Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Low-Intensity Insurgency

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

Your own assessment is not going to supersede the data from multiple reliable sources,[1][2] which clearly state that the insurgency has been intensified. Orientls (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

And as defined by the United States government:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The insurgency on balochistan

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

Infobox

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

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

Soldier

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