Jump to content

Talk:Insurgency in Balochistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kashmiri (talk | contribs) at 02:32, 9 July 2023 (What is the point of this Anglo propaganda?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The insurgency on balochistan

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Soldier

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

Orphaned references in Insurgency in Balochistan

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Insurgency in Balochistan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "stanford":

  • From List of wars and anthropogenic disasters by death toll: "How the U.S. saved a starving Soviet Russia: PBS film highlights Stanford scholar's research on the 1921–23 famine", Stanford University. April 4, 2011.
  • From 1970s operation in Balochistan: "Baluch Liberation Front – Mapping Millitant Organisation". web.stanford.edu. Retrieved 1 December 2018.
  • From Pakistani Taliban: "MAPPING MILITANT ORGANIZATIONS, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan". Stanford.edu. 13 December 2007. Archived from the original on 19 February 2015. Retrieved 2015-02-19.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 14:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of this Anglo propaganda?

The article says: "Baloch separatists argue they are economically marginalised and poor compared to the rest of Pakistan. China has invested $46 billion in the region."

Then quote an Anglo news as a source and proceed to say nothing with nothing. What is the point of this propaganda? What do they want to imply with this traditional Machiavellian narrative?

Why doesn't the article say how much the Anglo empires "invested" or literally stole from this region in all their invasions and centuries of colonialism? Of course the "free" CIApedia does not allow editions...

TotallyHonestAnglo (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what precisely was "stolen" from Balochistan? Sand perhaps? — kashmīrī TALK 02:32, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]