Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan: Difference between revisions

	; Archives (Index) ;
	1; 2;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 18:34, 12 May 2016

Pakistan C‑class Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Balochistan, Pakistan, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Iran C‑class Mid‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Middle East / South Asia C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Nazir Ahmed Marri was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 July 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Insurgency in Balochistan. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Map

Shouldnt the map also show the conflicted area in Iran? It is only showing the balochistan part of pakistan.Sohebbasharat (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But who will do it and based on what sources? kashmiri ^TALK 21:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

adding to article

Have made a lot of additions to the article. I use a lot of "according to ..." before telling what was said, and used a lot of quotations. I may make the writing more clunky but I thought it necessary because of the sensitive nature of the topic.

Have also separated info on the conflict in Iran in a separate section. Almost all the article is about the conflict in Pakistan that I thought it would server users better to consolidate the Iran story in one section and add more info to it. -- BoogaLouie (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indian involvement

You cannot state, as fact, that India has admitted support for Baloch rebels. I would ask that another editor revert this repeated introduction of inappropriate material. Also, the conflict has not subsided and claiming this is rather silly. Curro2 (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curro2 did you even read the source which I am using? And the sources clearly states that the attack have largely decreased over the period of time 5.36.5.59 (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop or I will ask that you be blocked. Curro2 (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Balochistan conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contenam t removal

voys flict&diff=719308810&oldid=719307561 Link to revert

Why is sourced information being removed? The sources support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 05:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom Mouse because the sources do not support the said statements, or sources are not reliable as per WP:RS and sources are not present. Also some of the content has very bad language and was unintelligible. If you have some reliable sources for the content please link them here I will put in the content and attach the citations myself. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do support the content, and how are human rights watch and a mainstream newspaper not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom Mouse The so called "newspaper" is from India and giving information from a non reliable person , hence it is unreliable. FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you to claim someone is unreliable? The newspaper quoting him obviously believed he was reliable for what he himself says, you removal sourced content on spurious grounds. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 06:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@FreeatlastChitchat If you think that the source and the person who gave the interview are unreliable, then prove it on WP:RSN. And please stop removing every pro-Indian content just because of your personal bias against Indian sources. Bharatiya 29 07:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Indian content?? So you agree that you are just here to push your/Indian POV into a Pakistan related article? BTW, the info/POV you are trying to push is from a woman who belongs to BSO-Azad - a terrorist organization. I doubt Wikipedia is a propaganda mouthpiece of terrorists organizations. Also, this women, who is she? Why is here propaganda so important that she gets a space here at Wiki? Is she reliable? Only info I can find on her is from Baloch propaganda/terrorist websites which are no good then Al-Qaeda's propaganda websites. Lastly, the IP and FM are using similar modus oprendi to push the same POV by taking turns. I suspect some meat/sock-puppetry.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 09:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A Baloch nationalist leader doesn't get space on the Balochistan conflict page?

I would like to remind all the editors arguing along nationalist lines that this is explicitly sanctioned by ARBCOM [1]. You are asking for trouble by going down this route. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 an unknown nobody with only 3600 google hits, whose only mention in popular media is a blogpost that you pulled from global voices. Who is an unknown entity on the entire internet where even my name has 100 times more hits then hers, is being paraded as a Reliable Source for opinion on Baloch politics? Dare I say more? Last time I checked leaders were the people who had followers, she doesn't even have virtual followers let alone real ones. and do reply on the Kashmir conflict whenever u are reddy. further more she is not even a baloch sepratis now, but simply a refugee in Canada as per this article FreeatlastChitchat (talk) 11:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me answer point by point.

Adding Indian POV is not a violation of the policies. The section was completely non-neutral, so I was just making it balanced.
It is natural for Pakistan to declare those organisations who fight for Baloch independence as terrorist groups. Does that mean that their opinion should not be given a place?
Karima Baloch is the chairperson of BSO Azad, whom Pakistan alleges to have connections with Kulbhushan Yadav. That makes her statement even more important to have a balanced view of the allegations put on India.
I fail to understand that how can Karima Baloch's statement be undermined just because she is a refugee. Let me tell you again that she is the chairperson of the same group that is alleged to receive support from India. Therefore her refusal regarding that allegation has to be mentioned for a NPOV.
If anyone suspects me of sock-puppetry then I will appreciate if he/she requests for a CU to get his/her doubts cleared.
The allegation that I am pushing the Indian view on a Pak-related article is baseless. The Balochistan conflict is connected to India because of the allegations by Pak. If I find any official reactions by India to these allegations, then I will add them too in order to present a neutral view to the readers. Bharatiya 29 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@TripWire: As to your exclamations about WP being "a mouthpiece", please read WP:TERRORIST. It may help you to read also WP:NOT and WP:NPV. You are certainly mixing up an encyclopaedia with government propaganda. FYI, there is nothing wrong with sourcing encyclopaedic information even to Al-Qaida's websites, especially when writing about AQ. — kashmiri ^TALK 08:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is no Wikipedia policy that says real or supposed `terrorists' should be censored. DNA India is a reliable mainstream news source. I don't see a justification for excluding this content. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but WP:TERRORIST does not say that views of terrorists must be mentioned. Nor does it says that if mentioned, it should propagate their views. Also, equating hardcore terrorists whose actions have affected the entire world with every Tommy, Dickie and Hamesh wannabie terrorist and mentioning their views in the lede is not justified. WP:FRINGE is the case in point. Going by this, we should be copy/pasting the entire commentary taking place at twitter or facebook in articles. Also, DNA being an RS does not matter if the individual it is quoting is not reliable. Especially, if we know on one hand that insurgency in Balochistan is being supported by India and at the same time an Indian newspaper (alone) is trying to propagate the views of terrorists it is (supposedly) supporting. If yes, views of Karima Baloch are to mentioned, then the aspect of her getting airtime, support and propagation by India and its news organizations should also be mentioned in the intrest of WP:BALANCE. BTW, searching Karmia Baloch gives some results, but almost all of them are from these terrorist organizations' propaganda websites or their propaganda YouTube channels, not much RS here, so we need to be careful in turning WP into their mouthpiece.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 16:30, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing sourced content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Freedom Mouse:

Please get consensus for your POV edits.
Please stop edit warring—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 18:58, 10 May 2016 (UT

To those removing the content, your opinions on the person being quoted does not matter, all that matters is a reliable source saw fit to interview and quote them, your personal opinions have no place here so please stop removing content on blatantly spurious grounds

Not opinions, I have presented my argument with proofs, why don't you do it too before reverting / edit-warring? I am sorry, by every passer-by cant be given space at WP, especially when it's propaganda and furthers an WP:AGENDA.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 21:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that it is propaganda, and your opinion means nothing. Reliably sourced content can be added here as well you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry. You have only produced POV and OR.

Pakistan government calls them a terrorist organisation. So, they are a terrorist organisation. We ban them from Wikipedia.
Pakistan government says India supports these terrorists. So India supports these terrorists. So we ban all Indian sources from Wikipedia.

This is "proof"? Proof? You live in a clound cuckoo land! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Pakistani govt does not 'call' them terrorist, but have declared them as terrorists. But that doesn't matter, what matters is if there's enough notability for the terrorist whose personal opinion you are trying to push as your POV in this article? Why dot you show me instead if Ms Karima has been given much, if any airtime by other RS except Indian media. So yes, WP will take this info/edit with a pinch of salt. And, where were you residing lately?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 23:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not a Pakistani. You are a Wikipedian. You are not expected to parrot Pakistani government positions over here. If that is what you want to do, you can go start a blog somewhere.

As for Karima Baloch, it is reliably known that she is the chairperson of the Baloch Students Organisation. And, the organisation has plenty of coverage. That is all that matters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you are expected to push Indian propaganda instead, is that what you want to say?

As for Karima Baloch, she give ONLY 50 results when searched in Google, that too all of them from unreliable sources read propaganda websites of these terrorist organizations and their supporter states. That's precisely all that matters. And as such, she has no place at WP. Sorry, but you need to find a better terrorist.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 23:55, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but doesn't your calling a living person a terrorist violate the policy on blp? Been reading some of the links from mt talk page Freedom Mouse (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I am done here. RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff, Bishonen, Can you please look through the discussion in this section and advise us what to do? Please note that both FreeatlastChitchat and TripWire have deleted the sourced content multiple times and dug their heels in on nationalistic grounds. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calling a living person terrorist who does not have an article on WP is BLP vio? Nice! Anyways, did calling OBL a terrorist also violated BLP? Lastly, I hope you know that BSO-Azad has been designated as a terrorist outfit in Pakistan by the government, officially. And Kautilya3, yes, thanks for pinging RegentsPark, SpacemanSpiff and Bishonen, I would surely like to have admin intervention as indeed editors like you are hell bent on pushing their nationalistic propaganda in the article. A designated terrorist (organization) having no notability to qualify for space at WP is being shown as notable by dedicating it talk-page space here while the Indian media (alone), per its agenda is reverberating the terrorist's name to make her RS / notable. And the same is also being echoed here by opposing nationalistic editors.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 19:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If Pak declares someone to be a terrorist, then it doesn't mean that his/her statement is not valuable. Many terrorists like Hafiz Saeed have been designated as terrorist by India and the USA, but not by Pak. Who might be a terrorist for one country might not be one for an another country. You can't declare someone to be a terrorist just because Pakistan government thinks so. Wikipedia readers want to read a neutral description of the conflict and not a Pakistani view. Bharatiya 29 05:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral description? I think your view is just the usual ultra nationalist point of view many Indian editors on Wikipedia have. Pakistan should also be able to show its view/end of story. Kashmiri freedom fighters are also regarded as terrorists by India but the articles display a pro Indian view so as soon as this article is un-protected I will make sure the Indian propaganda is removed. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:D11D:38E:5DEF:8E7F (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pakistani view has already been mentioned, but the Indian view has been neglected. I am not here to push Indian POV but rather to make sure that the articles are neutral. Bharatiya 29 11:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"but the Indian view has been neglected"??? Thanks for confirming that you indeed want to push Indian POV in the article. But why? This is not Kashmir, Sir Creek or Siachen where India and Pakistan are in conflict, what intrest India has in Balochistan? Going by yur understanding should Pakistani view be also mentioned in articles related to Mumbai, Delhi, Gujrat, AP, MP etc? Yes, if you agree that India is indeed supporting an insurgency inside Balochistan at state level, sure, we can add the Indian POV while also mentioning what stakes India has in Balochistan i.e. state soponsored terrorism.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ^ʞlɐʇ 16:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to make articles neutral, and for that they need to have the Indian view and the Pak view both. India has been made a part of this conflict due to the Pakistani allegations. If there is a section on India's role then you can't confine it to Pak allegations. India's responses to those allegations and the Baloch separatists' comments regarding India have to be mentioned in order to achieve a NPOV. Please stop making baseless allegations on me. Try to indulge in a meaningful debate. Bharatiya 29 18:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 56: / Line 56: @@
 Cheers.—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 15:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
-==Content removal==
+==Contenam t removal==
-''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balochistan_conflict&diff=719308810&oldid=719307561 Link to revert]''
+''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balochistan_convoys voys flict&diff=719308810&oldid=719307561 Link to revert]''
 Why is sourced information being removed?  The sources support it.  <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Freedom Mouse|Freedom Mouse]] ([[User talk:Freedom Mouse|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Freedom Mouse|contribs]]) 05:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
@@ Line 113: / Line 113: @@
 ::::The Pakistani view has already been mentioned, but the Indian view has been neglected. I am not here to push Indian POV but rather to make sure that the articles are neutral. [[User:Bharatiya29|<font color="#FF9933">Bharatiya</font>]][[User talk:Bharatiya29|<font color="#138808">29</font>]] 11:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 :::::'''"but the Indian view has been neglected"'''??? Thanks for confirming that you indeed want to push Indian POV in the article. But why? This is not Kashmir, Sir Creek or Siachen where India and Pakistan are in conflict, what intrest India has in Balochistan? Going by yur understanding should Pakistani view be also mentioned in articles related to Mumbai, Delhi, Gujrat, AP, MP etc? Yes, if you agree that India is indeed supporting an insurgency inside Balochistan at state level, sure, we can add the Indian POV while also mentioning what stakes India has in Balochistan i.e. state soponsored terrorism.—[[User:TripWire|<font face="Eras Demi ITC" size="3px"><b><font color="DarkMagenta">Trip</font><font color="DarkSlateGray">Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </font></b></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:TripWire|ʞlɐʇ]] </sup> 16:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
+::::::I am here to make articles neutral, and for that they need to have the Indian view and the Pak view both. India has been made a part of this conflict due to the Pakistani allegations. If there is a section on India's role then you can't confine it to Pak allegations. India's responses to those allegations and the Baloch separatists' comments regarding India have to be mentioned in order to achieve a NPOV. Please stop making baseless allegations on me. Try to indulge in a meaningful debate. [[User:Bharatiya29|<font color="#FF9933">Bharatiya</font>]][[User talk:Bharatiya29|<font color="#138808">29</font>]] 18:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)