Jump to content

Talk:Jundallah (Iran)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

I recently cleaned out this article's external links section. The links placed there should be neutral and go beyond what can be accomplished within the scope of this article. Because some of the news links that I removed may qualify as reliable sources I'm placing them here so they may be used for further article expansion.

ThemFromSpace 23:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abdolmalek Rigi

[edit]

The New Yorker article "Preparing the Battlefield" has been added as a source for the assertion that Abdolmalek Rigi is under arrest in Iran. I can't find this stated anywhere in the source. The nearest I can find is "Gardiner added that Pakistan had just agreed to turn over a Jundallah leader to the Iranian government." Yaris678 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously this article in the New Yorker from 2008 cannot be the source for the information that the leader was captured in 2010. Can someone make corrections? Ed8r (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The official and Current name

[edit]

Hello. The official and Current name of this organization is People's Resistance Movement of Iran. Mohsen Abdollahi (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jundallah is the common name in English. Either way, you'd need to file formal request for a move, before changing the page's title. --Kurdo777 (talk) 06:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ref. #45 and 46

[edit]

Neither of these are legit references and should be removed. A blog doesn't count as a source in this instance, or in most instances. There is still one other reference to an actual news article, so the statement doesn't need to be completely deleted. But there needs to be a rewrite to reflect only information in that article. AND FYI, when linking to a news article as a source, especially one that is not absolutely confirmed as this, do not make the statement as though it is absolute fact. Instead it should reflect the source as, "numerous articles have reported..." or some such.

--Miah —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.28.67.227 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit warring

[edit]

Hello, I am an administrator here on Wikipedia. I see that this article has recently been the subject of revert wars, but there has been no discussion of the reverts here at the talkpage. This is not acceptable. As a reminder, Wikipedia has procedures for dispute resolution. One of the things that must be done, is that when there is a dispute, and people are reverting each other, that the reason for the dispute must be explained at the talkpage. To be clear: If anyone else reverts another editor, without explaining their reasoning, they may be blocked from Wikipedia. To avoid this, please talk about things, do not just revert. This will be a much better way to ensure lasting changes to the article. --Elonka 20:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in an editing war, since I'm not reverting edits. I'm making edits which keep getting reverted, without explenation. I keep adding more and more sources which state that Jundullah leadership denies a seperatist agenda. Yet Sentinel R keeps reverting my edits and insisting it is a seperatist organisation, by using this source, the content of the source however states that "Iran's leaders are clearly skeptical of Jundallah's claims that it pursues no separatist agenda, but simply aims to alleviate systematic discrimination" which indicates only that their enemy is skeptical of their claim that they are not seperatist and not that they are seperatists. Further this source includes the following sentences on the subject "Jundallah projects itself as a Sunni minority group struggling to survive in a discriminatory and aggressive Shi'ite Islamic system." and "The group's decision to call itself the People's Resistance Movement of Iran, as well as Jundallah, may be an attempt both to distance itself from the radical Sunni Islamist movement and to rid itself of the label of separatists." Further I've added a whole lot of sources where in Rigi and Jundullah leadership deny to be separatists. Kermanshahi (talk) 11:54, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you were reverting, so from an administrator's point of view, it doesn't matter who started it. What might be best from this point though, would be to wipe the slate clean and try to move forward. Simply ensure that any new additions to the article include a source (YouTube, btw, is not an appropriate source so please do not use it). Starting with reliable sources is usually the best way to work through a dispute. If there is disagreement on whether or not a source is reliable, please bring it up. Or, if there is agreement that a source is reliable, but there is disagreement on how to represent the information from that source, then try to find compromise wording. Wikipedia works best when editors with differing viewpoints are able to present both viewpoints in a neutral way. Remember that Wikipedia articles are not here to decide disputes, our goal is to describe disputes. Present both views, and then let the readers make up their own mind. That is the best way that we can provide a useful resource. --Elonka 19:57, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The youtube video showing an interview with Rigi was just one out of many sources stating that Jundullah is officially not a seperatist organisation but an organisation fighting for equal rights between Sunnis and Shi'as in Iran. Now the disagreement here is mainly about the infobox. What is the motive? The other guy had added an unsourced claim that their motive was "seperation of Iranian baluchistan," I removed this and added a heavily sourced Jundullah claim that they fight for equal rights, backed by many other sources which say Jundullah deny being seperatist. The other guy however claims that we should ignore what they say themselfes because they are not neutral on themselfes and add that they are seperatists, although there is nothing that can really back this up except a few news articles where in they are (wrongly) refered to as a seperatist group. So as a compromise, I added to the "views and goals" section this: "Jundullah have been refered to as seperatists by various media,[33][34][35][36][37] the group's leader Abdolmalek Rigi, has however always denied the organisation had any seperatist agenda,[2][5][6][8]," which I basicly think cuts it. All the other guy has done since is accusing me of biasm and posting propaganda, while i don't see how this is biased or original research? I just posted what said in the articles and in the most neutral manner possible. I've been on wikipedia for 3 years and this is always the way we settle disputes, by posting both sides: "A claims that...., however B claims that ...". Therefore I put "Jundullah have been refered to as seperatists by various media" backed up by a bunch of articles that call them seperatists + "the group's leader Abdolmalek Rigi, has however always denied the organisation had any seperatist agenda" with a bunch of sources where in this is said. If there is a problem, could you point this out?Kermanshahi (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the separatist motives of Jundallah. No matter what you personally think about it, we have a links where this is explicitly stated. You hush up the truth. The administrator told you: Present both views, and then let the readers make up their own mind. That is the best way that we can provide a useful resource. Sentinel R (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a personal attack to say, "You hush up the truth", so please do not use that kind of language. Please keep comments focused on the article. For example, try to write comments without using the words "you" or "your". Speak only of the article, not of other editors. --Elonka 04:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well. Wait for his comments for what purpose he deletes the information.Sentinel R (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I presented both views in the article, firstly that several media have called them seperatists but that they hace always denied it. For the infobox you don't have any sources "eexplicitly stating" that they have seperatist motives, only several news articles which infact wrongly refer to them as seperatists. This has been dealt with in the article itself. It is infact you who is husing up the truth, since the truth is that Jundullah sias they are not seperatist and the Iranian government has not claimed so either, yet you wish to hide this fact from everybody.Kermanshahi (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not discuss my motives. I am not opposed to present a point of view of Jundallah in infobox, but I want to was another point of view (especially as there are sources that confirm it). Therefore cease to expose me like a "worst liar (c)" who wants to discredit Iran. I just want to have a neutral article.Sentinel R (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single source which "confirms it," there are merely a few news articles in which they are mistakenly refered to as seperatists, meanwhile all sources which actually go deep into the subject say that Jundullah is officially not a seperatist organisation + the Iranian government as not claimed otherwise.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iran's leaders are clearly skeptical of Jundallah's claims that it pursues no separatist agenda, but simply aims to alleviate systematic discrimination against Baluchis in Iran and thereby improve their daily lives. They perceive the rebel group as a proxy used by the United States and Britain in an effort to destabilize the Islamic republic from within by fomenting sectarian and ethnic strife. Iranian leaders has said that the leader of Jundallah statement is untrue. The Iranian government claims the separatist motives Jundallah.Sentinel R (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah. Radio Free Europe? Part of the United States propaganda network? Offered repeatedly as a source?. Laughable. Anarchangel (talk) 20:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this was not a quote from any Iranian leader it was an analyst saying that he believes they are skeptical. Secondly it doesn't state that they claim Jundullah are seperatists it sais they proviece the group to be a proxy to destabilize the Islamic Regime. Thirdly, the infobox is a place for the group's own offical motives, the rest is mentioned in the article. See there is no proof either sides, only that there has been a group formed, which calls itself the soldiers of god (unlike the 6 groups active in Pakistan which call themselfes Baluchistan Liberation Army, Baluchistan Liberation Front, ect.) and claims that they are (as their name suggests) an Islamist group fighting for interests of the Islamic minority they represent, there is nothing to indicate they are seperatists.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator told you that you should not promote their views and outlined several points of view: Present both views, and then let the readers make up their own mind. That is the best way that we can provide a useful resource. I propose a compromise. In the motivation to write that some of Iran's leaders and the media said about separatist moments of Jundallah.Sentinel R (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What wording would you recommend for the article? --Elonka 05:05, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In motives: Separation of Iranian Balochistan (claiming by some Iranian leaders and independent media) [1], [2], [3].Sentinel R (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They have explicitly denied they want to seperate Iranian Baluchistan, meanwhile there is nothing to indicate that they do want this. There are no claims by Iranian leader either, only some news articles, which are not profiles or analysis of Jundullah but about news involving them and in the report refer to them as a seperatist group, without any explenation by it or any proof to back it up. Putting this in the infobox is off limits.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You rejected the compromise. Well, it's up to the administrator.Sentinel R (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The compromise was adding it to the article.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of arguing. The article is not neutral, but I will not hold more edit warring. I'm finished.Sentinel R (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Jundallah (Iran)

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved as requested. No comments one way or the other, and move seems uncontroversial. Jundallah will become disambiguation page. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Jundallah → Jundallah (Iran) – Since the activity of Iranian Jundallah has become low-level and actually the different organization of Pakistani Jundallah is in the news, we need to make a better disambiguation of the names. Hence i propose to rename Jundallah to Jundallah (Iran), and make the Jundallah page a disambiguation page.GreyShark (dibra) 10:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.nowpublic.com/world/jundullah-terrorist-organization-1
    Triggered by \bnowpublic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 17:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which one, "was" or "is"?

[edit]

I have changed the "was" in the first statement to "is" because everything else I read in the article speaks in the present tense, and the article doesn't seen to state anyway the the organization ceased to exist. Although it says its leader was captured and killed, the article fails to state if this was the demise of the organization. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about this topis can take a look and, if the organization no longer exists, state so clearly, and also state when it did cease to exist. Perhaps someone can change all the present tense statement (like "It is believed to have between 700 to 2,000 fighters", "Jundallah commanders claim the group has killed up to 400 Iranian soldiers", and "the group shares its name with another Baloch militant organization", etc.) to past tense, ensuring that they read in the past tense. Mercy11 (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The group has disintegrated into multiple Salafist jihadist groups after the leader was killed, see References Бмхүн (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jundallah_(Iran)&oldid=1252603876"