Talk:Persecution of Hazaras in Quetta

Categories

Please can we try not to overcategorise in this article. If, for example, we have Category:Massacres and Category:Massacres in Pakistan then we should be showing only the latter because it is a subcategory of the former. - Sitush (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Imran Khan

Imran Khan is a high-profile, contentious national politician. (He was also a great cricketer, and I enjoyed watching him in that role immensely). Stating his opinion regarding genocide in the lead section of this article is undue weight. Perhaps there is a place where his opinion would be suitable for inclusion, provided that we can consider the possibility of other opinions. But in the lead is a definite non-starter. - Sitush (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I mostly welcome inclusion of multiple opinions. But when "genocide" is being discussed in an article, mentioning it in the lead is completely necessary. Can add more sources for "genocide" of Hazaras. Stop whitewashing and don't edit war. See WP:CENSOR. Maybe we can agree on some alternate wording for the lead. Let it stay for now.OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

No. You are wrong in terms of policy. As with stuff elsewhere - eg: here, here, here and here - you think that you know what you are talking about but are displaying a rather imperfect understanding. That happens, no problem, but you are persisting in it despite advice to the contrary from numerous other people. In fact, you are displaying tendencies similar to MangoWong and you might find it instructive to review what happened in that instance. Your agenda is pretty clear and has been noted at ANI, your contrary accusations of bias are unfounded and your understanding of policy etc seems to demonstrate a tendency to run before you can walk. Please self-revert and continue this discussion, after conducting a full read-through of WP:DUE, WP:LEAD and, preferably, checking out a few articles in this general sphere that have attained at least Good Article standard. Or face the fate. - Sitush (talk) 02:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@OrangesRyellow Had Imran been a world renowned Human rights activist, that may be fine in the lead, but he is not and by mentioning his opinion in the lead, we are giving undue importance to his comment. --SMS ^Talk 06:32, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Imran is a world renowned person alright. As a cricketer, and as a prominent Pakistani leader. His cricketing fame is of no consequence here, but his being an important Pakistani leader does provide weight to his views. It is not necessary that he should be named there. I can add more sources for "genocide", and something will definitely be needed in the lead.OrangesRyellow (talk) 08:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Use decent sources. Ethnic cleansing by the Taliban. You can also use Encyclopedia of War Crimes and Genocide p196 onwards. Abdullah Amin's speech in 1979 should be mentioned "tokhm-i Hazara dar Afghanistan na-memanad" Islam and Politics in Afghanistan, Volume 3 p92 More ethnic cleansing. Modern Afghanistan: A History of Struggle and Survival pp41-42 Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Darkness Shines. I am enthused by your suggestion to use better sources. I fully agree that better sources should be used whenever available/found. Do the above sources relate to persecution in Pakistan/Quetta, or in Afghanistan only?OrangesRyellow (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC) Of course I shall try to investigate these sources on my own too, depending on if I can find access to them...OrangesRyellow (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

For Quetta only use Future Seekers: Refugees and Irregular Migration in Australia p51-52 details the attacks on police cadets and the killings at the Asna-Ul-Asharia mosque. Also p38 "Amnesty International reports, most refugees are returning from Iran and Pakistan because they have no viable alternative protection in those countries." I will give you more later. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Sources

Are we really supposed to be happy using sources such as hazara.net and hazara news? I am not disputing that there is persecution (I really do not know, but it sounds about right for the extensive social bigotry that is found in Pakistan and India - nutters, most of them) but under normal circumstances we would not use sources that are clearly affiliated to one "side" or the other of an argument. For example. just because person A is killed in violent circumstances does not mean that they were killed because of their ethnicity or whatever. They may equally have been killed as a consequence of a territorial dispute, a familial difference of opinion (eg: marriage issues), a dispute between criminal gangs, someone who they owed money to, etc. We simply cannot make sense of this ourselves and I worry greatly that using sources with an agenda, as surely the ones I mention must have, is not conducive to what Wikipedia is about. As many contributors to this article will already know, WP is an imperfect environment ... but that does not mean that this or any other article should be written as an exception to that imperfect environment. News sources such as CNN and the BBC are surely much better, and better still would be academic studies if such things exist for what appears from this article to be a quite recent development.

This is Wikipedia, and we should not be using advocacy groups etc as sources for what is often speculative content/opinion. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. I might have added couple of those links myself but later, I though it would not sound reliable if the refs are Hazara's websites. Thanks for reminding and cleaning the mess. Really appreciated. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 11:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of AHRC-sourced statement

I have just removed

Asian Human Rights Commission reported in January 2012 that the Pakistan army had created a militant organization to kill intellectuals, activists and Hazaras in Balochistan.

The source was "Pakistan: The State of Human Rights in 2011 — Asian Human Rights Commission". Humanrights.asia. Retrieved 2012-05-03.

There is a PDF document available via the source. That document mentions Hazara twice and those mentions refer to specific instances of anti-Hazara violence. Nowhere in it can I spot the claim that was made in our statement. Usually I would tag it with a {{Pn}} template but in this instance, rather than go through my usually vain wait for someone to provide the necessary page info, I've removed it because the claim is potentially quite outrageous. If someone can substantiate it then, obviously, the statement can be reinstated. - Sitush (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Genocide

Without actually reaching for a dictionary, the term "genocide" seems to me to imply a systematic, organised campaign to murder all members of an ethnic group in a given place. From the existing sources in the article, those that are authoritative and neutral (such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch) seem not to use the term in relation to the Hazaras in Quetta. While there is certainly persecution and some of the killings have involved tens of people, I can see nothing to justify us using such as emotive word as "genocide" nor to categorise this article in that category. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Persecution of Hazara people in Quetta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130731093028/http://www.aph.org.au/files/articles/hazarasPersecution.htm to http://www.aph.org.au/files/articles/hazarasPersecution.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This article is a mess

The majority of the articles content does not even discuss Hazaras it bangs on about ISI and the Pakistani military the sources used to support these pov claims are basically saying the opposite or not even mentioning any connection this article is pure pov I will add a tag until its reviewed properly its litered with pov. Haztakcover (talk) 11:12, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore the introduction contained a whole paragraph with no sources stating some pretty hefty stuff without a single source. I have removed the source less drivel please re add if you manage to find a source for these huge claims. Haztakcover (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Nonsense lists and poorly written pov

Far too many lists here no need for it and its against wiki policy this is not an encyclopedia. Haztakcover (talk) 11:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree and well done. Hazara Birar ^(Talk) 20:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)