Talk:Separatist movements of Pakistan

Speedy Delete

This article is a complete joke, most likey made to counter the Indian seperatist movements. I never knew provinces wanting to rename themselves was equated to wanting a seperate state, or provinces that wanted more autonomy were infact wanting to seperate. It's hilarious to see just how patethic and low these indians can really get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.36.39.5 (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I always imagined that after 16 - 12 - 1971, separation would be taken with utmost seriousness in Pakistan. I don't claim that the article after the header is well written, it needs to be worked on. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

One cannot give Hippler qualifiers like critic, that would be wp:or, I have merely quoted the said source, which is according to good practice. Please do not make changes unless backed by wp:rs. Why cannot the tag be just expert on the subject? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Eoguy for correcting spelling mistakes. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is in general accurate. I was in the zone a year ago and I speak about many nationalist militants. Unafortunately lack the seraikis amb kashmiris between the main separatist groups.--88.19.53.144 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

POV

This article is POV, it gives the idea that Pakistan's breakup is a given, see Wikipedia:Undue. It also says that Pakistan is "held together by the common cause of hatred of Hindu India" and also of the two nation theory "this theory was exposed as false". Whether or not the nation is or is not held together in this manner, - you need to cite sources for this, otherwise you just presenting your own opinion. If you look at the intro for the TNT article is says according to theory "Muslims and Hindus were two separate nations by every definition, and therefore Muslims should have an autonomous homeland in the Muslim majority areas of British India for the safeguard of their political, cultural, and social rights, within or without a United India." Which is somewhat different to what you have written, thus I am tagging this as POV. Pahari Sahib 07:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have restored most of the articles former neutral version before the blatant pov attacks by User Yogesh SupraTomas23 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

My edits are as true representations of the quoted sources as possible, without infringing copyright issues. There is not a word of my own, every line I have added is based on what is written in the articles quoted. Neither of the two are written by Indians. Please read the sources carefully and then edit. Another important point is that this article is about separatist movements in Pakistan and sources are bound to be uncomplimentary to Pakistan, editors cannot help it as they do not create content. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not true, the issue is not that you are writing uncomplimentary articles about Pakistan, rather you are quoting sources and then doing a bit of original research, your assertion that Pakistan is held together by hatred is not anywhere stated in your source. Pahari Sahib 10:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The allegation of wp:or is false, an excerpt of the article follows:

“ All governments since 1947 have heavily relied on pointing across the border to promote “National Unity”. In all cases national integration was tried by emphasizing India as an external threat, one that was always willing to attack the new country. Hostility towards India,... and anti-Hindu sentiments have been and largely remained important tools to stress Pakistan’s legitimacy, its unity ”

now an editor cannot use the source verbatim for copyright issues and ofcourse for economy, he has to paraphrase, the article uses the words,

1. emphasis of India as a threat
2. hostility
3. anti-Hindu sentiments as a tool to legitimise Pakistan.

If that cannot be summarised as hatred of Hindu India, what can it be as? I am not asserting that the glue that binds Pakistan together is hatred of India, others have done that. Next time before making charges please read the articles quoted carefully and discuss clarifications before making wild accucations and edits. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The source does not actually use the word hatred, it does speak of viewing India as an external threat - but as you have noted mentions "anti-Hindu sentiments". This is not quite the same as hatred of Hindu India. I object to the assertion that I have made wild edits, if you look here for example, there has been a certain play with words going on. Pahari Sahib 12:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

POV tag.

This is what wikipedia on neutrality says:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

Who has stopped any body from bringing conflicting perspectives as evidenced by reliable sources? Go ahead. Just be careful about sources. Removing tag. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As noted above "It requires that all majority- and significant-minority views must be presented fairly" - this does not mean it is okay to remove the POV tag if one point of view presented. Pahari Sahib 12:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Next time editors rearrange text, kindly carry references to where the text is, or the material may seem to convey the impression of being unsourced. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at History of North-West Frontier Province and Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), each para shows where the text comes from - so if you move paras you also take the associated refs with them. This was not the case with this article. The article needed to be re-arranged as the lead contained historical info which needed to be in a history section. Pahari Sahib 12:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

POV

I have added back the tag removed without any discussion by POV user Yogesh 109.149.65.225 (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

article issues

I have removed allot of the unsourced drivel from the article. Afghan section contains afghan government claims which is pure pov. 82.132.229.253 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Pashtunistan Vs Movements?

Pashtunistan isnt a "movement" but a geographical area. The article on Pashtunistan itself defines it as such. Moreover this edit talks about a proposed state which isnt in consonances with the theme of this article either, which rather talks about "separatist movements" and not disputed areas. Going by this, even Kashmir should then also be mentioned in this article.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire: The source we had was an endnote from "The 80 Percent Solution," an eassy by Thomas F. Lynch III from the collection Talibanistan: Negotiating the Borders Between Terror, Politics, and Religion. (Our citation, which was credited to editor Katherine Tiedemann, was incorrect.) This is that endnote, with relevant text in bold:

"For evidence of the historical ISI role in aligning against Pashtun groups oriented toward a "Greater Pashtunistan" or "Greater Afghanistan," see Husain IIaqqani, Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, zoos), pp. 172-75. Also reference the text "But ISI also has another vital mission. Preventing Pakistan's Pashtun, 15—20% of the population of 165 million, from rekindling the old 'Greater Pashtunistan' movement calling for union of the Pashtun tribes of Pakistan and Afghanistan into a new Pashtun nation. The Pashtun have never recognized the Durand Line (today's Pakistan-Afghan border) drawn by British imperialists to sunder the world's largest tribal people. Greater Pashtunistan would tear apart Pakistan and invite Indian military intervention," as found in the article entitled "Pakistan's ISI" at the Pashtun Foundation Organization website, http://en.pashtunfoundation.org/bodytext.php?request=724."

(That link, which went to an article by Eric Margolis, didn't work and I couldn't find it at the Wayback Machine, but here's the same article crossposted to HuffPo.)

Our text read this:

"Pashtunistan is a proposed state for ethnic Pashtuns seeking to separate Pashtuns from Pakistan and Afghanistan."

Based on that endnote's text, we have a reliable source saying that the Pashtuns want independence, the term for the proposed nation would be "Greater Pashtunistan" (although just "Pashtunistan" seems more likely, doesn't it?), and the only way this doesn't bright-line prove that the movement is called "Greater Pashtunistan" is that the terms "rekindled" and "the old" indicate the movement either doesn't presently exist or it does but not in any sort of coordinated, organized form.

That said, I still think the text we had was good. The second bolded sentence indicates that whether or not the idea is recognized by the U.N. (or whatever), the Pashtuns themselves certainly see it as a viable movement whose ultimate goal is an independent nation whose territory is comprised of land that presently belongs to either Pakistan or both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Margolis and Lynch are widely respected experts so I'm thinking that "Pashtunistan isnt a movement but a geographical area" isn't completely correct. It's a geographical area, absolutely, but what does the Pashtun separatist movement that Lynch and Margolis are talking about call itself if not "Pashtunistan" or "Greater Pashtunistan?" Going with Lynch and Margolis, isn't the only issue with that text the fact that we didn't start with the word "Greater?" RunnyAmiga ※ talk 20:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

First, the source/text you quoted above talks (mainly) about ISI (somehow) preventing a (so called) movement which aims at uniting Pashtuns on both side of the Durand Line, and NOT much about the "movement" itself. So, a mere (indirect) reference to a certain text on some website does not make eligible to be at WP especially when the topic is controversial and may lead to unnecessary disputes.

Now, this does not mean that people who wants Pashtuns to unite dont exist. Nor would I say that ISI may not be trying to prevent this Greater Pashtunistan thing to succeed (all intelligence agencies will try to counter separatist tendencies, no?). But that's not the point. There are people in Karachi who says that Karachi should be independent. There are people in Texas who say the State shouldnt have joined the Union. So, is the case in India. But then do we add each of them here? How many organization, political parties, groups or clubs exists in Pakistan which says they want to join Afghanistan? Statements by political figures on both sides of the Durand Line are made for consumption of general public, and may not be used at WP as they are not encyclopedic. Like I said earlier, Pushtunistan refers to a geographical area. It may be comparable to the concept of Greater Pakistan or Akhund Bharat, and may have an article about itself, but mentioning it as a "separatist movement" may not be the best thing to be done.

Second, the website "en.pashtunfoundation.org" isnt necessarily the best source to used as it is likely to have a conflict of interest, and as the name suggests, a possible POV to push. It's just like quoting text from some www.dtrump.com in favour of trump or using info from xyz.gov.pk website to support Pakistan's claim on Kashmir. Instead a third party, neutral and reliable source, which isnt exactly engaging in a blame-game (such as ISI is trying to prevent something from happening - which itself is a far-fetched claim with not much support or authencity, I heard/read it for the first time) should preferably be used to make such claims.

BTW, the author in the article you quoted is making a passing reference about Greater Pashtunistan and primarily making a claim against ISI - so that focus is on ISI, not Greater Pashtunistan. It says nothing about Greater Pashtunistan itself or what it is about or how it is a movement exactly. This is not how sources are to be used at WP.

Third, in short what you are doing is WP:SYNTHESIS.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@TripWire: "and NOT much about the "movement" itself. So, a mere (indirect) reference to a certain text on some website does not make eligible to be at WP especially when the topic is controversial and may lead to unnecessary disputes." Why not? WP:RS doesn't seem to say anything about whether or not indirect references from reliable sources can themselves be considered reliable sources. If a reliable source says it, it's reliably sourced.

"Like I said earlier, Pushtunistan refers to a geographical area." I mean, okay? I've never said otherwise. That's not all it refers to, though.

"Second, the website 'en.pashtunfoundation.org' isnt necessarily the best source to used as it is likely to have a conflict of interest, and as the name suggests, a possible POV to push." I actually agree and it was my mistake to characterize Margolis's article as their publication. The article was published by the Huffington Post in 2008, and while it's hard to tell exactly when the Pashtun Foundation posted it, it was almost certainly years later.

"Instead a third party, neutral and reliable source, which isnt exactly engaging in a blame-game (such as ISI is trying to prevent something from happening - which itself is a far-fetched claim with not much support or authencity, I heard/read it for the first time) should preferably be used to make such claims." I mean, I'm still not understanding how Margolis can't be characterized as reliable. Neutral? Nah. But he doesn't need to be, and going on the veritable résumé we have at his article here and the reams of expertise he imparts in just that one HuffPo piece, I'm not sure what he needs to write that he hasn't already written to be considered a reliable source.

"what you are doing is WP:SYNTHESIS." SYNTH is one of the most poorly explained, incoherently written rules we have. Consequently, it's one of the most easily misunderstood. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." "Multiple" means "more than one" and given that everything (what the article used to say, Lynch's endnote, the Pashtun Foundation's crosspost, and what I've said) is sourced from the HuffPo article, which "multiple sources" did I use to make a claim that the HuffPo piece doesn't say? The claim I'm making is that there's a Pashtun separatist movement and it can be called either "Pashtunistan" or "Greater Pashtunistan." Did I come to that conclusion using Margolis's article and a different source? RunnyAmiga ※ talk 16:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not? WP:RS doesn't seem to say anything about whether or not indirect references from reliable sources can themselves be considered reliable sources. If a reliable source says it, it's reliably sourced. Not really. Info at WP should be reliably sourced as it is mentioned in the source, not per your own interpretation of the same.

That's not all it refers to, though. That's all your source refers to, nothing more. It says nothing about a certain "sepeartist movement."

I actually agree and it was my mistake to characterize Margolis's article as their publication. The article was published by the Huffington Post in 2008, and while it's hard to tell exactly when the Pashtun Foundation posted it, it was almost certainly years later. Not only that the info is from an unreliable source, but you are gave the inline citation to a book which infact is not the case as the info is coming from the website, not the book.

I'm not sure what he needs to write that he hasn't already written to be considered a reliable source. He has to write nothing. All the writing has to be done by you based on the info from the source, but only what the source says and how it describe the issue, which in this case is not what you interpreted and synthesised into when adding info to the article.

WP:SYNTHESIS: If you missed, WP:SYNTHESIS is a sub-part of WP:OR, that's what you did when you changed the info from the source which it was not.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(reversion of) Removal of Sindhudesh

The section on Sindhudesh was removed by either a single dynamic IP user or two IP users. I've returned it to the page.

• IP 119.153.188.84 lists references This is fair evidence that the support for it is currently moribund, however [1] from 17 December 2018 doesn't show that the idea is completely dead, and this (Indian) source shows a Sindudesh protest this month. Even if the Sindhudesh movement never regains any kind of major popular support, a smaller group may well still remain. Or there may be some level of resurgence: Here, for instance, is a source from 2000 which states that the "Sindhudesh movement died a natural death", yet there were signs of life afterwards.
• IP 119.153.184.173 states that it is "definitely not a separatist movement", which isn't supported by the references provided by the other IP, which link Sindhudesh with separatism (or by the article and related articles).
• Even if the movement happens to die again, it should appear here (well-sourced) as a former movement until/unless former movements happen to be split out (which appears unnecessary).
• The section may need some slight additions and modifications to indicate (currently) waning support.

References

^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Hydronium Hydroxide I left a message on your user page regarding this problem maybe should have left the message here but I find this troubling whenever it comes to Pakistan it must be added but when Indian users removed Dravud Nadu a proposed separatist state for Tamil nationalists in India it gets removed on the basis of it not being popular etc for this reason I think Sindhudesh should also be removed unless we can add the same to the Indian article. 82.132.218.83 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2021

@Satrar: My friend, please cross check the fact I corrected with the inline citation. A humble request, and please respond here. —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Satrar: What is your objection in adding that content with inline citation? Please respond here or else your reluctance to respond here would be treated as WP:SILENCE and the said content would be re-added, so I request you to write your objections regarding the said change here. Thank you —Echo1Charlie (talk) 05:37, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
@Satrar: I hope you've seen the verdict of Administrators' noticeboard, as per the suggestion I'm requesting you again to respond here so that this dispute could be solved as early as possible. Thanks —Echo1Charlie (talk) 13:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)