Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan/Archive 1

Comment

but this article is not about all Pakistani Balochistan? It's only about the province as the map shows? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 15:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Huh? It's about all of Pakistani Balochistan. However, for the article on the region of Balochistan, which is currently part of Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, see Balochistan. --Hottentot

first sentence says other thing: The province of Balochistan (or Baluchistan) of Pakistan contains roughly the part of Balochistan that falls within the borders of present-day Pakistan --Tobias Conradi (Talk) 19:05, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Infobox changed

There is no point having separate infoboxes for each province of Pakistan when they display the same information. I've replaced the Template:Baloch-infobox with a generic one for all provinces. Green Giant 00:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

the point of having an info box is that a person could see the key information about a region, country or province at a glance --111.68.96.117 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The infobox was claiming that Balochistan is a separate country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.125.128 (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than the country field being messed up, the infobox seemed to be correct and appropriate, so I readded it and fixed the country field. AtticusX (talk) 12:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The flag is wrong. This is the correct one: http://www.crwflags.com/FOTW/images/p/pk-bal.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.109.151 (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Elamo-Dravidian

Guys, This Elamo-Dravidian connection hasnt even been proven by most scholars, so we cannot speak so assuringly of this theory as if these people did exist and this connection between the Dravidians and the Elamites is true! This is not a fact so stop speaking like it is one! A better substitute would be Dravidian and Indo-Iranian tribes. I'm no Hindu Nationalist, by the way, trying to disprove foreign connections. I support the Aryan Migration as not just a theory but fact and many scholars in Dravidian languages themselves doubt the Elamo-Dravidian hypothesis. -User: Afghan Historian

I agree, I dont why in several articles the Elamo-dravidian pov is stated as fact, when in fact, the Brahui language consists of an estimate 85% Iranic language based vocabulary. It seems several indian contributors and spammers are adamant that this ethnic group of Iran,Pakistan and Afghanistan be protrayed as Dravidian in some form or another. The article needs to be unbiased and not lend itself to promoting unproven theories.

Baluchistan resistance surrenders

just run into that article on Al Jazeera, was doing research, should this be added? http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/B5FBCC54-A80E-434F-94C7-369F79CBE8BD.htm --Tigry 20:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Map

A map is sorely needed in this article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My tribe is older than yours

Brahui people#Origins, geography, and demographics says:

“There are two main theories regarding the Brahui that have been proposed by academics. One theory is that they are an ancient hold-over of some sort of indeterminate Elamo-Dravidian origin that descended from the people of the Indus Valley civilization. Another theory is that they are migrants from northern India who arrived in the region either before the Aryan invasion, but probably before the Baloch.” (emphasis mine)

This article says:

“Aryan invasions appear to have led to the eventual demise of the Elamo-Dravidian with the exception of the Brahui who may have arrived much later as did the Balochis themselves.”

Should the “may have arrived” part in the last sentence be changed, if it was probably – as the Brahui article says – not that way? I don't feel qualified to make a decision since I know next to nothing about regional ethnic history. 11:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Genotype

Three is a debate over Semitic vs Dravadian origin of the Baloch people. According to this study, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181978, 39% of the Makrani people have Sub-Saharan mt-DNA African lineages. I quote: "Our results contrast with the Makrani Y-chromosome profile, which is similar to that of other Pakistani populations and is dominated by western Eurasian lineages (Qamar et al. 2002). The sub-Saharan African male-specific contribution, represented primarily by Hg E-M2, occurred at only 9% in the Makrani and is also present in neighboring populations, although at a lower prevalence (2%–4%). We estimated the maternal and paternal contributions of sub-Saharan Africans to the current Makrani gene pool, using information from all haplogroups, at 12% (±7%) for the Y chromosome and 40% (±9%) for the mtDNA. These findings must be interpreted in the light of known historical data. Forced migration from Africa began in the 7th century and increased considerably during the Omani Empire. The latter formed a strong slave-trade connection between the Makran port of Gwadar, the principal ports of Oman, and ports located in East Africa, including Mozambique (Clarence-Smith 1989; Sultana 1995). In the 16th and 17th centuries, the Portuguese also traded between Mozambique and southwestern Asia. The African component in the Makrani community may therefore represent the genetic legacy of this slave trade. Whereas the Atlantic slave trade dealt mainly with male labor, the East African slave trade seemingly favored females over males (Lovejoy 2000). Slave women were mainly domestics and/or concubines, and children fathered by the master were freed. In addition, strong cultural barriers hindered male slaves from fathering children, a situation exacerbated by the proportion of slaves imported as eunuchs (Lovejoy 2000). As a consequence of these practices, the contribution of paternal African genes to the population is expected to be low. Indeed, the contrast between male and female African contributions observed among the Makrani strongly supports historical records of a female sex bias during the East African slave trade. Other factors, such as asymmetrical mating patterns between African women and autochthonous males during the process of genetic admixture, and/or unequal reproductive success among Makrani males, might have accelerated the loss of African Y chromosomes from the population. In this context, a similar pattern has been reported recently in the Yemeni Hadramawt population (Richards et al. 2003), geographically adjacent to East Africa, where the African maternal contribution has also been interpreted as the result of the East African slave trade. Our data not only confirm a female-biased slave trade towards the East but also show that this pattern, which includes differential mating patterns between the sexes, extended to the eastern limits of the East African slave trade."

Islamic conquest of Baluchistan

Baluchistan was the fisrt region of Pakistan or sub continent to be conqured by the Rashidun Caliphs, many few people know about it except for some good historians. From a nice source book i have composed an article of islamic conquest of Baluchistan, during the regin of 3 rashidun caliphs Umar, Uthman and Ali. and a brief account of withdrawal of islamic forces from baluchistan during mauwyiah's reign and reconquest of it during latter umayyad caliphs reign.

Mohammad Adil 05:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Famous people

Just how famous are the famous people listed near the end of this article? Many of them appear to be junior ministers in the regional government. The separate articles with their biographies are very short, quite badly written, and lack sources. Can something be done about this? AlexTiefling (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think lists like these and the ones about colleges, industrial estates etc. are not relevant and should be removed. Only a few notable people (if they have someone) like Imran Khan,Jansher Khan,...etc. may be noted, and that too in the paragraphs, not in a list.Civilizededucation (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Atrociously written

This article needs a lot of work. I have found numerous sentences in this article that just do not seem to make sense. For example:

• Much of the province south of the Quetta region is sparse desert terrain with pockets of towns mostly near rivers and streams. Does this mean sparsely populated? Sparsely covered with vegetation? What?

• Quetta, the capital of the province, has a Hazara, Pashtun majority with Baloch, and Punjabi minorities.

• The main license (EL5) is held jointly by the Government of Balochistan (25%), Antofagasta Minerals (37.5%) and Barrick Gold (37.5%).

• They claim it was a nomad cultural thing which has been stopped for many years but because of the poor administration of Pakistani government and to dimilise the Baloch awareness such act are taken place.

• Aryan invasions appear to likely they are an Iranian group who have possibly absorbed Arab ancestry and cultural traits instead, it is also believed that Baloch are of Arab blood, it could be they left the Arab world when Iraq broke from Persia in 652 AD and there is historical evidence that suggests they lived in (Khuzestan) and (Bushehr) before moving to Kerman and Hormozgan.

--Filll (talk | wpc) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://www.bso-na.org/army_operation_in_balochistan.html. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a license compatible with GFDL. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Number of Districts

A recent conference in Islamabad put the number of districts at 30... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.95.155 (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cities

The intro paragraph makes it sound like the capital is the only city in this region, but there is an entire section of this article listing important cities of this region. I am not familiar with the geography of this area but it seems that these two statements are conflicting and a remedy is needed for agreement.165.112.61.190 (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Demographics

This article says that "8% of the population are Panjabi, Persian" which is obviously incorrect even from just a perusal of the rest of the article. Most of the population is Balochi (whose language is related to Farsi), and many of the rest are Brahui (who speak a Dravidian language). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.114.162.215 (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Chaudhry Yaqoob Notable

Is Chaudhry Yaqoob Notable enough for the list of notable people? Blackash (talk) 01:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

population

something is wrong here

>Balochistan has a population of around 12 million inhabitants, which makes up approximately 5% of the Pakistani population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.201.229.21 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right, something was wrong. 12 million was an inflated figure unsupported by any of the sources cited. The 1998 census (Pakistan's most recent census) put Balochistan's population at 6,565,885. Britannica gives a 2003 estimate of 7,450,000. The World Bank, quoting Pakistan's National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS), gives an estimate of 7.8 million for the year 2005. I have updated the article to reflect these figures. Those are the most reliable sources I could find. At its current growth rate, which is actually slowing down, Balochistan's population is not expected to reach 12 million until well after the year 2025.

Thanks for drawing attention to the error. AtticusX (talk) 15:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

---

Balochistan (Pakistan) → Balochistan, Pakistan — - articles should have the simplest name possible, which in this case requires disambiguation from other existing Balochistans. However, the parentheses are unnnecessary. Green Giant (talk) 04:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't care about the move but isn't the use of a comma with placenames an Americanism? — AjaxSmack 23:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support No, it's our normal method of disambiguating for place names, as set out in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). In fact, disambiguating places by parentheses is deprecated. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

editing in Notable

Its appreciate the edit of the names of the less Notables from the lis of notables, but I have chacked that all the removed names wrer not less notables. I therefore undo the edit, please make sure that the edit is really for less notables, Thanks--116.58.3.6 (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Who are you kidding? You have simply restored a bloated vanity list, complete with double redirects and duplicate listings. Just so you know, I spent over an hour, reading each article carefully and that final list was of the most notable ones. So I can't see how you can claim to they all need to be there. That list is going to stay, until and unless you can provide a genuine justification for any of the less notable ones. Green Giant (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia article, not a general knowledge book or Who's Who. Why do we need such lists at all? I think the whole list should be deleted and article should focus on the subject of the article and not on a vanity list.Civilizededucation^talk 06:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Correct

Good work--Rind Baloch 09:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rind Baloch (talk • contribs)

Positive changes are not vandalism

Mr.Green Hi, I have made some constructive changes in Notable people section of the article, that included people are also Notables in Pakistan specially in Balochistan, please dont consider it as Vandalism please leave it as constructive changesm Thanks --Rind Baloch 05:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rind Baloch (talk • contribs)

• The list I left was a generous one, but now you have raised the issue, I feel you should be made aware of Wikipedia:NOTLINK#LINK which states that articles should be "mere collections of internal links" and Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people which states that "selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category". To this end I have gone through every one of the articles on the people which you want to include and I have noted below which ones appear notable and which ones are questionable. Almost all of them need extensive work to make them adhere to WP:NPOV and a lot more references to make them adhere to WP:REFERENCES.

• Murad Abro, has a two-line article with:

• two references of which one is a reliable third-party source and tells of his death, while the other is somebody's personal website on "synthasite" - is this man only notable for his death?
• four external links of which two are deadlinks and two are "synthasite" pages

• Mahmood Khan Achakzai, has a single reference
• Yahya Bakhtiar is an article which does not exist
• Abdul Qadir Baloch is an article which does not exist
• Muhammad Sarwar Khan Kakar is an article I have cleaned up this morning - have a look at the state I found it in - unreferenced, and full of inaccurate statements and claims of editorship
• Habib Jalib Baloch has four references which all relate to his death and the events afterwards but no references to what he did in life
• Siddiq Baloch has a fairly good article with about ten references, although more would be prefereable, but I am happy to include him in the list on this article
• Bahadur Khan Bangulzai has a five-line article with three references, of which:

• one suggests he was responsible for ending a blood feud but I note that there were nine other people on the jirga

• no other references to his life or work

• one is about his death
• one refers to what his son (Sardar Kamal Khan Bangulzai) is doing

• Asfand Yar Khan Kakar is completely unreferenced, although I became aware of his existence today from cleaning up the article on Muhammad Sarwar Khan Kakar above
• Ghaus Bakhsh Bizenjo has a few sources but not enough for such a long article; however as he was verifiably a Governor of Balochistan, I think he should be on the list
• Akbar Bugti is a better-referenced article but still has a long linkfarm at the bottom, which I have only left alone in the hope someone might embed them properly into the article; however I think he is very notable person and warrants inclusion in this list
• Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is notable enough as the current Chief Justice of Pakistan but the article still doesn't have enough references, although external links seem to be in abundance
• Khan Abdul Ghafoor Khan Durrani has one reference which is a deadlink and one external link which doesn't mention him
• Shahzada Rehmatullah Khan Saddozai has one reference to a book which makes no mention of him and one internal wikilink to the Jinnah article, although there is no clear reason for this
• Jafar Khan Jamali has two references and four external links (including a duplicate of one of the references) and they relate more about his notable nephew than him; however having a district named after you is a fairly good sign of notability
• Rustam Jamali has no references and three external links, all to do with his death but no references about his life and work
• Zafarullah Khan Jamali has very few references but is one I would definitely have on the list, simply for being a former Prime Minister of Pakistan
• Ghulam Qadir Khan has a single reference and that is a deadlink
• Prince Jam Kamal Khan has two deadlink references, both pages now have a picture of a smiling girl
• Prince Karim Khan has a long but unreferenced article; the single external link is to a genealogy website
• Nowroz Khan has two references, of which one makes no mention of him and the other is someones personal website
• Palay Khan is completely unreferenced and talks more about the drama than about the person
• Raaj Kumar has just three external links but I had heard of him long before Wikipedia, so i am happy to include him
• Ali Ahmad Kurd has just two references including a youtube video but he is notable for his opposition to general Musharraf
• Zulfikar Ali Magsi has just three references and one external link but is notable as the current Governor of Balochistan
• Khair Bakhsh Marri has no references but two reliable external links as well as sixteen "interview" videos on youtube and google
• Akhtar Mengal has no references but three reliable external links
• Ataullah Mengal has four references and two external links but is notable for his political career
• Gul Khan Nasir has a reasonable number of references and three external links, so this is a suitable article for the list
• Aslam Raisani has one reference (deadlink) and one external link, but I would include him on the list because he is the current Chief Minister of Balochistan
• Ghaus Bakhsh Raisani is an article that does not exist
• Mir Chakar Rind has three references (including one deadlink) and one external link
• Mohammad Ali Rind is an article that does not exist
• Jam Mohammad Yousaf has three references but two are deadlinks
• Ayoob Khoso has one reference and one external link but they are both for the same webpage
• Jamal Shah has no references, but two external links
• Abdul Qadir Baloch is an article that does not exist and the reasoning given (Pride.of.Performance) does not make someone notable
• Kadir Khan Kakar has a long list of films but only two external links
• Raaj Kumar is already mentioned further up
• Hameed Sheikh has six external links but no references
• Sikander Baloch has no references and two external links of which one is in Sindhi (not much good to English Wikipedia unless there is a translation) and the other is a youtube video
• Zeba Bakhtiar appears to have four references and two external links but two of those references are the same "Dawn" article and her IMDB page is used as both a reference and an external link, whilst the second external link is an unofficial fansite

Adventure sports

• Hayatullah Khan Durrani has seven references (including one deadlink) and six external links but I think he is notable enough

Authors

• Dur Mohammad Kassi has one reference which doesn't mention him and one external link which does mention him
• Jan Dashti appears to have seventeen references and one external link but look closely:

• five references are actually the same page in Wordpress.com - which anybody could set up
• six references are the same article from Nation.com.pk and refer to a shooting incident in 2009
• three references are the same article from Balochpeople.org and refer to the shooting incident
• two references are the same article in the Frontier post and refer to the shooting incident

• for a purported author, he seems more notable for having been shot at

• Muneer Ahmed Badini has three references
• Gul Khan Nasir is one you have duplicated - see further up
• Sanaullah Baloch has just one reference
• Sayad Zahurshah Hashomi is a redirect to Baloch language and therefore not notable enough for an article
• Siddiq Baloch is another duplicated one - see futher up

• I would also point out that the onus is on you to prove that any of these are notable enough to get mentioned on top level article like this. Green Giant (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_people applies to lists only, and not to articles like this. I see no need for such a list in the article. You can try making a separate list if you want and then leave a link in the article at the bottom. I intend to take the list off the article. You can try making a list like this- List of Albanians.Civilizededucation^talk 11:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree we don't need a long list like this at all; my only point in the above post was to show how easy it is to lose control of such a list because the temptation is to include more and more people. It would be better to put two or three names in the See also section and move the rest to a separate list. Green Giant (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Almost all the articles from this region appear to have a similar problem. Looks like we found the solution. Move to a separate list, or just take it down and ask people who want lists to make one on their own separately, not in the article.--Civilizededucation^talk 15:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not an issue

• I am also agree that there is no need of long list, but I did it for some generous ones, but you made it issue, I never try to raise an issue in this connection, I feel pity that due to my some positive efforts many Notables have lost their name from the Notable list in the Article, Rind Baloch 06:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rind Baloch (talk • contribs)

Call for review and restructure: Balochistan, Balochistan conflict, Baloch people

Balochistan today is a hotbed of struggle for political power between the government and the nationalist tribal chieftains, who are accused of standing in the way of economic development to maintain feudal power. Assassinations, rapes, torture and other violations of human rights by the military are allegedly commonplace. The province is considered to be educationally, culturally and economically deprived by the rest of Pakistan. Women, in particular, are denied almost total access to education, self determination, social visibility and decision-making processes. None of this is represented in the main article on Balochistan. Instead this article presents a bland, outdated account of the province with huge gaps in information. The history section dwells at great length on the 7th century, and finishes in 1945. At the end of the section there is a barely visible link to another article on the Balochistan conflict which does address some modern political issues. At the end of the article there is another well hidden link to another huge, bland, outdated article called Baloch people, which contains one small paragraph addressing the alarmingly extreme realities of life in modern Balochistan. In this main article, it has been a struggle to keep the very small section on social conservatism and honour killings from being deleted.

Above, I see comments about medieval history, ethnic origins, poor grammar, and a long argument about who belongs on the list of "Notables". Fair enough, history is important, but Notables? What a pointless area of focus! This article, and the related articles to which it links, needs to be restructured and expanded to clearly present the political, social and cultural realities of life in present day Balochistan to people using the encyclopaedia. As things stand, what we have here is a gigantic whitewash, and apparently, a number of contributors who are determined to keep things that way. Rubywine (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This article was having a long Notables list previously. It was moved by GreenGiant. So, we have some relief now. I am also quite optimistic about the other things you say. Do you have some specific material which could be included? I don't see too many users who would want to stop you.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you feel that way. The regular deletions of the Society section which I created after the August 2008 killings lead me to feel less optimistic but let's hope you're right. First off, I have no special knowledge of Pakistan whatsoever. My summary above comes from half an hour of research on Google and Google Scholar. There is an abundance of material out there, with hugely varying degrees of objectivity. For example check out these links. [1][2][3]. I think a rewrite should be undertaken by members of Wikiproject Pakistan, and I'm hoping they'll respond. I put a note on their discussion page. What's really needed here is a subject area expert. Having said, that it doesn't require specialist knowledge to come up with a suitable structure for an article of this type. It should have headings something like this: 1 Overview 2 History 3 Government 4 Politics 5 Military 6 Geography and climate 7 Flora and fauna 8 Economy 9 Demographics 10 Education 11 Culture 12 Current issues. The history section needs to be broken down into subsections covering every historical period. To me it seems wrong to have the 7th century covered in detail in the main article, and the period since 1948 covered in a separate article. What about you? What's your knowledge of Pakistan and Balochistan like? Rubywine (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

My knowledge about Pakistan is about as limited as yours. And, looking back on your past experience, there may be opposition to these proposals. But I think your proposals are good. So, we should be able to overcome it. It would be against wikipedia policies to refrain from stating controversial things just because some editors don't like it. There has to be a more meaningful reason for deleting sourced stuff. However, of the three sources which you show, only the last one looks good to me.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Really? The first one is a peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Pakistan Vision, published by the University of the Punjab. If that's not a good source then I don't know what is. The second source is definitely not objective since it's a military web site but it could be consulted for relevant issues. Anyway let's wait a while and see whether anyone else shows an interest. Rubywine (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

File:Pasni2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Pasni2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 14 August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Astola1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Astola1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Abubakar & Ali.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Abubakar & Ali.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A reference article for interested Editors

This article http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Baloch-plight-attracts-US-attention-amid-tense-ties-with-Pak/articleshow/11500201.cms could be used as a reference for some sections in this article . Interested editors can look at it.--ÐℬigXЯaɣ 16:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Copy editing

• I have tried to fix the structure of the article according to this guide in my recent edits. No other extensive changing such as addition or removal of material have been made.
• Any questions/issues with the edits must first be addressed here (and not through blind reverts).
• A request for proper copy editing has been made here. ~Cheers Samar ^Talk 14:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Odd tone of article

Does it not appear that the article has an oddly mining industry/military strategy tone to it? Especially the economy section. Isn't the economy about how well people are doing, not about what the most recent local billion-dollar investment has been? Some changes along these lines had been made, but appear to have been all removed.

Suggested future changes:

Limit the discussion of natural resources to a single paragraph. There is much more that is interesting about Baluchistan. When mentioning cities and people, let's avoid the use of words like "strategic". This isn't a board game.

How these changes can be made in a way that will withstand assaults from whomever removes such content:

Cite everything. Check back again and again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samueldee (talk • contribs) 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

The following edit has been inserted to the "Etymology" section by an IP editor and, after a couple of deletions, recently restored by User:Faizan Al-Badri. As it is unsourced and somewhat controversial, I am placing it here for discussion.

The Baloch people who along with the Pashtuns formed the eastern half of the Iranian peoples. referred to their land as Moka or Maka, a word which later became Makran. Balochistan is referred to in Pashto as Gwadar or Godar (also Godar-khwa i.e The land by water. This Greeks, who derived the names of Iranian lands from the Bactrian language, latinized this word to Gedrosia. The word "Balochistan" itself is of Persian extraction, and was originally intended as an abusive term. Loch in Persian means naked or ignorant. Ba means with. Thus the term Ba-loch implied one who was uncivilized and ignorant. Istan in Persian means abode. After the older words ceased being used, the word "Balochistan" became the standard word for the region. Thus it is fair to say that the original word for Balochistan was Makka, the Pashto word is Gwadar/Godar and the Hellenized/Latinzed version of the Pashto word is Gedrosia. Therefore, in the grand scheme of etymology, the word Balochistan is a relatively recent arrival on the scene.

The doubts that I have for now include: the given etymology of the ethnonym Baloch which is most likely a false etymology; the proposition re. word Makka which contradicts Gedrosia_(satrapy) and the language in general (Greeks "latinising" words, words "of extraction", etc.). kashmiri 08:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Details of Conflict Added

Added NEUTRAL details of burning issue of extremism and security problems with verifiable recent referenes from the respected international sources (Al Jazeera ) and "Dawan (largest pakistani newspaper) and Pakistan Human Rights Commission Vdhillon (talk) 12:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong informaiton

The information coming for this link http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=47c3f3c412 is completely wrong. The number of Afghan refugees is exaggerated to say the least. I think this link should be deleted. Akmal94 (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: I am adding this proper number figure from this article since the other source is wrong and outdated.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/822571/law-and-order-issues-afghan-refugees-do-not-want-to-go-back-home/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akmal94 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

POV edits by 82.11.33.86

At first he was busy in a melodrama at Balochistan, and now here he comes. The Amnestry International is a reliable source, but they do not explicitly hold Pakistani Army responsible for this. And that's an outdated report. Faizan (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

He has been warned over this constant POV-Pushing for so many times, but he simply refuses to understand. He already has a RfC on the subject here and had been explained and clarified by many editors tediously, still he wont stop pushing his POV by citing sources which say absolutely nothing about and does not support the addition he have been making. He probably thinks that by citing any random source to a POV edit will make it legit.—TripWire ^talk 05:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

“Human rights abuses attributed to the security agencies” From the source 82.11.33.86 (talk) 07:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

When this stuff was going down yesterday, I wasn't aware of the POV history. I do, however, think that something like human rights violations in the region should be mentioned in the article. I added something yesterday, and do think that perhaps a shorter version of it belongs in the lead. It seems to be a pretty big deal. IP: You need to find better references, like news websites. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Amnesty and Human rights watch are eligible? I added them. It is all deleted again now so I tag for POV as is no neutral to delete the info on atrocities 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The content IP 82.11.33.86 keeps adding needs to be presented in a neutral tone, supported by reliable sources. The unexplained removal of this content by a different IP editor, 82.132.233.138, is inappropriate and they need to discuss the removal. The allegations of human rights violations is significant, which is why there is a whole article on it. It is intuitive to me that this significant ongoing event should have at least a brief mention in this article. What I submitted in this edit is a three sentence summary of the allegations, which I think is reasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Observations on POV Edits by 82.11.33.86

• Comment: The issue may be made a passing reference here and thus I agree with Cyphoidbomb. However, I have following observations, and if need be, they can be further discussed here:

• There is no need to mention it in the lede. A full page is there on the issue and anyone interested can straight away go to it, especially when the IP (which is now banned) added the link to the HR violations in the "See Also" section of this page. Either it should be removed or moved somewhere in the end of the article, because readers coming to this particular page are mainly interested to read about Balochistan as a province of Pakistan. If further interested, they can always go to the HR Violations page after they have read the info on this page.
• When you said in one of your comments that "something like human rights violations in the region should be mentioned in the article", I think indicating that this alleged problem do exist in Balochistan should suffice, instead of giving detailed info like "20,000 people over the years, and in 2014 a mass grave containing 169 bodies was found in the Khuzdar district" in the summary and that too in the lede is a bit like shifting the focus of the reader away from the actual subject i.e the Land of Balochistan. Moreover, we all know that there's no exact proof of these disappearances and most of it is propaganda. I can provide reference if need be, but there is no denying the fact that there is some problem related to HR violations in the Province. Also, taking the words of Mr Ashraf Sherjan, someone who is not even living in Balochistan (he operates from Germany) and have probably never visited Pakistan at its face-value is unjustified. If someone tomorrow from the PKMAP Party (a leading political party in Balochistan) will get up and say that there are no abductions or reduce the figures down to let's say 1000, would wikipedia also accept that at its face-value? Moreover, the issue of mass graves is quite controversial. Terrorists organizations like BLA and BRA have been killing and dumping non-Balochs since long, many a time these graves were found to be of people who opposed the idea of free Balochistan and were indeed opponents of people like Sherjan. The reference to this info says: The graves contained at least 169 bodies. Only three of the persons have been identified as previously abducted persons who were picked up from their homes by Pakistani paramilitary forces. "The rest of the bodies could not be identified because they were mutilated beyond recognition. So, just because Sherjan 'know' and alleges the only three bodies were identified as those who were allegedly abducted, somehow all the remaining 166 bodies too are of other abductees? There's a history of BLA/BRA dumping mutilated body in govt controlled areas and later claiming that they were killed by security forces, similarly, it is also known that these terrorist groups even at times have killed and dumped their own people in addition to non-Balochs to put across their point and give weight to it. So, putting such a big allegation right which is based on some dude in Germany in the lede is a bit harsh. Please understand that my argument is not to prove whether these allegations are false or true, nor am I trying to say that info regarding HR violations should not be mentioned in this article, we can discuss this part on Human rights violations in Balochistan talk page if needed, but I am only stating that this info and allegations and figures are controversial, unconfirmed and debatable, and thus so putting these up as facts in portions in the lede is not correct.
• The words 'Pakistani Army' in "Since 1999 the Pakistani army has been accused of committing human rights violations" is totally incorrect. Because since the past decade no military operation is underway in Balochistan by Pakistan Army, this happened when General Kiyani, COAS ordered all minor and major operations stopped inside Balochistan by the Army. So, there's no military (i.e Army) operating in Balochistan. These allegations are against 'security forces' which can include the Police, FC or Levies. So I suggest tht 'Pakistani army' should be replaced with words like security forces, security agencies, Police or LEA etc, because accusing the Army is factually incorrect, as no Army is operating there and when there is no operation underway and the Army has not been called 'In Aid of Civil Power', it is impossible for the Army to undertake any overt or covert action. Yes, security agencies like Police's Crime Investigation Branch, IB, FC, FC's intelligence units etc do operate all the time like any LEA anywhere in the world. Awaiting yor response, please. —TripWire ^talk 19:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I will gladly admit that this sort of topic isn't where my knowledge is strongest. I'm going by what the article is saying and using terminology that the article uses. I'm concerned that if we start changing the terms, that we might wind up with original research. I think clearly identifying what the core human rights concern is, is important. From the little I've read, it seems that there are mass "disappearances", body parts being found, the mass grave, and such. I've asked WikiProject Human Rights to take a look at the content here since the debate is a little beyond my pay grade as they say. I still don't quite see the problem with adding a sentence to the lead (once we figure out what prose is suitable for the body), since the purpose of the lead is to summarize content found elsewhere in the article. I'd like to wait for more input, though. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the newspiece being quoted does talk about FC and security agencies. Moreover, basing an para of info just on one citation that too in an Indian website which quotes a dude living in Germany and talks about a subject he know nothing of is a bit more like POV. All I want to say is that had this been the HR Violation page that we have at Wiki, it was alright. Giving this thing such importance and highlighting it in such a way, including (doubtful and unconfirmed) figures - the news itself admits that these are accusations and the website is merely quoting 'a' man) is giving undue weightage to it.—TripWire ^talk 11:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not a reliable information to be highlighted on a geographic location profile article in presence of separate article dealing militancy in balouchistan. 39.47.50.14 (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

39.47.50.14 Your removal of the three sentence content from the article is premature since we're still in the middle of a discussion about it. I don't understand the argument that since there is an article about these human rights concerns that no mention of these human rights concerns is warranted in this article. That's rubbish. That's like saying "Since we already have an article on Citizen Kane We don't need to mention it in Orson Welles' article since people who want to know about the film can go to the film's article." That would never pass any honest academic scrutiny. If the human rights issues are notable, which they appear to be, then we need to make the content accessible in the places we'd expect to find it, which would absolutely be in articles related to Balochistan. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

39.47.50.14 must have its own understanding, I didnt say that these 'HR concerns' should not be highlighted in he article, however I do have a problem with the way it has been highlighted especially the figure work when it comes up as a accusation and is not mentioned as an accusation but as a fact. BTW, just for the sake of it, would you apply the same standards of quoting secondary sources here when statements by Indian PM Modi regarding Indian involvement and support to Mukti Bahini are not being allowed to be included at Wiki? —TripWire ^talk 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I know that 82.11.33.86 had presented it matter-of-factly, which I tried to avoid in my write-up. So I'm in agreement with you on the tone. 39.47.50.14, you should probably consider reverting your edit, please. As for the other link, I'm reserving comment on that. I don't specialize in human rights issues or political happenings in that region of the world. I'm not an expert by any stretch and I'd like to keep the focus of this discussion on this article, if possible. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

the sources are solid Human rights watch and amnesty are no propaganda outlets. Seems consensus is atrocities must be mentioned 82.11.33.86 (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou Einstein! Yes we know that they could be mentioned, but that is not what we are discussing here. —TripWire ^talk 04:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

AS member of Pakistani army you should not even comment here. And we are discussing what needs be written here. Article needs section on army atrocities. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been reported at WP:AN/I for WP:PERSONAL, WP:BULLY, WP:HARASS, WP:WIKIHOUNDING and disrupting every discussion with useless propaganda including this one. Cyphoidbomb we can resume our discussion. —TripWire ^talk 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Human3015 dear sir, care to join in the discussion before clicking the revert button :)?—TripWire ^talk 19:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Self reverted. Will comment in detail later. Cheers. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 19:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

And the member of Pakistan's army still deletes content critical of the army he serves. Consensus is for this to be in article, stop deleting. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reported to ANI. Thanks —TripWire ^talk 15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

CoatTrack Edits by 82.11.33.86

82.11.33.86 (talk · contribs) You already have been told many times that this is an article on the province, not the conflict. We already have an article on Balochistan conflict. Hence, your edits will be reverted per WP:COATRACK. Thanks. —TripWire ^talk 16:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha, that not policy, go read. Independence movement important part of region 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, how is it POV to add eligible sourced info? Is POV to delete. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

No need laugh, instead pay attention and understand that you may like to Push your POV at Balochistan conflict after discussion, but NOT here. A complete page where approx 5 editors have tried explaining you that this page is not the RIGHT one to add info which you are adding since the last one month! —TripWire ^talk 16:52, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

By you reasoning we need delete section on Economy of Balochistan, Pakistan as there main article on it. And only you and ip has deleted info, and we know why you do. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not my reasoning, but the reasoning that has been derived after a discussion of weeks! The only problem here is that only you are unable to get any of that and is so stubborn that you simple refuse to accept simple reasoning. You want to asd something, up it up for debate. Simple. Lastly, allow me to educate you, anything which can be sources does not mean that it can be Pushed anywhere you want. Also, the sources you are adding are not correct as they does not contain the info which you are trying to push, like the book you have cited. This is the third time you are being warned not to misinterpret the sources and deliberately deceive readers! —TripWire ^talk 17:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Book does have have info, you are wrong. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

comment requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should article have section on independence movement? As is important part of region.

This info was deleted.[4]

There have been several insurgencies since the creation of Pakistan. Since 2005 another has been ongoing, and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has blocked hundreds of websites created by nationalists and those calling for secession or political autonomy such as the Baloch Hal, which has been banned since 2009, and those documenting human rights atrocities. This insurgency has been suppressed by the use of extrajudicial executions and torture.

82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Striking but not deleting sock comments so that the RFC still makes sense. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose It has been said a hundred times and is being reiterated again that this article is on the Province, and not the conflict inside the Province and therefore there's no need to include the info or more precisely your POV here. This means both the 'Atrocities' or the 'Independence Movement'. Please tell me the language you understand so that I can make you understand this simple problem in that language, because obviously you are unable to get it in English. Also, go through WP:COATRACK—TripWire ^talk 18:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

**Coatrack no policy. Again by you reasoning we should delete section on economy as their main article for it. Independence movement is important part of region, and needs a paragraph. Consensus is already we mention atrocities, same needs for independence. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Striking sock comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: as I said, this is an administrative province article and should expand on the fauna / flora, climate, culture and administration of the province. POVs such as these do not belong to this article and as seen in Azad Kashmir there's no section for such there as well even though that region has been a part of 3 wars and a long standing dispute. The information you want to add is already present in Balochistan conflict. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

**And administration has lead to insurgency, and mass atrocities by army. Is very notable as @Cyphoidbomb: has agreed. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Striking sock comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is already not in a good shape and what this IP is doing is distorting it further by adding irrelevant and WP:POV material. As there is an article on the Balochistan conflict, half of the said content should not even be here. This is the main article on the province, not the military/insurgent conflict. It is troubling to note that the IP seems to be editing on an agenda here, making heavily biased and partisan edits (eg. sourcing content on allegations of state atrocities while ignoring the insurgency led by terrorist groups), in defiance of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. It is a simple way to WP:COATRACK the article. Mar4d (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Either stop edit-warring, or stop creating pointless RfCs. Baloch Hal is a red link, is is that notable that its blockage makes this info eligible of a place in this article. Balochistan conflict is the only relevant article. Faizan (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
• Compromise - One paragraph can't be called WP:COATRACK but might be undue weight if there is nothing else about politics in balochistan in the article. My suggestion: include paragraph on separatism as part of a Politics section. Include mention of poverty (deleted here) comparing the increase to that of other provinces and move it from the beginning of Economy section. (Editor is randomly assigned from Wikipedia:Feedback request service) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I Oppose this compromise solution. The only solution is as I commented above, the complete removal of exaggerated text from here, we already have relevant articles instead. Faizan (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have perhaps a reason for your opposition? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, COAT. This is the irrelevant article. Faizan (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an article on Balochistan. Poverty in Balochistan is relevent to Balochistan. A separatist insurgency in Balochistan is relevent to Balochistan. A coatrack article has been edited "to make a point" about "tangential subjects" and "fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." (From COAT)

How does adding a paragraph on what the BBC says is a "long-running insurgency [that] is all about greater political autonomy and the conflict [that] has been brutal, with human rights groups accusing security forces of regularly detaining and torturing political activists." ... tangential or untruthful? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

References

• Oppose This article is on the Province, and not the conflict inside the Province we have separate article covering each claim and therefore there's no need to include the info or more precisely your POV here. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)— Zmaghndstakun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not a valid argument. The article is about the province, so presumably anything noteworthy that is happening in the province would be eligible for inclusion in this article. We don't exclude information simply because it may exist elsewhere. For instance, in an article about Orson Welles, we wouldn't omit content about Citizen Kane. The two are inextricably linked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Admittance and statement to that effect by an incumbent Indian PM Modi was not allowed at Bangladesh_Liberation_War on the pretext that Modi is no authority and his words have no value, but surprisingly words of Mr Asif has too much value as the same has been added to this article :

In 2009 Asif Ali Zardari admited that there were human rights violations carried out on the Baloch during the regime of Pervez Musharraf, including the disappearances of hundreds.

Since when did Wikipedians have been selective in enforcing its rules and polices? BTW, Mr IP was quite vocal in opposing Modi's statement (verbatim/all of it - not only the part which was being quoted from secondary sources)—TripWire ^talk 17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TripWire I agree with you. Same situation faced by me; see section election 2014 here on kashmir conflict talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict and arbitration committee on going discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard . Pro india nationalist have made WP neutrality a joke and not allowing elected CM Mufti credit to Pakistan and separatists for state election 2014 high turn over. Read the last para in the lead of kashmir conflict.39.47.109.166 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support conditionally If insurgency, etc is deemed notable (i.e. through significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject) then some content on the matter should be added. Same thing for the human rights issues. If the subject of human rights is notable (and it is, since the human rights article has stood the test of time) then it seems intuitive that some mention of this information should exist in the article. We don't need to go into pages of detail, but omitting it would be irresponsible. Respectfully to TripWire, "this article is on the Province, and not the conflict inside the Province" is a flimsy argument. We're not here just to talk about the region language and the weather. Politics are relevant. Social issues are relevant. Uprisings are relevant because all of these things are intrinsic to the region's history. Again, we don't need to go into pages of detail if other articles exist, but arguing that the information exists over there so we don't need any of it in here is not rational. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

insurgency very notable, is in books and news. The last Watch (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If the article is just to state the province faces turmoil and insurgency over the long standing conflict giving way to political tensions and bringing different adversaries into play, that is ofcourse within the scope of this article and WP:NPOV (and should alleviate the concerns of those who want the conflict mentioned) but delving into the details of who is causing what, who is funding who, who is violating whose rights is a pandora's box and should not be opened as it is just undue and will side track the article. The proper way to do this would be to phrase it so that it wikilinks in the sentence to Balochistan conflict so that any one wishing to read more about the insurgency and the conflict can go and read that article since we are building this encyclopedia for the readers' benefit - such navigation is not out of the ordinary. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV deletion by use Top Gun

Why delete this?[5] and this?[6] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Because as your heading says, it's POV and has no place in wikipedia. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

How is it POV? I read WP:NPOV, it says "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." so explain. Also [7] No allegations, Zardari admitted that there were human rights violations as per edit. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

82.11.33.86 please abstain from POV push and edit warring.Zmaghndstakun (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Explain how adding info is POV pushing? 82.11.33.86 (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Do not add new sections and limit your POV to one section above and get consensus if you can do so with valid arguments. Your tone is very aggressive above which is denying your consensus. Avoid three reverts otherwise you will be blocked.Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Zmaghndstakun I am not up on all the issues here but your tone is also aggressive for a very new editor. Saying you "will be blocked" is a bit too forceful, that is up to an Admin, to decide. Please wp: Assume Good Faith and remember we have to collaborate in editing. Then again, the IP has been blocked as a wp:sockpuppet of a banned editor, so perhaps your tone was appropriate in this case, but note that this is a dynamic IP and may be used in the future by other editors who are not 'troublesome'. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 19:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

"Allegations"

Allegations of Human rights violations is wrong, "In 2009 Asif Ali Zardari admited that there were human rights violations carried out on the Baloch during the regime of Pervez Musharraf, including the disappearances of hundreds" So I remove allegations from title. The last Watch (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edits Which are against the discussion/consensus

WP:SYNTHESIS

This classical example of WP:SYNTHESIS cannot stay:

The province stands dangerously polarised — and the electoral process is under threat by insurgent groups and by separatists, such as the Baloch National Front that has called for a shutter-down strike from May 5 to election day on May 11.

It is now a battle between the moderates who have chosen to return to the democratic path and the hardliners who believe the elections would harm their cause for independence. Tensions are running high. Even members of the influential Baloch tribal elite are divided. The recent attacks on candidates of nationalist parties allegedly by armed insurgent groups reflect the explosive situation in the run-up to the elections. There has been a dramatic turnaround in Baloch politics after Akhtar Mengal returned home last month to lead his faction of the Balochistan National Party (BNP-M) in the coming elections. Just a few years ago, the former chief minister stood trial for sedition. He languished in jail for almost two years before being released in 2008.

By synthesizing two different sentences which have different connotations and adding a little citation, cannot make an addition correct. As shown above, the two bold sentences have been cheery picked and connected to dd info to the page, which is unacceptable.—TripWire ^talk 14:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is only 1 source, how is it 2? The last Watch (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you read this: If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.?—TripWire ^talk 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I am responsible for the edit and its alleged synthesizing. I would argue it is summarizing not synthesizing. "A" and "B" are both about political conditions in the province. The paragraph has to be short -- something TripWire must agree with as he has protested excessive length on any issue dealing with nationalist insurgency, human rights abuse or dissent and dissatisfaction in general in the province. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Culture

This is not how you define culture at a page which is about the geography, history and the people:

the Baloch people are denied the right to use their language and also denied their cultural rights

—TripWire ^talk 14:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Is their culture being denied, so belong here. The last Watch (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Haha, right. No comments, or else you would say I call you stupid. —TripWire ^talk 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Stop attacks, you warned once already. If culture suppressed then it belong in culture section, so I restore it and human rights part. The last Watch (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No one has attacked you. Stop acting like a little girl. I just said that, i wont comment, or else you will accuse me again. So, please stop attacking me instead. —TripWire ^talk 15:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Now you call me girl, any more attack and I report you. I will put info back as it belong. The last Watch (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Own the article? Read WP:OWN. Faizan (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Go on add it again see how long it lasts....86.164.37.238 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

As you have no responded here I put infos back The last Watch (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Allegations of Human rights violations

Still no consensus on this. Also, no one knows who Ashraf Sherjan is. For all we know he is not even Pakistani/Baloch. Pakistan dont acknowledge a dude in Germany nor does it accepts what he says. We cannot include any accusation by any Tommy, Dickie and Hamesh just because he will exaggerate everything to make news. Lastly, as being discussed at Mukti Bahini, if the statement and acknowledgment by a sitting Indian PM Modi cannot be included at Wiki, how can a similar statement and acknowledgment by a Pakistani can be included here? —TripWire ^talk 14:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus above, you agree[8] to add facts. The last Watch (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus was to add something tangible, not an accusation and allegation by a dude in Germany whom no one knows, nor was the consensus for adding Mr Asif's statement. Recheck, please.—TripWire ^talk 14:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What "dude in Germany"? sources was Human Rights Watch and ibtimes The last Watch (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The source quotes a dude in Germany. If a dude who happens to be the Indian Prime Minister cannot be quoted here at Wikipedia, seriously, an unknown dude has no worth here either. —TripWire ^talk 15:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If he unknow as you allege, then why he interviewed? "The murder of Sabeen Mahmud on Friday has turned the spotlight on Pakistan's conflict-ridden Balochistan province and the Islamic country's powerful army's human rights violations in the region."[9] "Stop abduction and killings in Balochistan"[10] "There are credible reports of continued serious human rights violations, including disappearances of people, arbitrary arrests, torture and extra judicial killings."[11] More source. The last Watch (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As you have not responded to this I put info back The last Watch (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Poverty

And why you delete this? "In Balochistan poverty is increasing. In 2001-2002 poverty incidences was at 48% and by 2005-2006 was at 50.9%." The last Watch (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Because it gives a false impression as if poverty is continuously rising, which is not the case. This is 2015, and you quote figures from 2001 and 2006? Either say this was the case back in 2001 and now the the situation is whatever it is, either support it with current figures or negate it with the current figures. How can you, in 2015, say: "In Balochistan poverty is increasing" and then support it with figures from 2001??? Every part of your edit is pure POV Pushing! Stop—TripWire ^talk 15:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC) it.

When you have source to say other than one I give content will stay. Is no for me to do. The last Watch (talk) 15:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry sir. WP:BURDEN is on you. You want to add the outdated info, not me.—TripWire ^talk 07:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No, is for you to prove info is outdated with sources. The last Watch (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

24.04.2015 "Balochistan remains Pakistan's poorest and least populous province" [12] The last Watch (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol...classical example of POV pushing. Why are you afraid of giving the correct context to the edit and present the sentence completely, as it says in the course: Balochistan remains Pakistan's poorest and least populous province despite a number of development projects Islamabad initiated there in the past.

These attempts at WP:COATRACK wont succeed if you will remain biased and not adhere to WP:NPOV—TripWire ^talk 10:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

COATRACK no policy, stop saying it. read important part, Balochistan remains Pakistan's poorest and least populous province despite any projects. You say above, "false impression as if poverty is continuously rising, which is not the case" I prove with source, you have no, so I will put info back. The last Watch (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 22:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• User:TripWire, I gotta say, the article makes Balochistan out to be a pretty happy little place. The sources brought up here don't bear that out. This is of course from Deutsche Welle, a pretty unimpeachable source. Sock or not, our interest here should be improving the article, and I don't see that happening. Drmies (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Sir, no one is doubting the source. As you have pointed out the DW is a pretty reliable source, and sure is. But my concern here is the half-baked story the is being pushed round here. The source says: Balochistan remains Pakistan's poorest and least populous province despite a number of development projects Islamabad initiated there in the past., But the socks puts in half info saying the "Balochistan remains Pakistan's poorest and least populous province" in attempt to project the government in bad light. Why would he cherry-pick info from the source? If the complete info (paraphrased ofcourse) is added with a WP:POV, I dont have an issue with it.Improving the article, as I understand it does not mean to add info which suites one POV, right? Where's the balanced approach that we talk about here at Wikipedia? —TripWire ^talk 21:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• I know what the source says, and what the edit said. It's all here. But you cannot, from the edit, infer what the sock's "intent" was. Nor, and this seems pretty plain to me, adding the "despite" doesn't mean that the first part of the sentence becomes untrue, and by the same token, one might as well say that adding the despite phrase makes some government look worse: they tried stuff and it still didn't work. In other words, I think you're seriously overplaying the POV hand. What you could have done was edit rather than remove. Drmies (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Right, the 'remove' was done as the edits by the sock/IP were being reverted as a whole. The discussion here revolved around undoing them, so the issue of 'editing' never surfaced. As this was not the only edit which was undone but the entire edits by the sock. As far as the sock's intent is concerned, sir, his track record is an evidence that he began adding irrelevant info to Balochistan page which was not even related to the Province but the region. Even there he was challenged and explained that he info was beyond the scope of the article and resultantly, he edited every page related to Balochistan and resorted to socking. So in my humble opinion his intent became quite clear. Later upon inquiry when he turned out to be a sockmaster, his edits were undone and hence this edit. You are however correct in saying that the info could just have been edited.—TripWire ^talk 21:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The last Watch has no consensus

This user is a nationalist Indian ignore and keep reverting his pov. 86.164.37.238 (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore he is now canvassing for support on other users page. 86.164.37.238 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Why Indian editor is worried about Baluchistan a part of pakistan

IP location of problem creater on this talk page raises questions that Why Indian editor is worried about Baluchistan a part of pakistan. This in it self confirms RAW (Indian secret agency) involvement in terrorism in balouchistan. I will soon put different sources of balouchistan interior minister Mr. Bugti's various press briefings on RAW terrorism in Balouchistan. 39.47.216.167 (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No need to write about it just revert his rubbish whenever you come across it. 86.164.37.238 (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool down everyone

Posts just accusing someone else of being a nationalist this or that don't belong here. From what I can see virtually everyone who is involved in these discussions is trying to push a nationalist POV, for one side or the other, and people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. So keep the discussion calm, and comment on the subject of the article, not on other editors... Thomas.W ^talk 16:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If we were to follow the route of the nationalist Watch Man we would also need to add tons of information on human rights abuses across every Indian state he needs to stop pov pushing its that simple. 86.164.37.238 (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What makes you believe he's Indian? Thomas.W ^talk 16:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What makes you believe there is some Pakistani POV? 86.164.37.238 (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with IP 86.164.37.238 however i will suggest 86.164.37.238 that let us see how good admins like Thomas.W controls the situation caused by edit warrior IP 82.11.33.86 and his new user The last Watch. 39.47.48.151 (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Last Watch: No you will not put the 'infos' back

You haven't proved anything. Expect that your English hurts so bad that I have to post this in a new section. Suggestion: Read my and other replies atleast twice agian and may be you'll get what can and what cannot be added at Wiki. Stop POV pushing. —TripWire ^talk 16:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well no he won't, what with him being a blocked sock. However I will restore the content, as it is obvious the POV pushing is by you. 82.132.214.166 (talk) 17:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC) This user is a sock —TripWire ^talk 21:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed compromise on nationalist insurgency and related issues

Add this to the end of the History section

Insurgencies by Baloch nationalists took place in 1948, 1958-59, 1962-63 and 1973-77 — with a new and reportedly stronger ongoing insurgency by autonomy-seeking Baloch groups beginning in 2003.

Adding something like this to the end of the Government section

Besides "mainstream" Pakistan-wide political parties -- such as the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and Pakistan Peoples Party -- Balochistan nationalist parties (such as the National Party led by Dr Abdul Malik Baloch and the Balochistan National Party-Awami led by Israrullah Zehri) have been prominent in Province. Human rights violations in Balochistan by "the military, intelligence agencies, and the paramilitary Frontier Corps", have been called "alarming" and "epidemic", and contributing to the "cycle of violence" in the insurgency. The Pakistani government and military have denied allegations over the use of death squads operating in Balochistan.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure - Is it safe to assume we'll incorporate links to the main articles on these issues? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes --BoogaLouie (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: Proposed compromise Updated 22:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

When the RfC is going on above, what is the point of starting this thread? Better wait for the RfC result. Faizan (talk) 12:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Important

I guess now that it has been revealed that The Last/Long Watch (TLW) was a Sock and had many other IPs as further socks and the fact this RfC was also raised by a sock of TLW (82.11.33.86 is a sock of TLW as he himself admits to make an account as instructed by admins - the resultant account was TLW, this IP will be blocked soon as it is already under SPI), we need to have a re-look at the entire issue. Everything was fine before these socks started to appear. So there's no consensus and thus no compromise. If still in doubt, please see the struck out comments on this talk, if we omit those, there's nothing to be discussed. Moreover, as a rule, all edits by socks have to be reverted there's no case. Thanks —TripWire ^talk 22:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

TripWire, Why don't you focus on content discussion instead of useless other logics? We should discuss here what should be the part of article but you are not talking about it anything. Many nationalist users like you have been blocked recently (for example The Last Watch, CosmicEmperor, several IPs etc), if you want to become a sensible editor then you must talk about content in neutral manner. Wikipedia is not a battleground. You don't have to be a nationalist here. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 23:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Sir, the logic is simple, if you agree that TLW was a 'nationalist user' and was blocked for it, you by supporting his (disruptive) edits are doing no favor to wikipedia, instead ae towing the same line.—TripWire ^talk 17:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• TripWire, what you say about *... all edits by socks have to be reverted there's no case" is not true, there's no rule that makes that mandatory. I have seen many cases where constructive edits by socks have been left alone, and even many cases where articles created by socks have not been deleted. So don't blame what you're doing on the rules. And 82.11.33.86 was not a sock of TLW, it was TLW editing before he created the account. So I suggest you read WP:SOCK, because you obviously don't know what a sock is. Thomas.W ^talk 23:32, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It's kinda mandatory. Just like 3RR does not see if the reverts were legit or not, similarly, I will not judge that the edits (which was otherwise under discussion) were 'constructive' or not, just that they were done by a sockmaster. TLW editing before of after making an account is irrelevant when his mischief was proved. So, I suggest, you read WP:SOCK—TripWire ^talk 17:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• TripWire, I can't agree that "Everything was fine before these socks started to appear." The article was missing any mention of a major issue -- namely insurgency. Google "Balochistan insurgency" and you get 360,000 hits. There have been five different insurgencies in the province since independence and nothing is mentioned about them in the history section. The insurgency affects the human rights situation, it affects economic development, it affects politics in the province. Without any mention the article is incomplete, inaccurate even. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You should know that you were brought here because of an RfC which was raised by a sockmaster. So we can always discuss you locus-standi to be here, but then I will not go into this as you as an editor has all the right to edit whatever you want. Second, the point under discussion is not "Balochistan insurgency" but the edits/POV which TLW was trying to push. I wonder, how you who started with a 'compromise' as a randomly assigned editor to an RfC to add the info has become the champion of the edits made by a sockmaster? Your suggestion of a 'compromise' could have been discussed further had the RfC been raised by a legit editor, but now your complete support to add the edits which you previously suggested as a compromise is not understandable. Bias, perhaps?—TripWire ^talk 17:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess the compromise is to not include "section on independence movement" (which was what the RfC was asking about), or even a section on human rights, but include a sentence or two about those issues. I would not say I am the champion of the edits made ... by TLW. I would redo all edits I've seen that have been deleted. I want to give due weight, no more and no less.

While there may be no more need for "compromise" there is still a need to include major issues, even if controversial. I have to say in all the Wikipedia:Feedback request service notices I've got, this one struck me as the most obviously in need of help. You don't have to do much research to find out that most of the news stories about Balochistan involve death squads and insurgency. --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: This is an administrative province article and should expand on the History, Government, Geography, Fauna / Flora, Climate, Culture, Sports, Religion, Demography and Administration of the province. POVs being discussed do not belong to this article. The information about Baluchistan insurgency is already covered in Balochistan conflict. Great spirit anyways. Thanks Rashidzaman786 (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Rashidzaman786 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Rashidzaman786 Unclear what you are opposing other than POV content. You're opposing compromise? Surely if your position is that we should expand on history, government and culture, then we should have some coverage of the human rights issues and issues about the insurgency, because those are all part of history, government and culture. Also it looks to me like you're just parroting TopGun's comments from the 20th, so if you could expand in your own thoughts that would be appreciated. As of yet, nobody has adequately explained why we would omit all content about a subject like insurgency or human rights violations simply because an article on the subject already exists. In a general article it is absolutely intuitive to summarize key subjects and provide a suitable link to the main content. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Rashidzaman786, POV almost always involves something violent, illegal or otherwise unpleasant, but not everything written about violent, illegal, unpleasant subjects is POV.

Example of POV: Baloch people have been engaging in armed struggle against oppression for independence since 1948. The latest insurgency is the strongest yet.

Example (I think) of not POV: Insurgencies by Baloch nationalists took place in 1948, 1958-59, 1962-63 and 1973-77 — with a new and reportedly stronger ongoing insurgency by autonomy-seeking Baloch groups beginning in 2003.--BoogaLouie (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Question

Where precisely at the darkness shines DPI was it confirmed that I am a sock? It does not, so do not assume that I am. 82.132.215.177 (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

82.132.215.177, I don't know how checkusers confirms the sock puppet, most probably by seeing same IP address of both users and the same pages they edit also style of writing or attitude. By using all this criteria, you(the long watch/the last watch) have been confirmed as sock puppet of Darkness shines2, so it will be better that you don't comment by random IP addresses most probably from public net cafes otherwise this IP will also get blocked and other people using this IP will get problem. --Human3015 Call me maybe!! • 21:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This page is a mess

This page is a frickin' mess. With all the recent strikethroughs from TopGun, the RFC question has been rendered virtually useless. It might be worth considering that we close the RFC as a matter of procedure and start again. Surely we can't reasonably expect other editors to wade through the sea of crap that is there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My strike through was to ensure the closer knew the nom was a sock + other comments from the sock (so well, don't kill the messenger). If you want, You can endorse the RFC question with your own sign or just restart an RFC and copy over legit comments. The page was never anything less than a mess given the RFC was started by a sock and the dispute was heavily sock infested. I'm sure most admins know how to navigate through and close such RFCs. I wouldn't mind if it continues as is as well. Whatever makes things easier for you. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No killing of you was intended. :) My concern wasn't about closing admins, it was about the difficulty that people interested in the discussion would have if the RFC question was scrawled over. Your suggestions are good. I'll ruminate. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll wait on what you decide. --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC do-over

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should this article on Balochistan, Pakistan contain content related to insurgencies and the independence movement, poverty, and allegations of human rights violations in the region? And if so, how much of this content should be presented?

Note: A previous RfC had been opened, but there were some unfortunate sockpuppetry issues and strikethroughs which rendered the original RFC extraordinarily difficult to understand. However, the question the original user posed (in spite of the sockpuppetry) I think is worth discussing:

Should article have section on independence movement? As is important part of region.

There have been several insurgencies since the creation of Pakistan. Since 2005 another has been ongoing, and the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has blocked hundreds of websites created by nationalists and those calling for secession or political autonomy such as the Baloch Hal, which has been banned since 2009, and those documenting human rights atrocities. This insurgency has been suppressed by the use of extrajudicial executions and torture.

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Oppose It has been said a hundred times and is being reiterated again that this article is on the Province, and not the conflict inside the Province and therefore there's no need to include the info or more precisely your POV here. This means both the 'Atrocities' or the 'Independence Movement'. Please tell me the language you understand so that I can make you understand this simple problem in that language, because obviously you are unable to get it in English. Also, go through WP:COATRACK—TripWire ^talk 18:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Tripwire, there is no logic in this argument: how are geographic boundaries, sites, flora and fauna, peoples, and their history inside a province "a part of" that province, but any conflict inside the province "not a part of" that province? The only way to wrap your head around this idea is through pure "POV" that declares an ongoing conflict is not, in fact, ongoing. WP:Scope clearly states that this article should include "all material notable to readers," and that would obviously include conflict. It also states that article scope should not be artificially restricted, which is clearly what you are advocating here. WP:CORRECTSPLIT point no.6 very directly states that if Balochistan's civil conflict has it's own article, then Balochistan, Pakistan needs "a good summary of the subtopic." -Darouet (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: as I said, this is an administrative province article and should expand on the fauna / flora, climate, culture and administration of the province. POVs such as these do not belong to this article and as seen in Azad Kashmir there's no section for such there as well even though that region has been a part of 3 wars and a long standing dispute. The information you want to add is already present in Balochistan conflict. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply: TopGun if that is true, the title of this article is misleading: it should be called "Fauna, flora, non-secessionist culture and administration of Balochistan, Pakistan." Why do you advocate only certain specific aspects of Balochistan belonging in this article, but exclude political conflict? WP:Scope is very clear that all notable aspects should be included, and none artificially excluded. WP:CORRECTSPLIT point no.6 very directly states that if Balochistan's civil conflict has it's own article, then Balochistan, Pakistan needs "a good summary of the subtopic." -Darouet (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This article is already not in a good shape and what this IP is doing is distorting it further by adding irrelevant and WP:POV material. As there is an article on the Balochistan conflict, half of the said content should not even be here. This is the main article on the province, not the military/insurgent conflict. It is troubling to note that the IP seems to be editing on an agenda here, making heavily biased and partisan edits (eg. sourcing content on allegations of state atrocities while ignoring the insurgency led by terrorist groups), in defiance of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV. It is a simple way to WP:COATRACK the article. Mar4d (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Mar4d, WP:Scope states that "All material that is notable, referenced and that a reader would be likely to agree matches the specified scope must be covered." That material would clearly include Balochistan's ongoing civil conflict. WP:Scope also states, "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area is frowned upon, even if it is the most popular POV." Your proposal to exclude civil conflict commits exactly this fault. WP:Scope lastly states, "Use the most general scope for each article you can. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, it's supposed to summarise essentially all knowledge. Hence accidental or deliberate choice of a limited scope for an article can make notable information disappear from the encyclopedia entirely, or make it highly inaccessible." That clearly states we should include Balochistan's conflict here. WP:CORRECTSPLIT point no.6 very directly states that if Balochistan's civil conflict has it's own article, then Balochistan, Pakistan needs "a good summary of the subtopic." -Darouet (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Either stop edit-warring, or stop creating pointless RfCs. Baloch Hal is a red link, is is that notable that its blockage makes this info eligible of a place in this article. Balochistan conflict is the only relevant article. Faizan (talk) 14:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply: Faizan, please make arguments that reflect WP:Scope policy, and not your own POV in this case. Scope requires that Balochistan be covered generally, including all notable aspects (e.g. conflict), and not artificially excluding some topics (e.g. conflict). WP:CORRECTSPLIT point no.6 very directly states that if Balochistan's civil conflict has it's own article, then Balochistan, Pakistan needs "a good summary of the subtopic." -Darouet (talk) 02:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Compromise - One paragraph can't be called WP:COATRACK but might be undue weight if there is nothing else about politics in balochistan in the article. My suggestion: include paragraph on separatism as part of a Politics section. Include mention of poverty (deleted here) comparing the increase to that of other provinces and move it from the beginning of Economy section. (Editor is randomly assigned from Wikipedia:Feedback request service) --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I Oppose this compromise solution. The only solution is as I commented above, the complete removal of exaggerated text from here, we already have relevant articles instead. Faizan (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have perhaps a reason for your opposition? --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, COAT. This is the irrelevant article. Faizan (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an article on Balochistan. Poverty in Balochistan is relevent to Balochistan. A separatist insurgency in Balochistan is relevent to Balochistan. A coatrack article has been edited "to make a point" about "tangential subjects" and "fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." (From COAT)

How does adding a paragraph on what the BBC says is a "long-running insurgency [that] is all about greater political autonomy and the conflict [that] has been brutal, with human rights groups accusing security forces of regularly detaining and torturing political activists." ... tangential or untruthful? --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Faizan you should answer BoogaLouie's points - in order to try and force poverty or conflict out of this article you are also forced to ignore WP:Scope and WP:CORRECTSPLIT, which demand all relevant material to be covered in the article, and additional material that is described elsewhere to be summarized. WP:COATRACK is specious here because poverty and conflict are tangential only if one considers these things irrelevant to the people of Balochistan, Pakistan - clearly not a tenable viewpoint. -Darouet (talk) 03:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• Oppose This article is on the Province, and not the conflict inside the Province we have separate article covering each claim and therefore there's no need to include the info or more precisely your POV here. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)— Zmaghndstakun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Not a valid argument. The article is about the province, so presumably anything noteworthy that is happening in the province would be eligible for inclusion in this article. We don't exclude information simply because it may exist elsewhere. For instance, in an article about Orson Welles, we wouldn't omit content about Citizen Kane. The two are inextricably linked. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Admittance and statement to that effect by an incumbent Indian PM Modi was not allowed at Bangladesh_Liberation_War on the pretext that Modi is no authority and his words have no value, but surprisingly words of Mr Asif has too much value as the same has been added to this article :

In 2009 Asif Ali Zardari admited that there were human rights violations carried out on the Baloch during the regime of Pervez Musharraf, including the disappearances of hundreds.

Since when did Wikipedians have been selective in enforcing its rules and polices? BTW, Mr IP was quite vocal in opposing Modi's statement (verbatim/all of it - not only the part which was being quoted from secondary sources)—TripWire ^talk 17:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

TripWire I agree with you. Same situation faced by me; see section election 2014 here on kashmir conflict talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kashmir_conflict and arbitration committee on going discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard . Pro india nationalist have made WP neutrality a joke and not allowing elected CM Mufti credit to Pakistan and separatists for state election 2014 high turn over. Read the last para in the lead of kashmir conflict.39.47.109.166 (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support conditionally If insurgency, etc is deemed notable (i.e. through significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject) then some content on the matter should be added. Same thing for the human rights issues. If the subject of human rights is notable (and it is, since the human rights article has stood the test of time) then it seems intuitive that some mention of this information should exist in the article. We don't need to go into pages of detail, but omitting it would be irresponsible. Respectfully to TripWire, "this article is on the Province, and not the conflict inside the Province" is a flimsy argument. We're not here just to talk about the region language and the weather. Politics are relevant. Social issues are relevant. Uprisings are relevant because all of these things are intrinsic to the region's history. Again, we don't need to go into pages of detail if other articles exist, but arguing that the information exists over there so we don't need any of it in here is not rational. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If the article is just to state the province faces turmoil and insurgency over the long standing conflict giving way to political tensions and bringing different adversaries into play, that is ofcourse within the scope of this article and WP:NPOV (and should alleviate the concerns of those who want the conflict mentioned) but delving into the details of who is causing what, who is funding who, who is violating whose rights is a pandora's box and should not be opened as it is just undue and will side track the article. The proper way to do this would be to phrase it so that it wikilinks in the sentence to Balochistan conflict so that any one wishing to read more about the insurgency and the conflict can go and read that article since we are building this encyclopedia for the readers' benefit - such navigation is not out of the ordinary. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with @TopGun: that this isn't the right place to delve into detail on the human rights violations, this is an article about the province but a passing mention of the conflict, wikilinking to the right articles on Human rights violations in Balochistan and the Balochistan conflict might be appropriate. It goes without saying that nobody should go to those articles and push their (if any) POV over there now. I agree the most with @Mar4d: that no WP:UNDUE weight should be given to either side. Both the armed groups and the government have been accused of human rights violations. I propose something along the lines of:

  Main article: Human rights violations in Balochistan

  The Balochistan conflict has affected the province since 1948. Organizations such as Amnesty International have accused both the Government of Pakistan and the Baloch separatist groups of human rights violations.

  --– jfsamper ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 08:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

jfsamper Thanks for your input. I don't think anyone has proposed anything more than two or three sentences about the alleged human rights violations, which would be supplemented by a link to the relevant Human rights violations in Balochistan article. This was the extent of the content I added on the matter, which was reverted and opposed. The main opposition seems to eschew any mention of anything related to discord in the region, including the human rights issues, including the economic problems, including the insurgencies. That's just weird to me, and nobody has adequately explained why an article about the region shouldn't contain some information about the region. It is very bizarre to me that anyone would think a simple link with no context should be sufficient. That makes my POV hackles stand up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (proposed compromise) Proposed compromise on nationalist insurgency and related issues (mostly) pasted from earlier RfC above. (This is a little longer than suggestion above but also does not include separate Insurgency or Human rights, or any other new sections at all.)
  

Add this to the end of the History section:

Insurgencies by Baloch nationalists took place in 1948, 1958-59, 1962-63 and 1973-77 — with a new and reportedly stronger ongoing insurgency by autonomy-seeking Baloch groups beginning in 2003.

Adding something like this to the end of the Government section

Besides "mainstream" Pakistan-wide political parties -- such as the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and Pakistan Peoples Party -- Balochistan nationalist parties (such as the National Party led by Dr Abdul Malik Baloch and the Balochistan National Party-Awami led by Israrullah Zehri) have been prominent in Province. Human rights violations in Balochistan by "the military, intelligence agencies, and the paramilitary Frontier Corps", have been called "alarming" and "epidemic", and contributing to the "cycle of violence" in the insurgency. The Pakistani government and military have denied allegations over the use of death squads operating in Balochistan.

Adding something like this between the first and second paragraphs in the Economy section:

Balochistan has been called a "neglected province where a majority of population lacks amenities". Since the mid-1970s the province's share of Pakistan’s GDP has dropped from 4.9 to 3.7%, and as of 2007 it had the highest poverty rate and infant and maternal mortality rate, and the lowest literacy rate in the country, factors some allege have contributed to the insurgency.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogaLouie (talk • contribs) 10:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• Support conditionally Called by bot. I favor BoogaLouie's proposal. There should be some mention of the political problems in the area. The whole issue should not be whitewashed from the article. However, whatever is added should not be overweight, and it should be stated neutrally. Darx9url (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Continued I dont mind the changes proposed by @BoogaLouie: to the Economy section, although please note that the Jetley ref should point to pages 216-217 instead and some of the text is a verbatim copy of page 99 of the IAR ref(see WP:C-P). Other than this, I think mentioning that the province has the lowest HDI in the country (an estimated 0.391 from this 2013 UNDP ref) is definitely notable. The poverty, infant mortality and literacy rate are also very relevant to the article. We do need to find more recent and reliable secondary sources other than the AIR ref for them (not a post on the BBC or Dawn but data from the UN or other internationally recognized organizations).

The problem with the proposed changes to the Government section is that they are not about the Government of Balochistan. The first part (which I changed a bit):

Besides dominant Pakistan-wide political parties (such as the Pakistan Muslim League (N) and the Pakistan Peoples Party), Balochistan nationalist parties (such as the National Party and the Balochistan National Party) have been prominent in the province.

is about the Politics of Balochistan (we could simply add a subsection) but the second part just doesnt fit and it sounds a little POV. What about adding the following to the History section:

Since 1948, the province has been affected by several insurgencies which took place in 1948, 1958-59, 1962-63 and 1973-77 — with a new and reportedly stronger ongoing insurgency by autonomy-seeking Baloch groups beginning in 2003. Organizations such as Amnesty International and the Human Rights Watch have accused the National Government of human rights violations in the province. The Pakistani government has denied these allegations and has labelled these separatist groups as terrorists.

I think the conflict is part of the province's history and the human rights wikilink is more relevant in this context. Thoughts? --– jfsamper ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 08:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

References

• Reply: @Jfsamper: If others like your version better I'll go along. It was not my intent to make a plug for National Party led by Dr Abdul Malik Baloch and the Balochistan National Party-Awami, but to indicate that for better or worse the provincial politics includes Baloch nationalist sentiment. Some mention of provincial politics seemed fitting for an article on the province, maybe the solution is to change the Government section to Government and politics. I've also reworded the proposal a little to avoid "a verbatim copy of page 99 of the IAR ref". --BoogaLouie (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion of political material related to insurgency, independence movements, and poverty, per jfsamper, though really I think even more material should be added (if written neutrally). Further information should be linked to main articles, also per jfsamper's proposal. It is absurd to argue that no mention should be made of major political events in the province: the implication is that, according to some, the events aren't occurring at all, or if they are, readers shouldn't know about them. -Darouet (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I hvnt seen any change in RFC do over Vs earlier RFC. RFC do over is in fact more stuffed mirror of earlier RFC which was opposed by overwhelming majiority of users. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 06:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC) — Zmaghndstakun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm sorry you feel that way @Zmaghndstakun:. I feel we've made at least some progress towards an unbiased but relevant change to the article. I will admit it still needs work and my suggestions were only meant as a starting point. I would love some other opinions on this though @TripWire, TopGun, Mar4d, Faizan, and Cyphoidbomb: --– jfsamper ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 08:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jfsamper: I don't think anyone outright opposed some mention of the conflict. Obviously, there has been an insurgency ongoing since the past few decades, at some point a low-protactred conflict and at some times a long one, hence it would warrant a mention of 3 to 4 sentences in the history section or wherever appropriate. The contention was against adding an entire independent section of allegations, which was not WP:DUE, and which a now-blocked sock was trying to do. Also, I've seen numerous proposals back and forth over adding content on state atrocities, yet I have yet to see anything meaningful about human rights violations by anti-state militant groups. If we want to present information about the conflict following WP:NPOV, both sides of the conflict need to be shown. Mar4d (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Important Balouchistan is divided in three countries namely Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. The greater balouchistan movement and related insurgency/ terrorism had been all across greter balouchistan throgh out history. Best solution would be to cover it in page Balochistan's section history as @Mar4d: sugested, specially human rights violations by anti-state militant groups to show WP:NPOV .I have checked niether Sistan_and_Baluchestan_Province Iran page covers nor Nimruz_Province of afghanistan so why Balochistan,_Pakistan only covering greater balochistan movement/insurgency/ terrorism. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jfsamper: there's no harm in adding a sentence or two to make a mention of the insurgency going on in the province, but Mr Ashraf Sherjan and his likes are getting no space whatsoever in this article. They dont exist and adding their allegations wholly will adding WP:UNDUE weightage to someone's words whom 99% Pakistanis dont even know.—TripWire ^talk 17:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Zmaghndstakun, I have stricken your "oppose" !vote because your polled response is already recorded earlier in this RFC. I think your "oppose" !vote is going to need to be stronger than 'I don't see any changes between this RFC and the last one'. The first RFC involved a legitimate question from someone who unfortunately stooped to sockpuppetry. That doesn't mean the core question is without merit and that's why I re-started the RfC minus the problematic user's opinions. You still haven't addressed why you think that an article about a province shouldn't talk about the unpleasant things that are happening in the province. Your original response was basically, "coverage of this subject exists elsewhere, so let's keep it out of this article". My analogy in response was that of Citizen Kane. We have an article on that film, should we not mention it in Orson Welles' article? The subjects are inextricably linked. We're not limited to only include information about a subject in one place. If human rights violations, insurgencies, poverty, are a significant part of this region, then it should be mentioned. The level of detail we include can be adjusted accordingly. As for the RFC being opposed by the overwhelming majority, that's very likely because the majority parties did not reach out to other WikiProjects to invite more opinions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Mar4d I don't think anyone outright opposed some mention of the conflict. I believe Zmaghndstakun and Rashidzaman786 are both against any mention of the conflict and related issues. Initially it seemed that there was some receptivity from some of the other editors above to some mention of the strife issues, but that seems to have changed. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Hi Cyphoidbomb! Heirchy is important. Balochistan_conflict covers Human rights violations/Terrorism/insurgencies by militant groups/agencies, Balochistan should covers gest of Greater Balouchistan movement/conflict and poverty of the region etc. However Balochistan,_Pakistan should not include and just follow the pattren of administrative unit details such as History, Government, Geography, Fauna / Flora, Administration, Districts, Climate, Culture, Education, Economy,Religion, Sports and Demography. Just like what pages on Sistan_and_Baluchestan_Province and Nimruz_Province do. I hope now this RFC do over will be (logically) shifted to Balochistan. Otherwise people will question bad faith anti pak editing ignoring iran or afghan balochs. Good faith is paramount on wiki? ting Zmaghndstakun (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: - Zmaghndstakun has two other !votes logged above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Zmaghndstakun Please stop adding new !votes. This looks like an attempt to draw extra attention to your position, which may not be your intention, but is not appropriate behavior in an RFC. Your comments seem to parrot what Rashidzaman786 said earlier, which was essentially a parroting of what Top Gun said, without any material expansion on the idea. Neither you nor this other editor have adequately explained your position. If you think an article on the region should include details about history, government, culture and administration, why should it not include information about human rights, insurgencies, economic data, which are all part of history, government, culture and administration? I also don't understand why you believe that content related to this region should only appear in one article of your choosing (Balochistan) instead of wherever the information is relevant. I've asked these questions several times and nobody has yet answered them, yet this is almost entirely what this RFC is about. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: if the events are notable, have high coverage in reliable sources, and have due weight to make them notable for this article, then by all means they should be included, and not WP:CENSORED. Khestwol (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reason for oppositionCyphoidbomb sure my oppose should be considered as single vote. i clarify that mine oppose vote is against addition of greater balochistan movement/ terrorism / insurgency in only one part of greater balouchistan i.e. Balochistan,_Pakistan . I have no objection if it is added to Balochistan (Total region) and Balochistan_conflict . I have read all talk page. You have advocated your case still Concensus is missing and looks remote. I recommend this RFC do over to be transferred to Talk:Balochistan. May be you can secure a concensus there.Zmaghndstakun (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is determined through discussion and the strength of arguments provided. You have only expressed a preference, not a clear reason to exclude information from this article. When the closing admin reviews this RFC, I'm sure that will be considered along with the fact that you have yet to directly address my query. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

If you relook RFC and RFC redo. It is quite clear. There is no concensus. Talk page concesus is crucial to your prefered POV. I have a valid reason as explained in Reason for opposition as well as in my Oppose vote . Zmaghndstakun (talk) 08:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

You have not adequately answered why content that is related to the history, government, culture and administration of Balochistan, Pakistan (and these were the areas of interest you wanted to focus on) should only be included in other articles, not this one. I've asked for this answer several times, because it is extraordinarily counter-intuitive that issues that directly relate to Balochistan, Pakistan are being excluded. If these human rights, insurgency, poverty issues affect these regions and are notable, they should be included. If you don't want to answer this directly, that's your prerogative, but I will just keep drawing attention to that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment on opposition: Zmaghndstakun, That any mention of the Balochistan insurgency should be in the Balochistan (Total region) article rather than Balochistan, Pakistan article is an ingenious arguement, but in looking at the Balochistan conflict and stories about the insurgency I haven't come across anything about a "greater balochistan movement". (I wouldn't be surprised if some movements/insurgents were in favor of such a thing, but it doesn't seem to have a high profile.)

The other issue with your suggestion is that the Balochistan insurgency in Iran (I haven't heard of anything in Afghanistan) seems to have different/separate groups (Jundallah (Iran), Jaish al-Adl (JAA, Army of Justice) and Harakat Ansar Iran (Partisan Movement of Iran, HAI)) and a different orientation: i.e. Salafi opposition to Iran's Shia majority and Shia Islamic government, than Pakistan Balochistan insurgency. In Pakistan, the Balochistan Liberation Army, Baluch Liberation Front, Balochistan Liberation United Front, etc. do not seem to be particularly Islamist, let alone Salafi, at all. Sunni Islamists and Salafi in Pakistan as a general rule strongly oppose separatism from the state created as a Muslim state, don't you agree? (e.g. Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan's attacks on Bangladesh Independence movement). --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

So what I'm getting at is that because there seems to be a lot of difference between the insurgent movements in the two different countries, there would seem to be reason to include mention of the insurgency in Balochistan, Pakistan and Sistan and Baluchestan Province as well as in Balochistan.

--BoogaLouie (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: On 26 June I opposed similer kind of disscussion in another section of this talk page. Historically Balochistan region is involved in some kind of insurgency. Reason being a tribal set up. Weak tribes always resisting strong tribes/ govt/ authorities/ british or local. Isolation of one region will hide larger picture of baloch movment. Afghanistan Balochistan is also part in whole insurgency. Iran blames afghjanistan balouchistan specially Nimruz province providing suppourt to their Baloch militant groups in Iran areas. Balouch in Afghanistan are also now reemerging against under devolpment and poverty. Ref http://thediplomat.com/2014/09/afghanistans-reemerging-baloch/ Same way Pakistan has raised voice against logistic + amunation suppourt provided to Baloch militants by people of Afghanistan Balochistan, Ref http://tribune.com.pk/story/870714/insurgency-in-balochistan-afghanistan-to-be-urged-to-eliminate-bla-sanctuaries/ which is also confirmed by independent sources Ref http://www.minorityrights.org/5446/afghanistan/baluchis.html http://www.ipsnews.net/2015/03/unseen-and-unheard-afghan-baloch-people-speak-up/ . I mean Balochistan conflict is best plate forum to highlight interlinked poverty or baloch terrorist groups and insurgencies. A brief in History section of Balochistan region could also be fine but I oppose to be included in administrative province articles on Balouchistan diffrent regions I mean Balochistan,_Pakistan Sistan_and_Baluchestan_Province and Nimruz_Province. Rashidzaman786 (talk) 07:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And why specifically do you oppose the economic/insurgency/human rights content to be included in these three other articles? If these issues affect the entire region, they presumably affect each of these provinces and must be mentioned. By your own words, "This is an administrative province article and should expand on the History, Government, Geography, Fauna / Flora, Climate, Culture, Sports, Religion, Demography and Administration of the province." That's what we are trying to do—expand on the history, government, geography, demography of the region. War/insurgencies affect history, culture and government. Economic issues affect culture and the people. Human rights violations affect demography, culture and may relate to government. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: TripWire, TopGun, Mar4d, Faizan, when I type "Balochistan, Pakistan" into google news, I get a lot of information about secessionist movements, negotiations, fighting and so forth. I'm not from Balochistan or Pakistan, and as a reader of Wikipedia trying to learn about the place, I would be done a great disservice not to know there is some level of war happening... especially if I'm planning a family holiday, for instance. Doesn't it seem obvious that this article should describe an ongoing conflict that impacts the lives of all people living in or traveling to Balochistan? I see for instance that our article on Helmand Province reviews the conflict there. The only conceivable reason I can see for removing all information about the conflict is from a partisan (i.e. "POV") perspective that is trying to demonstrate that the conflict is illegitimate or unimportant and should not be disclosed to readers. Is that naive on my part? Please explain if so - I am surprised by the vehemence with which you're all convinced against some kind of obvious and straightforward inclusion. -Darouet (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Darouet would we have reason for your special intrest in Balochistan,_Pakistan? I am asking this because Sistan_and_Baluchestan_Province and Nimruz_Province not cover Baloch insurgencies or Baloch underdevolpment or poority. No concensus for RFC or RFC do-over so as suggested by Rashidzaman786 = Balochistan conflict is best plate forum to highlight interlinked poverty or baloch terrorist groups and insurgencies. A brief in History and Economy section of Balochistan region will be best. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Why would an editor need to explain his interest in this article? Anyone can edit any article. Diverting attention to other articles isn't doing anything to explain your arguments. The fact that content doesn't exist in another article is irrelevant to the question of whether certain content belongs in this article. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine Cyphoidbomb: Zmaghndstakun can ask. Zmaghndstakun, I am interested in the article because you requested comments. I am someone responding to that request. Now, can you answer my questions above? Also, since you asked me, why are you particularly interested in this article, if you don't mind my asking? This is important since you have only edited on this subject, raising the issue of whether you might be a single-purpose account. -Darouet (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Cyphoidbomb Darouet Zmaghndstakun please avoid personal attacks/aggressors. Compromise can only be achieved with patience & giving due weight to every single user. No valid reason to date for pushed POV to be included. RFC re-do going no where. Might be archieved. Rashidzaman786 (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is attacking anyone. -Darouet (talk) 06:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Rashidzaman786, what you are calling "pushed POV" is what most people would call "normal inclusion of facts" in an article about a province. One could equally argue that "I don't want this information in this article because it exists somewhere else" is a pushed POV. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Rashidzaman786, I too see no "personal attacks/aggressors", and attempt to include POV. POV (Point-Of-View) is not some jargon you throw around to squelch the inclusion in an article of facts you don't want people to know about. As I mentioned (to you) above, POV almost always involves something violent, illegal or otherwise unpleasant, but not everything written about violent, illegal, unpleasant subjects is POV.

Example of POV: Baloch people have been engaging in armed struggle against oppression for independence since 1948. The latest insurgency is the strongest yet.

Example (I think) of not POV: Insurgencies by Baloch nationalists took place in 1948, 1958-59, 1962-63 and 1973-77 — with a new and reportedly stronger ongoing insurgency by autonomy-seeking Baloch groups beginning in 2003 --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support, so long as the material is written from a neutral point of view and based on coverage in reliable sources. If this can be done, then per Darouet I see no reason why such information should be excluded. ╠╣uw [talk] 10:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Yes Rashidzaman786, you rightly called "pushed POV". No one pointing out Indian Raw involvement in terrorism in Balouchistan. Innocent Labors and Punjabi and Hazara tribe peoples killing by baloch terrorist sponsered with money and arms by Indian agency RAW. Eye opener http://tribune.com.pk/story/878332/pakistan-to-seek-extradition-of-top-baloch-insurgents/ . The POV pusher just wana show Pakistan in bad light. If they are intrested in Baloch insurgencies againt british / Pakistan / afghan / iran govts then best solution is to cover it in greater Balochistan. I have not personally attacked. If you read all previous RFC + re-do, Its BoogaLouie and Cyphoidbomb. Their tone is aggressive, proudy, insulting and degratory to other users. They have made this talk page joke by first putting an RFC which was strongly opposed by majiority users then they put this RFC re-do which is being strongly opposed still they will push push push for months and pressorise users like us to run away from this talk page. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

First, please stop adding new !votes to the discussion. If you do this again, I will take the matter to ANI, because as I have expressed before, it appears that you are trying to stuff the ballot box. Secondly, you are distracting the subject. The scope of this discussion is not this "Indian Raw" subject of which I know nothing. The discussion is about whether or not certain unpleasant subjects like insurgency, poverty and human rights violations belong in this article. As for your evaluation of my tone and BoogaLouie's tone, that is a red herring. Stay on topic, please. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop crossing others comments. Do not try to indimidate me on talk page or take control of this talk page. This was what I was talking about aggressive cum intimidating behaviour. With paasage of time and in the light of new comments every one has right to oppose or suppourt time to time. "Indian Raw" is part of manufactured insurgency and the issue will be soon on floor of United nations read again http://tribune.com.pk/story/878332/pakistan-to-seek-extradition-of-top-baloch-insurgents/ Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

See your talk page. This isn't the place for new users to make up rules about RfC participation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support - It should be like any FORK article; it should include a summary section of the issues with a {{main|Balochistan conflict}} hat. —Мандичка^YO 😜 04:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Reminder This article is covered by discretionary sanctions. Also, any edits hinting at offwiki collaboration, unintentional or otherwise, are highly discouraged. Cyphoidbomb please avoid personal attacks/aggressors/indimidators. Compromise can only be achieved with patience & giving due weight to every single user be it new user or old user. You should had followed WP:RfC. Pushed POV suffurs from WP:COATRACK and fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. The nominal subject gettting hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias insertion(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject. Pushed POV also suffers from original research and WP:MEDRS , we don't use individual studies but rather meta-studies which review and summarize the available literature. Pushed POV is getting WP:UNDUE weightage to a single portion of whole geographical Balouchistan region. Avoiding Raw involvement in terrorism is raising questions on compliance of WP Neutrality. No valid reason to date for pushed POV to be included. Now RFC re-do going no where. Might be archieved. Rashidzaman786 (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the second time you've issued warning statements that are impertinent to the reality of this discussion. Nobody has levied any personal attacks, I don't know what "aggressors" are, nor do I know what you mean by "intimidators". I do, however, find it admirable that a brand new user has become so familiar with Wikipedia policy and guidelines that they would feel comfortable issuing reminders, warnings and irrelevant guidelines like WP:MEDRS. By the way, just because you keep tossing around the buzzphrase "pushed POV" doesn't actually mean it is a "pushed POV". Attempts to suppress information that would ordinarily be information expected in an article, is a pushed POV. To put it in more mathematical terms: If insurgency/economic strife/human rights violations exists in the province of Balochistan, Pakistan, then it should be included in this article. Distracting this point with irrelevant commentary is something the closing admin is going to see through. "Might be archieved"—what do you mean by that? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb ! you mean if an user is new he should not follow Wikipedia policies and procedures? not only me now you see others also feeling you as aggressor POV pusher. My mate! principally no one should edit Wikipedia if he is not aware rules of the bussiness. Well are we here to listen the jokes ? ? Zmaghndstakun (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support Definitely. The existence of insurgency and independence movements and any associated human rights violations are all essential knowledge that should be included in any geographical region article if they are well documented. And, that does appear to be the case for Balochistan. I think Wikimandia has it right that they can be dealt with in a summary fashion with main article links to more detailed articles. --regentspark (comment) 19:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, RegentsPark. This was what the original IP/sockpuppet was trying to add in this edit: Pakistani army are committing human rights violations on a massive scale according to amnesty international. Obviously that's not an NPOV way to phrase that. I attempted to present the content more neutrally. Faizan moved it from the lede. I didn't have much of a problem with that, but then it was removed by an IP editor. There was an edit war in the days that followed. At some point TripWire disputed some of the sources, but then the whole shebang wound up deleted again under the argument that it represents POV. It seems to me that most feel that some version of summary content should exist in the article, with only a scant few adamant that because this is an "administrative" article a province, that the content should be excluded. This position hasn't been properly justified. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Finally Thanks BoogaLouie/Cyphoidbomb for understanding others point of view that greater Balochistan region should include summary of what is already covered in detail in Balochistan conflict by you adding this to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Balochistan&type=revision&diff=672752157&oldid=669929707 although what you added was not nuetral when you re worded long Iran insurgency para to a short liner that Iran insurgency is weaker then Pakistan. Obviously that's not an NPOV. However We will disscuss that along with WP:COATRACK implications on that talk page. Rashidzaman786 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As noted in my close there is no strict consensus on the form of inclusion. BoogaLouie's suggestions in the middle of the discussion (as amended by JFsamper) are a good starting point, as is the suggestion to rename Government to Government and Politics. I am boldly adding a version of those sections to the article as closer however I re-iterate there is not consensus for their form, only for inclusion of the information.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs)

Taking to the UN claim

There's a small but brisk edit-war going on right now between @Zmaghndstakun: and myself over what I believe is a rather small matter. I'm hoping they will discuss the edits here rather than continue to edit-war. Expanding some. The claim is that Pakistan is bringing Indian involvement in a particular matter to the UN. That's basically supported by the originally give source (although the source says "considering" bringing). Zmaghndstakun was adding material about a specific Indian agency to the claim which was not supported by the source. When pressed, they promised more sources soon and added them here. Immediate problem - one of them is a forum (hint - if you see "thread" in the url, it's probably a forum and when you look at it, it's a forum). Not a WP:RS. They challenged that any of their sources were forums. They are a new editor so probably aren't familiar with Wikipedia policies so I left them a pointer to both RS and SYNTH, followed by a 3RR warning as they continued to edit war. In addition to the RS concerns, I've also got SYNTH concerns. The source for the claim says only Indian involvement, but Zmaghndstakun wants to add a specific agency. I don't think any of their new sources specifically covers that agency being part of the considered UN discussion. I'd like to just stick with what the source says about the consideration of bringing Indian involvement to the UN, nothing else. Thoughts? Ravensfire (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have not done any edit war. You ojected to forum sources inserted by me but deleted all including others. I inserted back NON FORUM but mistakenly one forum source still wrongly left which you deleted. Thank you. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I've rephrased the UN claim to match what's in the sources provided. The first source, includes this "[an unnamed top security official] added. “Pakistan is considering taking up the issue of Indian involvement in Balochistan unrest at the United Nations,” he added." The remaining sources don't mention the UN at all. My changes are here with the previous version looking like this. Lots of WP:SYNTH in that version, hence my changes. Ravensfire (talk) 18:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Ravensfire Finally we are at concensus in this context. In between you thought I am edit warring but since I added this para you pointed out few good things which through a series of edits we complied. Thank you and keep patience. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 06:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Move to issue Balochistan article? see what happens

More edit warring with Zmaghndstakun.

In RFC do-over above you will find a suggestion by Editor Zmaghndstakun that info on insurgency/terrorism in Balochistan be put in the Balochistan article (in the history section) since the insurgency/terrorism is not just in the Pakistan parts of Balochistan:

Important Balouchistan is divided in three countries namely Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. The greater balouchistan movement and related insurgency/ terrorism had been all across greter balouchistan throgh out history. Best solution would be to cover it in page Balochistan's section history as @Mar4d: sugested, specially human rights violations by anti-state militant groups to show WP:NPOV .I have checked niether Sistan_and_Baluchestan_Province Iran page covers nor Nimruz_Province of afghanistan so why Balochistan,_Pakistan only covering greater balochistan movement/insurgency/ terrorism. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 09:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't think that would solve the problem with the Baluchistan, Pakistan article being discussed here, but was not a bad idea, so I made this edit rewriting an already-existing Governance and political disputes section, not adding to the history section.

Within a few hours it was rvted by Rashidzaman786 with the edit message: "(Back to Chris the speller , To much changes and a lot to disscuss before concensus on talk page)"
Disappointing, but OK, let's discuss. But on the talk page Rashidzaman786 comment was: "Last edits by BoogaLouie hurting NPOV and WP Coattrack."
What in the edit is NPOV? What is "WP Coattrack"? No specifics. Later after another editor restores my edits and this time Zmaghndstakun himeself -- the suggester of cover it in page Balochistan's section history -- deleted them.

For the benefit of those who would like to have an idea of what happens when you follow Zmaghndstakun's suggestion here is a link to the back-and-forth on the talk page. (I know this strays from WP:FOC but the similarity to the current dispute is striking and the frustration is serious. This is how people leave wikipedia in disgust.)

Note lots of reverting, lots of wiki-buzzwords about "NPOV", "WP Coattrack", "concensus", questions unreplied to, but virtually no comments on what specifically is wrong with the content of the edit. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Sarfraz Bugti pointed out...

Could I suggest the language be changed to "Home Minister Balochistan Sarfraz Bugti claims that..."? Pointed out makes it sound like he is noting a known fact where as the source seems to suggest it is an allegation. At the moment the article reads this way: "Home Minister Balochistan Sarfraz Bugti pointed out that Indian intelligence agency RAW is conspiring against the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) agreement and law and order situation in the province is being sabotaged with planing." Thoughts? Tigerman2005 (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Tigerman2005 I can do you one better: The content is lifted almost verbatim from this reference without being presented as a quote and will need to be re-written. The only real addition is the misspelled word "planing." Neither Zmaghndstakun nor Rashidzaman786 seem to understand that copying something almost verbatim without proper attribution or as a presentation as a quote, is a copyright violation. I've tried explaining it [13] and yet it's snuck back in there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of this talk page

This talk page should not be used to disscuss issues related to other articles. For other articles there are annexed talk page. Thnk u Rashidzaman786 (talk) 06:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Balochistan, Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121008054413/http://dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/letters-to-the-editor/baloch-national-identity-in-karachi to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/letters-to-the-editor/baloch-national-identity-in-karachi
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120604103740/http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v3f6/v3f6a030.html to http://www.iranica.com/newsite/index.isc?Article=http://www.iranica.com/newsite/articles/unicode/v3f6/v3f6a030.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081118145343/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/publications/yearbook2008/Population/16-5.pdf to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/publications/yearbook2008/Population/16-5.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091113145935/http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/publications/yearbook2008/Population/16-20.pdf to http://www.statpak.gov.pk/depts/fbs/publications/yearbook2008/Population/16-20.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 16:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Balochistan, Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110501151648/http://www.spdc.org.pk/pubs/nps/nps5.pdf to http://www.spdc.org.pk/pubs/nps/nps5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 07:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)