Talk:Human rights abuses in Balochistan/Archive 1

Seperatist groups
An overall informative article that has more potential, but a section is also needed on human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing of non-Baloch civilians in Balochistan by Baloch seperatist groups.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That is next on the list, currently reading sources. I intend to expand this article and bring it up to GA status. Any sources you find would be appreciated. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

--39.47.46.80 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
Are pure coatrack and are obviously being inserted with the design to try and distract from the Pak HRA. I will not have it and it will be reverted. There are but one Balochistan, and it is currently abused by Pakistan and no other nation. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have removed your false tag. You are like this because you do not like this. Stop your POV pushing. --39.47.46.80 (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And whose sockpuppet are you then? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do not stop personal attacks you will be blocked. --39.47.46.80 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Which personal attacks? You are obviously a sock. You just turned up on every article I recently edited and reverted me? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * More lies I edited three articles only that you edit. You have ownership issues with your articles. --39.47.46.80 (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not call me a liar, especially as you just admitted you have turned up at the articles I have recently edited and reverted me, so again whose sock are you? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I will edit whatever I like. You are no one to tell me anything. --39.47.46.80 (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute
How should I help in this dispute? I have answered request for user input on noticeboard. This article is about Blochistan region or Pakistan province? There is link in see also Human rights abuses in Kashmir it is about the region you can treat this same way--Highstakes00 (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge
Since this article does not discuss Iran and Afghanistan and is clearly about Pakistani Balochistan, there's no reason to keep it separate from human rights in Pakistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Other than it passes the GNG for a standalone article you mean? 11:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

One section for Sindh, one section for Pakhtunkhwa, another for Punjab, another for Kashmir, another for Balochistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Erm, you failed to respond to the point that the subject matter is notable enough for a standalone article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

This can all go under human rights in Pakistan, plus this does not touch on Iranian or afghan balochistan, so it belong in a Pakistan human rights article. There's no point in creating multiple articles that are all sub-topics of related issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 00:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We often have sub articles. See human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir for instance, it is a sub article of human rights in India. You have not made any arguments at all for a merger using policy, the subject passes the WP:GNG, so the article will not be merged. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

yeah but Kashmir is split region. Balochistan is a shared province between iran and Pakistan, so we can create one section in Iran-Pakistan relations another in human rights in Pakistan. problem solved. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Human rights abuses in Assam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:45, 11 April 2015 (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.--BoogaLouie (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC) -BoogaLouie (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just see that this page is not a newspaper. Thanks—  Trip Wire  talk 08:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Human rights violations in Balochistan. 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/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 tag to http://en.shiapost.com/2014/08/25/pro-taliban-takfiris-hails-isis-baloch-zikris-hindus-threatened-to-death/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:07, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

International reactions?
This section seems like a bad idea, per WP:NOTNEWS. The coverage is fairly recent and political. We sometimes do include international reactions, but normally for recent or sudden events (eg. terrorist attacks). This article isn't a one-off event with a defined timescale to merit such a list. I would be interested to hear arguments as to why such a section should be required on this page. I am not aware of other human rights articles setting that precedent. It probably is a bad precedent as human rights articles may just become a paltry list of which country said what and when. Would it not be better to briefly summarise it in the Background section per WP:WEIGHT?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:08, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added a section for international response on Indian human rights abuses in jammu and kashmir article and other states under Indian rule. Feel free to add information about Turkey, OIC, Pakistan and others condemnding Indian atrocities in those states. Rotunga (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please see 2016 Kashmir unrest. The only recourse the victims have is international pressure. So, it should be definitely included. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mard as you know this is the new modus operandi of Narendra to internationalise this issue to take heat away from Indian occupied Kashmir however you can add many sources to Jammu and Kashmir article about international condemnation of Indian occupying forces there.Rotunga (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Also we can also add the minister of Balochistans statement that India is behind all the terrorism in the state and is using this as a tool to divert attention from Kashmir.Rotunga (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * As per my point above, 2016 Kashmir unrest is a recent unrest and articles on recent tragedies usually accumulate/garner international reactions (see also Quetta attacks). The scope of this article is fundamentally different though, as human rights in Balochistan is not a recent phenomenon. So the international reactions on it are not accumulative in that sense. My concern with that section is therefore on grounds of political WP:RECENTISM and the article possibly being WP:COATRACKED under that pretense.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 18:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Your point makes sense but you have to remember that Indians are extremely jumpy with Narendras new accusations so they will push it as some sort of international issue even though it is not one. But the nationalist veiw of a majority of Indians will always be to try and divert attention from Indian occupied Kashmir hence you need to edit that page and also Manipur, Assam and other states which are fighting against Indian occupation. Rotunga (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC) as per Talk:India-Pakistan relations. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that the idea of adding "International reactions" originates from what we do for articles on particular incidents. But you cannot argue that long-running conflicts and human rights abuses that happen there do not generate international reactions. There is no issue of WP:RECENTISM. Any reaction, whether recent or not, can be reported. In fact, I just added one from 2010. As for WP:COATRACK, I don't see how that applies to any of the reports that have been added. Can you explain? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Human rights violations in Balochistan. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140903092159/http://en.shiapost.com/2014/08/25/pro-taliban-takfiris-hails-isis-baloch-zikris-hindus-threatened-to-death/ to http://en.shiapost.com/2014/08/25/pro-taliban-takfiris-hails-isis-baloch-zikris-hindus-threatened-to-death/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:24, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Human Meat
This particular claim needs better sourcing than an oped from a site: "The Pakistani Army is also engaging in selling the bodies of dead Balochs as human meat." sourced to. eptoday.com/human-meat-specialty-quetta/. The major issue I see is that is an extraordinary claim and no other site/source has picked up on it. If it was true you would think you'd see this elsewhere.  spryde |  talk  19:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I have found some more sources besides the previous one.

[] [] []

In these sources it talks also about the fact that there is Human Meat being sold by Pakistan in Balochistan. -Mountain157(talk) 10:21 24 December 2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain157 (talk • contribs) 03:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. The first two use the EPToday Op-ed which isn't good. The Guardian doesn't mention anything about Human Meat. Can you narrow that down for me? If a solid source is found, this would need to be attributed to the source such as "According to X, The Pakistani Army is also engaging in selling the bodies of dead Balochs as human meat.(reference goes here).  spryde |  talk  21:51, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Edits by Pikachu the same reverted by Uranium Site
User Pikachu the same made the following change to the article.10:37–11:00, 29 May 2021‎ User Uranium Site reverted this,11:01, 29 May 2021 and posted a warning notice on the Pikachu the same's talk page.11:01, 29 May 2021 Pikachu the same then complained on the other Uranium Site's talk page.11:11, 29 May 2021 Pikachu the same's edit summaries give few clues about what the edits were, or why they were made.

Pikachu the same's version has various capitalisation errors, where common nouns have been capitalised, when they should only be capitalised if they start the sentence. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There is nothing constructive in the changes I have reverted. The normal message would be 'uw-disruptive4' but there is no such a final (level 4) warning. The user's action history and the multiple notifications on the user's page (w/o administrative action to date) make me conclude that this is an account used only for vandalism.--Uranium Site (talk) 13:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Human rights definition
It seems that some editors have tried to stick all the possible complaints in this article, including abuses by militant groups. However, by definition human rights are rights that are claimed from the state – private people, businesses or organisations cannot carry out "human rights violations". It is states that are parties to international human right treaties (and are entrusted to respect them), not private entities, and thus it's only states that can protect, or violate, human rights.

Militant organisations are governed by respective national legislation which usually considers them criminal groups. Their prosecution, if any, is based on national criminal laws; never on international human right treaties. Because, not being party to human right treaties, militant outfits cannot violate them.

Consequently, I suggest removing from this article all the complaints related to "human rights violations" supposedly carried out by private entities, as it's doctrinally wrong; or, otherwise, term these acts as "abuses of civilian population", "criminal acts", etc. — kashmīrī  TALK  12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)