Talk:Baloch Students Organization

Split

As much as Baloch Students Organization was initially a single entity, it has long ago split into at least four separate organisations, each with own structure, management, and legal status. Baloch Students Organization – Awami already has a separate article. There seems also to be sufficient information on Baloch Students Organization – Azad to have it in a separate article. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Based on my research so far, I find a great deal of coherence between the various factions of the BSO. So I don't think a split is necessary. Secondly, in the highly fragmented scene of Baloch politics, BSO has been a fixed point. So keeping the whole thing together is useful for giving an overarching view of the Baloch politics over the decades. We can of course have redirects to various sections so that people looking for particular factions can still get here. If the article grows so large that it is not manageable as a single article, then we might consider splitting. But that is not the case at present. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • The problem with the current setup is that we can't have a proper infobox for the organisation, complete with founding date, hq location, leader's name, website, and so on — the reason being, there is currently no "Baloch Students Organization" (if I am correct) but three separate organisations which on Wikipedia got squeezed together under a single heading because of common origin four decades ago. For the discussion on common features, this article could of course stay, we also have Balochistan conflict where their role could be mentioned. — kashmiri ^TALK 15:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

That is misinformation. I intend to correct it shortly. BSO-Azad is indeed the original BSO. The others are interlopers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

References

So, if the article is to be about BSO-Azad, it should be renamed appropriately in accordance with the official name used by the organisation. In such case, "Baloch Students Organization" entry should be turned into a disambig. — kashmiri ^TALK 13:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

That might work. Both Talpur and MS Akbar say that BSO-Azad is the original BSO. But I am not yet fully confident. Alia Amirali's volume would be quite authentic, but the relevant page isn't available to me on Google Books. Can you see if it works for you? [1] -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Malik Siraj Akbar's blog

Akbar's blog post called "End of BSO" seems more authentic than the mainstream news sources. It is cited in the Balochistan volume of the SAGE Series [2]. So, I will use this history now instead of the mainstream news source (Paracha). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

TripWire edits

I have had to revert most of TripWire's edits here:

• WP:NEWSORG says newspapers are only reliable for news. An article titled "Who's who" is some kind of an analysis or summary, not news. It should be used with care, for bare facts, not opinions or assessments. And not history.
• The same goes for the Al Jazeera report. "Separatist fighter" is probably true for Allah Nazar in 2002, but not necessarily a "fighter" in the sense of an armed insurgent. He became an insurgent later, after the State captured him, tortured him, poisoned him, and paralysed him for a year. Once again, a 2014 news report for a situation in 2002 can't be relied upon to any great degree.
• There are enough reports from human rights activists and organisations that say that BSO-Azad carries out peaceful protests. We would need to see solid evidence before we allow any allegations of insurgency. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Says who constructed almost 90% of the article from blogs and news-websites? And it's funny that an organization banned for being a terrorist organization, you are more inclined to vouch for its innocence' than stating what RS say about it. You freely used WP:OR and blogs when it suited you but you would not accepted RS as AlJazeera and Dawn when it doesnt suit your POV. This wont be allowed. The article is a mess after your 'expansion' which was completely based WP:NEWSORG which were not reliable, but you seem to have a problem with the same albeit those quoted this time are ore reliable than blogs. You are pushing it too far with your selective approach.

It's also funny that you take and then push "after the State captured him, tortured him, poisoned him, and paralysed him for a year" into the article from WP:NEWSORG, but panic when the same is used to show you a mirror? Ironic!

But you know what is really funny?!! That "Separatist fighter" was used from the VERY SAME source already used by YOU in the article. You didnt even bother to read the edit summary and reverted me!

@NeilN: Sir, what is this?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 09:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have asked for a volunteer at WP:RSN to come and review the sources.

As for "separatist fighter" my edit summary said "No evidence that Allah Nazar was a "separatist fighter" in 2002", which you seem to have ignored. The article that you cite is published in 2014, at which time Allah Nazar was separatist fighter. But that description can't be used for his activity in 2002. The articles doesn't state that he was a separatist fighter in 2002. There is no corroboration from any other source, RS or not, that says that he was a separatist fighter in 2002. My text clearly says that he became an insurgent afterwards. The facts are there. But you seem to want branding, and brand BSO-Azad by association. This is not WP:NPOV. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire: I'm acting as an admin here so that means I don't get to comment on content or the use (or misuse) of sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@NeilN: Right sir. @Kautilya3: A book that will be published in let's say 2050 that would say, "In 2011, Osama Bin Ladin, a world-wide wanted terrorist was killed..." wouldn't change the fact that he was a terrorist. Please stop misinterpreting the sources per your own choosing and liking aka POV pushing.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Save the polemics, TripWire. If it is ambiguous what it means, you can look for other sources for corroboration, e.g.:

• Syed Shoaib Hasan, Analysis: Managing the Baloch insurgency, Dawn, 26 November 2014. former political activist.
• Suspected separatists: Printing press workers remanded into police custody, The Express Tribune, 23 October 2015. former Baloch politician.
• Karlos Zurutuza (27 April 2015) [first published Vice News Spain in 2015]. "A 29-year old woman leads a secular and pro-independence movement which Pakistan labels as "terrorist"". Crisis Balochistan.. When he was a medical student.
• Asif Magsi, Exclusive Interview with Commander Dr. Allah Nazar of the Baloch Liberation Front, Naked Punch, 1 March 2015. In 2003, he went underground to organize his own militant group. (This intro gives the most detail that I have seen.)

You can't just go by one source and interpret it in your own way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, save the rehtorics, Kautilya3 (BTW, there was no personal attack whatsoever in my previous reply):

• Mary Louise Kelly, Bin Laden: From Millionaire's Son To Most-Wanted, May 2, 2011. pampered son of a Saudi millionaire
• AP, Multi-millionaire bin Laden screwed his family in his will. multi-millionaire
• Sam Biddle, Osama bin Laden, a Real Jerk, Screwed His Family In His Will. the millionaire Al Qaeda honcho.
• The Jerusalem Post, Bin Laden as 'Islamic hero'. an Islamic hero.
• Astrogle. Is Osama Bin Laden a Hero or a Villain ?. a classical folk hero.

But the fact remains that he is known to the world and WP as a terrorist, neither a Hero nor a Millionaire. So, you cant go around cherry-picking the sources and deciding at your own which are RS and which arent, and only use those which suits your POV. Also, you cant go around using the portion of the source that you like and omitting the one you dont.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I have just given you four sources, at least two of which you must accept as RS, which use alternative characterisations. So you can't claim that the "world" knows him as a "separatist fighter." The cites for Bin Laden are entirely irrelevant. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:22, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

TripWire complaints

TripWire added an unreliable sources template to the article, and at a different forum (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TripWire) made the following complaints regarding my use of the sources:

He tells me not to use reliable WP:NEWSORG like BBC, Al Jazeera to add content, but at the same time he totally reconstructs the entire BSO page from WP:NEWSORG including blogs and unreliable websites which totally aligns with the Indian government's POV on the Baloch issue. Examples:

• 1. Uses crisisbalochistan, a Baloch (news) website having C of I. And a NewsOrg, torontosun.
• 2: Uses Aljazeera.
• 3: Uses balochistantimes, a Baloch NewsOrg with C of I.
• 4: Uses a Blog gmcmissing.wordpress.com and a NewsOrg thefridaytimes.
• 5: Uses an unknown website/NewsOrg nakedpunch, twice.

He ventures as far as quoting unreliable blogs, Baloch propaganda websites and even WP:OR to push his nationalistic POV,...

My response is as follows:

4. gmcmissing.wordpress.com is the blog site (actually a web site) of Malik Siraj Akbar, a Baloch journalist, now exiled, who has had several academic appointments in the US including at the Harvard University. He is the author of a book Redefined dimensions of Baloch Nationalist Movement and a couple of other lesser known books. He has 67 hits on Google Scholar. Many of the articles on his "blog site" are in fact of reproductions of articles that have been published on newspapers/journals. The particular article "End of BSO" that I used was in fact cited in the SAGE Series on Human Rights Auditwith the words: See Malik Siraj Akbar's article entitled "The End of the BSO?" for a more comprehensive treatment of the BSO's history, September 25, 2013. That is enough of an endorsement.

WP:SPS tells us:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Akbar is indeed the foremost expert on Balochistan affairs and, by no stretch of imagination can the article be called an "unreliable blog site." The Friday Times article has essentially reproduced his analysis (without acknowledgement), but that counts as an endorsement too.

1. The article cited was published in Vice News Spain, and reproduced on CrisisBalochistan, neither of which is connected to any Baloch nationalist movement. It is clearly a WP:THIRDPARTY source.

2. The Al Jazeera article is authored by Madiha Tahir, a journalist and a doctoral student at Columbia University. The material used is directly the subject of her investigation.

3. Balochistan Times is an online Baloch newspaper. I have no information that it has any conflict of interest with BSO.

5. Naked Punch is a socialist magazine with no known connections to the Baloch nationalist movement.

TripWire tries to see a contradiction with my admonition to use newspapers for "news." But he ignores the fact the Dawn article Who's who of Baloch insurgency is not a news report. It is an attempt at writing history, by an author with unknown credentials.

Alia Amirali, a lecturer at Quaid-i-Azam University and the author of the Balochistan volume in the SAGE Series, says Media groups have not adequately equipped their Balochistan desks; they are limited to Quetta... these anchorpersons are blank when it comes to Balochistan.... A politics of hate is being deliberately cultivated by the establishment (of which the big fish of the corporate media are fully a part) by presenting the movement as merely identity-based, so as to ensure that the core issue of internal colonialism does not emerge into public discourse. [3]. In short, the Pakistani media is essentially unreliable when it comes to Balochistan. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

It's funny that you say "Pakistani media is essentially unreliable when it comes to Balochistan" but you support your claim by using a quote from another Pakistani media on Balochistan which is further reproduced by UNPO. Really?!—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:53, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

They should be used with care, by cross-comparing with other sources, by paying attention to the authorship, and for factual information rather than POV views. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya and Indian pov and socks of Darknesshines

If Pakistani sources are unreliable then every single Indian pov article should be removed from pages like Azad Kashmir etc. India is funding terrorists and constantly funneling them into Balochistan and thus Indian pov should never be used Kautilya you have clearly come from a specific school of thought and you for this reason you have major conflicts of interest. You should not be allowed to edit Balochistan/Pakistan related articles. We need a serious topi ban on users who display such hypocritical pov. Should we trust Indian sources in Jammu and Kashmir genocide which is taking place as we speak?.141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore socks of Darknesshines a notoriously disruptive anti-Pakistan editor is obviously using discussion and edit wars to his advantage as he knows Kautilya will take "responsibility" for his vandalistic edits. This article and all related Pakistani/Balochistan articles must be protected from Darknesshines and this will prevent Kautilya hiding behind socks. 141.241.26.20 (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

TripWire and 141.241.26.20 I thing time has come that we first apply to admins to topic ban Kautilya3. Even if we fail I have know decided to launch a face book & twitter based awareness campaign against Pro India editing monopoly on Wikipedia so that kautiliya daily faces thousand editors across Pakistan fighting for his controversial biased editing. Admins are not playing any neutral role so may be they will realise when WP will get disturbed by new users intercepting Indian nationalists. 39.32.140.22 (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The 141 IP is Nangparbat 2A00:11C0:9:794:0:0:0:3 (talk) 07:01, 26 July 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) 12:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Alleged link with India section

TouristerMan expanded the "Alleged link with India" with WP:UNDUE material on Kulbhushan Yadav [4]. Upon my advice, they removed some of it. The rest is also UNDUE, but I will let it stay until I write a proper section on BSO's links with insurgents. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 it is not undue because it mentions his links with BSO. I did not remove it upon your advice, i merely removed it because you were becoming a nuisance with your msgs on my talkpage. I merely removed it to un-escalate your attempt to pick a fight, as I don't like engaging in fights online. The rest will stay on the page whether you write a section or not as it is one of the most important links of BSO with India. Also, please don't ping me to a non-discussion as it serves no purpose. TouristerMan (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Vista Vio

This version restored by Tripwire is full of copyrightviolations, please restore to this, which is copyright violation free. 91.49.43.127 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. We have moved on from those versions. Nothing to be done. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)