (rebellion):

Iranian state television has broadcast a statement by a captured Sunni rebel leader in which he alleges he received support from the United States.

4. Source number nine:

Major Gen. Saleem Nawaz said Kabul-based rebel leader Brahamdagh Bugti was directly controlling the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and Baloch Republican Army (BRA) militia from Afghanistan.

5. Source number ten:

Low-level insurgency is not a new phenomenon in Balochistan as its roots can be traced back to 1948 and later to 1970s when following the secession of East Pakistan, the Indians shifted their attention to the Western wing for further dismemberment of the country.

6. Source number eleven:

Open warfare erupted between Baloch nationalists and the Pakistani military in December 2005 following decades of what the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) described as a “simmering insurgency”.

7. Source number twelve:

Rehman A. Malik informed the Upper House of the Parliament that India was backing the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) for fuelling insurgency in the province and creating unrest.

8. Source number thirteen:

They also say that even as a Baloch insurgency rages inside Pakistan itself, Jundullah has shown little enthusiasm to join it so far, and has focused on fighting for Balochs only in Iran.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. However, WP:COMMONNAME talks about all reliable sources, not just the cited sources. On Google Books I find:

• "Balochistan conflict" - 1,200 hits
• "conflict in Balochistan" - 567 hits
• "Balochistan insurgency" - 117 hits
• "insurgency in Balochistan" - 744 hits

I suspect that there will be quite a few common hits among these. The point is that "conflict" and "insurgency" are not an either-or choice. The "conflict" is the broader phenomenon, of which the "insurgency" is a part. Your change of title also narrows the scope of the article unreasonably. There may be a case for having a separate page focusing on the insurgency itself, but I would prefer this page to cover all aspects of the conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You have the wrong number of hits for "Balochistan conflict", they are 1,200 not 12,000, you added an extra 0. Regardless of that, I am finding 3,050 hits for "insurgency Balochistan". I tend to disagree with that logic any way. I do not think all those hits apply to the topic. You can never know in which context the word is being mentioned. You can only evaluate the sources which apply to said topic, the only way to evaluate them is to cite them to see what is due and what is undue and where the word is used in context of the said topic. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo. You seem to think there is one phenomenon for which two terms exist. I, on the other hand, think there are two phenomena, one of which is a part of the other. So, this is not a COMMONNAME issue at all. In any case, since the move has been contested, you need to follow WP:RM#CM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You contested it and you got your response. I am not sure how different a move request going to be than this discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL

We do not put alleged parties into the infobox per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This applies to conspiracy theories and speculations. Putting countries like US, India, Israel and USSR into the infobox requires solid sources and notability of their involvement.GreyShark (dibra) 14:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been reviewing sources for last gazillion days on this page and found that all the parties which you mentioned had solid sources in there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL is a red herring in this case, as it does not apply in the presence of reliable sources. There is sufficient coverage to demonstrate India's political and proxy interests in the conflict, including recent and past events. The same could be said for the United States too, but from the Iranian side. Israel and USSR's involvement could be evaluated further in context of coverage in sources. Mar4d (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Gazillion times perhaps, but now it says US and Israel support al-Qaeda. This is nonsense and there are no reliable sources in the article for this statement.GreyShark (dibra) 16:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

India

Let's start with the first "alleged" party here India. What reliable sources do we have on Indian support or involvement?GreyShark (dibra) 16:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Beyond speculations and "beliefs" of some exiled Baloch journalist, Wright-Neville seems a reliable source. He however doesn't claim that India supports BLA, but rather says that "some Westerners believe so". This is certainly not warranting to include India as supporter.GreyShark (dibra) 16:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, first we can start with India's recent stance on Balochistan at the UN, and support to Brahumdagh Bugti who is currently seeking asylum in India. In addition, India's prime minister publicly brought up Balochistan during his Independence Day speech. And it is important to note that the allegations of Indian support have been made since years, including this piece published on an Indian newspaper in 2006. In 2016, Pakistan arrested an Indian intelligence officer from Balochistan, Kulbhushan Yadav. India's national security advisor Ajit Doval has also been public about the Baloch conflict [8]. So in terms of political alignments (as well as material support), India is considered one of the most vocal parties on Balochistan. Mar4d (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The statements by the prime minister and the foreign minister have highlighted human rights abuses in Balochistan, did not support insurgency. Since SheriffIsInTown has narrowed the scope of this article, despite my objections, they don't belong here any more. Ajit Doval basically issued a threat. Doesn't amount to much. As for Brahumdagh Bugti, nothing has happened yet. If India does grant him asylum, you are welcome to mention that.

The only substance here is Kulbhushan Yadav, for which all we have are Pakistani allegations and Yadav's own televised statement, which India alleges to be tutored. No formal charges have been brought against him. All said and done, there is a lot of talk not much substance here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hold on, how the scope changes Indian involvement which is proven by sources that India has been supporting insurgents. That is what alleged means that it is alleged. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Neheart Could you please use the talk page to make contestable changes, and also provide reliable sources for your changes. You used a misleading edit summary and did not provide a reason for adding Turkey or removing Iran from the infobox. Mar4d (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Baloch flag

I (User:Vif12vf) just changed the flag-file for Balochistan. I know i should have discussed it here first. If you think the edit was wrong then please remove it. The new flag-file may be found here: [9]

New reverted edits

I came here after [10], the reverted edits by IP and @Boby1305:[11] do seem WP:OR, and not supported by the given source.[12] Capitals00 (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Jamaat-E-Islami carrying out attacks against Shi'ites

I just noticed that the article claims that 'the Islamist parties Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jamaat-e-Islami have targeted Shia Muslims'. One user removed this line as it was false but it was reverted. I'm not exactly sure what the point of contention is here as the Laskhar-e-Jhangvi is not an Islamist party but a banned militant group and the Jamaat-E-Islami has not been implicated in any terrorist attacks on Shi'ite Muslims and the citation does not make any mention of them being involved in any attacks. With that being said, I'm going to undo the revert. Von oberstein (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)