Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan/Archive 2

James Dobbins

Is severely misquoted, to the point of butchery in fact. Like Hagel, the source used has no mention of Balochistan. And what Dobbins actually says is "the Indian presence in Afghan cities was minuscule and claimed it was “perfectly reasonable” because of their economic and cultural ties." So this really ought to be removed as well 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. He is talking about infiltration from Afghanistan, which clearly means Balochistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

How do you know he clearly means Balochistan? And for all you know he may be talking about smugglers. 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Dobbins says, “The dominant infiltration of militants is from Pakistan into Afghanistan, but we recognise that there is some infiltration of hostile militants from the other direction as well. So Pakistan's concerns aren't groundless. They are simply, in our judgement, somewhat exaggerated.” Where in that quote does he claim India is involved with this infiltration? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

India is mentioned prominently in the title of the article and the introduction. I think your level of debate is going down. Better slow down and think harder! - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What does India's role in Afghanistan has to do with Balochistan conflict? Bharatiya29 06:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Dobbins is saying that India supports the entry of Baloch militants from Afghanistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Read this. Dobbins said that there is movement of militants from Afghanistan to Pakistan, but he never said that India supports it. When asked about India, he justified its presence in Afghanistan. Bharatiya29 15:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Ok, I have also found a BBC report [1]. There is no connection made between India and the Baloch militants. So, I am removing it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Israel

The first two sources in this section say nothing of Israeli support to Baloch nationalists, or involvement in the province, why is it even there? 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:5 (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC) |}

Some fantasies of users with much imagination.GreyShark (dibra) 16:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions

The following restriction is placed on this article and all others in the India-Pakistan topic area, broadly construed, as a result of this arbitration enforcement request:

• An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.

• A socking accusation restriction Any edit made by an IP or new editor alleging socking or meatpuppetry may be freely reverted and any accusations ignored on article or user talk pages. SPI is the only place for such allegations.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposal to remove unsubstantiated claim

The article in the Foreign Section is citing a alleged Wikileaks cable [2] which was later found to be fabricated as can be seen from multiple sources from Pakistan, India and third parties. E.g. [3], [4], [5], [6] among others. Thus the same is proposed to be removed. Any objection/proof to contrary is welcome. Collagium (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The original source was published by The Guardian, not Pakistani media, and I don't see where it has been contradicted by the later sources you mention. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, but they didn't specify which cable and the news referred was published on 01.12.2010 and fake cables were exposed around 10.12.2010 i.e. little over a week later. Thus, we need to verify the said source. All wikileaks are searchable through the database but nowhere was this particular leak was found. Collagium (talk) 12:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Here [7]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

The source now stands distinguished from all others. Thanks! Collagium. You may speak. 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Karima's claim

Is there any explanation as to why the neutrally worded passage on Karima's claim was reverted back to this vaguely worded one? I do not see how this revert meets WP:WEIGHT (please go through this section carefully). It is generous (and perhaps warranted) to keep the quote, hence I did not remove it for now. Please note that as the spokesperson fails WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE, it would be a stretch to present her views as fact. We do not present government positions as facts either. It's a fundamental WP:NPOV violation. And here, we are discussing a WP:FRINGE source. Therefore, I am going to restore my version which is correct. If you believe Karima Baloch's claims are a fact, you will need to take this to WP:RSN. Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't buy the notion that Karima Baloch's statement is fringe. Fringe is relatively easy to decide for topics covered by scholarly research. Some viewpoints are accepted by the scholarly community and others are not. For political issues and opinions, it is not so clear. Since Balochistan is "one of the most underreported in the world," Pakistan known to be "the most dangerous country" for journalists, and Balochistan especially "blacked out", on what basis can we decide whether somebody is fringe?

Baloch Students Organization is said to be the "most influential political group" in Balochistan and this lady is its chairperson. So her view is notable and presumably representative of the Baloch public opinion. Are there sources that say otherwise?

WP:GNG is irrelevant. It gives criteria for including a stand-alone article for a subject on Wikipedia, not for deciding whether a source should be mentioned in an article.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

A source's credibility is largely determined by its coverage, prominence of viewpoint, factual basis, and to some extent, impartiality. Sometimes, these lines are blurred in a political context. Which is why we have WP:NPOV. NPOV is very simple and instructs us to present opposing claims by attributing them to their source, not by endorsing a POV. For example, your presumption that BSO is a 'popular' group is true, but your presumption that it is representative of all Baloch public opinion is unsupported WP:OR. As you yourself admitted, Karima Baloch belongs to a political group; that attributes an inherent POV to her viewpoints. Some of her allegations for instance include blaming China for conducting 'genocide' against Baloch, stealing gold and opening naval bases in Balochistan; which is basically what the armed militant groups opposed to any state activity also allege. Thus, it makes her a partisan (one-sided) source, not an WP:IMPARTIAL let alone mainstream one. Mar4d (talk) 18:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Every editor that has inserted Karima Baloch's statement here has attributed it. So I am not sure why you need to mention attribution issue. The other claims of her that you mention (which I haven't seen frankly) are not under discussion. If and when they arise, we can discuss them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Undiscussed page move

SheriffIsInTown, you have moved the page to a new title without discussion. Can you please present your evidence for the claim that "Insurgency in Balochistan" is the COMMONNAME? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am collecting data and intend to reply in next few hours. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome, I take note of the fact that Sistan and Baluchestan insurgency, which is essentially a linked conflict, is named similarly. Uniformity in titles would make sense for both articles, since the groups operating on either side of the border pursue similar aspirations. Mar4d (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I, so far analyzed first 13 sources in the article, found the word conflict in only 3 of them while found the word insurgency or a synonym in 8 of them, this is the ratio of 61.54% for insurgency compared to 23.08% for conflict, i will continue to analyze all of them if dispute further existed:

1. First source in the article describes the Balochistan situation like this:

Some 60 percent are concentrated in Pakistan's southwestern Baluchistan Province, where they seek autonomy and have been in the grips of a violent insurgency -- their fifth in modern history

2. The third source in the article describes the Balochistan situation like this:

The insurgency has been precipitated by a combination of ethnic, sectarian, economic, and political problems.

3. Source number six describes the Balochs as rebels hence insurgency (rebellion):

Iranian state television has broadcast a statement by a captured Sunni rebel leader in which he alleges he received support from the United States.

4. Source number nine:

Major Gen. Saleem Nawaz said Kabul-based rebel leader Brahamdagh Bugti was directly controlling the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA) and Baloch Republican Army (BRA) militia from Afghanistan.

5. Source number ten:

Low-level insurgency is not a new phenomenon in Balochistan as its roots can be traced back to 1948 and later to 1970s when following the secession of East Pakistan, the Indians shifted their attention to the Western wing for further dismemberment of the country.

6. Source number eleven:

Open warfare erupted between Baloch nationalists and the Pakistani military in December 2005 following decades of what the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) described as a “simmering insurgency”.

7. Source number twelve:

Rehman A. Malik informed the Upper House of the Parliament that India was backing the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) for fuelling insurgency in the province and creating unrest.

8. Source number thirteen:

They also say that even as a Baloch insurgency rages inside Pakistan itself, Jundullah has shown little enthusiasm to join it so far, and has focused on fighting for Balochs only in Iran.

Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. However, WP:COMMONNAME talks about all reliable sources, not just the cited sources. On Google Books I find:

• "Balochistan conflict" - 1,200 hits
• "conflict in Balochistan" - 567 hits
• "Balochistan insurgency" - 117 hits
• "insurgency in Balochistan" - 744 hits

I suspect that there will be quite a few common hits among these. The point is that "conflict" and "insurgency" are not an either-or choice. The "conflict" is the broader phenomenon, of which the "insurgency" is a part. Your change of title also narrows the scope of the article unreasonably. There may be a case for having a separate page focusing on the insurgency itself, but I would prefer this page to cover all aspects of the conflict. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You have the wrong number of hits for "Balochistan conflict", they are 1,200 not 12,000, you added an extra 0. Regardless of that, I am finding 3,050 hits for "insurgency Balochistan". I tend to disagree with that logic any way. I do not think all those hits apply to the topic. You can never know in which context the word is being mentioned. You can only evaluate the sources which apply to said topic, the only way to evaluate them is to cite them to see what is due and what is undue and where the word is used in context of the said topic. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the typo. You seem to think there is one phenomenon for which two terms exist. I, on the other hand, think there are two phenomena, one of which is a part of the other. So, this is not a COMMONNAME issue at all. In any case, since the move has been contested, you need to follow WP:RM#CM. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You contested it and you got your response. I am not sure how different a move request going to be than this discussion. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL

We do not put alleged parties into the infobox per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. This applies to conspiracy theories and speculations. Putting countries like US, India, Israel and USSR into the infobox requires solid sources and notability of their involvement.GreyShark (dibra) 14:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I have been reviewing sources for last gazillion days on this page and found that all the parties which you mentioned had solid sources in there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL is a red herring in this case, as it does not apply in the presence of reliable sources. There is sufficient coverage to demonstrate India's political and proxy interests in the conflict, including recent and past events. The same could be said for the United States too, but from the Iranian side. Israel and USSR's involvement could be evaluated further in context of coverage in sources. Mar4d (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Gazillion times perhaps, but now it says US and Israel support al-Qaeda. This is nonsense and there are no reliable sources in the article for this statement.GreyShark (dibra) 16:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

India

Let's start with the first "alleged" party here India. What reliable sources do we have on Indian support or involvement?GreyShark (dibra) 16:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Beyond speculations and "beliefs" of some exiled Baloch journalist, Wright-Neville seems a reliable source. He however doesn't claim that India supports BLA, but rather says that "some Westerners believe so". This is certainly not warranting to include India as supporter.GreyShark (dibra) 16:11, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, first we can start with India's recent stance on Balochistan at the UN, and support to Brahumdagh Bugti who is currently seeking asylum in India. In addition, India's prime minister publicly brought up Balochistan during his Independence Day speech. And it is important to note that the allegations of Indian support have been made since years, including this piece published on an Indian newspaper in 2006. In 2016, Pakistan arrested an Indian intelligence officer from Balochistan, Kulbhushan Yadav. India's national security advisor Ajit Doval has also been public about the Baloch conflict [8]. So in terms of political alignments (as well as material support), India is considered one of the most vocal parties on Balochistan. Mar4d (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The statements by the prime minister and the foreign minister have highlighted human rights abuses in Balochistan, did not support insurgency. Since SheriffIsInTown has narrowed the scope of this article, despite my objections, they don't belong here any more. Ajit Doval basically issued a threat. Doesn't amount to much. As for Brahumdagh Bugti, nothing has happened yet. If India does grant him asylum, you are welcome to mention that.

The only substance here is Kulbhushan Yadav, for which all we have are Pakistani allegations and Yadav's own televised statement, which India alleges to be tutored. No formal charges have been brought against him. All said and done, there is a lot of talk not much substance here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Hold on, how the scope changes Indian involvement which is proven by sources that India has been supporting insurgents. That is what alleged means that it is alleged. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Neheart Could you please use the talk page to make contestable changes, and also provide reliable sources for your changes. You used a misleading edit summary and did not provide a reason for adding Turkey or removing Iran from the infobox. Mar4d (talk) 11:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

New reverted edits

I came here after [9], the reverted edits by IP and @Boby1305:[10] do seem WP:OR, and not supported by the given source.[11] Capitals00 (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Jamaat-E-Islami carrying out attacks against Shi'ites

I just noticed that the article claims that 'the Islamist parties Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jamaat-e-Islami have targeted Shia Muslims'. One user removed this line as it was false but it was reverted. I'm not exactly sure what the point of contention is here as the Laskhar-e-Jhangvi is not an Islamist party but a banned militant group and the Jamaat-E-Islami has not been implicated in any terrorist attacks on Shi'ite Muslims and the citation does not make any mention of them being involved in any attacks. With that being said, I'm going to undo the revert. Von oberstein (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Von oberstein I have added Laskhar-e-Jhangvi back since there are multiple sourced which already attribute them for attacks on Shias. Please do due diligence when you remove content. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Alleged

Raymond123: IMO, alleged is still correct. What Modi's speech was making were essentially allegations, and amidst that charged political rhetoric, India's relations/history vis-a-vis Pakistan, it is neutral and not inappropriate. It is much ado about one word, yet correct. See WP:NPOV. Regards, Mar4d (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

But there are also many separate organizations that state them as facts. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference however between such organisations and a head of state making political rhetoric above a podium. Context matters in relation to sources. Mar4d (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Source is not using the word "alleged". Also see Human rights violations in Balochistan, politician is no different. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahmer Mustikhan

Ahmer Mustikhan made a statement on India's role in Balochistan [12] and [13]. According to him, he was asked by his RAW handlers to create disturbance during Nawaz Sharif visit to USA. My edit is here [14]. Trying to understand what is reason for removing this. I am quoting sources. If I search Mustikhan [15] and his organization it seems active [16]. --Spasage (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you please explain to me how his opinions/statements meet WP:DUE here? Is he an expert/scholar on Insurgency in Balochistan or is his organization American Friends of Balochistan that notable in the article that it merits a response here? Both of these do not even meet WP:GNG on Wikipedia. Secondly, he claims that RAW paying him money to heckle Sharif but I fail to see how that is related to Insurgency in Balochistan? We include direct related content here not something which is tangentially related or POV motivated.

Second for other editor(s) who reverted this removal and claimed WP:DUE the onus is on you to explain how this WP:DUE after it was removed for being WP:UNDUE. Otherwise the revert is considered disruptive. The discussion page is here for a reason. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ahmer Mustikhan is a well-known voice when it comes to topics/reporting related to Balochistan. His work has mostly focused on projecting the views of dissident forces of Balochistan which are in part responsible for Insurgency in Balochistan. He may not be famous for being a journalist but he is well-known as being a Baloch activist. Now, when a Baloch activist who has for long supported Baloch separatist groups through his writings, says that he has been acting at the behest of RAW (accused of sustaining, funding and supporting terrorism in Pakistan), then it is a significant development. Second, WP:GNG is required for assessing a topic's suitability for a stand-alone article or list, not for adding sourced, well-cited content. Still, American Friends of Balochistan gives over 62K hits, it doesnt having an article on WP does not make it any less credible to merit its exclusion as a "source".—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 08:31, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Ahmer or Ahmar Mustikhan is Baloch journalist and activist. He is writing in The Jerusalem Post[17], The Times of India[18], Dailyo [19], Epoch Times [20], Rediff [21], Business Standard [22], The Asian Age[23], Deccan Chronicle[24]. He has been quoted in many leading Indian news papers on Balochistan issue. He has many videos on Balochistan subject [25]. So, by no means, this person is unknown. His statement carries weight.--Spasage (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

First let's stick to the sources and before we start jumping to conclusions. The WP:RS which was provided clearly states this "he heckled former prime minister Nawaz Sharif during his 2015 visit to Washington at the behest of Indian intelligence agency Research and Analysis Wing (RAW)". It does not make mention of Insurgency in Balochistan. The only reason that this is being included here is because Ahmer Mustikhan is a journalist (not an expert, there is a big difference) who is a Baloch activist. Now if he is indeed well-known and his statement carries weight why does the heckling incident find no mention on this page or on Nawaz Sharif. In addition, why are Ahmer Mustikhan's other views which are still valid and unconnected with this particular incident but directly related to Insurgency in Balochistan like calling the Pakistan crackdown a genocide, extra judicial killings, 20,000 people killed over 10 years and his opposition to China–Pakistan Economic Corridor because of its effect on Balochistan not mentioned in this article. Why should we only cherrypick an event. His other views should also find mention in the article since he is a well-known voice and an "expert". ([26],[27],[28]) Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 08:00, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

So how we are moving forward?--Spasage (talk) 15:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please read though my rebuttal and answer points I have raised. I am not yet convinced that this person's views/comments are WP:DUE here since we almost find no mention of their previous views anywhere else on Wikipedia. Second, I don't even think the comments they made are related to this page given it was about heckling Nawaz Sharif not about Insurgency in Balochistan. Please make a cogent argument. I am also happy to take this to a forum where it can be decided if this is indeed WP:DUE for this page. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

So, if I go with you argument, that it is not relevant to add Ahmar Mustikhan heckling here. So, in your opinion, where his claim should go in wikipedia articles. Here are few facts, "He is a Baloch activist", "claims that RAW gave him money to heckle Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minster of Pakistan", "in past he also heckled other Pakistani leaders including Pervez Musharraf" and read following from [29]:

"Mr Mustikhan said that India was supporting terrorism in Pakistan and this support started after the Kargil war and that’s why the current insurgency had continued for 12 years.

Mr Mustikhan claimed that RAW encouraged militants to kill Punjabi, Pakhtun and even Sindhi civilians. “We have no fight with civilians. They are our brothers,” he said. “They gave me a lot of mental torture [for opposing their plans]. They say if you kill, you are a hero otherwise you are zero.” "

He is linking Baloch Insurgency with RAW. So, in your opinion, if these facts should not go in this article, which article they should go. --Spasage (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Spasage You are yet to answer my question on how does it merit to mention his comments. He almost has no mention so far across any of the pages related to what he has said over the years. Why is it now that he suddenly his comments become relevant? Remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. Many people claim multiple things on India and Pakistan. We can fill up multiple Wikipedia pages based on their claims and counter claims. So let's keep this to the point because this now seems to be focusing on one event about Ahmer Mustikhan since he seems to be supporting a certain WP:POV while his earlier views were never mentioned because they don't match a set narrative. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There is no WP:POV or narrative. If you want, you can quote his other statements, as you research clearly shows that he has made many and rightly answered by Tripwire.--Spasage (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Again, my point in raising that was to convey that none of this information over time has made it to any of the pages. IMO, this is because Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see any argument on why should his arguments be included over many others (remember that a journalist is not the same as an expert). Just to drive home my point I will pick a specific edit of yours from recent times ([30]). This edit should clearly not be there per WP:NOTNEWS. I am happy to take this to a forum if you feel that this should be included (along with his other statements). Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

What my edit here has anything to do with this discussion. This issue was widely covered considering his association with recent court cases. If you have issues with my edits, go to here and discuss. I see this as clear case of diversion. --Spasage (talk) 17:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

What "none of this information over time has made it to any of the pages" are you talking about? This is a recent development, how do you expect it to be included into WP even before the info was covered in RS? You dont seem to know what you are talking about? I think as your argument hold no water, the content including the new info provided by Spasage regarding Mr Mustikhan linking Baloch Insurgency with RAW should be added here.—TripWire^{________ʞlɐʇ} 08:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to the several statements and incidents associated with Ahmer Mustikhan apart from the RAW statement. The Nawaz Sharif heckling incident happened in 2015, terming the crackdown on Balochistan militants as a genocide and the extra-judical killings statement happened in 2016, his opposition to CPEC happened in 2017. None of them find any reference on any of the associated pages. If he is indeed that notable how is this possible? Please read the entire stream of argument before replying here. Neither of you have presented a strong reason, IMO, to include all of this content and are cherry picking one statement. As I have said before, I have happy to take this to a Wikipedia forum to discuss if Ahmer Mustikhan is indeed an expert on Balochistan and should all of his comments and associated incidents be included on Wikipedia. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Jadhav and Iran

Son of Kalochi, stop re-adding this again and again. Read WP:UNDUE, WP:PRIMARY and WP:NOTNEWS first and then explain here instead of edit warring. --DBigXrayᗙ 09:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, stop removing this again and again. Read WP:CENSOR. Moreover, The Express Tribune is a WP:SECONDARY source. Also read WP:NOTNEWS yourself before preaching it to others. It says, "routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate...". This is not "routine news reporting" and it definitely is "information on recent developments". First explain here how these policies apply and then seek WP:CONSENSUS instead of edit warring. Son of Kolachi (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC) blocked WP:Sock --DBigXrayᗙ 08:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Removing WP:UNDUE is not CENSOR, if you have confusion about my edits then you should start a talk page discussion instead of edit warring as you are doing on the article right now. As for your claim to appropriateness how is The talk about cooperation between 2 agencies being misreported in the article Insurgency in Balochistan? how is this even relevant here. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTYELLOW states that not everything that is printed and published can automatically find its way into articles. --DBigXrayᗙ 10:42, 8 October 2018 (UTC) 

• Son of Kolachi, This is a news event and not important enough for inclusion. Consider pointing out your reasons for inclusion that how it is not undue. Also per WP:NOCON - "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit" . Instead of mindless edit warring please get a consensus before making any further changes to this article. Razer(talk) 15:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

• I will have to agree with DbigXray here. This appears not to be relevant here, and if Son of Kolachi have a reason to think otherwise, then he must tell us why. Bharatiya29 12:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

1RR restriction

Due to recent edit-warring on this article, I have placed this page under WP:1RR restriction under authority of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the arbitration committee for pages related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. All editors are restricted to one revert per 24 hours on this article. Any further violations of this restriction may result in blocks, and incidents may be reported to the edit warring noticeboard or arbitration enforcement. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Baloch flag

I (User:Vif12vf) just changed the flag-file for Balochistan. I know i should have discussed it here first. If you think the edit was wrong then please remove it. The new flag-file may be found here: [31] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vif12vf (talk • contribs) 12:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Raheel Sharif

Raheel Sharif is currently retired and Lt Gen Qamar Javed Bajwa has taken over his place. But in the template. It shows that the commander during the insurgency from 2013 to "present" which is not true. Please anyone remove the present and add Qamar Javed Bajwa from 2016 to present — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zayyam123 (talk • contribs) 14:17, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Iran in the belligerents section

There is already another article titled "Sistan and Baluchestan insurgency". So can Iran be removed from the belligerents section and the remaining information about Iran moved to this article[[32]]?-Mountain157 (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

India

@Kashmiri: Your "better source" here is not exactly a better but same as all others that we have seen until now. Pakistan's own government or their representatives claiming that India is supporting Balochistan insurgency is far from being a third party reliable source. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

India supports Baloch insurgents

India should be listed as a supporter for Baloch insurgents. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/southasia/2016/09/05/india-must-remember-that-balochistan-is-not-bangladesh/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-32604137 https://thediplomat.com/2018/01/what-the-kulbhushan-jadhav-saga-reveals-about-india-and-pakistans-balochistan-problems/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.117.185.160 (talk) 01:47, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Low-Intensity Insurgency

@AnM2002: @OrientIs: @Farewells: I would like to make an argument to classify the insurgency in Balochistan as currently low-intensity, rather than edit warring we should talk about the issue here. My argument for the insurgency of Balochistan being low-intensity is because excluding that word implies there is conventional warfare, with organized structure and frontlines, as defined by the very own Wikipedia article on insurgency. This is not happening on any large scale in the province. The insurgency in Balochistan is below the scale of a conventional war, classifying it as low-intensity. While there has been an uptick in attacks, as per SATP, the numbers are still far below those seen in the early 2010s. If the numbers go up to those seen in the early 2010s, or if there is verifiable proof of proper conventional war taking place (like did in KPK with the TTP a decade ago), then I say we should change the article to "insurgency" proper status -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Your own assessment is not going to supersede the data from multiple reliable sources,[33][34] which clearly state that the insurgency has been intensified. Orientls (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

@Orientls: This is not my "own assessment". These are definitions stating what a "low-intensity" conflict is.

As defined by Wikipedia, a "low-intensity conflict" is:

A low-intensity conflict (LIC) is a military conflict, usually localised, between two or more state or non-state groups which is below the intensity of conventional war. It involves the state's use of military forces applied selectively and with restraint to enforce compliance with its policies or objectives.

And as defined by the United States government:

a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low-intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of the armed forces. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low-intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.

You'll notice both of these definitions explicitly state that low-intensity conflicts are below the scale of full-scale conventional warfare, which involves proper organized groups and not random terrorist attacks like the situation in Balochistan (or for example Indian-controlled Kashmir). There must be frontlines, organization and command etc.

Moreover, yes, there has been an uptick in incidents, which was noted above in my first argument. However, that does not take away that the uptick is slight relative to numbers seen even in the mid-2010s, and furthermore is not at any level of conventional warfare involving frontlines or organization and command, which is the most important factor in defining an insurgency as low-intensity. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is clearly your "own assessment", not used by any WP:RS in relation to this insurgency. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:42, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel: What specific parts of the above post have not used direct reliable sources? I am providing dictionary definitions of "low-level conflict" and "low-level insurgency", and nobody here seems to have any sources that contradict the fact that the insurgency is low-level, not having frontlines or well-defined forces, rather instead there is a military on one side and several disorganized terrorist organizations on the other (the fact that there was a small uptick in incidents is irrelevant to classification as a "low-level" insurgency, the focus of this discussion). If you have any reliable sources showcasing that there is conventional warfare going on or anything that does not classify as "low-level", I'll be willing to back down. -- Abbasi786786 (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You are throwing definitions that haven't been used by any reliable sources for disputing the fact that insurgency in the region has revived to a high level. If you have some reliable source which can cite to debunk the recent reliable sources then show them but don't use your own analysis to dispute the reliable sources unless they are clearly misleading. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The insurgency on balochistan

Any thing which u known 182.183.224.98 (talk) 17:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

A lot of contentious additions of state support for the insurgency have been done to the infobox. We don't usually put such allegations in ibs (WP:EXCEPTIONAL), a similar issue was raised at Talk:Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan with no consensus so far. The only ones which seem reliable to a degree are for the obsolete Baathist Iraq and Communist Afghanistan (and are nonetheless covered here). The rest have been argued here in the archives/at the TTP talk page and don't appear to have clear weight (SYNTH refs/OR is observable for the recently defunct AF govt). I will be removing the section per above (the latter for no-consensus and the former for obsolete relevance). Gotitbro (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, {{Infobox military conflict}} does not have a support/allies param (unlike say {{Infobox militant organization}}) and it is not standard practice to deliberately wikitext non-combatants, though some users do keep repeating that. Gotitbro (talk) 14:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Soldier

Correct: "solider" to "soldier". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.180.160.242 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)