Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:36, 24 June 2016 editKashmiri (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users43,540 edits →Edits by Freedom Mouse aka Darknesshines ← Previous edit		Revision as of 20:22, 24 June 2016 edit undoTripWire (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,780 edits →Edits by Freedom Mouse aka Darknesshines Next edit →
Line 121:		Line 121:
	:::::: 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 ] 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, '']'' article contains its subject's quotes on Kashmir). BSO, one of very few organisations in Balochistan, deserves more weight.		:::::: 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 ] 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, '']'' 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, ]. 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 Misplaced Pages. — ] ] 19:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)		:::::: The most important for me is, however, ]. 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 Misplaced Pages. — ] ] 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.—] <sup>]</sup> 20:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

	*'''Comment''': What bothers me is that everything was peaceful, but then the protection expired and 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—] <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)		*'''Comment''': What bothers me is that everything was peaceful, but then the protection expired and 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—] <sup>]</sup> 18:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:22, 24 June 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Pakistan: Balochistan Mid‑importance

	Pakistan portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Balochistan, Pakistan.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Iran Mid‑importance

	Iran portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Asian / Middle East / South Asia

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

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
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	South Asian military history task force

Nazir Ahmed Marri was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 21 July 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Insurgency in Balochistan. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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. Bharatiya 29 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 . 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. Bharatiya 29 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 08:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no Misplaced Pages 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 12:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Freedom Mouse:

Please get consensus for your POV edits.
Please stop edit warring—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 Misplaced Pages.
Pakistan government says India supports these terrorists. So India supports these terrorists. So we ban all Indian sources from Misplaced Pages.

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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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. Misplaced Pages readers want to read a neutral description of the conflict and not a Pakistani view. Bharatiya 29 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Bharatiya 29 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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. Bharatiya 29 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 16:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wileddvina:, how did you miss the sock-fest going on Indo-Pak related pages?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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:

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:32, 11 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 . 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 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 05:53, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Spartacus multiple sources like Youtube and Balochwarna News (a propaganda website). Sure!—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 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 Misplaced Pages. — kashmiri 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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 20:22, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

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 ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ 18:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

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

Categories: