Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:24, 31 March 2012

Pakistan: Balochistan C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Balochistan, Pakistan.

Iran C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / South Asia C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

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 Misplaced Pages: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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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[REDACTED] 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 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 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)

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)

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)

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)

• C-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• C-Class Balochistan, Pakistan articles
• Unknown-importance Balochistan, Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Balochistan, Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• C-Class Iran articles
• Mid-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• C-Class South Asian military history articles
• South Asian military history task force articles