This is an archive of past discussions about Balochistan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I dont see why the history and complete demographics plus socio economic setup of Balochistan cannot be in one article ,there is no sense to divide it as most other articles on States and Provinces are detailed into one article and/or comprehensive enough.This article covers everything there is to know about Balochistan and thats what a reader must have and should have.--Sheikhu04:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Two Images
Also I have noticed that user:202.91.105.11 has removed some images without due reason from this article.Please provide legitimate reasons before deleting anything of significance in an article.--Usmanreddy04:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Strictly grammatical
I have clarified some terms and corrected some grammar and punctuation, in order to make this comprehensible. Let me emphasize that my only input is technical and I have no opinion on the situation, yet I feel that readers who come to Wikipedia for information would be turned off by the non-neutral language, thus counteracting the writer's obvious desire for people to be informed of his/her cause. If you wrote this, please consider removing the non-neutral language, so that the message will come through clearly and sensibly. Her Pegship00:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
Should be Rewritten
In my opinion, the article must be redone. It is too one-dimensional, as it talks largely about only one aspect of Baluchistan's history, ignoring more general information that would normally be found in an article about a geographic region. DigiBullet14:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Proposed change
This page should be the disambiguation page for the word Balochistan with redirects from Baluchistan and Baluchestan. The content of this article could be moved to a Balochistan (region) article. Green Giant05:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it depends on what pages link to this one. If most link to the larger region, then don't make it a disambig page, but if a great deal of the pages are supposed to link to the other meanings as well as this one, it might be a good idea. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Balochistan. --Khoikhoi05:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Summarizing
From the point of view of someone completely unfamiliar with this subject, I find the article in desperate need a brief summary. After reading through the first page or so of the article, I'm pretty sure Balochistan is located in the country of Pakistan, but am not sure. This is a problem. Riobranden10:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Balochistan is a region currently divided between Pakistan, Iran, and possibly Afghanistan (there are Balochis in the south of that country). In Pakistan it makes up the province of Balochistan. For the article about Balochistan in Iran, see Balochistan (Iran). --Khoikhoi20:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Most of the content of this article is almost completely identical to the content of the History of Baluchistan page. Starting from the second paragraph of the History section to the Recent Developments section the only difference is a little extra text in the Military Cantonments Issue section. Altogether some 276 pages link to this page but of those 126 pages do so specifically in the context of linking to Balochistan (Pakistan) and not the wider region (including 28 pages on the districts of Pakistani Balochistan which make no mention of the wider region). That works out at about 45% of the pages linking here. I can understand User:Riobranden confusion because so many links are pointing here without intending to do so.
Image:ArjunaParataraja.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
"Gwadar is in the clutches of a land-grab mafia from Punjab"
While I am not from Punjab, the sentence above sounds highly opinionated. It seems the article has been written from one point of view rather than from a general academic view.
The three major ethnic groups in Balochistan, Baloch, Pashtun and Punjabi have very different views on the whole system and an outsider (or someone with a view thereof) is required to reflect on the current state.
I am from Balochistan and from neither of the three above ethnicities, yet I'm fully aware of my bias and do not feel I can write an impartial article.
Emotions can run high on all sides when the history and current status of this province is mentioned, and this article should be always taken with a grain of salt. (preceding unsigned comment by70.24.237.16 --Hottentot
The last sentence of the lead says Now it is recognised by UNPO as an Un-represented Nation. UNPO, besides having a somewhat misleading acronym, does not seem notable enough for this part of the article. What this sentence really says is that Baluchistan has a nationalist movement big enough to join an organization for nationalist movements; except it's written from a pro-Baluchistan point of view. That kind of thing should be discussed in a section on Baluchistani politics. Brock (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article is about an administrative province of Pakistan, not about the historic and geographic region of Baluchistan. I strongly suggest the Ethymology and at least Early History (if not British Rule, too) sections are merged with Balochistan article. Also, the info in the Ethymology section currently seems to contradict the explanation contained in Balochistan ("Balochistan is named after the native Baloch tribes"). kashmiri17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Quoting sources that casually makes a mention of a certain word and then misinterpreting it to ones own POV and then adding that info at Wiki is not good faith. Moreover, adding blogs and nationalist websites which infact are blogs cannot be taken as reliable. A book makes a passing reference to a phrase in totally a different context and of an editors picks that up and add that reference here as a source, it surely isnt good faith, sir. I request you to go through the above referred talk pages and the comments left while reverting the edits made by these IPs on that Page. Thanks PakSoltalk15:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
The amnesty article that you have quoted does not use the phrase 'Pakistani Army' for once?! Just because the the report says "The victims’ relatives and Baloch groups blame the ‘kill and dump’ incidents on Pakistani security forces, particularly the Frontier Corps and intelligence agencies." this does not automatically mean that they are actually involved. Adding this unconfirmed info mean that you are POV-pushing. Stop it!PakSoltalk16:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
You call this is a source? Just because something is published online doesnt make it a source. Direct quotes (without proper interpretation by a secondary source) and allegation by some politician against the Government because he is in the opposition is not a reliable source. Did you see the word "accused" in the very first sentence of the so called 'source' you have added? Please use commonsense. Had Mr Mengal been an elected member, may be we could pay heed to his rants, but quoting a 4 year old 'news' as source is not what we do here at Wikipedia, especially if you are going to further misinterpret it to push your own POV.
Hold your horse and read through the discussion on the so called sources that you are trying to add. Also, this article is about Balochistan, the area, not about the 'atrocities' that takes place there. PakSoltalk12:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
One, being 'since long' in the article does not qualify the info to be untouchable.
Two, You yourself raised an RfC here and asked for comments if info related to human rights violation should he included in this article. The discussion does not support your edits.
Three, As amply explained by Mar4d to specifically to you that this article is on the "general region" Balochistan which falls inside Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan and not the Pakistani Province of Pakistan, hence categorically adding info specific to Pakistan alone and that there is Persecution of Minorities in Balochitan (The Pakistani Province) simply shows both your lack of understanding of geography and commonsense.
There are already two articles (Balochistan conflict and Human rights violations in Balochistan) which specifically talk about the POV you are trying to push inside a wrong article where your edits are out of the scope of the article.
Consensus to remove any future addition of info related to human rights violation by you or other IPs which were trying to edit the article. The info I removed had nothing to do with the article as the it has nothing to do specifically with Pakistan.—PakSoltalk18:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Oppose The sources being cited are unreliable/blogs. The link from Amnesty website does not support the POV that is being pushed into the article and is being quoted just to provide credibility which anyone can see is lacking. The info from Dawn that is being quoted is being deliberately misrepresented and misinterpreted. This discussion has already taken place here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balochistan#Army.27s_So_Called_Atrocities, but the IP is unable to improve its sources nor the quality of info. Since the past 48 hours, this is the third IP which have tried to insert "exactly" the same info repeatedly. It seem like as if a certain group is carrying out planned disruptive edits by using different IPs. Also, the reasons of reverts made by editors opposing this edit should be seen in the history of the article who have amply tried to explain this point over and again. PakSoltalk12:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Nowhere does the sources being quoted says "The pakistani army carries out atrocities against the Baloch people", as if it were systamtic and planned. Moreover, there's a full article Human rights violations in Balochistan on the subject. The IPs can have a field day over there, but not here. And lasty, quoting sources like http://www.balochitvonline.com is laughable to say the least. PakSoltalk12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Did you bother reading the word accused in the title of the source you are trying to quote? Google doesnt help much, or does it? :) PakSoltalk12:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I gave quote see "Pakistan's military has escalated its brutal campaign of abduction and extra-judicial execution targeting nationalist rebels in Balochistan province, human rights groups have said." 82.11.33.86 (talk) 13:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
@Rashidzaman786: I've reinstated BoogaLouie's edits as they were of neutral point-of-view and were based on verifiable, independent sources. Regarding WP:COATRACK, the edits do not cause the article to be overly focussed on the (relevant) Balochistan conflict. The added content makes up just two paragraphs of a 15-paragraph article. EdwardH (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Already no concensus was devolped on the issue. Read One section above this section. Please dont repeat rejected concensus cases in new sections. Rashidzaman786 (talk) 06:30, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like to challenge both Rashidzaman786 and Zmaghndstakun to explain in their own words what the essay WP:COATRACK is advising editors not to do, and please explain how the content removed in this edit by Rashidzaman786 qualifies. There were other significant and useful changes in these recent edits (such as the tidying up of references, etc) that Rashid is inappropriately blanket reverting. I will point out that it was Zmaghndstakun who wrote "Balochistan should covers gest of Greater Balouchistan movement/conflict and poverty of the region etc." The wikilink to this article was in his original comment. So if, then, he doesn't object to the inclusion of content about conflicts in the region and poverty, what does his preferred content look like? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
what you added was not nuetral when you re worded long Iran insurgency para to a short liner and then giving POV in the article that Iran insurgency is weaker then Pakistan. Obviously that's not an Nuetral and a case of loading refrences and statements for misrepresentation which have WP:COATRACK implications. Rashidzaman786 (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Rashidzaman786: So, you'd like us to keep sentence "Although Baloch nationalists have never accepted Balochistan as a part of Iran, the governments of Pakistan and Iran insist on sovereignty over their parts of Balochistan"? I have no problem with that—a sentence on the causes of the Balochistan conflict would be very appropriate.
I don't see the bias in saying the Iranian insurgency is weaker. It's based on citations from reliable and independent sources. If you believe the claim is untrue, you may refute the claim in the article with other similarly good-quality sources. EdwardH (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
"Iran insurgency is weaker then Pakistan" comes from Bhargava, G. S. “How Serious Is the Baluch Insurgency?,” (see footnote). Do you have any evidence that what it says is untrue?
The sentence "Although Baloch nationalists have never accepted Balochistan as a part of Iran, the governments of Pakistan and Iran insist on sovereignty over their parts of Balochistan" was removed because it is a broad statement with no source. Do you have a source for it? (Have to disagree with EdwardH here)
The sentence "The British made northern Balochistan part of Afghanistan in order to divide the strength of the Baloch nation." also is pretty accusatory and has no source.
Information about Quetta and major cities should go in geography section. (I put them there in my edit.) Why nothing about major cities in Sistan?
4 days without any reply from Rashidzaman786 I restored my edits. 6 hours later reverted again by Rashidzaman786: "BoogaLouie it is not about four days five days. Its about WP concensus on Talk page" --13:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
two version being disputed
Governance and political disputes (Rashidzaman786 version in article as of 7/31/2015)
The British made northern Balochistan part of Afghanistan in order to divide the strength of the Baloch nation. The Afghan portion of Balochistan includes the Chahar Burjak District of Nimruz Province,[1] and the Registan Desert in southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces.[2][3] The governors of Nimruz provinces in Afghanistan belong to the Baloch ethnic group.[1]
The Balochistan region is administratively divided among three countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. The largest portion in area and population is in Pakistan, whose largest province (in land area) is "Balochistan". An estimated 6.9 million of Pakistan's population is Baloch.[1] In Iran there are about two million ethnic Baloch[2] and a majority of the population of the eastern Sistan and Baluchestan Province is of Baloch ethnicity. The Afghan portion of Balochistan includes the Chahar Burjak District of Nimruz Province,[3] and the Registan Desert in southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces.[4][5] The governors of Nimruz provinces in Afghanistan belong to the Baloch ethnic group.[3]
In Pakistan, insurgencies by Baloch nationalists in Balochistan province have been fought in 1948, 1958–59, 1962–63 and 1973-77 — with a new ongoing and reportedly stronger, broader insurgency beginning in 2003.[6] Historically, "drivers" of the conflict are reported to include "tribal divisions", the Baloch-Pashtun ethnic divisions, "marginalization by Punjabi interests", and
"economic oppression".[7]
In Iran, separatist fighting has reportedly not gained as much ground as the conflict in Pakistan,[8] but has grown and become more sectarian since 2012,[2] with the majority-Sunni Baloch showing a greater degree of Salafist and anti-Shia ideology in their fight against the Shia-Islamist Iranian government.[2]
^Bhargava, G. S. “How Serious Is the Baluch Insurgency?,” Asian Tribune (Apr. 12, 2007) available at http://www.asiantribune.com/node/5285 (accessed Dec. 2, 2011)
Zmaghndstakun, you had a chance to participate in the dispute resolution and you said nothing. You gave no explanation of your case. As for the talk page discussion over Balouchistan Pakistan, the RfC (according to my count) ended in 7 votes in support or conditional support, and 6 votes opposed to including some mention of the insurgency in the article. That is "consensus"? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
You are quoting a wrong policy. By all means add it to this article's "see also". This will only set a precedence to add similar info to other articles. I guess you missed that the policy you quoted also says: "an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this".—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ09:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Why are you always trying to somehow prove that I have a POV? PoK is a widely term in India. Don't try to divert the topic. Please read what Kautilya has said; the scope of Human rights violations in Balochistan can be extended beyond the Pakistani province. And let me add that I never let my personal bias play a role in my contributions here at Wikipedia. Make sure that you have enough proofs before you make such allegations on me. Bharatiya2915:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
ArghyaIndian, you need to refrain from flame-bating and edit-warring. The 'see also' you have been trying to add without participating at the conserning discussion shows that you are not a constructive editor. For the upteenth time, the article Human rights violations in Balochistan begins with the following sentance:
"Human rights violations in the Balochistan province of Pakistan have drawn concern and criticism in the international community..."
Now pray tell me, how does HR violations ONLY in the Pakistani Province of Balochistan relates to this (Balochistan) article which is NOT about the Pakistani province but the geographical area spread around THREE countries?! Please stop it.
There's nothing wrong with this see also entry! The scope of the concerned article is not limited to Pak province, but rather the entire region. Human rights violations in Balochistan can cover all of Balochistan. 5 editors told you the same and stop pinging admins, they are not going to help you in any way in a content dispute. --ArghyaIndian (talk) 03:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
There is everything wrong with this 'see also' entry as it is NOT related to the article.Second, the scope of the concerned article is precisely limited to the Pakistani Province, if you think it is not, then you need to prove it here. Third, HR vios in Pakistani province of Balochistan (a single province of a single country) cannot cover "all of Balochistan (which extends to THREE countries}"!!—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ ʞlɐʇ18:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Information stated as if its a definite fact
First of all, this article is about the region named Balochistan, not the Baloch people in particular. Any (in depth) "origin-related" info regarding the Baloch should be placed on the Baloch people article, as thats the supposed location for it. Second; this alleged theory given by "Naseer Dashti" that the Baloch originally came from near the Transcaucasia region (Balasagan) is something only he has mentioned as a possibility. The utter vast majority of scholars unanimously agree that the Baloch originally came from somewhere other than the Balochistan region (which is supported by linguistics as well), but absolutely no definite "original homeland" has been pinpointed as of yet, which "Dashti" says as well e.g. ((...) Due to scarcity of detailed accounts, the ethnic origin of the Baloch, the exact location of their original homeland, is still a subject of guesswork.") Yet however, here on this article, it was stated as if this Balasagan story is a definite fact, which is unfortunately nonsense. - LouisAragon (talk) 03:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: I accept that the Balashagan theory seems to be Dashti's own and is not corroborated by anybody else. However, the origins of the Baloch are apparently not as unsettled as you suggest. The Baloch people article only mentions the Caspian Sea region, sourced to Encyclopedia Iranica, and it seems to be well-supported on linguistic grounds. Anyway, I am not going to push the Balashagan theory.
Coming to the maps issue, you have deleted both the Sassanid Empire map as well as the Achaemenid Empire map, whereas only the latter is created by the sock you mention. Do you have an objection to the Sassanid map as well? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Kautilya, hey, sorry I wanted to add that the Caspian "area" is indeed what most academics favour as the theory regarding a proposed region of origin for them. You're right about that. Nevertheless, once again, this article shouldn't discuss that. It belongs on the Baloch people article where its well explained.
Regarding the Sasanian map; its because its borders are incorrect and its being overhauled (see also; [8]). I will re-add the map most likely myself when its fixed, if thats ok with you. Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Languages
The language data being inserted by Spartacus! is about Pakistani Balochistan and not about this article subject. Actually, I don't think there is any demographic data existing out there which analyses combined demographics of areas in Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
As we can all see, the article is an despicable shape, as are almost all Balochistan articles. But I don't think are the problems are solved by just deleting "unsourced" content, but rather by rewriting whatever we think is important. I did some of that for the etymology section yesterday, but obviously much more work is needed.
The lead should describe the scope of the article, especially because that scope is quite technical and is constantly being debated. So, I reverted Sheriff's clean-up which makes it even harder to understand what the scope is. The fact that this article is not merely about Pakistani Balochistan should be highlighted clearly. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the map. "Balochistan" is apparently the land of Baloch. So, the area where Baloch have traditionally lived is the best definition there is for the topic of the article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
As you can see, I have changed my mind about this position. The Encyclopedia Iranica is unsure about the derivation, and we shouldn't be either. The change from Meluhha to Baluhhu in the Mesopotamian records has been noticed by several researchers and this opens new possibilities. I am looking into the sources.
On the other hand, I think we should get rid of Varahamihira's Makara mention. First of all, the original at [9], p. 163, chapter XIV, verses 17-19, mentions Margara, not Makara. The Imperial Gazetters of the colonial era have all kinds of half-baked stuff and EB duplicates them. I haven't found corroboration for it in any other source, including Romila Thapar's article. So this is highly dubious. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The land of Baloch
The interpretation that "Balochistan" means the "land of Baloch" needs a reliable linguistic source. For the related issue of "Hindustan," scholar Irfan Habib says this: 'Hindustan' for India itself, with the usual Iranian territorial suffix -stan added to 'Hind(u)'. The suffix -stan, by the way, is general in Persian, e.g. Seistan, Gurjistan, Khuzistan, and Hindustan means simply 'Indian land' not 'the land of (the religious community of) the Hindus', as was construed by the leaders of the Hindu Mahasabha.[1] So, the idea that Balochistan means the land of Baloch falls in the folk etymology category. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
References
^Habib, Irfan (July 1997), "The Formation of India: Notes on the History of an Idea", Social Scientist, 25 (7/8): 3–10, JSTOR3517600
Balochistan Region map
Balochistan region a big region is 3 part in Pakistan(Balochistan State),Iran(Sistan and balochistan province,East part of Hormozgan province,SouthEast part of Kerman province and South part of Khorasan Jonoobi province) and Afghanistan Sothern Area of afghanistan(Nimruz and other balochland)
Balochistan Map this is
File:Balochistan Map.jpeg[1]Sultanselim baloch (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
The section about music needs editing
The section about music needs editing but I am not able to do it.
In the middle of the second paragraph it says "This d the Lasis. Among them …" and then goes on with sentences already used in the first paragraph.
Hope someone can edit this, and add more information about this subject.
You cannot edit the article. But you can certainly propose content here. So, please go through the source and write a small paragraph summarising it. I deleted the old content because it was a cut-and-paste job. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Balochistan Language Data
Why is the new language data reflected in this article. New Census 2017 indicated that Pushto and Balochi speaking populations in Balochistan stand at 35.34pc and 35.49pc, respectively.
As much as 4.56pc people in the country’s largest province by area reported Sindhi as mother tongue, followed by 1.13pc Punjabi and 0.81pc Urdu. Also, 17.12pc were reported as Brohi speaking in Balochistan, 2.65pc Seraiki and Hindko and Kashmiri with 0.28pc and 0.14pc, respectively. https://www.dawn.com/news/1410447182.180.61.170 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
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 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.
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. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡10:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
@Sutyarashi: could you please fill in this ref that you tried to add? Also just as a general style note, using a single letter as a ref name isn't great. Something that gave a clue about what the ref is, like an author or website name, would be much better. Thanks! -- Fyrael (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_around_1900.jpg){kind=link}
