Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan/Archive 1

POV

I agree completely. I removed some things that were blatantly obvious and did not match the topic of the article, but because I'm no expert on the topic there's not too much more I can do. Some parts seem very anti-government, just as some are definitely anti-separatist and many sentences contain information designed to elicit an emotional response rather than share relevant information. Erget2005 (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This article reads to me as highly biased, but I am not sufficiently familiar with the subject to put it right.Woblosch 22:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There is still some clear POV in this article. Someone with more knowledge of the subject should remove it. Brianski 02:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

This page was apparently vandalized. It listed Baluchistan as a region west of the strait of Hormuz, which it obviously isn't. I put in a vague fix, but somebody with more knowledge of a)wiki, b) the subject should fix it properly.--Anniepoo 19:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Pakistan blamed India and Iran for fanning insurgency in Baluchistan" where is the citation for this?? If this is not POV then I don't know what is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naran123 (talk • contribs) 09:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

this article need edits

Since Pakistan's independence, tribal lords including Bugti, Murree and Mengal have used tribal chiefs to keep balouchistani people backwards and illiterate by systematically opposing any attempts to establish modern educational institutions in their areas of influence.

Absolute rubbish of an Article

Spelling mistakes, Grammatical mistakes, biased points of view, someone fix this godforsaken article please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.27.254.122 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC).

Scrubbing

I am scrubbing the article. There is some stuff in here that makes no sense at all (grammatically speaking). Could someone help me proof it and basically expand and Wikifi it with me? WashFM 21:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Alrighty, I am done for today. Please proof today's work if you are so inclined. Ciao! WashFM 23:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your work sounds to Pro-Government so i will edit .Beacuse it does not Give NPOV approach. Khalidkhoso 23:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You can correct Grammer But can not remove Stuff. Khalidkhoso 23:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made some changes to Make it more Netural.Hope you will Like it .have good time in wiki.Khalidkhoso 00:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

For more read this too (Neutral Resource)[[1]]

He cites the security forces, deployed in Quetta, and the reports of new military cantonments cropping up at many places in Balochistan, as evidence that: "The army wishes to take control of Balochistan and suppress the rights of the Baloch people." He also maintains Balochistan's immense energy resources, mainly in the form of natural gas located at Sui, are being "stolen" from it. Khalidkhoso 01:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

also see this((Neutral Resource)) [[2]] and u can also have some galance on this too [[3]]. Khalidkhoso 01:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

read this too((Neutral Resource)) [[4]]Khalidkhoso 01:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Settling Punjabis in Baluchistan((Neutral Resource) [[5]] Khalidkhoso 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Khoso, I can understand where you must be coming from on this topic and I can now see that you feel very strongly about it. First of all I would like to clarify something before I say anything else. I am here to make this article worthy of reading and for an average person to get a basic NPOV understanding of the nature of the conflict. I am not here to justify the acts of one side or the other. My first concern was to improve on the article as in it's previous state it was not worthy to be included on Wiki, let alone any other site that expects to be taken seriously. I wish to make this article a good resource to consult on the ongoing conflict. If we make it into a propaganda flyer to further the cause of BLA or BLF no one will accept it's validity. If you read thru my edits you will see that I have tried to take a very cautious approach. I want you to work with me and not against me by labeling my edit as 'Pro-Government'. I did not wish to come across as such. The stuff I removed (one paragraph) made absolutely no sense to me and hence I removed it. If you could re-write it I could perhaps try to understand what needs to be conveyed. I think some things that we need to work on in this article are:

• Get some citations
• More references (preferably neutral and non partisan)
• Not label one side as infidels and the others as martyrs (goes towards bias and POV)

Let me know what you think. WashFM 17:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear I think we can work together but we need to mention both side story rather then one. You can check your edits; your article did not fulfill NPOV approach, so I made some edits on it. I just want this article to be more neutral in Nature. If this is what you want then we can use many resources as i mentioned above and Book written By Khan of Kalat. Khalidkhoso 19:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

check this link (Neutral Resource)[[6]]According to a January 2006 statement by Pakistani Senator Sanaullah Baloch, at least 180 people have died in bombings, 122 children have been killed by paramilitary troops and hundreds of people have been arrested since the beginning of the campaign in early 2005. On 8 December 2005, the federal interior minister stated that some 4,000 people had been arrested in Balochistan since the beginning of 2005.

Rights groups are concerned. Amnesty International (AI), in a statement released on 10 January, demanded that “human rights abuses [in Balochistan] be stopped forthwith and that all allegations of violations of human rights, including civil, political and economic rights, be independently and impartially investigated with a view to bringing the perpetrators to justice”. —The preceding Khalidkhoso 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

(Neutral Resource)[[7]] check it out Khalidkhoso 21:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"The insurgency was put down by the Pakistan Army, which employed brutal methods and equipment, ". check resource (Neutral Resource)[[8]] Khalidkhoso 21:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Bhutto was able to mobilize domestic support for his drive against the Baloch. Punjab's support was most tangibly represented in the use of the army to put down the insurgency. (Neutral Resource)[[9]]

“The people there are in huge trouble and difficulties. A large number of them are in the mess, besides, huge casualties are reported there in the ongoing armed conflict,” he said.

Zubaida Jalal said Balochistan had seen development during army regimes. (Neutral Resource)[[10]] Khalidkhoso 21:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

President Pervez Musharraf and the military are responsible for the worsening of the conflict in Balochistan.Neutral Resource [[11]] Khalidkhoso 21:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

In the first session Mr. Zahoor Sherwani, Provincial head of HRCP Balochistan Chapter, Mr. Wali Kakar Central Committee Member Balochistan National Party and Mr. Ayub Tareen, BBC correspondent talked about the current state of human rights in Balochistan. Humanitarian aspects of the conflict were also highlighted in the session. Panellists were of the view that this situation has given rise to worst human rights situation in Balochistan and hundreds of women and children have lost their lives and they have been physically assaulted. There have been hundreds of enforced disappearances in Balochistan.(Neutral Resource) [[12]] Khalidkhoso 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Balouchi Resource.[[13]] Khalidkhoso 21:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan_conflict#Armed_insurgency_1973-77. I have used language similar to what you are pointing to above brutal methods etc. Also, these websites cannot be verified, they are usually of not very good international standing and repute. Most of the stuff on Onwar website is a quick cut and paste job. I would suggest books written by impartial authors. BTW, i found a picture online. Do you think we can use it in the article? I don't know about copyright policy of Wiki and stuff. http://www.harappa.com/bremner/5.html WashFM 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that picture is already used in other artilce and it is free to use. i do not think that picture have any thing to do here.

there is Book written By Khan of Kalat Himself try to locate it. Khalidkhoso 21:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

try this too [[14]]

Human rights abuses

Racism directed towards the Baloch people surfaced quite openly[[15]] Khalidkhoso 21:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

We should add a human rights abuses in the article as well then. WashFM 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with You . Khalidkhoso 21:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Main cause

The rape of a hapless woman doctor in the high security PPL residential compound in Sui. [[16]] Khalidkhoso 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

New layout

I am thinking of this new layout. Let me know what you think:

• Overview
• Historical significance
• Area of dispute
• Baloch grievances
• Main characters

Central governments (1948-2006)

Influence and role of sardars (Tribal chiefs)

Populace

• First conflict (1948)
• Second conflict (1973-77)
• Third conflict (2006-Present)
• Human rights abuses

WashFM 23:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i think it is pretty good ,i have no objection with it . Khalidkhoso 23:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

i think we need to add Iran in it too beacuse in 1970s iran was part of war. what do you think? but i am afraid this topic will be under attack if we add iran in it. Khalidkhoso 03:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. But then we would have to add the then afghan Mohammed Daoud Khan as well because of his hostility towards Pakistan and designs for the Baloch and Pashtun areas. I think both Iran and Afghanistan's role warrants a brief mention though. WashFM 14:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It look Good. Khalidkhoso 06:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I like the layout. Afterwards, we might want to keep the Pakistan government-versus-Baloch Nationalists dispute as a separate page. This page can remain for the more extensive "Balochistan conflict" that involves Iran and Afghanistan. bostonbrahmin 04:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)

Indian support

An editor has raised the issue on edit summary that Pakistan accuses India of supporting the conflict but India denies it.

In that case I believe let us have netural veiws on the topic. So articles containing views of netural nations and governments or that of International Organisation should be cited as source on this issue.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Look at this.Very interesting material. Pakistan accuses India again. But representatives of the United States supports India, and reported that there is no strong evidence from Pakistan.http://www.indianexpress.com/news/no-evidence-that-india-aiding-pak-baloch-rebels/466814/.Sentinel R (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The article only states "They say this weaponry has been purchased on the black-market, with funding from Baloch compatriots in Dubai and other Persian Gulf states."

However it also says that Baloch and Sindhi militants have been seeking support of India while has so far avoided it.

I think both this points could be mentioned in the article however India could not be added in the "Belligerents" section on this bases.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. You add this in the article as a separate part?.Sentinel R (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I will add it tomorrow as I am busy today.--UplinkAnsh (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

India is still listed in "Belligerents" section. Is anybody planning the update? Gobade.abhay1 (talk) 06:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox combatants

(continuing discussion from previous section) There appears to be dispute about whether or the "Belligerents" section of the infobox should be used to list all countries and organizations that support the two sides. To see guidelines on this, please review the information at Template:Infobox military conflict under "Combatants" as to how to present the information. --Elonka 20:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, two things in there seem to indicate that I am right first of all they say

• 1."the parties participating in the conflict. This is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict," - so OK, this time it's country v guerillas but it other than that the message is clear: only forces taht took part in the conflict should be included, nothing about "supporters"...
• 2."When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." In this case we've got a quite long list of "supporters" + an already relatively big list of guerilla groups, so with your approval I'd like to delete this from the infobox, since there is already a section in the article adressing the issue of foreign support.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

As for the other issue of commanders, it sais this:

• "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed" - other than the fact that they were killed, these 2 guys were not prominent or notable.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no opinion on the article content, so you do not need my permission to add or remove something. Do what you think is best, that stays in accordance with Wikipedia policies and procedures. You may also wish to read the pages at WP:DR and WP:BRD. --Elonka 20:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Forced Disappearances in Balochistan

There are more than 5,000 cases of ‘forced disappearances’ in Balochistan..The chief Justice of an apex court of pakistan asked about the situation and said situation was going out of control in balochistan.

Request, expand section about Iran

Not a secret that Iran's Baluchi movement increases. Occur regularly clashes and attacks. However, the article is virtually no way displayed. I'm not English speaking at a good level and hardly able to write this section correctly. If someone has the desire I can throw two link where everything is described at a detailed level. First link,second link.Sentinel R (talk) 07:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

In reality this is not part of the Baluchistan conflict at all since Jundullah is Sunni Islamist group with no ethnic or seperatist motives or demands, this has been stressed over and over again by Jundullah leadership. But since you are desperetly out on making propaganda I might aswell focus on keeping the your lies in the article (which are completely outside of the sources and which you have obviously made up yourself), which have been numerous thusfar.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You're an Iranian propagandist? Read the Wikipedia:No original research.Sentinel R (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Who's been doing original research here? I've caught you using so many sources and to back up claims which are not made in the sources at all. You are the propagandist here and the worst liar I have ever encountered on wikipedia and you know you're lying, you just keep hiding truth.Kermanshahi (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am an administrator here. These attacks against other editors are not acceptable. Please change your posts to remove attacks. Here at the talkpage, you are only allowed to discuss the article, not the other editors. --Elonka 19:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know how to communicate with him. He wrote me nothing, just insults.Sentinel R (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

What I said was inapropriate, but I was just too angry at what this guy is doing on this article. My constrictuve edits were constantly being reverted by him to conceal facts and although he knew what was in the sources he used, the way he chose to hide facts and post things which are not said in the article at all, hoping no-one notices. But I agree you shouldn't make personal attacks.Kermanshahi (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, I see this as encouraging. From my point of view, what I see are two editors who feel strongly about the subject. You may not agree with how to present the information about the subject, but I think that both of you are acting in good faith, out of a genuine desire to improve the article. This is good! To move forward, please try to avoid commenting on the perceived motivations of the other person, and let's just talk about the article. To start, is there agreement that the sources being used are reliable ones, or is there disagreement on which sources are appropriate? --Elonka 20:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there is not much disagreement on this article anymore. I think Sentinel R would keep it this way but personally I still do actually have 2 points where I am unhappy with. First of all I don't think the infobox should be a place to list all countries and organisations that support the 2 sides and rather that this should be left for the article itself. According to Sentinel R this is standard for wikipedia, so I leave this to you to judge as moderator. Secondly I have an issue with the two low-level generals which were included in the infobox only due to the fact that they were killed so as to have KIA at the Iranian side of the box, I think this is POW, since for the rest only top commanders are included for all sides. But I don't feel that strongly about these two points, I would be prepared to leave it like this, but I prefer you as adminstrator tell us if it should be included per wikipedia rules. The main dispute is on the Jundullah article.Kermanshahi (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Noor Ali Shooshtari was a Deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guard. He is not low-level commander. I say again, I do not mind if you add a Pakistani generals in the Infobox. I'm also pretty sure that should be kept in Infobox all countries and organizations who are directly involved in the conflict. No argument against it from you I have not seen.Sentinel R (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source that states the names of the leaders? --Elonka 04:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Noor Ali Shooshtari - was deputy commander of the ground force, Rajab Ali was Guards' chief provincial commander. You can read about them here.Sentinel R (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a source that lists all commanders of the force, in order by date? --Elonka 05:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

About Revolutionary Guards. Unfortunately, i don't know where to find a list of all commanders.Sentinel R (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I never denied that they had those positions. What I was saying was for each combatant only their top commanders were included. For Pakistan you have Tikka Khan, which was the top commander of the Pakistan military during the 70s rebellion and his succesor Rahimuddin Khan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who was President (and later Prime Minister) during that time and Pervez Musharaf who was Pakistan's President and head of military during most of the current rebellion. For the Pakistani rebels you have Prince Abdul karim khan the leader of the 40s rebellion, Khair Bakhsh Marri leader of the 60s rebellion, Nowroz Khan leader of the 50s rebellion, Balach Marri and Akbar Bugti the two leaders who started the current rebellion and Brahamdagh Bugti the current leader of the rebellion. For Iranian rebels you have Abdolmalek Rigi and Abdolhamid Rigi, the two founders of Jundullah + their successor Muhammad Dhahir Baluch. For Iran you got Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President, Hassan Firouzabadi head of military, Ataollah Salehi head of regular branch of the military, Mohammad Ali Jafari head of the revolutionary guards branch of military + suddenly the deputy commander of the ground forces of the revolutionary guards branch of the military and Rajab Ali the provincial commander of the revolutionary guards branch of the military. Compared to the list of commanders these two are such low level, which leads to questions, why were they included?

Per Template:Infobox military conflict it sais that: "For wars, only prominent or notable leaders should be listed, with an upper limit of about seven per combatant column recommended." Not only are these two not prominant or notable, there are already 10 commanders listed in this column. If we are to include the deputy commander of the ground forces of a certain branch of the Iranian military, than we should also include the actually commander of that branch's ground forces + the head of the other branch of ground forces + his deputy and than we should do the same for Pakistan, which would make a list of about 30 people. How can you not agree that the fact that these two were killed in action should move to the article rather than infobox?Kermanshahi (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You wrote that they "irrelevant low-level commander". I quoted the source, and wrote that it is not. Moreover, I believe that the deaths of these officers should be written in this article. Pakistani generals have died in this war?Sentinel R (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are three possible ways forward here, on how to present the commanders in the infobox:

• The editors on the talkpage (which seems to be the two of you) come to a compromise on how the information should be listed in the infobox
• You follow another step in dispute resolution, such as to request comment from other editors, or seek mediation
• We remove that entire section from the infobox template

For now, please do continue with discussion, but if you cannot reach an agreement in a reasonable amount of time, I will remove that section of the template, and paste it here on the talkpage. Then discussion can continue here at talk, until you can come to an agreement. If there is no agreement, then the information will never go back into the infobox. So please, try to find a compromise? --Elonka 16:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that the death of famous military leaders should be in this article and wrote the above reasons. What do you think?Sentinel R (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Firstly they were not famous, the only time their names ever appeared in the news was when they were assasinated. Secondly, I agree the fact that they were killed should definetly be mentioned in the infobox only per wikipedia rules the infobox is only for the top commanders (thus President/commander in chief, head of military and not "deputy commander of the ground forces of a certain branch of the military of one of the countries in question") and there should be a maximum of 7, which in this case, clearly is not the case. What I suggest is that we mention in the Iran section that these two were killed in the Pishin bombing.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Read the next articles: War in Somalia (2009–) and War in North-West Pakistan. In this articles indicated a low level commanders. Noor Ali Shooshtari and Rajab Ali - they is not low-level commanders.Sentinel R (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, but that argument is not a good one. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Elonka 04:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But in this conflict, these commanders definitely have value, and I provided all references for this.Sentinel R (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

They have value, but not enough to be in the infobox unless we add 50 other commanders, which according to WP rules is not allowed.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I am for them to be in the Infobox, arguments are brought. Let the administrator chooses.Sentinel R (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you would like other opinions, I recommend posting a request at WP:3O or starting a Request for comment. --Elonka 06:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What we need to do is make the infobox up to standards. Currently it is very lacking, especially at the Pakistani side. We need to add the Pakistani leaders for every rebellion, meanwhile the Iranian leadership should be narrowed down to only Ali Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If we are to include all low level generals from both countries from all periods it will be much too long.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is the list I propose for commanders, which is only the top commanders of each rebellion and is already too long:

Pakistan

• Liaquat Ali Khan (Prime Minister during 1948 rebellion)
• Muhammad Ayub Khan (President/military dictator during 58-59 and 63-69 rebellions)
• Yahya Khan (President/military dictator at the end of 63-69 rebellion)
• Zulfikar Ali Bhutto (President and later Prime Minister during 73-77 rebellion)
• Tikka Khan (Head of army and commander of Baloch operations during 73-77 rebellion)
• Pervez Musharraf (President/military dictator during current rebellion)
• Yousaf Raza Gillani (Current Prime Minister of Pakistan)
• Tariq Majid (Head of military 2007-2010)
• Khalid Shameem Wynne (Current head of military)

Iran

• Ali Khamenei (Supreme Leader)
• Mohammad Khatami (President 1997-2005)
• Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (Current President
• Hassan Firouzabadi (Head of military)

Kermanshahi (talk) 15:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I added the Pakistani commanders, I'll wait with the Iranian ones untill we finish this discussion.Kermanshahi (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree to remove the two Iranian generals from the Infobox. But only if their death will be detailed in this article. It suits you?Sentinel R (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

A sensible decission, since they do not really fit in with the rest of the commanders. I'll add a sentence about their deaths in the Iranian section. If you want to go into more detail than you can add what you want to say to the section aswell.Kermanshahi (talk) 14:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC) )

Semi-protect or completely block this article from being altered by random users

This article is sensitive and really biased and needs to be cleaned up and protected because many people,mainly from pakistan are posting comments here.Somebody plz clean this article because right now its completely useless for unbiased readers

Infobox: Indian support & Headings

I think this case is not similar to that of Taliban. I'll give the example of all the other countries added to the infobox who deny it too. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

So because Pakistan denied supporting the Taliban they may not be added to the info box, but any other country which deny's aiding a terrorist group are not accorded the same courtesy? I believe you will need consensus for such a change to the info box. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not mean that. But the fact that other countries are listed here in the same way, this seems to be a separate case. I don't think all those countries have accepted aiding the organization either. What about them having the same courtesy - this was intended to represent like this. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• About the change in heading, support is not alleged in all three cases given below. The two organizations have not denied and one openly calls for it. Only India denied it and that has the first sentence on that. So there is no need for a non neutral heading saying 'alleged' giving an implication. 'Foreign support' doesn't imply that it actually happened or it would have been 'confirmed foreign support'. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If they deny aiding the Baloch insurgents then by your own reasoning they may not be added to the info box, that is all I have to say on that. Re header, if just one country denies giving aid then the section needs to be neutral in it's title, hence alleged. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• And here you removed only India? Bias? I think we can work out a better heading than this, 'alleged' has an implication. The main heading in anycase does not fit here as it was and just India being 'alleged'. For India, just by your own example of Taliban article since you seem to be following that here, "2.2.3 Pakistani military interference" is a section in that article. And I think headings do not need to contain exploitations (though that should also be just "Pakistani military" or something - not alleged, not interference). --lTopGunl (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed it when I saw you had added it, given your insistence on the Taliban article that if it is denied then per NPOV policy it may not stay there I assumed your reverting it back was an error, no? I have not yet had time to look at the other countries in the info box to see if they also deny the allegations of supporting insurgents. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You can see that I've not reverted it back to the infobox. What I'm concerned about is the heading you changed. See my comment above. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but your friend did. The heading is neutral as is, what exactly would you prefer it to be called? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You certainly do not mean to put another user's burden on me, do you? You can discuss or point out the Taliban related consensus to him here and see if he agrees to that on this case. About the heading, Remove 'alleged' which is redundant and has implication when placed in heading. Just foreign support is not a POV as the first sentence clarifies it and also I've given Taliban as an example, --lTopGunl (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

i have found a source that says India is supporting the insurgency ,there are numerous reports detailing this from indain consulates to a dossier the Pakistani PM gave to the Indian PM, by all means include a indian rejection of such allegations but its not in the spirit of information and wikipedia to deny multiple reports of Indian involvment --Ambelland (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Well done you, however it will not go in the info box, only the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

no your denials can go in the article, the facts will remain in the info box... --Ambelland (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Tagged as POV Darkness Shines (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I see you have tagged it, please make your comments and "arguments " in the talk page, so all users can come to a consensus. bearing in mind that the POV dispute is releated to the india infosection bit, which seems like a nondispute to me, as indian denial is included in the article --Ambelland (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ambelland, you might want to take a look at this consensus at WP:NPOVN#Taliban. Although I do not support this case being fully similar to that but I'm not reverting it as yet on those basis. Darkness shines, do we have a consensus on the heading? --lTopGunl (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Unsure on the heading, I do not see how you can state foreign support when those accused of it deny the allegation, it seems more neutral as is. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

You've given Taliban as an example here to follow one part of your argument, not taking it as an example for this part too would be double standards. "Foreign support" doesn't implicate that India's support was a fact but rather categorizes the content where everything is properly explained. The categorizing itself to be done with the word alleged or confirmed on contrary would be incorrect. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I think we have agreement for the indain link to remain in the info box and the denial to be in the article ...the POV tag is no longer neede --Ambelland (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Please do not claim a false consensus, the tag will remain so long as the info box is POV Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• Alright we have resolved the heading issue here. The next is whether the same consensus as WP:NPOVN#Taliban is applicable here. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Since some instances including this one itself are using brackets here, how about putting "Claimed by Pakistan" in the bracket instead of "Against Pakistan"? This way it will be self clarifying. Note that the citings say that Pakistan says it has undeniable evidence. --lTopGunl (talk) 00:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

How about using "claimed by NATO, Afghanistan, India, Russia, London School of Economics, BBC, etc." in the Taliban infobox? NATO and Afghanistan, etc. also say they have undeniable evidence. You only have claims by Pakistani officers as a source and want to add it to the infobox, while for the Pakistani support for the Taliban there are endless reliable sources and you do not want to add it. You are obviously putting undue weight on Pakistan's claims. JCAla (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

To start with, this is a separate case. Each case may be (and may be not) taken as a criteria for another. That is why I said we have to see how it is similar to that. And this discussion is not about Taliban article and we have a already have a consensus for that. If this turns out to be similar, the same can apply to this. I've not 'put' any weight yet. I did not add/revert the flagicon which you removed. Also, I've pointed out above, this article seems to put in other countries too. What about them... --lTopGunl (talk) 09:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The editors who entered the other countries should check what is the situation of sources for these countries too. I am not familiar with the official position of every single country mentioned in the infobox. JCAla (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I never said you should... but keeping them (in case they deny) and consensus from Taliban ends up to be applied here, would be unfair and should also be checked. You removed US, is there a denial from them? --lTopGunl (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is denial from them. Also, consider that there are many more reliable sources accusing Pakistan of supporting the Taliban and there are only very few sources accusing India and US of supporting the Balochs. So it is not a question whether the Taliban infobox consensus can be applied here, to the contrary. JCAla (talk) 10:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll expect a source for the US denial since you removed it. No of sources play some part in verifiability but just because the same thing is published repeatedly doesn't make it more neutral or less neutral rather just more verifiable. So the discussion about inclusion is still open. Note that we can refer to that as an example but this also has it's own subject notability and merits which we will have to weigh. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

As you said before, the responsibility to provide sources lies with the proposer of an information. Nevertheless, US denies backing Balochistan liberation. The difference in source availability is not just in number but also in variety and independence from one another. JCAla (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Will check the source. I meant even if I provided a source a denial would still get a reason from you to remove as per other consensus, hence asked for the source. You are confusing reliability with neutrality. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

@TopGun, i don't delete the questioned claims for now, but considering the unreliability of most references and no citation of most claims, i suggest you find proper referencing as soon as possible in order to keep those. Secondly, there is a clear difference between logistic or training support and sending actual troops to the field. Thus, putting India and others into the infobox as "belligerents" is completely unacceptable, even if India (which is questionable) indeed supported Balochi insurgents in some indirect way. I really doubt it also regarding several other organizations and states.Greyshark09 (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ambelland added the infobox flags. I reverted the sections about support. Some might be weakly referenced but the basis for keeping the sections themselves are established. Hopefully they'll find more content with time. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

• JCAla, the heading at the article you mentioned is different than this... they are two separate articles... and then this is not even decided there. Your revert is baseless baiting. Self revert please and follow WP:BRD. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because India may or may not be providing material support for Jundallah does not make the country an active belligerent. Unless concrete reliable sources explicitly identify India as playing a physical role in the insurgency it cannot be placed in the infobox. The foreign support sections on US/India are weakly sourced, US doesn't contain a single ref other than US claim it is not involved in the conflict. These issues should be addressed here before major edits are made. Wikifan^{Be nice} 22:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC

Though I oppose your point of view, but I don't see the flags in the infobox anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The support is only alleged for many of these countries, so it needs to be "alleged". JCAla (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The source alleging support was published on August 7, 2011 and the source claiming no evidence for such involvement was published on May 27, 2009. So there is a possibility that Pakistan may have provided evidence after May 2009. --SMS ^Talk 09:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

See "The Pakistani military claims that Baloch militants receive arms and financial support from India but has provided no evidence to support the claim." JCAla (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

JCAla, for the two days I waited for an explanation / discussion for the change in heading, you stayed off from this page... now when I've reinstated per consensus on this talk page, you have reverted it again. And your further edits under the pretext of "clean up" are not clean up.... I'm sure you've been on wiki long enough to know what clean up means. These were simply POV edits, removing sections and adding content from Taliban article. Read WP:NINJA... stop doing this and engage into discussion. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

First I already gave you an explanation. Second, it is simple as this, we can go to the noticeboard and ask if it is "foreign support" or "alleged foreign support" and if there should exist a section with two very controversial sentences without any sources. You already know the result of the "Indians in Afghanistan" RfC. Any information I added to the article is properly sourced and attributed. JCAla (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

1) That RFC has just been listed so don't refer to it. 2) You did not explain the edit, this was settled in this section, and you've decided to come back and roll back that effort after 3 months on your own. 3) You've still not explained your further editing and removal, the section was not without any sources either. You've also removed content from jamestown.org on one side and added content of your liking from same. This is not clean up. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The RFC has been running for 30 days. The preliminary result is absolutely clear. The Jamestown source says the Baloch separatists may work as a force against the Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The article stated the contrary - so I corrected a gross misrepresentation by whoever was adding that. JCAla (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's not debate about that RFC since I just listed it and the mediator agrees with me. You've done major changes in many paragraphs, I will review the sources too to see if they actually matched the content but I'm waiting for the rationale for all the other changes. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Please complete this discussion before making these changes again. I might self revert parts of it if convinced. But over all, there were multiple issues including POV in the edits. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Killing of non-Baloch civilians

This article is missing information about the systematic persecution and mass targeted killings of hundreds of non-Baloch settlers in the province by Baloch militants. A section should be added in the article about this. Mar4d (talk) 10:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Misleading use of sources + Content issues

The following sentence in the introduction ("Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1947, the Pakistan Army invaded Balochistan which rejected to accede to Pakistan") is highly misleading. Most of Balochistan did not reject accession to Pakistan, it was the ruler of the princely state of Kalat (constituting around 20% of modern Baluchistan) who did. Other parts of Balochistan joined the federation through referendums and tribal treaties. This comment is in regard to JCAla's misleading changing of "Kalat" to "Balochistan" in the lead. Mar4d (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Changed into "parts of Balochistan". JCAla (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, I have noticed that this "Jamestown" source has been misused in several cases, especially when talking about the so-called "Punjabi-dominated" government. The source does not even once mention anything about the government being Punjabi-dominated. It is quite obvious that there is deliberate misrepresentation of sources taking places here. I'm going to look into the article deeper and see what else has been cooked. Mar4d (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The only thing that is quite obvious is that you didn't really read the source. It says: "Pakistan’s ethnic Baloch community is underserved and deeply resents what it sees as a calculated effort by Islamabad to suppress Baloch identity and culture. Baloch nationalists argue that Islamabad is actively working to keep the Baloch people impoverished, weak, and disorganized, thus making it easier for the ethnic-Punjabi dominated central government to reap the benefits of Balochistan’s vast natural resources. The latest outbreak of the Baloch insurgency was sparked by the deaths of three prominent Baloch rebel leaders following a period of relative calm. ..." (Jamestown Foundation, Separatists, Islamists and Islamabad Struggle for Control of Pakistani Balochistan) JCAla (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The following sentence added at the end of the Afghanistan-support section ("In the past President Karzai had always denied similar claims from Pakistan and he did not comment on the claims made by the Pakistani interior minister this time") needs a citation, otherwise it is obvious WP:Synthesis. Mar4d (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Added source and further info about Karzai's past position. JCAla (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems like you are pushing POV without getting a consensus here. You're the only one supporting your edits. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

...? JCAla (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

• @JCAla: "Parts of Balochistan" is ambigious and factually incorrect. It needs to be replaced with Kalat, as originally present in the text before. There were four Baloch princely states in total, Las Bela, Makran, Kharan and Kalat. The rulers of the first three joined the federation, while it was the ruler of the last state (Kalat) who preferred autonomy. Clearly, there are no "parts" involved here but rather one princely state, so this needs correction. As for the Jamestown source, read the citation again. The page you have quoted does not contain the quote cited above. I have also taken a look at Karzai's position, but the source you have given is much older and in fact does not say anything about Karzai refuting Rehman Malik's recent statement. In fact, the title of the source itself seems to be quite self-explanatory ("US embassy cables: Karzai admits to sheltering Baloch nationalists"). The rest of the confidential cables, apparently, are just about him rambling on about his love for Baloch seperatists and how he cannot forgive himself for not helping them. Mar4d (talk) 14:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Kalat was a part of the area called Balochistan, that is not a real issue, you can put the name if that is the problem. The Jamestown Foundation source has exactly that quote. Do we need to have someone read it for you now? The Afghanistan section nowhere states "Karzai refutes", instead it states: "In the past, President Karzai had always denied ..." JCAla (talk) 12:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

JCAla's addition of Pakistan "invading and annexing" Baluchistan are pretty much POV. I've reverted once but he simply reverts back even without getting any consensus (whether or not his edits are right, that should be done). I think reverting that and then discussing will be appropriate because the current version is not because it has a silent consensus, it is because BRD was not followed and I'm on a 1-revert restriction. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

i have reverted the non-npov edits.-- altetendekrabbe  11:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks much better now. This is a long term editwar by JCAla (see article history). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

@jcala you need to re-write according to the source you use. replacing the jamestown source with another without actually modifying the content accordingly seems disingenuous. please re-write, in a precise and neutral way. kalat has to be mentioned. note that the princely states had to chose either pakistan or india. in fact, they were forced to chose sides.-- altetendekrabbe  12:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources did reflect the content, you obviously did a blind revert without checking them. I know they support the content as I gave those sources to JCAla. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Section break

Pakistan "invaded" Balochistan? That's a POV. And please don't change the whole article and its scope. This article includes the whole of conflict which extends to iran and Afghanistan. I might have undone some good edits.. but the POV edits are way too much and complex to revert without undoing all. Please discuss and stop the editwar. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I have added a factual inaccuracy tag to the article as it is an historical fact that the Princely States were given the option of independence, Kalat choose independence and Pakistan did in fact invade. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I am hereby asking you, TopGun, to explain which parts of the edit you exactly oppose, so that I can redo the parts that you do not oppose. Also, I ask you to provide a source to back up your objections to the parts you do oppose, since the content I provided was sourced very reliably with sources such as the Stanford University Press and The Economist. JCAla (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a better way would be that you propose the changes here and I can object so that you can clarify without a mix up. As an overview, I opposed the part about sentence about invasion (which is now in the article in another wording and I'll be dealing with it the section where it is being discussed) and I opposed removing any content about Iran and changing the scope of this article to just the conflict about Pakistan. I'll reply further when you propose any changes that you want to make from this point forward including the ones I mentioned as it's quite a mix up. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not work that way. I made changes, I sourced them. You reverted everything back to unsourced. You need a reason for that. I am not obliged to get an ok for every single change from you. You need to tell me why you reverted and back that up with sources. As far as the two issues that you did mention are concerned. I did not remove content about Iran. I just made two sections, one for Pakistan, the other for Iran, since the conflicts are not directly related. Then, you oppose content which has been sourced with the Stanford University Press, namely that Pakistan invaded Kalat. You need a source as strong as the Stanford University to back your rejection up. These are two points. Any further issues you had with the edit? JCAla (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That's how consensus works. You made major changes in the article (a better option would have been proposing them in the first place), I objected, now you've to discuss those. Propose them here in clarity what you exactly want changed because I can possibly not go through all the changes (and they're quite some major edits) and describe what you wanted to change (and why) and present a proposal on your behalf in terms of "any further issues I have with the edit". To verify my comment about article content, you gave this edit summary in one of your edits: restructure, both conflicts should get a separate article as they are different. Anyway, I've done the due digging up of diffs and give you reasons for my revert. If you think you are not supposed to get consensus (or "OK" as you name it, which it is not), you're mistaken. You can definitely propose changes when I can go through the tedious work of reviewing your changes to further clarify my reasons for revert, I'll give due replies when you do so. That's probably enough discussion about what happened when you made major changes and got reverted or we're stuck here. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok. So, you reverted without knowing the content of the edit, rejecting only that one sentence sourced with the Standford University? Showing good faith, and to move this forward, I will give you the major points of the edit. And you will look through the edit and tell me what else you are rejecting and based on which sources you are doing so.

1. Put in flags for Jundullah and slightly updated the infobox.
2. Then we have the sentence sourced with the Stanford Universtiy Press about Kalat in the lede and the history section. You reject that. Please provide a source on which you base that.
3. Structured the article into a Pakistan part and an Iran part as the conflicts are not directly related and they are currently totally mixed up with Jundullah attacks under Pakistan section.
4. Integrated the three separate sections on the economy into one.
5. Expanded the parties to the conflict section.
6. Removed the "led by" from the history section headings.
7. Integrated content from the new Economist article.
8. Changed "foreign support" to "alleged foreign support". We have the RFC on that below now.
9. Expanded on the human rights section.
10. Cleaned up the mess in the Balochistan_conflict#Development_and_Human_Rights_Issues section. Removed unsourced and replaced it with sourced content, to which you are free to add.

That's it. Now, tell me and please provide sources as I have done in the edit. JCAla (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not say I reverted without knowing the contents. Read my comment again. I said it is hard to go through your edits and write up a proposal on your behalf.. the two things are completely different. Your current post is still stuck on that, ie. having me to list my objections (which I did already) to a non-proposed content. I can see the changes you made, there's no point in the above list. Why go in reverse order? Since you did the effort to list up the changes, you can expand a bit on them like a normal content proposal. To facilitate, I'll start on the points I already objected on in this comment since they're clear. About Iran, why do you want to move it to a different article from this one? This article is about the whole area and it is not necessary for the article to be covering a single dispute. All disputes are notable and should be discussed in the article. Your edits in human rights section were POV, so again... if you propose them here (preferably in an adjusted manner) it will help you attract input from editors other than me, because seriously no one will go and look up diffs as you make a list here (and that would include me too since I've done that a number of times now). About the major restructuring, you did not give a rationale for the restructure other than about the two conflicts having separate articles so you should have actually expected a revert there. Now that I see, this is the only thing you gave a rationale for. See WP:BURDEN, you know by now that content can still be objected on if you do have sources along with it, a proposal now is not only due, to consider the changes you want to make, but also pending as a rationale to your previous edits. I finally feel that I've been really clear in telling you why you need to propose. Hope that helps. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, if you want to avoid the discussion, fine. I have provided a list of my major changes above and I ask you now to tell me with which points you have a problem. Do you really think editors need to write general content proposals for others do say "yes" or "no", when others can't even say what exactly they are objecting to? If you undo all the edits done by me, I expect you to know what you have reverted. You still have offered no objection besides the one about the one sentence and a general "pov" claim. And you still fail to cite any source in your favour. As I said about Iran, I did not remove the content, rather made a section for Iran in order not to have it mixed up. To move this forward, I see you have two objections. 1) The Kalat sentence and 2) you consider the human rights section POV. If you are not able to voice any other objections I will redo the other edits. To discuss the two objections you did voice:

• Pakistan army invading Kalat

The source used by me "South Asia's Weak States: Understanding the Regional Insecurity Predicament", published by the Stanford University Press, on page 175 states very clearly:

"The Khan of Kalat [Balochistan] took his independence seriously, and when he resisted the incorporation of his land within the new Pakistani province of Balochistan, it required the forceful action of the Pakistani military ..."

So the following sentence is correct: "Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1947, the Pakistan Army invaded Kalat the central part of Balochistan which rejected to accede to Pakistan." What exactly are your objections and on which sources do you base them?

• Human rights section

The following is the section you removed.

In the period from 2003-2012 it is estimated that 8000 people were kidnapped by Pakistani security forces in the province. In 2008 alone an estimated 1102 Baloch people disappeared. There have also been reports of torture. An increasing number of bodies "with burn marks, broken limbs, nails pulled out, and sometimes with holes drilled in their heads" are being found on roadsides because of a "kill and dump" campaign conducted by Pakistani security forces especially by the Punjabi-dominated Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the Pashtun-dominated Frontier Corps (FC) - which until 9/11 fought alongside the Afghan Taliban and Al-Qaeda against the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. In July 2011, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan issued a report on illegal disappearances in Balochistan and identified ISI and Frontier Corps as the perpetrators. The Pakistan Rangers are also alleged to have committed a vast part of the human rights violations in the region.No one has been held responsible for the crimes.

Islamist parties such as Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jamaat-e-Islami, allegedly supported by and allied to the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), have also systematically targeted Shia Muslims in Balochistan, with about 600 being killed in attacks in recent years.

On the other side about 800 non-Baloch settlers (mostly Punjabis) and Balochs accused of "spying" or "collaborating" with the government intelligence agencies, were killed by Baloch militant groups since 2006.

What exactly is your objection? Every statement has been attributed to one of the following sources: The Economist, Human Rights Watch and The Guardian. JCAla (talk) 16:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal of sourced content

TopGun has removed reliably sourced content, disputing it based on NPOV, although refusing to present a reliable source himself since April 12. (see above section) The sources used by me and removed by TopGun were: "South Asia's Weak States: Understanding the Regional Insecurity Predicament", published by the Stanford University Press, page 175:

"The Khan of Kalat [Balochistan] took his independence seriously, and when he resisted the incorporation of his land within the new Pakistani province of Balochistan, it required the forceful action of the Pakistani military ..."

And "The Military Factor In Pakistan", published by Lancer, page 191:

"Just after Pakistan came into being, Mir Ahmad Yaar Khan [ruler of Kalat], descendant of Naseer Khan, declared independence ...In April 1948, the [Pakistan] army was deployed in Kalat, and the Khan was forced to accede to Pakistan."

Therefore, the following sentences are correct: "Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1947, the Pakistan Army invaded Kalat the central part of Balochistan which rejected to accede to Pakistan. After the Khan of Kalat had been forced to agree to the accession of Kalat, a Baloch separatist movement was created by his brothers." The content will be put back into the article if TopGun fails to present reliable sources saying that Pakistan did not use army force against Kalat. JCAla (talk) 11:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, calling it an invasion is hardly NPOV. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Take a read btw (and of the sources further referenced there): [17]. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. It is historical fact that Pakistan invaded, they used armour, artillery and infantry with some air support. Naturally the article needs to reflect this fact. I fully support jcala changes. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, the source you present is a blog and as such is not a reliable source. Please provide reliable sources. Although DS rightly explained that "invaded" is a historical fact, there is no problem in replacing "invaded" with "deployed to" or similar as a compromise, in my opinion. JCAla (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think it is a blog just because it is using a host? And have you fully read my comment? The article I linked is fully sourced further. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The site is a blog - a dubious one. Are you or are you not going to provide a reliable source? This is the last time I ask you to do so. If you again refuse to discuss productively I will reinstate the content or a variation of the content. JCAla (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I've not yet cited the source to the article.. just given it to you to read. Have you read the sources provided in the article there? If not, do read them because they are reliable, instead of completely ignoring my comment to move ahead to your favoured version. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

• In my opinion, the text should read: Shortly after Pakistan's creation in 1948, the Pakistan Army was deployed in Kalat, the central part of Balochistan, which rejected to accede to Pakistan. This avoids the word "invaded", which is perceived by TG as not neutral and is also more accurate, given what the author of the cited source writes. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a more neutral suggestion, though we've to consider the debate of context. Per the last section on this talk, the option of independence was also not really an option, and should be considered while evaluating he wording. I'll take another look in the opposing sources and see if any of them out right contradict the deployment of army other wise we might be able to work on these lines. --lTopGunl (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

POV tag + revert

As can be seen in the discussions above there is a POV issue ongoing. This revert by myself[18] was due to the source[19] being a letter to the editor used for statements of fact. Not only is the source useless as an opinion piece it fails WP:RS as it is a letter to the editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I will also point out that a book published by Penguin may not be used for statements of fact as it has not under gone any form of editorial control. Lieven's opinions are just that, opinions and need to be attributed. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• And this one[20] is an Op-Ed. Would Shrigley be so kind as to read WP:RS and stop using crap sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
• Since you also started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard, I will continue the discussion there. Shrigley (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the section titled Foreign support be renamed to Alleged foreign support?

• Alleged foreign support per WP:NPOV and the fact that there are allegations only, no hard evidence has been provided to prove foreign support. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose rename; keep "Foreign support" as a heading as it is a blanket term and not all of the given cases are allegations. Only India's case is a series of allegations and denials which are covered and attributed in that section. See also the discussion in the archived section, "Infobox: Indian support & Headings", where it was agreed to keep that version and was just editwarred upon. I suspect users might cite another RFC at Indians in Afghanistan article to support their point, but that is a different case where the sole case covered was of India... here other parties are involved so this needs a new discussion. Also, a stricter NPOV is applied to headings which are impartial to POVs and rather just contain information of what is covered in the section. Using "Alleged foreign support" or "Confirmed foreign support" or any such prefix should be discouraged as simply stating "Foreign support" does not imply whether the support was actually given or not, rather that the section talks about foreign support. Using alleged will actually be a prejudice not only on all other subheadings which are not alleged but also on the India heading implying the POV claiming it to be an allegation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, and why? If Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants can have a section on alleged activities (using the same argument: "allegations only, no hard evidence provided to prove foreign support") in Assam being presented as fact (by the way I have never heard of that place), why must it be any different on this article? Mar4d (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I take that striked comment back. It is a quite notable topic which I'm going to be working on though I still stand by the rest of my comment - we should follow the precedent set in other articles. Mar4d (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Still following me I see. There is a difference between academic sources which use statements of fact and a few allegations by the Pakistani government. That would be the difference. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You may dispose that delusional theory, thanks. I have dozens of Pakistan-related articles on my watchlist and this happens to be one of them. Stay focused on the content, not what I do, got it? Mar4d (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hardly delusional, Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants was not on your watchlist was it? How did you find it without checking my contributions again? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is on my watchlist, and you'll probably be pleased to find it in our useful spy list here. But that's not the point. I'm a member of WP:PAK, so any Pakistan-related article that gets created, no matter by whom, when or where, I will be one of the first people to find out about it, don't you worry :) And if an article interests me, I will edit it. You can stop beating around the bush now and stay focused on the content, for the second time. Mar4d (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Always liked that list. :] --lTopGunl (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Shoudn't this article be up for deletion? Actually speedy deletion... how many times would it take to say there's no consensus for including such content on the wiki.. the RFC closure says it all. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Alleged foreign support, but this RFC is useless as there is already a precedent for this questions on the "Indians in Afghanistan" article RFC which loud and clear came to the conclusion it needs to be "alleged" if there is not a majority position among reliable sources proclaiming it as fact, which there is not. JCAla (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew you would raise this point.. see my !vote above. And you've violated 1RR.. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Support - but mention in the section text that these are allegations. My theoretical argument is that the subject is not any particular foreign support but the idea of foreign support, which may turn out to be just allegations. My more practical position is it seems like Wikipedia 'in general' does not qualify section names with "Alleged". Also, it makes it a little ambiguous whether or not the topic is about the fact that there are allegations going around or if it is an a section about foreign support which only contains allegations, a minor picky point, I admit Jztinfinity (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In text attributions already in place. That's what I mean in my support for this. It was even agreed upon before and just got dug up again. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Change title to avoid the problem - This problem will go away if the word "support" is removed. In the absence of great secondary sources analyzing the issue, the word "support" is too weighty: it draws a conclusion for the reader. Recommend change the section title to something more passive & neutral like "Other nations" or "Interactions with other nations" or "International views" ... something generic so the title itself does not promote a particular conclusion. This may require (which is a good thing) broadening the section to describe the views of other nations on the conflict. --Noleander (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Noleander has the right idea. Perhaps "Other nations and the conflict"? BTW, a section titled "Elite upper-lower class economic gap", really? --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There are three separate sections on economic issues including the infamous you mentioned. I had integrated them into one, but TG restored everything in a general revert. I am still waiting for any arguments and sources for that revert ... JCAla (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Noleander proposal. Either RP's suggestion above or "Interactions with other nations" would be the best course of action. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Generally, as concluded on the Indians in Afghanistan RFC, it needs to be "Alleged foreign support" so long as the support is only alleged by a minority source and not a majority position among reliable sources. But, RP and Noleander have both made a good suggestion for another possible way forward. JCAla (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  I think Noleander's suggestion is the best. Words like "alleged" are generally not a good idea as section headers but, in this case, it is also true that actual evidence for "foreign support" is, to put it mildly, murky. A section titled "Foreign support" would definitely not fit available facts. --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. JCAla (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

JCAla, the content in itself is sourced for what it claims, why do I need to provide sources. You can stop terming it as a general revert and actually discuss what and why you want to change. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, why don't we discuss this in the appropriate section? And no, the version you restored has no sources for the single thing that you have contested so far. You have to provide reasons and sources for rejecting that edit which was reliably sourced. See my request in appropriate section. JCAla (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Further comments at #Misleading use of sources + Content issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Question, the subheadings go by country and some countries actually are involved while the case for India is allegations and this heading covers them all, how will it be appropriate to group together countries which are actually supporting (or alleged to support) a cause and those who have a specific view. I support inclusion of countries by view or foreign policy but in a parallel heading (maybe stepping down this one to a level three and having a blanket heading). This will leave our problem where it was but in spirit of Noleander's suggestion, I have a counter proposal, why not rename it to Foreign involvement. This unlike support does not have the issues which are being opposed as involvement can be good or bad and the rest is already attributed in text and not being challenged per se. And this can not be compared with Indians in Afghanistan RFC, I've given reasons for that on top. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

TG, there are only claims by Pakistan. "Involvement" insinuates that there is in fact involvement, it is the same as "support". So, no. JCAla (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

India is admittedly involved in different activities in Afghanistan including training personnel etc. Now Pakistan alleges this as a pretext and the further discussion is within the text and "involvement" does not imply support. Even support does not say whether support was given or not per Jztinfinity rather just a specification of what the content is, but "involvement" is a step further back in an attempt to be impartial (and not that we do not have enough oppose for the status quo to be kept). --lTopGunl (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

India is not admittedly involved in any of the activities Pakistan alleges. Involvement implies the same as support. (And a consensus is forming that there needs to be a change, obviously.) JCAla (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't use the word admittedly for the allegations, it was for involvement in Afghanistan, see again. Three users do oppose the change as of yet and with good reasons, and specifically opposed using "alleged" in the heading. I'll let the summing up to the closer... but the change is a proposal, not consensus. And I've made a counter proposal which, to me, seems impartial. I'll wait for comments by unrelated editors on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Foreign involvement is a better/neutral term. Some nations are indeed involved. Afghanistan is one prominent country. Another one would be Iraq which also had a brief role in providing arms, mainly to counter Iran (though this was way back). "India is not admittedly involved in any of the activities Pakistan alleges." Says who? India? Mar4d (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I support changing the title too... but what's so wrong with "Real and alleged foreign support"? It's not too clunky, really, is it? PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 15:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Foreign involvement It is better/neutral --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Foreign involvement/Foreign support, adding alleged to the title is POV and we should better keep it neutral. At many occasions the foreign involvement was exposed like the ammunition found in Iraqi embassy meant for the insurgents in Balochistan in 1970s, like Afghanistan provided shelter to the insurgents in 1970s and in the current insurgency campaign. By titling it alleged we will give a biased POV to our readers, its better to state the facts and let the reader decide themselves that whether it is alleged or there really is foreign involvement. --SMS ^Talk 12:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the section titled Foreign support be renamed to Alleged foreign support?

• Alleged foreign support per WP:NPOV and the fact that there are allegations only, no hard evidence has been provided to prove foreign support. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose rename; keep "Foreign support" as a heading as it is a blanket term and not all of the given cases are allegations. Only India's case is a series of allegations and denials which are covered and attributed in that section. See also the discussion in the archived section, "Infobox: Indian support & Headings", where it was agreed to keep that version and was just editwarred upon. I suspect users might cite another RFC at Indians in Afghanistan article to support their point, but that is a different case where the sole case covered was of India... here other parties are involved so this needs a new discussion. Also, a stricter NPOV is applied to headings which are impartial to POVs and rather just contain information of what is covered in the section. Using "Alleged foreign support" or "Confirmed foreign support" or any such prefix should be discouraged as simply stating "Foreign support" does not imply whether the support was actually given or not, rather that the section talks about foreign support. Using alleged will actually be a prejudice not only on all other subheadings which are not alleged but also on the India heading implying the POV claiming it to be an allegation. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose, and why? If Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants can have a section on alleged activities (using the same argument: "allegations only, no hard evidence provided to prove foreign support") in Assam being presented as fact (by the way I have never heard of that place), why must it be any different on this article? Mar4d (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I take that striked comment back. It is a quite notable topic which I'm going to be working on though I still stand by the rest of my comment - we should follow the precedent set in other articles. Mar4d (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Still following me I see. There is a difference between academic sources which use statements of fact and a few allegations by the Pakistani government. That would be the difference. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You may dispose that delusional theory, thanks. I have dozens of Pakistan-related articles on my watchlist and this happens to be one of them. Stay focused on the content, not what I do, got it? Mar4d (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hardly delusional, Inter-Services Intelligence support for militants was not on your watchlist was it? How did you find it without checking my contributions again? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it is on my watchlist, and you'll probably be pleased to find it in our useful spy list here. But that's not the point. I'm a member of WP:PAK, so any Pakistan-related article that gets created, no matter by whom, when or where, I will be one of the first people to find out about it, don't you worry :) And if an article interests me, I will edit it. You can stop beating around the bush now and stay focused on the content, for the second time. Mar4d (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Always liked that list. :] --lTopGunl (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Shoudn't this article be up for deletion? Actually speedy deletion... how many times would it take to say there's no consensus for including such content on the wiki.. the RFC closure says it all. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Alleged foreign support, but this RFC is useless as there is already a precedent for this questions on the "Indians in Afghanistan" article RFC which loud and clear came to the conclusion it needs to be "alleged" if there is not a majority position among reliable sources proclaiming it as fact, which there is not. JCAla (talk) 07:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I knew you would raise this point.. see my !vote above. And you've violated 1RR.. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Foreign Support - but mention in the section text that these are allegations. My theoretical argument is that the subject is not any particular foreign support but the idea of foreign support, which may turn out to be just allegations. My more practical position is it seems like Wikipedia 'in general' does not qualify section names with "Alleged". Also, it makes it a little ambiguous whether or not the topic is about the fact that there are allegations going around or if it is an a section about foreign support which only contains allegations, a minor picky point, I admit Jztinfinity (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

In text attributions already in place. That's what I mean in my support for this. It was even agreed upon before and just got dug up again. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Change title to avoid the problem - This problem will go away if the word "support" is removed. In the absence of great secondary sources analyzing the issue, the word "support" is too weighty: it draws a conclusion for the reader. Recommend change the section title to something more passive & neutral like "Other nations" or "Interactions with other nations" or "International views" ... something generic so the title itself does not promote a particular conclusion. This may require (which is a good thing) broadening the section to describe the views of other nations on the conflict. --Noleander (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Noleander has the right idea. Perhaps "Other nations and the conflict"? BTW, a section titled "Elite upper-lower class economic gap", really? --regentspark (comment) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There are three separate sections on economic issues including the infamous you mentioned. I had integrated them into one, but TG restored everything in a general revert. I am still waiting for any arguments and sources for that revert ... JCAla (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Noleander proposal. Either RP's suggestion above or "Interactions with other nations" would be the best course of action. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
• Generally, as concluded on the Indians in Afghanistan RFC, it needs to be "Alleged foreign support" so long as the support is only alleged by a minority source and not a majority position among reliable sources. But, RP and Noleander have both made a good suggestion for another possible way forward. JCAla (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  I think Noleander's suggestion is the best. Words like "alleged" are generally not a good idea as section headers but, in this case, it is also true that actual evidence for "foreign support" is, to put it mildly, murky. A section titled "Foreign support" would definitely not fit available facts. --regentspark (comment) 16:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. JCAla (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

JCAla, the content in itself is sourced for what it claims, why do I need to provide sources. You can stop terming it as a general revert and actually discuss what and why you want to change. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, why don't we discuss this in the appropriate section? And no, the version you restored has no sources for the single thing that you have contested so far. You have to provide reasons and sources for rejecting that edit which was reliably sourced. See my request in appropriate section. JCAla (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Further comments at #Misleading use of sources + Content issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Question, the subheadings go by country and some countries actually are involved while the case for India is allegations and this heading covers them all, how will it be appropriate to group together countries which are actually supporting (or alleged to support) a cause and those who have a specific view. I support inclusion of countries by view or foreign policy but in a parallel heading (maybe stepping down this one to a level three and having a blanket heading). This will leave our problem where it was but in spirit of Noleander's suggestion, I have a counter proposal, why not rename it to Foreign involvement. This unlike support does not have the issues which are being opposed as involvement can be good or bad and the rest is already attributed in text and not being challenged per se. And this can not be compared with Indians in Afghanistan RFC, I've given reasons for that on top. --lTopGunl (talk) 07:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

TG, there are only claims by Pakistan. "Involvement" insinuates that there is in fact involvement, it is the same as "support". So, no. JCAla (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

India is admittedly involved in different activities in Afghanistan including training personnel etc. Now Pakistan alleges this as a pretext and the further discussion is within the text and "involvement" does not imply support. Even support does not say whether support was given or not per Jztinfinity rather just a specification of what the content is, but "involvement" is a step further back in an attempt to be impartial (and not that we do not have enough oppose for the status quo to be kept). --lTopGunl (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

India is not admittedly involved in any of the activities Pakistan alleges. Involvement implies the same as support. (And a consensus is forming that there needs to be a change, obviously.) JCAla (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't use the word admittedly for the allegations, it was for involvement in Afghanistan, see again. Three users do oppose the change as of yet and with good reasons, and specifically opposed using "alleged" in the heading. I'll let the summing up to the closer... but the change is a proposal, not consensus. And I've made a counter proposal which, to me, seems impartial. I'll wait for comments by unrelated editors on it. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Foreign involvement is a better/neutral term. Some nations are indeed involved. Afghanistan is one prominent country. Another one would be Iraq which also had a brief role in providing arms, mainly to counter Iran (though this was way back). "India is not admittedly involved in any of the activities Pakistan alleges." Says who? India? Mar4d (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I support changing the title too... but what's so wrong with "Real and alleged foreign support"? It's not too clunky, really, is it? PhnomPencil ^{talk contribs} 15:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Foreign involvement It is better/neutral --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Foreign involvement/Foreign support, adding alleged to the title is POV and we should better keep it neutral. At many occasions the foreign involvement was exposed like the ammunition found in Iraqi embassy meant for the insurgents in Balochistan in 1970s, like Afghanistan provided shelter to the insurgents in 1970s and in the current insurgency campaign. By titling it alleged we will give a biased POV to our readers, its better to state the facts and let the reader decide themselves that whether it is alleged or there really is foreign involvement. --SMS ^Talk 12:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

option of independence

user ds is claiming that independence was an option given to the princely states by the british. however, i am not that certain:

• "the act made india and pakistan independent dominions and the princely states were left to accede to either of the two". [21]

• "while the power was transferred to the people in british india, the rulers of the princely states were given an option to join either of the two dominions - india or pakistan" [22][23]

• "nehru persuaded mountbatten to force the leaders of the princely states to decide whether to join india or pakistan..." "independence was not an option" [24]

the list can go on. especially, the latter source is clear, nehru and mountbatten forced the princely states to chose either india or pakistan. hence, the content added by user ds is quite misleading. all the princely states were forced to accede, not only kalat. i suggest a re-write so that wp:npov is complied to.-- altetendekrabbe  11:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not really care if you are not certain, it is an historical fact borne out by reliable sources that they gave the princely states three options, join India or Pakistan or choose independence. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

nehru and mountbatten did not yield this option, and this has to be included.-- altetendekrabbe  11:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

new content added.-- altetendekrabbe  12:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Should we have an internal link to Nehru? I do not see it linked as yet in the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

DS, could you provide a reliable source supporting the factual inaccuracy tag? Altetendekrabbe has provided numerous sources that state that independence was not an option and this should be easy to resolve by comparing sources. Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 21:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I had forgotten to remove it. It was there as the article made no mention of Pakistan invading, the article now does. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --regentspark (comment) 22:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• The whole discussion is flawed as Kalat, per a 1867 treaty with the British, had a completely different status than other states and was never fully absorbed into the British Indian empire. Even Pakistan with Jinnah after Pakistan's creation in 1947 recognized the independence of Kalat. JCAla (talk) 10:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Jundallah

There are sections of the article that discuss attacks by Jundallah without introducing the relationship between Jundallah and Balochistan. When I looked at the articles Jundallah (Pakistan) and Jundallah the Iranian activist group seems to be the one related to Balochistan, but it seems like the issue is more that they are based in the region rather than being involved in the conflict there themselves. I can do more research, but can anyone make the connection clearer in the article? —Zujine|talk 07:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing on Iran or Afghanistan

The article only shows a map on Pakistan and does not mention the conflict between Iranian Balochis and the Iranian government. Either this article should renamed 'Balochistan conflict (Pakistan)' or it should include issues and incidents inside Iran and Afghanistan as well.

I agree the lead states that the conflict is about the "Balochistan province in southwestern Pakistan and the Sistan and Baluchestan Province of southeastern Iran" --PLNR (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Baloch "Terrorists"

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Wikipedia must be objective and simply call them "Baloch separatist groups/movements", not terrorists or liberation movements. Thisissparta12345 (talk)

[User:Thisissparta12345] separatist and freedom fighter don't kill innocent people in bomb blasts. These activities are done by a people called 'Terrorist'. If they are separatist then who are Afghan talibans. They also claim that they are fighting against American presence in Afghanistan. Although those talibans have done hideous activities against humanity. Zerefx (talk) 13:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:TERRORIST which is an official Wikipedia policy. If you don't like it challenge it there instead of damaging articles. kashmiri ^TALK 16:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Just a policy related remark, WP:TERRORIST does not forbid the use of the term if it is widely used in RS... I also don't see any refuting in here. I'm not going to revert you though. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

However not every group listed underneath them has been designated a terrorist. For example, Baloch Republican Army doesn't even have a separate page, let alone the designation so the prudent thing would be to remove the disparaging name. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Having a page is not a criteria for anything on wikipedia. We go by WP:V and wikipedia is not treated as a reliable source. I've left the IP a talkpage message to discuss instead of reverting. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There's no verification that the group has been designated a terrorist (that's why I mentioned the lack of a page, not that a page alone means they have been called a terrorist). Can you provide a reliable source that the Baloch Republican Army has been "widely" called a terrorist organization? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: Having a page is not a criterion, but Manual of Style is something that should be adhered to on Wikipedia. In order to talk about a "terrorist organisation", its primary objective, or at least main modus operandi, should be spreading terror among the population. In case of Balochistan groups, they aim not at terrorising the population but at achieving a political objective, and their primary target is Pakistani security apparatus. Non-combatants (civilians) do get killed on the way, but rather as a sort of "collateral damage" than because of being primary targets. Therefore, in this conflict a label of "insurgent" or "fighter" groups fits perfectly. kashmiri ^TALK 10:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So we haven't resolved this issue. Anyone object to me opening up a discussion at the dispute resolution board? I think that'd be more effective than a RFC for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I made a few policy related remarks and left my opinion to add to consensus but I said I wont be reverting you guys.. you might try to drop a talkpage message to the reverting user to point them to this discussion again. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

adding to article

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

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

Map

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

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

Indian involvement

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

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

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140324171548/http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=142289 to http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=142289
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141023122109/http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/13/false_flag
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130116212816/http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=48484 to http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=48484
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101011084818/http://maloykrishnadhar.com/balochistan-cruces-of-history-part-ii to http://maloykrishnadhar.com/balochistan-cruces-of-history-part-ii
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150724211655/http://www.terminalx.org/2012/02/indian-raws-kao-plan-unleashed-in.html to http://www.terminalx.org/2012/02/indian-raws-kao-plan-unleashed-in.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131014190119/http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=14998&Cat=2&dt=5/6/2011 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=14998&Cat=2&dt=5/6/2011
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151222084018/http://www.terminalx.org/2014/07/influential-baloch-lobby-group-in-us-decides-to-end-activism-against-pakistan.html to http://www.terminalx.org/2014/07/influential-baloch-lobby-group-in-us-decides-to-end-activism-against-pakistan.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141016183559/http://epaper.dawn.com/print-textview.php?StoryImage=08_09_2014_008_006 to http://epaper.dawn.com/print-textview.php?StoryImage=08_09_2014_008_006
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110516152149/http://www.hindu.com:80/2005/01/18/stories/2005011808360100.htm to http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/18/stories/2005011808360100.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120430202004/http://www.centralasiaonline.com/en_GB/articles/caii/features/pakistan/2010/04/09/feature-01 to http://www.centralasiaonline.com/en_GB/articles/caii/features/pakistan/2010/04/09/feature-01
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101027185144/http://www.amnesty.org:80/en/news-and-updates/pakistan-urged-investigate-murder-and-torture-baloch-activists-2010-10-26 to http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/pakistan-urged-investigate-murder-and-torture-baloch-activists-2010-10-26
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110122090834/http://thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=8617 to http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=8617

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

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

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

Content removal

Link to revert

Why is sourced information being removed? The sources support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 05:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)Blocked Sockpuppet. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

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

The sources do support the content, and how are human rights watch and a mainstream newspaper not reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 06:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Blocked Sockpuppet—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 12:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Who are you to claim someone is unreliable? The newspaper quoting him obviously believed he was reliable for what he himself says, you removal sourced content on spurious grounds. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 06:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC) Blocked Sockpuppet—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 12:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@FreeatlastChitchat If you think that the source and the person who gave the interview are unreliable, then prove it on WP:RSN. And please stop removing every pro-Indian content just because of your personal bias against Indian sources. Bharatiya29 07:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

I would like to remind all the editors arguing along nationalist lines that this is explicitly sanctioned by ARBCOM [25]. You are asking for trouble by going down this route. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Let me answer point by point.

• Adding Indian POV is not a violation of the policies. The section was completely non-neutral, so I was just making it balanced.
• It is natural for Pakistan to declare those organisations who fight for Baloch independence as terrorist groups. Does that mean that their opinion should not be given a place?
• Karima Baloch is the chairperson of BSO Azad, whom Pakistan alleges to have connections with Kulbhushan Yadav. That makes her statement even more important to have a balanced view of the allegations put on India.
• I fail to understand that how can Karima Baloch's statement be undermined just because she is a refugee. Let me tell you again that she is the chairperson of the same group that is alleged to receive support from India. Therefore her refusal regarding that allegation has to be mentioned for a NPOV.
• If anyone suspects me of sock-puppetry then I will appreciate if he/she requests for a CU to get his/her doubts cleared.
• The allegation that I am pushing the Indian view on a Pak-related article is baseless. The Balochistan conflict is connected to India because of the allegations by Pak. If I find any official reactions by India to these allegations, then I will add them too in order to present a neutral view to the readers. Bharatiya29 13:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Please stop removing sourced content — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 18:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Blocked Sockpuppet—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 12:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Freedom Mouse:

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

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

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

It is your opinion that it is propaganda, and your opinion means nothing. Reliably sourced content can be added here as well you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freedom Mouse (talk • contribs) 23:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC) Blocked Sockpuppet—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 12:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but doesn't your calling a living person a terrorist violate the policy on blp? Been reading some of the links from mt talk page Freedom Mouse (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2016 (UTC)Blocked Sockpuppet—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 12:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

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

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

If Pak declares someone to be a terrorist, then it doesn't mean that his/her statement is not valuable. Many terrorists like Hafiz Saeed have been designated as terrorist by India and the USA, but not by Pak. Who might be a terrorist for one country might not be one for an another country. You can't declare someone to be a terrorist just because Pakistan government thinks so. Wikipedia readers want to read a neutral description of the conflict and not a Pakistani view. Bharatiya29 05:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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

The Pakistani view has already been mentioned, but the Indian view has been neglected. I am not here to push Indian POV but rather to make sure that the articles are neutral. Bharatiya29 11:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

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

I am here to make articles neutral, and for that they need to have the Indian view and the Pak view both. India has been made a part of this conflict due to the Pakistani allegations. If there is a section on India's role then you can't confine it to Pak allegations. India's responses to those allegations and the Baloch separatists' comments regarding India have to be mentioned in order to achieve a NPOV. Please stop making baseless allegations on me. Try to indulge in a meaningful debate. Bharatiya29 18:34, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry, but do you people realize how infantile and ludicrous your thinly veiled political arguments and squabblings are on here? I am just someone who used to edit Wikipedia a lot but left b/c there is no neutrality / objectivity possible, only edit wars backed and constantly tainted by conflicting interests. Most Pakistani users who edit Wikipedia are nationalists who want their country and its doings to be portrayed favourably, and most Indian users as well. Very few Pakistanis can edit Indian-related articles neutrally, and very few Indians can edit Pakistani-related articles neutrally. Thus, the BEST way is discussion and compromise -- AND to involve THIRD-PARTY, UNBIASED CONTRIBUTORS to offer their input. P.S. That being said, I do think that completely barring this page from edits (from both sides) is probably going to be counter-productive in the long-term. Wileddvina (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit: I will say though, that there are certain parts of this article that do seem to be lacking proper citations. Wileddvina (talk) 15:40, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wileddvina: These can be considered kids playing a RPG game. Unfortunately, what you wrote extends beyond the India-Pakistan context: same can be said about US Democrats editing Republican articles and vice versa. In fact, every politically (or religiously, or ethically) charged article can become a battleground... — kashmiri ^TALK 16:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wileddvina:, how did you miss the sock-fest going on Indo-Pak related pages?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Balochistan conflict. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070613013534/http://english.aljazeera.net:80/NR/exeres/0ADA0C78-0ECA-4090-B56B-DCCB85853F4F.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0ADA0C78-0ECA-4090-B56B-DCCB85853F4F.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120605142347/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-99110-The-real-Balochistan to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-99110-The-real-Balochistan
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120604183709/http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-101121-Balochistan-in-focus to http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-9-101121-Balochistan-in-focus

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Please note this article is under discretionary sanctions. Multiple reverts may result in blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Edits by Freedom Mouse aka Darknesshines

A recently blocked sock is adding material and is being supported by Indian editors just wanted to make neutral users aware of this problem. 2A02:C7D:14FC:C600:7550:5709:B28C:2EA7 (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

The content was originally added by Bharatiya29 [26]. Even if it were sock content, once it is reinstated by another user, it becomes their responsibility. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Note I have reverted the latest IP sock but this should not serve as an endorsement of the content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Sir, it takes two to clap, right? The IP you reverted is a sock, but what about DS/Altaf Raza samandar/his other sock? Also, as the edit has no consensus, it cant stay, please. We have had quite a discussion above and no consensus was reached. The discussion for such a contentious edit was otherwise not required as nor the edit meets the criteria of NPOV, neither Kareema is a notable individual - google gives just 50 results for her - who should be given space at WP. It was a bad edit, and this continuous socking by atleast two known and now blocked sock-masters coupled with experienced editors backing the socks has taken this too far. This edit should have been removed since the beginning. A good edit does not require socks to support it.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Not notable for whom? You? Multiple mainstream newspapers are giving coverage to her, that's all needed for us to quote her. Spartacus! (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire: As I said, I have no particular interest in the content. A sock was brought to my attention; I looked through the evidence, blocked the sock, and reverted its edit. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spartacus multiple sources like Youtube and Balochwarna News (a propaganda website). Sure!—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 16:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No one is talking about YouTube or Balochwarna News here. DNA India is a mainstream newspaper and you're removing it on spurious grounds. Spartacus! (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

No sir! One mention in an Indian newspaper does not make her reliable nor notable or important enough to be included here at WP, especially in case of a conflict page where we require info from authentic and reputed sources/people. We cannot have the opinion of every Tommy, Dicky or Hamesh at WP. The source is not scholarly. You have again reverted and are engaged in an edit-war. You are being warned, you cannot add content unless it has consensus, what's so difficult to understand? You are just avenging your reverts and not doing anything to gain consensus. This should be the other way round. This WP:Battleground behavior is unacceptable at WP.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

What to do you mean by "Indian newspaper"? And who are you to say someone is unreliable or not notable? The newspaper quoting him obviously believed he was reliable for what he himself says, you're removing sourced content on spurious grounds. Spartacus! (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

You know what I mean. Opinionated POV have no place at WP. Kareema has never been sourced or given space by any reliable international media, why? Because she is a nobody and her views/POV doesnt carry any weight, hence her statement is unsuitable to make space at WP. Going by your definition characters like Zaid Hamid and Hafiz Muhammad Saeed should also be given space at at Indo-Pak conflict/war related articles. Seriously, these two have a 1000 times better and more coverage by mainstream media than Kareem Baloch. You really dont want to go that line. The bottom line is that we cannot include opinions of every person on planet earth at WP. What you need to do is to back off, stop the edit war, respect the consensus (which you find hard), getting socks to help you and refrain from NPOV editing. A discussion was carried out concerning the edit and yielded nothing, instead the sock was banned. Dont dig graves. Yes, you may attempt at gaining consensus formally only if you stop the edit-war first. I know you can do it, just try.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is completely ridiculous to say that a Baloch nationalist leader cannot get space on the Balochistan conflict page! And, you're again arguing along nationalist lines by using words like "Indian newspaper". Spartacus! (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I use "Indian Newspaper" because that's what it is, no? We all know that India has undue interest in Balochistan and have been known to support the insurgency there. Even a an Indian spy has been caught who has admitted that India is fueling terrorism in Balochistan. So, info from an Indian newspaper alone on the subject is not really an RS. It's mere propaganda, and it seems that you have an WP:Agenda. WP is not a mouthpiece to push the Indian POV, sorry. And before you accuse me of nationalistic blah blah, just check the warnings on your talk page. It's like pot calling the kettle black, really.

Continuously edit-warring to push a certain POV that lacks consensus, is not reliable and is not scholarly is borderline vandalism and disruptive editing.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, Baloch Students Organisation (who's Karima Baloch is the chairperson) have received vast coverage in the media, that's all matters. Spartacus! (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, 183 result in google including Youtube propaganda videos, mentions a propaganda websites and blogs, is really a 'vast coverage'. BTW, Kareema gives 69 results when search precisely. We have been over this already, no repeat the argument for the sake of it, it doesnt help.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

It is irrelevant how many hits a person has. Myriads of articles, especially ones dealing with science, legitimately quote views and publications of academics who have no independent notability, and are certainly not in Google News. I maintain that it is irrelevant whether Karima Baloch is notable or not - enough that she is quoted by a reliable source. Anyhow, as the leader of an actual political organisation which has received significant coverage both in English and in Urdu, she might be inherently notable. — kashmiri ^TALK 18:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri It may be irreverent, but the it was the other side that was using that as an argument for her notability, I just replied them with a fact that she lack coverage, so please take this point to them. Second, what you want to say is that people have credentials - some are scholars, other doctors, ad remaining experts, and that's established, and hence their opinions and authority is respected at WP. Kareema has none. She is a no one. Sir, even random commentators and bloggers have more coverage and footprint then her. Just pick a random popular twitter account and you will see that these people are now being quoted by newspapers and TV. So does that mean they do too get a space at WP? I guess not. Yes, she (is claimed) to a leader of s designate terrorist organization, but that doesnt earn her a space at WP. Like I said, should we also add opinion of Hafiz Saeed on all Kashmir related articles? I bet he has more coverage and notoriety then Kareema. I guess not. Does Kashmir conflict page include the views and opinions of EVERY Kashmiri organization (good or bad, separatist or otherwise)? I shouldnt even be bringing this up, as articles are independent but then there are certain polices which run across the board.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Conversely: if an organisation becomes specially "designated" by the government, I will argue that this act alone makes it notable; especially when we are talking about such a high-calibre designation as "terrorist organisation" which entails a special, excepted status under the law (for instance, organisation no longer enjoys legal protection and guarantees). The leader of such an organisation is notable, or at least an authority that can safely be quoted at least as regards his/her organisation's objectives. The Kashmir conflict page does indeed include the view of some non-governmental organisations (HRW for example), although there are hundreds of organisations in Kashmir with very similar views, so individually attributed quotes would seem somehow superfluous (for sure, Hafiz Saeed article contains its subject's quotes on Kashmir). BSO, one of very few organisations in Balochistan, deserves more weight.

The most important for me is, however, WP:BALANCE. While the Pakistani government blames India for the Balochi separatism, the Baloch certainly, undoubtedly reject such accusations and point to the indigenous nature and origin of their grievances (there are quite a few academic works on this). In order to maintain NPOV, we need to mention their view as well, possibly quoting appropriate English-language sources in support. Someone has proposed to quote BSO leader, and until we have something better I would suggest to keep it. And whether BSO is banned or not, by any official of any government in the world, has no relevance for Wikipedia. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

There are 1000s of organizations out there that push dissent views. In Indian alone there are many. So, should we start adding each and everyone's view at WP? I dont think so. Is BSO such a renowned organization? How many times have their members been called in by mainstream INDEPENDENT media to air their views? Does their views even hold water? Does they merit attention? It's a No, No and No at all account, hence, it's a no-do at WP. Simple and straight. Like I said earlier, we cant have every Tom, Dick or Hamesh getting space at an online encyclopedia. WP is not a promoter or an advertiser. WP is build upon the information from people of renowned reliability, voice, authority, knowledge and expertise i.e. they were FIRST reliable and sourced enough to make it to WP, not other way round i.e WP dont publicize and project an unknown person into being the limelight. By adding her views, that's what you are doing. You are giving weightage to someone who at the first place lacks it. I hope you know the number of Terrorist organizations out there today, right? It's in 100s. Do all of them get space at WP? Let's keep WP reliable and quotable. Not a blog or a mouthpiece for vested interests.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

So much WP:WALLOFTEXT, mostly off-topic. It is your opinion that the content is propaganda and is not notable and your opinion means nothing to us. All that matters is that the reliable sources saw fit to interview and quote them, your personal opinions have no place here so please stop removing content on blatantly spurious grounds.

To the admins monitoring the page, I have done here as the above user is digging heels in on nationalistic grounds. Please note that the above user is not only launching personal attacks but has also tried to harass me on talk page. Spartacus! (talk) 06:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

From your comments above, Admins can very clearly see who is launching personal attacks. Lastly, dont revert until a consensus is reached. You are disrupting WP.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 11:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

References

• Comment: What bothers me is that everything was peaceful, but then the protection expired and this sock (now blocked) stirred it again. What followed was the usual routine that exists on these topic areas. I suggest, Admins should deal ruthlessly with such socks and their supporters. The sock is now blocked, but I guess he succeeded when he kicked-off a edit-war which was then led by Spartacus. Sheer wastage of resources and time, zero favours to WP. But the real matter of concern is that is didnt happen for the first time, just check the pages' history, and you'll know the vicious cycle of edit-warring>edits without consensus by certain users>socking>protection>unprotection>socking>edit-warring, not only at this article but others related too. This a pattern that needs to be checked by worthy Admins. Thanks—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Towards a compromise

This debate and edit war has gone on for far too long, and we need to reach a resolution. The crux of the problem is that we are trying to decide between three sets of unreliable WP:PRIMARY sources: Pakistan government, Indian government and the Baloch activists. All of them are interested parties, can't be assumed to be telling the truth and the whole truth. We have only two possible options: either (i) represent all three viewpoints in equal measure, or (ii) delete all three viewpoints and use reliable scholarly sources, who might provide informed comment. I would like to invite all the involved editors to comment on these two options. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment We should provide all three viewpoints, along with the views of prominent scholars. Pakistani view will naturally be represented in more detail (since Balochistan is a Pak subject), but Indian view should be given equal weightage in those sections which deal with India's alleged interests in Balochistan. The views of Baloch activists should be mentioned wherever necessary. Bharatiya29 11:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem with representing the Baloch viewpoint is that the Balochs are highly fragmented. So no one group can be assumed to speak for all of them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Views of the Baloch separatists should be treated as their own and not of the Baloch people. Bharatiya29 08:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That is a good cautionary note. But I doubt if it is warranted in this instance. See, e.g., [27]. - Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Adding viewpoints of all three parties can be agreeable, but there are certain problems in that. One, when you say that these be added in 'equal measure', it would mean that you would equating widely accepted viewpoints with that of not-so-widely accepted viewpoints - that in itself will be incorrect. Two, you say that "we are trying to decide between three sets of unreliable WP:PRIMARY sources: Pakistan government, Indian government and the Baloch activists", which isnt the case. Most of the viewpoint from Pakistani side mentioned in the article is not WP:PRIMARY as most of this info (Indian involvement in Balochistan) comes from independent sources not directly related to Pakistani government e.g we have in the article three people saying that Indian is involved in Balochistan unrest namely

• US Special Representative James Dobbins
• Malik Siraj Akbar, a Baloch journalist living in exile
• Chuck Hagel, we all know who he is.
• Brahamdagh Bugti, mainleader.

So, saying that Pakistani claims are WP:PRIMARY is simply wrong. Whereas, the opposing info (that Indian is not involved in Balochistan and that there is no evidence) is precisely WP:PRIMARY as it comes from the horse's mouth (i.e. Indian government claims and claims from characters like Kareema) less Richard Holbrooke's statement. So yes, we may remove everything that is WP:PRIMARY and just keep that comes from RS.

Third, even if do we keep viewpoints of all three, characters like Kareema does not gather enough clout to be quoted, simply because she is a naysayer. Like I said earlier, if you people agree that viewpoints of characters like Zaid Hamid, Hafiz Saeed, numerous Pakistani Mullahs etc can also be mentioned in articles like Kashmir Conflict, Indo-Pak Wars of '48, 65, '71 and '99 and Sir Creek, yeah sure, we may too give space to Kareema here. But if we cant agree on giving space to viewpoints of naysayers on one side of the fence, surely we cant allow the same to the naysayers on the other side.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a laughter. How can you compare Zaid Hamid and Hafiz Saeed with Kareema? Hafiz Saeed is a designated terrorist by the US (which is a neutral country in Indo-Pak conflict), and Zaid Hamid is the same guy who said that ghosts fought in 1965 war. Bharatiya29 15:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Exactly! BTW, both of these have their own articles at WP, are quoted by more RS than Kareema and are more known and sourced than her. That's what WP needs to source content, which Kareema lacks (who infact is part of an organization designated as a terrorist organization by Pakistan - what neutrality of a country has to do with it is beyond anyone, just like Indian designate many organizations as terrorists). Lastly, the pleasure was mine, you may laugh all you want but it wont change anything that Kareema is a no-one, especially when compared to characters like the above two. She gets a place a WP, so would they. Simple and straight.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 17:33, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

no one need your opinions. We write what, the RS says not according to opinions of bias editors like you. Spartacus! (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

She is notable, not that it ought to matter but, if Dawn, a Pakistani newspaper quotes her, and an excellent book. then certain nationalists have no grounds for removing her views, sources @Spartacus!: Some more sources which interview her 2A00:11C0:8:794:0:0:0:8 (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, the sources you quoted itself say the following: "Mama Qadeer, Farzana Majeed, Karima Baloch, Khalil Baloch, and Allah Nazar are names unfamiliar to most people in Pakistan, let alone the rest of the world." She isnt notable, no does her words are encyclopedic. E.g Post Orlando shooting, 100s of sources quoted numerous witnesses explaining the shooting and the shooter. So, does they all formed part of WP? This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 18:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You misunderstand my point, if various news organizations and authors believe she is notable enough to quote, then her views certainly have a place within this article. As a leader of a Baloch organization seeking independence her views definitely belong in this article. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

What maters is the context people are being quoted. There are many people who are quoted. PM Modi being quoted is one thing, a subject matter expert being quoted is another, and a random naysayer being quoted is altogether different. One of your source is Tarek Fateh who himself is unreliable as he has a bias. The Dawn merely quotes her as being a member of an organization - there are hundreds of people who are members of various organizations. The book source cannot be verified. And the last sources does not do her a favour either as it is telling us that she and others that surround are just random people with a voice. Now, there isnt anything encyclopedic about it. By placing her here, we are putting her word against renowned people like US politicians, journalists and official statements, thus the questions arises, is it suitable for an encyclopedia to do that? These dissent Balochs are having a one-man army in various western coutries, but the question is who listen to them? Everyone has a voice, there are more people around here and in Pakistan (who are equally notable if not more than KAreema) who would counter her views, does they get to make it at WP too? I dont think so. Then why the preference? Remember, people like Kautaliya were against the inclusion of PM Modi's statement in the Bangladesh War article, yep, the sitting PM of a country, but here, he and others are supporting a no-one and her views. This selective approach is not how things work at WP. The topic area is generally the same, hence the same rules apply here too. We cannot cherry pick content of our choosing.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:41, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I believe she is quoted as a leader of her organization, which is involved in the conflict. There may be hundreds of people in the organization as you say, but not all of those are leaders who get interviewed by newspapers and authors. For an article in an encyclopedia to be neutral, then it would seem obvious to me at least, all viewpoints of those involved ought to be included. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean "pushing" unreliable and encyclopedic content into the article. Does Indo-Pak war of 1965 contains views of people quoted in books/news who say Pak won the war? Yes, the other side's story is there, but does that story comes from people like Zaid Hamid and Hamid Gul? Does Mumbai Attack article article quote people who said that it was an inside job? Even if we include this info, it wont be from Hafiz Saeed for sure, but from a RS, authentic source. Almost everyone in Pakistan says that India is involved in Balochistan unrest, does all of that get quoted here? No! Just a few reliable, attributable and authentic people's statements are present. Rather, a third person's neutral views have been allowed. So would be the case for any info contrary to this.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

How are the sources unreliable? I believed Wikipedia used newspapers for current events? My point is, which you are failing to grasp unfortunately, if the Baloch nationalists are being accused by Pakistan of receiving support from India, then they have the right to respond to those allegations, this is how you achieve a neutral perspective on an issue, you look at the viewpoints of all involved. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

You need to understand that having ones name quoted in a newspaper does not make a person quotable at WP. Do a search with "Baloch" and you would get results many people being quoted, does that mean they ought to be quoted here? Every second day Pakistani politicians say India is behind Baloch insurgency, are they being quoted here? We need INDEPENDENT people saying things, not involved parties, that's how conflict articles get built.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

That`s a very unusual perspective, if involved parties are not to be given space then why are Pakistan's claims of India supporting separatists in the article? I respectfully disagree with you here, those involved in the conflict ought to be allowed their views when allegations are put upon them. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong in having the second view.But, Pakistan says it did not abduct people from Balochistan. TTP says it is not India's proxy. ISIS says it is not supported by CIA. India says Pathankot was not an inside job. This is what you want to contribute to WP? By adding Kareema here this is what you are doing. BTW, Kareema's statement is an opinion, a view. Is that supported by proofs? Is here view shared by independent sources? Pakistan Army said it did not kill 3 million Bangalis, and that get quoted here? No dear, it took independent, involved researchers to say that to make its way into WP. Kareema has a POV, which is unsubstantiated, hence does not merit attention.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that Pakistan has ever denied abducting Baloch nationalists. When did IS say they were not supported by the CIA? And I think that is actually a conspiracy theory. So then, as you believe the opinions of those involved ought not be present, you will no doubt have no issues if I remove the following from the article? "According to Malik Siraj Akbar, a Baloch journalist living in exile, there is a consensus in Pakistan that it can be assume that India is behind the insurgency in Balochistan and no evidence is required" Just another person in exile, " Brahamdagh Bugti stated in a 2008 interview that he would accept aid from India, Afghanistan, and Iran in defending Baluchistan" just another separatist leader. And this ought not even be here "Defence Secretary and former Senator Chuck Hagel said "India for some time has [...] used Afghanistan as a second front, and India has over the years financed problems for Pakistan on that side of the border"" Hagel is saying India is causing issues for Pakistan in Afghanistan, not Balochistan. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to me that TripWire has picked my second option, none of the primary sources. Let us leave it at that. Any other views? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Baloch activists from the Baloch National Front and the World Baloch Women's Forum have denied Indian involvement in the region. And according to a report from the BBC in 2015, following the execution of Sabeen Mehmud, led many to believe the Pakistan security forces make allegations of Indian involvement to deflect criticism.

How about this? No names mentioned, just the groups. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

They are all involved parties, obviously. Brahamdagh Bugti is also involved party, and his view is to be deleted if we go by TripWire's position. Malik Siraj Akbar is ok. He is a journalist, and he is not involved with the Baloch nationalist movement. Even if he might sympathetic to the movement, we expect that he maintains his professionalism as a scholar and journalist and gives an impartial assessment.

I should also clarify that we are only discussing the section on Indian involvement. Nothing is said about what might appear in the other sections of the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@IP: Here in lies the problem. That you are comparing and equating bonafide statements, research and proofs of:

• Malik Siraj Akbar - a nonpartisan JOURNALIST
• Brahamdagh Bugti - the actual leader of the separatists movement under which kids like Kareema dwell
• Chuck Hagel - a US senator uninvolved in the conflict

With that of Kareema who is none of the above! I sincerely hope you understand this.

And Kautilya3, I would request you to stop 'thinking' on others behalf. Thankyou.

Kautilya, you havent responded to the comment I had made in response to your "options", how did you arrive at the conclusion that I took one of those?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 22:20, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to go off topic here but, Hagel says nothing about Balochistan, so his statement has no place here. Any thoughts on my proposal? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hagel is an uninvolved party, and his views would be admissible under TripWire's position. (I haven't yet actually checked what his views are).

TripWire, my options were quite clear: either all of the involved parties or none of them. No position in between. Bharatiya picked all. It seemed to me that you have picked none. As long as I am the referee, those are the only options available. If you want to referee, please go right ahead, and get everybody to agree with you. As long as I am the referee, I am giving you only two options. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:54, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Iam sorry, but who appointed you the referee? Who gave you the authority to push options down my throat? The discussion here about Kareema, I fail to understand how you brought in unrelated content? Having disagreement over certain content does not mean you start linking it with some other content which you dont like either.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobody appoints any referees. We are all volunteers on Wikipedia. Based on my assessment of what is gone on for over a month, these are the only options are available. If you have better ideas for how to reach a resolution please do it, and I will be happy to sit back and watch it. NeilN has already posted a warning. If you want to continue edit-warring, I will let him deal with it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

We are volunteer EDITORS, not volunteer Admins. And there is no need to accuse me of editwarring when its you mr support to sock edits that have caused this to linger on for so long. Best give this advice to editors who are actually committed to editwar. I would love NeilN to promptly kickout socks, their supporters and editors engaged in editwarring.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

References

If you are stuck, then perhaps WP:DRN could help? Or each of you could create a separate section on this talk page, proposing your specific wording and sources, and then others could comment, focusing only on content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Chuck Hagel

His statement does not belong in the article, please look at the source used. Hagel is talking about India causing issues for Pakistan in, Afghanistan. Balochistan is not even mentioned in the piece. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done Yes that is a valid point. I removed Chuck Hagel reference. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Malik Siraj Akbar

This also needs to be removed, Akbar is actually being sarcastic when he writes, "there is a consensus in Pakistan that it can be assume that India is behind the insurgency in Balochistan and no evidence is required". Please look at the source. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

He is stating an info, how he states doesnt matter.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Of course it matters. He is making a joke, it is not meant to be serious. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Kulbhushan Yadav

As I am not allowed to edit this article, can someone add this to the part about Yadav. Intelligence agencies in India suspect the group known as Jaishul Adi of abducting Yadav from the border shared between Pakistan and Iran. According to them, the video confession was heavily edited, with facial expressions not aligning with the voice over, they claim the audio was spliced in several places.[28] 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Article is not about Yadav. Minimum required info has been added which should suffice.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What about this vaunted NPOV you keep mentioning? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

An SPA should be the last one to accuse someone of POV.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I am a bath with mineral rich water? I am sorry, but that is just gibberish. Please explain how you believe the accusation is OK to have, but not the rebuttal? How is that neutral? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Explained it like a 1000 times already. Please learn.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I have learned, that you have no interest in neutrality, just forcing a particular narrative. Once I am able to edit this article I shall add this, as well as make other changes, it is terribly written. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

You are getting frustrated. Why dont you edit something else for a change? Oh wait, you are an SPA. Avoid WP:NPA, you may edit whatever you want provided you have consensus. That's how WP works not by force.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Not frustrated, just amused. At least tell me, what is this SPA you keep calling me? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

IP/SPA

This IP having failed to achieve what it came for is now onto muddying the waters. Also, it's not a new user.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 21:51, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

An actual compromise

RfC posted by sockpuppet of banned user. Closing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Should the proposed text be included in this article`s section on Indian involvement in the conflict? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Activists from the Baloch National Front and the World Baloch Women's Forum as well as Brahumdagh Bugti of the Baloch Republican Party have denied Indian involvement in the region. And according to a report from the BBC in 2015, the execution of Sabeen Mehmud, has led many to believe the Pakistan security forces make allegations of Indian involvement to deflect criticism. References How about this? No names mentioned, just the groups. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2016 (UTC) Support Inclusion: I agree with the IP. Spartacus! (talk) 05:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Support Looks good to me. Bharatiya29 06:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Support - I am ok with it too. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Comment : This is not an RfC. If this is how you want to go about it, please initiate one, for wider circulation and primarily for input from uninvolved editors too.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 22:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC) Oppose: Info is from Indian sources which is an involved party and is biased and have a POV to push. Info is also coming from the organization which itself is being accused, hence is not neutral. We need independent sources quoting independent/uninvolved persons to counter-claim the accusation. Obviously, the person/party/organization being accused never accepts the accusation, how can their own claim be NPOV, neutral and encyclopedic? You need an outsider to say that an accusation is false or unlikely or else we could just build WP based upon info from WP:Primary sources.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Only one source is from India. (Changed due to Tripwire expanding on his objections) 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Oppose - The wording "led many to believe the Pakistan security forces make allegations of Indian involvement to deflect criticism" is Prejudiced and biased against a particular country. Other references used are involved Indian media sources and cannot be considered as neutral representations of the Baloch. Moreover, "World Baloch Women's Forum" and "Baloch National Front" are not that popular in the Pakistani province and their viewpoint cannot be considered as the Baloch's viewpoint. Moreover, this is not a vote. Faizan (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC) That is how the BBC phrased it, and I thought WP was meant to use what the sources say? And I fail to see how it is possible to be "Prejudiced and biased" against a country, a people or race, yes, a geographical location, no. The proposed text does not say this is the viewpoint of the Baloch, just these two organizations, and how do you know how popular they are? I honestly fail to see why you object to this, these groups are accused of gaining support from India, how can you justify suppressing their views? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC) In fact the BNF is an alliance of eight nationalist parties, so how can you say it is not popular, nor representative of the Baloch viewpoint? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 13:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC) I see nothing wrong in the wording as it is supported with a reliable source. You can consider Indian and Pakistani sources non-neutral only if they are being used as a citation for a viewpoint. In case of quotations they can be used. And last, on what ground are you saying that BNF is not popular in Balochistan? You must present a reliable source to prove your point, otherwise such statements will be considered your personal views which has no significance on WP. Bharatiya29 15:10, 4 July 2016 (UTC) I have initiated an RFC per Tripwire, please let me know if I have gotten it wrong, thanks. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2016 (UTC) What you are missing is that India is an involved party. It is India that is accused of being supporting separatist and terrorist organization in Balochistan and it is these organizations which have acknowledge that they will get support from India, and now it is the same organizations who are trying to say that India is not supporting them. So, there are 2 things wrong with the inclusion of the statement in the RfC. One: as it is sourced from Indian media, we cant possibly consider it neutral as India/Indian media in this case is having a conflict of interest and does have a POV to push. Second: the statement is coming from the involved party which itself is being accused, hence its own word dont have weight. For exmple: A thief wont accept that he is a thief nor would the sponsor of that thief ever say that it sponsored the thief. All the sponsor would say is that it does not support the thief, and this saying carries no weight at WP being NPOV, biased and prejudiced.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 19:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC) India and Pakistan are also involved parties, should their allegations and denials also be removed? And do you have a source for your claim that the Baloch groups, who deny Indian involvement, have in the past claimed they have received support from India? Also, only one source is from India. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Is it so difficult to understand? India and Pakistan surely are involved parties and it is precisely for this reason that the article-section about Inndian involvement does not contain any info from Pakistani sources (i.e. Pakistani ministers, police/army/government officials). Rather, all info is from third parties like Hegal, Richard Holbrooke, Siraj and Declan Walsh. It is these third parties that are saying that India is involved in creating unrest in Balochistan. I dont know why do you jump to the conclusion that accusations from Pakistan should also be removed because it is involved? The accusations are not from Pakistan but from outside.third party sources. Sir, had these allegations been said by Pakistani officials then you could claim a conflict of interest as it is in the case of India/Indian sources and as in the case of statements from these separatist/terrorist organizations itself. Lastly, you need to focus on the RfC (which has been initiated by you) and not on other aspects of the article-section. If you want to discuss that, open up a new talk-section. You should know that by mixing up the two things/issues and discussing two unrelated points in this RfC you are rather hurting the RfC against your favour. As regards your other point, we have Barahamdagh Bugti saying that it will accept assistance from India. Only one source is from India i.e. you have synthesized the entire statement by cherry-picking info from various sources to make it into one as per your own POV, which itself is a no, no on WP.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC) You are wrong, it is morally reprehensible to make allegations against a group and then censor their rejoinder. Re Bugti, saying you would accept aid, is not the same as getting aid. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC) WP does not follow morals, religion, censorship or sensitivities of people. It states what can be neutral and NPOV. If third parties say that seperatist/terrorist organization take assistance from India, and hence the accusation, it will form part of WP. Now you need another third party which says that the accusation is incorrect to make it form part of WP. Info from the accused party carries no value at WP. Accusations are never accepted by those accused, that's why they are called accusations. They saying that the accusations are false means nothing at WP.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 20:43, 4 July 2016 (UTC) I am basically in agreement with TripWire that, in situations like this, it is best to stick to third party sources. But I don't see this being followed consistently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC) Oppose I do not feel it is on merit. BalochPlanet (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Would you mind telling us why you don't "feel it is on merit"? Bharatiya29 06:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Because it`s a Nangparbat sock lol 2A00:11C0:8:794:0:0:0:7 (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Says who? DS' sock?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 12:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC) Opppose Wikipedia doesn't support a single WP:POV. Pakistan alleges India of involvement, and India denies. This is obviously what happens in cases of espionage and such activities. Summarily denying accusations does not change facts, neither does accusing another country of disruption, make it a fact. Wikipedia should stick to actual cases and facts. Delving into Indo-Pak POV accusations is a pandora's box. I also believe that the IP that started the RFC is a sock puppet which has been disrupting the topic area esp. the topics of balochistan conflict and I have reported as such at SPI. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC) The Pakistani view is already mentioned in detail. The Indian view and the Baloch separatist views should also be mentioned. Bharatiya29 14:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Natural Gas production

This source cites Pakistan: A Political and Economic History since 1947 by Omar Nadeem published in 1990. So for sure this book uses production data that is 26 or more years old. Whereas we have more current data available that gives facts contrary to this (2008-09, 2012-13, 2009-14). What I can conclude from this is that Balochistan was the largest Natural gas contributor among all provinces of Pakistan before 1990. Now even this is a vague range to mention in the article since we are not sure that till when Balochistan was the largest contributor? So I am removing this statement that Balochistan has always been the largest natural gas producer in Pakistan. -- SMS ^Talk 17:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Glad to be corrected. (I never knew that "SMS" meant you!) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

multiple threads started by sockpuppet of banned user.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.