Talk:Ghudwana

@ThreeDottedDomino: - You're partially right, but you're also wrong because it's not a town, and it's not a populated area. It's an inhabitated region with only military posts. Let me make some changes, but bear with me a second. نعم البدل (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

If there are no reliable sources stating that this territory has been formally annexed by Pakistan, it should not be changed to say it is part of Pakistan. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:31, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger: - See my reply above. It's uninhabited land with only military posts, not a town. Regardless, we'll need protection on the page, because edits will be inevitably be reverted, and there will be edit wars. نعم البدل (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

That's fair, but it still shouldn't be changed unless there's official, reliable sources stating there has been a formal annexation, and as I'm WP:INVOLVED it should be protected by another admin. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:41, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

In all honesty, the article should be reviewed if not already. I doubt it meets the notability criteria. Regardless, BBC Dari and BBC Pashto have verified that this "region" (unnamed by Afghanistan, I presume) has been annexed through satellite imagery.. نعم البدل (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Please change the "Country" and "Provinces" fields in the infobox to reflect the disputed status of the territory, as there is currently no international recognition of annexation. Please change:

country = Pakistan (administered by Pakistan Army)

subdivision_type = Provinces of Pakistan or Provinces of Afghanistan

subdivision_name = Balochistan Paktika

subdivision_type1 = Districts

subdivision_name1 = Zhob Terwa District To:

country = Disputed (Administered by Pakistan; claimed by Afghanistan)

subdivision_type = Province (claimed)

subdivision_name = Paktika

subdivision_type1 = District (claimed)

subdivision_name1 = Terwa District

subdivision_type2 = Province (de facto)

subdivision_name2 = Balochistan Reasoning: The current version presents the area as definitively part of Pakistan, which violates WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) regarding active border conflicts. Per the BBC News report (Ref [7] in the article), the status is contested and denied by local officials. Wikipedia should reflect the dispute rather than validating a unilateral military claim. Mohammad Khalid Shehab (talk) 22:13, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Because the sovereignty of Ghudwana is currently a matter of active military conflict and has been condemned by UN experts on 24 March 2026 as a violation of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, the current lead and infobox violate WP:NPOV by stating "Country: Pakistan" as a fact. I request that the template be added to the top of the article immediately to warn readers that the neutrality of this page is disputed. We should not present a unilateral military annexation as settled fact. Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi 22:28, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. Please add the following text to the end of the "2026 Afghanistan–Pakistan conflict" section: "On 24 March 2026, United Nations experts and the OHCHR issued a statement noting that the military actions in the border region constitute a violation of the prohibition on the use of force under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The UN urged both parties to respect established international borders." Reasoning: The article currently only lists news reports of the military capture. To be balanced (WP:NPOV), it must also include the international legal response and the fact that the United Nations does not recognize the change in territory. Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi 22:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

	This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. @The_Bushranger: I have submitted three formal edit requests below to address the current neutrality issues in the infobox and history sections. These requests include the OHCHR statement from 24 March 2026, which classifies the military actions as a violation of the UN Charter. Since the annexation is not internationally recognized, I request your help as an uninvolved editor to ensure the page correctly reflects the territory as "Disputed" per WP:NPOV. Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi 22:41, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Not done: your request appears to have been generated by a large language model. Day Creature (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not accept any documents from the Pakistani side without official agreement from Afghanistan. The region has been part of Paktika Province in Afghanistan MKhan2000 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

I highly doubt editors are getting any sort of documents from the Pakistani government, this is just a page about an occupied territory and it doesn't make any claims of Pakistani sovereignty over it. ~2026-15291-80 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ghudwana is not a part of Pakistan and nor was it seized in February 2026. Ashdyta (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit war taking place , on which country controls the area , Raggedrogue (talk) 09:33, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

the claim that ghudwana a village or a town or maybe a territory is been captured by Pakistani forces is a false claim i live in there and its under Afghanistan control ~2026-19438-63 (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, sure... JaxsonR (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

This edit request to kocakka has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Afghanistan This is paktika province of Afghanisan ~2026-19471-21 (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

So @نعم البدل removed the UNAMA March 6 and OHCHR March 24 citations saying they "lack depth" I genuinely don’t understand that reasoning. These are UN reports not some random blog. UNAMA puts the Ghudwana fighting inside Afghanistan and OHCHR flags it as an Article 2 UN Charter issue. That’s not "lacking depth" that’s literally the most relevant sourcing you can have here.

Keeping only the military’s own statements while ditching the UN sources is a WP:NPOV problem full stop. The "Disputed" tag and both citations need to go back in. Right now the article reads like it’s settled when it clearly isn’t.

@The_Bushranger I would like a neutral look at this.

UNAMA: Update on Civilian Casualties in Afghanistan (March 6 2026)

OHCHR: UN Experts call for lasting peace on Afghan-Pakistani border (March 24 2026) Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

@Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi: – UNAMA statements don't determine the style of the infoxbox. The infobox doesn't have to specifically specify whether an area is disputed or not, the information that the infobox bring implies itself that the area is disputed. It gives equal balance to both sides. It states that Pakistani Army has taken control, while Afghanistan administers it dejure. We keep this consistency across Wikipedia, and this article is not any different. نعم البدل (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I would suggest you read MOS:INFOBOXNAME, and as a new user encourage you to also read WP:NOTHERE. نعم البدل (talk) 18:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

My account goes back to 2020 so the 'new user' thing doesn't really track.

Also, I am genuinely confused about the 'lacking depth' comment re: the OHCHR statement March 24 2026 and the UNAMA report March 6 2026 like, these are UN sources. That's pretty much the definition of WP:RS, no?

WP:NPOV is pretty clear that a military press release Business Recorder/ISPR doesn’t outweigh a UN legal determination. The UN called this an Article 2 Charter violation so the territory is occupied under international law. “Annexed” is a different thing entirely, the two aren’t interchangeable and I think that distinction actually matters here.

Where de facto control and de jure law conflict, 'Disputed' is the neutral call I don't see a better option tbh. MOS:INFOBOXNAME supports this anyway. Restoring the UN citations + tag. Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The point of contention isn't the OHCHR, UNAMA or any human rights NGO's reference. You're more than welcome to add it, but see WP:ACADEMIC and such sources would usually rank way below, this is what I mean by depth. Wikipedia relies on sources, and press releases aren't notable sources, though as valid as they may be. I can appreciate, however, that there's limited sources on the subject in question. Business Recorder is a valid WP:SECONDARY source, and the article by Business Recorder is not merely "military press release".

In regards to the infobox, I wasn't specifically referring to MOS:INFOBOXNAME but the section below; I was generally recomending MOS:INFOBOX which talks about consistency. "Disputed area" as a literal title is seldom a subdivision.

• My account goes back to 2020 so the 'new user' thing doesn't really track. – As a user with 19 edits, 10 of which are specifically on one article, I would highly encourage you to read WP:NOTHERE. نعم البدل (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Neither the OHCHR and UNAMA press releases talk about Ghudwana, and given that ISPR linked Pakistani state media has described the area as part of Zhob District, but that framing hasn’t gained traction in international legal circles. As things stand, Ghudwana is still widely recognized internationally as Afghan sovereign territory, within Paktika Province. is entirely WP:POV, I fail to see why your sources should be included, especially in the first paragraph after the lede. نعم البدل (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@نعم البدل Also check according to Jerusalem Post 2 Pakistani security officials confirmed Gundwana is still in their control/occupation (source date March, 2026). So it's better two remove from lead that any Pakistani officials not yet confirmed or claimed area is under their control or rephrase lead using source of Jerusalem Post I've added quotes and 2 lines paragraph here please read. If required rephrase lead and remove that area is merged with Zhob district+ remove that pakistani Amy officials not confirmed taking control over this area (when Jerusalem post said Pakistani officials confirmed this fact).~2026-20582-82 (talk) 09:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Just to respond to the points from @نعم البدل I have to be honest the argument that UN reports from the OHCHR and UNAMA “rank way below” a newspaper like ‘‘Business Recorder’’ under WP:ACADEMIC is not a reading of policy I recognize when you arre dealing with an active border conflict and territorial dispute UN legal determinations are about as neutral and independent as secondary sourcing gets. sidelining those in favor of state aligned media is in my view point a straightforward WP:NPOV issue.

On the consistency point the standard Wikipedia approach for disputed zones like Kashmir and Crimea is to list both ‘‘de jure’’ and ‘‘de facto’’ status in the infobox, not to flatten that distinction calling Ghudwana a “military occupation” isn’t a style preference, it is just what the sourcing shows. The Jerusalem Post piece from March 2026 is worth looking at here Pakistani security officials are quoted describing their own positions as being “in southern Afghanistan.”

I also want to flag the WP:BITE concern repeatedly questioning whether an editor belongs here based on their edit count isn’t really in the spirit of how Wikipedia works. Policy discussions should come down to source quality not seniority the sources that @~2026-20582-82 and I have brought to this are verifiable, solid, and directly relevant I’d ask that they be engaged with on those terms.

The current lead is more accurate and I do think it should stay as is. Describing the area as “merged” without any mention of the UN’s legal challenge under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter would mean presenting a one sided state position as settled fact which isn’t something the article should be doing. The UN citations and the occupation status need to remain. If these sources keep getting removed without proper discussion, I would be raising this at the NPOV Noticeboard. Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi (talk) 10:25, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi Please stop using LLM/ChatGPT for compiling comments or even Wikipedia content. Your recent replies are highly likely 100% compiled using LLM tool. ~2026-20582-82 (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi Four days ago you were warned about using of LLM by Day Creature. You still continued using LLM/Chat-gpt. ~2026-20582-82 (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Please also read all articles in south Asia (related to Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Bangladesh, & Sri Lanka) comes under WP:CT/SA and need extended confirmed right to edits, plus WP:ONUS on the editor who add content and get consensus for the inclusion read these Wikipedia policies first before editing contentious articles. Happy editing ~2026-20582-82 (talk) 10:51, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Right so I work in research. Alzheimer’s disease early detection, UK. It’s not a fun writing style but it’s mine. I’ve typed like this on pages for years and never had this come up before. Accusing someone of using ChatGPT because they write in full sentences is a bit of a stretch honestly. The actual question is whether the sources hold up under WP:RS can we talk about that instead.

The WP:CT/SA point that account was made today. Like, today today, 3 April. And the first thing it does is drop arbitration tags on a conflict article. I don’t know what to make of that. Anyway, WP:ONUS I’ve brought OHCHR and UNAMA sources. UN bodies. That clears the bar, I’d have thought.

Also the “undue weight” thing re: Article 2(4) I don’t think that argument works under WP:NPOV, but happy to be shown otherwise. The Jerusalem Post piece is worth actually reading btw. Pakistani officials describe themselves as operating “in southern Afghanistan.” That’s a direct quote from them not my framing. Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi (talk) 11:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

On the AI detection thing gptzero disclaims accuracy in its own Terms of Use. Section 21 is pretty explicit about it, listing the possibility of “errors, mistakes or inaccuracies” and disclaiming any warranties around accuracy.

Honestly this stuff flags people all the time researchers non-native speakers, anyone who does not write like they are texting. The devs have literally said dont use it to accuse people. And Wikipedia:Signs of AI writing doesn’t back up the idea that a screenshot from a commercial tool counts as evidence of anything. It guessed. The tool’s own ToS says it might be wrong. That’s what’s being presented here as proof.disappear again I will be heading to the NPOV Noticeboard. Not looking to make a mountain out of a molehill, that is just the process.

Section 21 - https://gptzero.me/terms-of-use.html. Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

I looked at your account it was made today and already shows several different IP addresses linked to it. And right out of the gate, you’re adding arbitration enforcement tags to a contentious article and accusing another editor of using AI. That’s a very particular way to start. I’m not going to make any accusations here, but WP:SOCK (sockpuppetry) and WP:EVADE (block evasion) are against the rules for a reason. This pattern of using multiple IPs for gatekeeping stands out. Just putting that out there. Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi (talk) 12:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

@Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi As you are not familiar with basic Wikipedia policies, you are also not familiar with Temporary accounts. One IP address can have multiple temporary accounts. Such temporary accounts can not be prove as Sock. Ibrahim Ali786 (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Ibrahim Ali786: The type of account doesn't matter when it comes to deleting 1.7k bytes of independent United Nations (OHCHR/UNAMA) sources pplease address the worries about sticking to WP:NPOV and taking away high level WP:RS citations.

take a look at the article as it is now. It relies on shaky sources and state media that clearly has an agenda. You can check the map coordinates yourself and they show that this area is under Afghan control which goes against the whole "merger" story. WP:RS exists for this very reason we can't put state controlled claims above what the UN has officially decided and what is actually true about the geography we need to put the neutral version back in

For your kind reference:

Map Plus Code: PFWG+C8W Kocakka, Afghanistan

Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Ibrahim Ali786: You just cut out 1.7k bytes of solid, neutral WP:RS, specifically the UN/OHCHR legal decisions. I see that you are referring to WP:ONUS, but that policy does not give you a free pass to ignore international legal views just because they don't fit the story you are trying to tell.

The coordinates (31°44′46″N, 68°28′33″E) also show that this land is completely under Afghan control. The article now says that state media and business orders are more trustworthy than that, which doesn't make sense. The UN citations need to come back in, period. I will take this to the NPOV Noticeboard if independent international sources keep getting blocked here. Mohammad Khalid Ibrahimi (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2026 (UTC)