Talk:Baloch Students Organization

Split

As much as Baloch Students Organization was initially a single entity, it has long ago split into at least four separate organisations, each with own structure, management, and legal status. Baloch Students Organization – Awami already has a separate article. There seems also to be sufficient information on Baloch Students Organization – Azad to have it in a separate article. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Based on my research so far, I find a great deal of coherence between the various factions of the BSO. So I don't think a split is necessary. Secondly, in the highly fragmented scene of Baloch politics, BSO has been a fixed point. So keeping the whole thing together is useful for giving an overarching view of the Baloch politics over the decades. We can of course have redirects to various sections so that people looking for particular factions can still get here. If the article grows so large that it is not manageable as a single article, then we might consider splitting. But that is not the case at present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with the current setup is that we can't have a proper infobox for the organisation, complete with founding date, hq location, leader's name, website, and so on — the reason being, there is currently no "Baloch Students Organization" (if I am correct) but three separate organisations which on Wikipedia got squeezed together under a single heading because of common origin four decades ago. For the discussion on common features, this article could of course stay, we also have Balochistan conflict where their role could be mentioned. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That is misinformation. I intend to correct it shortly. BSO-Azad is indeed the original BSO. The others are interlopers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

References

So, if the article is to be about BSO-Azad, it should be renamed appropriately in accordance with the official name used by the organisation. In such case, "Baloch Students Organization" entry should be turned into a disambig. — kashmiri ^TALK 13:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That might work. Both Talpur and MS Akbar say that BSO-Azad is the original BSO. But I am not yet fully confident. Alia Amirali's volume would be quite authentic, but the relevant page isn't available to me on Google Books. Can you see if it works for you? [1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Malik Siraj Akbar's blog

Akbar's blog post called "End of BSO" seems more authentic than the mainstream news sources. It is cited in the Balochistan volume of the SAGE Series [2]. So, I will use this history now instead of the mainstream news source (Paracha). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

TripWire edits

I have had to revert most of TripWire's edits here:

• WP:NEWSORG says newspapers are only reliable for news. An article titled "Who's who" is some kind of an analysis or summary, not news. It should be used with care, for bare facts, not opinions or assessments. And not history.
• The same goes for the Al Jazeera report. "Separatist fighter" is probably true for Allah Nazar in 2002, but not necessarily a "fighter" in the sense of an armed insurgent. He became an insurgent later, after the State captured him, tortured him, poisoned him, and paralysed him for a year. Once again, a 2014 news report for a situation in 2002 can't be relied upon to any great degree.
• There are enough reports from human rights activists and organisations that say that BSO-Azad carries out peaceful protests. We would need to see solid evidence before we allow any allegations of insurgency. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Says who constructed almost 90% of the article from blogs and news-websites? And it's funny that an organization banned for being a terrorist organization, you are more inclined to vouch for its innocence' than stating what RS say about it. You freely used WP:OR and blogs when it suited you but you would not accepted RS as AlJazeera and Dawn when it doesnt suit your POV. This wont be allowed. The article is a mess after your 'expansion' which was completely based WP:NEWSORG which were not reliable, but you seem to have a problem with the same albeit those quoted this time are ore reliable than blogs. You are pushing it too far with your selective approach.

It's also funny that you take and then push "after the State captured him, tortured him, poisoned him, and paralysed him for a year" into the article from WP:NEWSORG, but panic when the same is used to show you a mirror? Ironic!

But you know what is really funny?!! That "Separatist fighter" was used from the VERY SAME source already used by YOU in the article. You didnt even bother to read the edit summary and reverted me!

@NeilN: Sir, what is this?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 09:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)