Misplaced Pages

Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:01, 18 June 2015 editTripWire (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,780 edits POV edits by 82.11.33.86← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:52, 29 August 2024 edit undoTribal Explorer (talk | contribs)267 editsNo edit summary 
(442 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{WP Pakistan|class=C|importance=Top|Provinces=yes|Balochistan=yes}} {{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Pakistan|Balochistan=y|importance=High|Balochistan-importance=Top}}
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Geography|class=C}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia| ... | class=C| importance=mid | Pakistan=yes| ...}} {{WikiProject Central Asia| importance=mid }}
{{WikiProject South Asia|importance=Mid}}
{{archivebox|
# ]
}} }}
{{Annual readership|days=90}}
{{Archives|auto=short|search=yes|index=User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan|bot=ClueBot III|age=365}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|age=8760|archiveprefix=Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan/Archive|numberstart=2|maxarchsize=120000|header={{Automatic archive navigator}}|minkeepthreads=8|minarchthreads=1|format= %%i}}
{{Old move
|date=26 July 2010 |from=Balochistan (Pakistan) |destination=Balochistan, Pakistan |result=moved |link=Special:Permalink/377084975#Requested move
}}
{{Archive basics
|archive = Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan/Archive %(counter)d
|counter = 2
|headerlevel = 2
|maxarchivesize = 120K
|archiveheader = {{Aan}}
}}<!-- 00:57 October 23, 2018 (UTC), Sam Sailor added ] -->
<!-- Update the bot settings if you move the page, see WP:POSTMOVE. -->


== Copy editing == == RfC on demographics ==

* I have tried to fix the structure of the article according to in my . No other <u>extensive</u> changing such as addition or removal of material have been made.
* Any questions/issues with the edits must first be addressed here (and not through blind reverts).
* A request for proper copy editing has been made . ~Cheers ] <sup> ]</sup> 14:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

== Odd tone of article ==


<!-- ] 14:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1658671276}}
Does it not appear that the article has an oddly mining industry/military strategy tone to it? Especially the economy section. Isn't the economy about how well people are doing, not about what the most recent local billion-dollar investment has been? Some changes along these lines had been made, but appear to have been all removed.


An editor has added false information about the demographics of Balochistan claiming that:
Suggested future changes:


1. Baloch make up 60% in the province
Limit the discussion of natural resources to a single paragraph. There is much more that is interesting about Baluchistan.
When mentioning cities and people, let's avoid the use of words like "strategic". This isn't a board game.
2. There are Turks living in the area


In support of the first point a random newspaper article is claimed source (whose numbers are contrary to any official source). While for the second point only imagination has been used.
How these changes can be made in a way that will withstand assaults from whomever removes such content:


I first tried to update the numbers to 2017 census (latest census) i.e. Baloch make up 35% and there are no Turks in the area. But after discussing with other editors I came to know that there is no official definition of "Baloch ethnicity", and numerous Barahvi, Pashto, Sindhi and Seraiki speaking communities also identify as Baloch. So in that effect I preferred to remove that information to keep the article clean of imaginations, and just stick to facts.
Cite everything.
Check back again and again. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


All of my edits were removed by the editor who added the baseless numbers in the first place, claiming that his version WP:STATUSQUO
== Language image ==


Also, there is no such thing as 2008 census. The 2008 data is based on 1998 census in which Pashtuns were underrepresented (see discussion), while in 2017 their representation was restored (and hence the jump in their numbers). ] (]) 13:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Language image should be moved to the correct section of Endo-linguistic groups, instead of wrong sections, or below the infobox. ] (]) 11:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


=== Comments ===
Your map is wrong Pashto is the main language in MusakhelDistrict (http://www.un.org.pk/profiles/musakhel.htm) (http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/herald/herald96.htm).Also most of killa abdula district is pashto speaking (http://archives.dawn.com/weekly/herald/herald92.htm) (http://www.balochistan.gov.pk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=803&Itemid=1089) (http://www.khyber.org/pashtoplaces/qillaabdullah.shtml) There are no native hazargi speakers in Killa Abduallh District even in the south as indicated by the map, Hazragi is a native language in few neghbourhoods of Quetta. ] (]) 20:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
* (summoned by the bot) Both claims should be removed unless better sourcing can be found.
:Regarding claim 1, the source for this information doesn't seem to be sufficient. It says {{tquote|As per the 2008 Pakistan Statistical Yearbook, 40 per cent of the province’s inhabitants speak Balochi, while 20 per cent speak Brahui, while Pushtoon speakers were estimated at 25 per cent. As Brahui-speakers are also grouped under the Baloch ethnicity, they would form the majority of Balochistan.}} The source does not actually state the 60% figure, which strictly speaking is ]. (The source doesn't say whether there's overlap between Balochi and Brahui speakers. If there is, or if some speakers of other languages are also considered Baloch, the 60% figure would be incorrect.) Can we find a more specific or authoritative source for the proportion of Baloch people in the region? ], do you have a source for the 2017 census information?
: I assume claim 2 is this: {{tquote|Other smaller communities include ], ], ], ] and ].}} That claim is currently unsourced and doesn't seem to be supported by the article's body, so it should also be removed unless a source can be provided. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 21:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks for your feedback. As I stated in my post, and pointed by other editors that there is no official definition of "Baloch ethnicity". While it is clear that most of them speak Balochi language, but a considerable number also speak Baravhi, Pashto, Sindhi and Seraiki. As a result we can not estimate "ethnic Baloch" population.
::2017 census (https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/population/2017/tables/balochistan/Table11p.pdf) on the other hand provides us with the language distribution that is already summarized in the language section of the article. ] (]) 18:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


* Regarding claim 1 - '''Keep'''. The Baloch or Baluch identity has existed for centuries, and the Brahui-speakers are very much part of it. See for example , which identifies the "Balōč" people that arrived from somewhere northwest, and integrated various local populations into themselves, including the Brahui:
== Etymology ==
: {{talkquote|Within Baluchistan the population is not ethnically homogeneous. Some communities are identified (by themselves and others) as Balōč (see 10 below), with the implication that they are descended from those who entered the area as Balōč; while others, though considered members of Baluch society now and identifying as Baluch in relation to the outside world, are known within Baluch society by other tribal (e.g., Nowšērvānī, Gīčkī, Bārakzay) and subethnic (e.g., '''Brahui''', Dehwār, ḡolām, Jaḍgāl, Mēd) designations, with the implication that they have adopted Baluch identity relatively recently—but not that they are for that reason in any way outsiders.}}
: ] writes:
: {{talkquote|For the most part, ''the Brahuis have been assimilated into the larger cultural, social, and political stream of Baluch life and think of themselves as Baluch''. Warren W. Swidler, an anthropologist who lived in the Kalat area, stressed the "many similarities in culture, tradition, and political organization" between tribes that identify themselves as Brahui and other Baluch. Nina Swidler also found the distinction between Brahui and other Baluch to be "problematic." ''To the extent that a distinction should be made, it is a linguistic distinction'', since Brahuis speak a language that contains Dravidian syntactical and lexical elements not found in Baluchi.<ref>{{citation |last=Harrison |first=Selig S. |authorlink=Selig S. Harrison |title=In Afghanistan's Shadow: Baluch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LLnCAAAAIAAJ |year=1981 |publisher=Carnegie Endowment for International Peace |ISBN=978-0-87003-029-1 |p=184}}</ref>}}
: The Pushtun issue is entirely different. The Pushtuns have never claimed to be Baluch and neither are they ever expected to do so. They are an ethnic minority in Balochistan, mainly populating the northern belt bordering Afganistan. The problem right now is that, ever since the Afghan problem started, the Afgan Pushtuns have been streaming into Balochistan and merging into the local Pushtun population. The Pakistani State seems entirely uninterested to do anything about the problem. So, their numbers have been going up in the censuses. The 1951 census, the first one of Independent Pakistan, showed Pushtuns to be 23%.<ref>{{citation |editor-last=Shah |editor-first=Agha Mir Yakub |title=Baluchistan: Reports & Tables, Vol. 2 |publisher=Government of Pakistan Publications |year=1951 |url=http://lsi.gov.in:8081/jspui/bitstream/123456789/7460/1/1369_1951_REP.pdf |p=47}}</ref> That is the native Pushtun population in the Pakistani Balochistan land area. The 2008 Statistical Yearbook estimated it to be 25%. But in the 2017 census, their numbers suddenly jumped to 35%. Coupled with this the overall population growth at 87% is also much higher than the national average, indicating that the refugees might have been counted as regular population. So, this needs proper analysis by some experts. We cannot simply include the census data without attribtion. These problems have been amply noted in the press,<ref>Mubarak Zeb KKhan, , Dawn, 11 September 2017.</ref><ref>Kiyya Baloch, , Gandhara, 6 March 2017.</ref><ref>Asadullah Raisani, , The Geopolitics, 12 January 2022.</ref> and Selig Harrison discussed them way back in early 1980s.<ref>{{harvp|Harrison|1981|p=181}}: "Bizenjo, however, said that even 40 percent is an inflated figure. He suggested 20 to 25 percent instead, though he observed bitterly that the number of Pushtuns is steadily increasing. Even before the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, he alleged, Islamabad had actively encouraged Pushtun immigration into Baluchistan. More recently, Bizenjo complained, Pushtun refugees from Afghanistan have been "flooding" the province, many of them wealthy landowners and traders who have immediately begun to compete for local economic and political power."</ref>
: Regarding claim 2 (in the lead), '''Trim it''' to correspond to the body. -- ] (]) 03:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
::Please instead of trying to divert the discussion stick to the point. I am going to repeat again:
::- From where did you get 60%? Is there any reputable source? If there is none then this will be removed.
::Furthermore, concerning the Pashtun population: they were underrepresented in the 1998 census and as a result there is a jump in their numbers in 2017.
::Also, it is interesting that you would put Dravidians and west Iranians into one "ethnicity", but have a problem with Pashtuns whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan. ] (]) 22:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
::: The 60% is obtained by adding the Balochi and Brahui speakers, as you know very well. It is an instance of ] and perfectly permissible, when the context demands it. I have shown the context above. -- ] (]) 18:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
::::I don't think it's permissible here. Is there overlap between Balochi and Brahui speakers? Are there any speakers of other languages who are also Baloch? The source doesn't say. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 10:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
::::: Many news reports have done what you consider "not permissible".. Further you are also majorly ignoring what the original source said: "'''As Brahui-speakers are also grouped under the Baloch ethnicity'''". Have you read the Encyclopedia Iranica article I cited above? -- ] (]) 16:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::That article from ''Dawn'' does give figures, but as far as I can tell they represent the population {{tquote|in 21 districts where the Baloch form a majority}} rather than the whole province.
::::::I am not ignoring the passage you quoted – my point is that the source doesn't say whether there are other Baloch people beyond those who speak Balochi and Brahui, or whether there are people who speak both Balochi and Brahui. We can't make assumptions about this (or combine information from different sources in a way that violates ]) – we should just report the figures that are given in reliable sources. —]&nbsp;(] '''·''' ]) 21:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Please do not assume that "I know very well" where you brought that info. In case of WP:CALC where did you bring the individual numbers? Please point reliable sources! ] (]) 20:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
The following edit has been inserted to the "Etymology" section by an IP editor and, after a couple of deletions, recently restored by ]. As it is unsourced and somewhat controversial, I am placing it here for discussion.


=== Discussion ===
: The Baloch people who along with the ]s formed the eastern half of the ]. referred to their land as ''Moka'' or ''Maka'', a word which later became ''Makran''. Balochistan is referred to in ] as ''Gwadar'' or ''Godar'' (also ''Godar-khwa'' i.e ''The land by water''. This Greeks, who derived the names of Iranian lands from the ] language, latinized this word to ]. The word "Balochistan" itself is of Persian extraction, and was originally intended as an abusive term. ''Loch'' in Persian means naked or ignorant. ''Ba'' means with. Thus the term ''Ba-loch'' implied one who was uncivilized and ignorant. ''Istan'' in Persian means abode. After the older words ceased being used, the word "Balochistan" became the standard word for the region. Thus it is fair to say that the original word for Balochistan was ''Makka'', the ] word is ''Gwadar''/''Godar'' and the Hellenized/Latinzed version of the ] word is '']''. Therefore, in the grand scheme of etymology, the word ''Balochistan'' is a relatively recent arrival on the scene.
* {{U|Rahman1212}}, this is not a proper RfC question. Please see ]. -- ] (]) 15:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
*:Agreed, '''bad RfC'''. This is not even asking a question. –] (]]) 06:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
*::Agreed and de-RfC-ed. ] (]) 17:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


== Biased Map ==
The doubts that I have for now include: the given etymology of the ] ''Baloch'' which is most likely a ]; the proposition re. word ''Makka'' which contradicts ] and the language in general (Greeks "latinising" words, words "of extraction", etc.). <span style="font-family:'Candara',sans-serif;font-weight:bold;font-style:italic;text-shadow:#AAAAFF 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;class:texhtml">]</span> 08:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)


Biased much? Part of J&K that is de facto controlled by Pakistan is shown as provinces of Pakistan. But, the part controlled by India is shown as disputed. ] (]) 13:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
==Details of Conflict Added==
Added NEUTRAL details of burning issue of extremism and security problems with verifiable recent referenes from the respected international sources (Al Jazeera ) and "Dawan (largest pakistani newspaper) and Pakistan Human Rights Commission
] (]) 12:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


== Map and table numbers for districts do not correspond ==
== Wrong informaiton ==


The information coming for this link http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?docid=47c3f3c412 is completely wrong. The number of Afghan refugees is exaggerated to say the least. I think this link should be deleted. ] (]) 12:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC) The numbers in the districts map do not all correspond to those in the table. For instance, number 11 in the map corresponds to number 12 Kech in the table.] (]) 23:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


== 'Balochi' spelling variant ==


Is that actually attested, or where has it come from? I've removed it before, and it's been reinstated without any explanation. ] (]) 18:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
EDIT: I am adding this proper number figure from this article since the other source is wrong and outdated.


== Balochi spelling mistake ==
http://tribune.com.pk/story/822571/law-and-order-issues-afghan-refugees-do-not-want-to-go-back-home/ <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


The Balochi spelling for "Balochistan" is not right in this article. The actual spelling for "Balochistan" is the same as Urdu and Persian. See the ] region's article as that has been attested. ] (]) 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
== POV edits by 82.11.33.86 ==


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2023 ==
At first he was busy in a melodrama at ], and now he comes. The Amnestry International is a reliable source, but they do not explicitly hold Pakistani Army responsible for this. And that's an outdated report. ] (]) 16:50, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
: He has been warned over this constant POV-Pushing for so many times, but he simply refuses to understand. He already has a RfC on the subject and had been explained and clarified by many editors tediously, still he wont stop pushing his POV by citing sources which say absolutely nothing about and does not support the addition he have been making. He probably thinks that by citing any random source to a POV edit will make it legit.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 05:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


{{Edit extended-protected|Balochistan, Pakistan|answered=yes}}
:“Human rights abuses attributed to the security agencies” From the source ] (]) 07:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
] (]) 09:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


The population of Balochistan is incorrect at present. it should be 14,894,402.
When this stuff was going down yesterday, I wasn't aware of the POV history. I do, however, think that something like human rights violations in the region should be mentioned in the article. I added something yesterday, and do think that perhaps a shorter version of it belongs in the lead. It seems to be a pretty big deal. IP: You need to find better references, like news websites. ] (]) 14:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|Cyphoidbomb}} Amnesty and Human rights watch are eligible? I added them. It is all deleted again now so I tag for POV as is no neutral to delete the info on atrocities ] (]) 16:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


Source 1: https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/population/2023/Press%20Release.pdf
*'''Comment''': The content IP 82.11.33.86 keeps adding needs to be presented in a neutral tone, supported by reliable sources. The unexplained removal of this content by a different IP editor, {{u|82.132.233.138}}, is inappropriate and they need to discuss the removal. The allegations of human rights violations is significant, which is why there is a whole article on it. It is intuitive to me that this significant ongoing event should have at least a brief mention in this article. What I submitted in is a three sentence summary of the allegations, which I think is reasonable. ] (]) 18:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Source 2: https://twitter.com/MSarwarGondal/status/1688519054976303105/photo/1
:{{done}}<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 12:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
:I used for the exact number. ] (]) 12:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


== Move discussion in progress ==
*'''Comment''': The issue may be made a passing reference here and thus I agree with ]. However, I have following observations, and if need be, they can be further discussed here:
:* There is no need to mention it in the lede. A full page is there on the issue and anyone interested can straight away go to it, especially when the IP (which is now banned) added the link to the HR violations in the "See Also" section of this page. Either it should be removed or moved somewhere in the end of the article, because readers coming to this particular page are mainly interested to read about Balochistan as a province of Pakistan. If further interested, they can always go to the HR Violations page after they have read the info on this page.
:* When you said in one of your comments that "something like human rights violations in the region should be mentioned in the article", I think indicating that this alleged problem do exist in Balochistan should suffice, instead of giving detailed info like "20,000 people over the years, and in 2014 a mass grave containing 169 bodies was found in the Khuzdar district" in the summary and that too in the lede is a bit like shifting the focus of the reader away from the actual subject i.e the Land of Balochistan. Moreover, we all know that there's no exact proof of these disappearances and most of it is propaganda. I can provide reference if need be, but there is no denying the fact that there is some problem related to HR violations in the Province. Also, taking the words of Mr Ashraf Sherjan, someone who is not even living in Balochistan (he operates from Germany) and have probably never visited Pakistan at its face-value is unjustified. If someone tomorrow from the PKMAP Party (a leading political party in Balochistan) will get up and say that there are no abductions or reduce the figures down to let's say 1000, would wikipedia also accept that at its face-value? Moreover, the issue of mass graves is quite controversial. Terrorists organizations like BLA and BRA have been killing and dumping non-Balochs since long, many a time these graves were found to be of people who opposed the idea of free Balochistan and were indeed opponents of people like Sherjan. The reference to this info says: ''The graves contained at least 169 bodies. '''Only three of the persons have been identified''' as previously abducted persons who were picked up from their homes by Pakistani paramilitary forces. "'''The rest of the bodies could not be identified because they were mutilated beyond recognition.''''' So, just because Sherjan 'know' and alleges the only three bodies were identified as those who were allegedly abducted, somehow all the remaining 166 bodies too are of other abductees? There's a history of BLA/BRA dumping mutilated body in govt controlled areas and later claiming that they were killed by security forces, similarly, it is also known that these terrorist groups even at times have killed and dumped their own people in addition to non-Balochs to put across their point and give weight to it. So, putting such a big allegation right which is based on some dude in Germany in the lede is a bit harsh. Please understand that my argument is not to prove whether these allegations are false or true, nor am I trying to say that info regarding HR violations should not be mentioned in this article, we can discuss this part on ] talk page if needed, but I am only stating that this info and allegations and figures are controversial, unconfirmed and debatable, and thus so putting these up as facts in portions in the lede is not correct.
:* The words 'Pakistani Army' in ''"Since 1999 the Pakistani army has been accused of committing human rights violations"'' is totally incorrect. Because since the past decade no military operation is underway in Balochistan by Pakistan Army, this happened when General Kiyani, COAS ordered all minor and major operations stopped inside Balochistan by the Army. So, there's no military (i.e Army) operating in Balochistan. These allegations are against 'security forces' which can include the Police, FC or Levies. So I suggest tht 'Pakistani army' should be replaced with words like security forces, security agencies, Police or LEA etc, because accusing the Army is factually incorrect, as no Army is operating there and when there is no operation underway and the Army has not been called 'In Aid of Civil Power', it is impossible for the Army to undertake any overt or covert action. Yes, security agencies like Police's Crime Investigation Branch, IB, FC, FC's intelligence units etc do operate all the time like any LEA anywhere in the world. Awaiting yor response, please. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 19:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


There is a move discussion in progress on ] which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. <!-- Talk:Punjab, India#Requested move 2 October 2023 crosspost --> —] 18:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
:::I will gladly admit that this sort of topic isn't where my knowledge is strongest. I'm going by what the article is saying and using terminology that the article uses. I'm concerned that if we start changing the terms, that we might wind up with original research. I think clearly identifying what the core human rights concern is, is important. From the little I've read, it seems that there are mass "disappearances", body parts being found, the mass grave, and such. I've asked WikiProject Human Rights to take a look at the content here since the debate is a little beyond my pay grade as they say. I still don't quite see the problem with adding a sentence to the lead (once we figure out what prose is suitable for the body), since the purpose of the lead is to summarize content found elsewhere in the article. I'd like to wait for more input, though. ] (]) 11:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
:::: BTW, the newspiece being quoted does talk about FC and security agencies. Moreover, basing an para of info just on one citation that too in an Indian website which quotes a dude living in Germany and talks about a subject he know nothing of is a bit more like POV. All I want to say is that had this been the HR Violation page that we have at Wiki, it was alright. Giving this thing such importance and highlighting it in such a way, including (doubtful and unconfirmed) figures - the news itself admits that these are accusations and the website is merely quoting 'a' man) is giving undue weightage to it.—]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 11:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


== New religious and ethno-linguistic demographics ==
:::: It is not a reliable information to be highlighted on a geographic location profile article in presence of separate article dealing militancy in balouchistan. ] (]) 17:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


There’s new ethno-linguistic and religious data from the Pakistan bureau of statistics that I think should be added here ] (]) 10:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
:::::{{u|39.47.50.14}} from the article is premature since we're still in the middle of a discussion about it. I don't understand the argument that since there is an article about these human rights concerns that ''no mention'' of these human rights concerns is warranted in this article. That's rubbish. That's like saying "Since we already have an article on '']'' We don't need to mention it in ]' article since people who want to know about the film can go to the film's article." That would never pass any honest academic scrutiny. If the human rights issues are notable, which they appear to be, then we need to make the content accessible in the places we'd expect to find it, which would absolutely be in articles related to Balochistan. ] (]) 17:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::: {{u|39.47.50.14}} must have its own understanding, I didnt say that these 'HR concerns' should not be highlighted in he article, however I do have a problem with the way it has been highlighted especially the figure work when it comes up as a accusation and is not mentioned as an accusation but as a fact. BTW, just for the sake of it, would you apply the same standards of quoting secondary sources when statements by Indian PM Modi regarding Indian involvement and support to Mukti Bahini are not being allowed to be included at Wiki? —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 17:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::I know that 82.11.33.86 had presented it matter-of-factly, which I tried to avoid in my write-up. So I'm in agreement with you on the tone. {{u|39.47.50.14}}, you should probably consider reverting your edit, please. As for the other link, I'm reserving comment on that. I don't specialize in human rights issues or political happenings in that region of the world. I'm not an expert by any stretch and I'd like to keep the focus of this discussion on this article, if possible. Thanks, ] (]) 18:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::the sources are solid Human rights watch and amnesty are no propaganda outlets. Seems consensus is atrocities must be mentioned ] (]) 21:57, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
::::::: Thankyou Einstein! Yes we know that they could be mentioned, but that is not what we are discussing here. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 04:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::AS member of Pakistani army you should not even comment here. And we are discussing what needs be written here. Article needs section on army atrocities. ] (]) 10:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: You have been reported at ] for ], ], ], ] and disrupting every discussion with useless propaganda including this one. ] we can resume our discussion. —]&nbsp;<sup>] </sup> 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:52, 29 August 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Balochistan, Pakistan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 12 months 
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPakistan: Balochistan High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Balochistan, Pakistan (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconCentral Asia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconBalochistan, Pakistan is part of WikiProject Central Asia, a project to improve all Central Asia-related articles. This includes but is not limited to Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Tajikistan, Tibet, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Xinjiang and Central Asian portions of Iran, Pakistan and Russia, region-specific topics, and anything else related to Central Asia. If you would like to help improve this and other Central Asia-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.Central AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Central AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Central AsiaCentral Asia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSouth Asia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2



This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 8 sections are present.
On 26 July 2010, it was proposed that this article be moved from Balochistan (Pakistan) to Balochistan, Pakistan. The result of the discussion was moved.


RfC on demographics

An editor has added false information about the demographics of Balochistan claiming that:

1. Baloch make up 60% in the province

2. There are Turks living in the area

In support of the first point a random newspaper article is claimed source (whose numbers are contrary to any official source). While for the second point only imagination has been used.

I first tried to update the numbers to 2017 census (latest census) i.e. Baloch make up 35% and there are no Turks in the area. But after discussing with other editors I came to know that there is no official definition of "Baloch ethnicity", and numerous Barahvi, Pashto, Sindhi and Seraiki speaking communities also identify as Baloch. So in that effect I preferred to remove that information to keep the article clean of imaginations, and just stick to facts.

All of my edits were removed by the editor who added the baseless numbers in the first place, claiming that his version WP:STATUSQUO

Also, there is no such thing as 2008 census. The 2008 data is based on 1998 census in which Pashtuns were underrepresented (see discussion), while in 2017 their representation was restored (and hence the jump in their numbers). Rahman1212 (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments

  • (summoned by the bot) Both claims should be removed unless better sourcing can be found.
Regarding claim 1, the source for this information doesn't seem to be sufficient. It says As per the 2008 Pakistan Statistical Yearbook, 40 per cent of the province’s inhabitants speak Balochi, while 20 per cent speak Brahui, while Pushtoon speakers were estimated at 25 per cent. As Brahui-speakers are also grouped under the Baloch ethnicity, they would form the majority of Balochistan. The source does not actually state the 60% figure, which strictly speaking is WP:SYNTH. (The source doesn't say whether there's overlap between Balochi and Brahui speakers. If there is, or if some speakers of other languages are also considered Baloch, the 60% figure would be incorrect.) Can we find a more specific or authoritative source for the proportion of Baloch people in the region? User:Rahman1212, do you have a source for the 2017 census information?
I assume claim 2 is this: Other smaller communities include Hazaras, Sindhis, Punjabis, Uzbeks and Turkmens. That claim is currently unsourced and doesn't seem to be supported by the article's body, so it should also be removed unless a source can be provided. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:40, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. As I stated in my post, and pointed by other editors that there is no official definition of "Baloch ethnicity". While it is clear that most of them speak Balochi language, but a considerable number also speak Baravhi, Pashto, Sindhi and Seraiki. As a result we can not estimate "ethnic Baloch" population.
2017 census (https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/population/2017/tables/balochistan/Table11p.pdf) on the other hand provides us with the language distribution that is already summarized in the language section of the article. Rahman1212 (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Regarding claim 1 - Keep. The Baloch or Baluch identity has existed for centuries, and the Brahui-speakers are very much part of it. See for example the Encyclopedia Iranica, which identifies the "Balōč" people that arrived from somewhere northwest, and integrated various local populations into themselves, including the Brahui:

Within Baluchistan the population is not ethnically homogeneous. Some communities are identified (by themselves and others) as Balōč (see 10 below), with the implication that they are descended from those who entered the area as Balōč; while others, though considered members of Baluch society now and identifying as Baluch in relation to the outside world, are known within Baluch society by other tribal (e.g., Nowšērvānī, Gīčkī, Bārakzay) and subethnic (e.g., Brahui, Dehwār, ḡolām, Jaḍgāl, Mēd) designations, with the implication that they have adopted Baluch identity relatively recently—but not that they are for that reason in any way outsiders.

Selig S. Harrison writes:

For the most part, the Brahuis have been assimilated into the larger cultural, social, and political stream of Baluch life and think of themselves as Baluch. Warren W. Swidler, an anthropologist who lived in the Kalat area, stressed the "many similarities in culture, tradition, and political organization" between tribes that identify themselves as Brahui and other Baluch. Nina Swidler also found the distinction between Brahui and other Baluch to be "problematic." To the extent that a distinction should be made, it is a linguistic distinction, since Brahuis speak a language that contains Dravidian syntactical and lexical elements not found in Baluchi.

The Pushtun issue is entirely different. The Pushtuns have never claimed to be Baluch and neither are they ever expected to do so. They are an ethnic minority in Balochistan, mainly populating the northern belt bordering Afganistan. The problem right now is that, ever since the Afghan problem started, the Afgan Pushtuns have been streaming into Balochistan and merging into the local Pushtun population. The Pakistani State seems entirely uninterested to do anything about the problem. So, their numbers have been going up in the censuses. The 1951 census, the first one of Independent Pakistan, showed Pushtuns to be 23%. That is the native Pushtun population in the Pakistani Balochistan land area. The 2008 Statistical Yearbook estimated it to be 25%. But in the 2017 census, their numbers suddenly jumped to 35%. Coupled with this the overall population growth at 87% is also much higher than the national average, indicating that the refugees might have been counted as regular population. So, this needs proper analysis by some experts. We cannot simply include the census data without attribtion. These problems have been amply noted in the press, and Selig Harrison discussed them way back in early 1980s.
Regarding claim 2 (in the lead), Trim it to correspond to the body. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Please instead of trying to divert the discussion stick to the point. I am going to repeat again:
- From where did you get 60%? Is there any reputable source? If there is none then this will be removed.
Furthermore, concerning the Pashtun population: they were underrepresented in the 1998 census and as a result there is a jump in their numbers in 2017.
Also, it is interesting that you would put Dravidians and west Iranians into one "ethnicity", but have a problem with Pashtuns whether they are from Afghanistan or Pakistan. Rahman1212 (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The 60% is obtained by adding the Balochi and Brahui speakers, as you know very well. It is an instance of WP:CALC and perfectly permissible, when the context demands it. I have shown the context above. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it's permissible here. Is there overlap between Balochi and Brahui speakers? Are there any speakers of other languages who are also Baloch? The source doesn't say. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 10:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Many news reports have done what you consider "not permissible".. Further you are also majorly ignoring what the original source said: "As Brahui-speakers are also grouped under the Baloch ethnicity". Have you read the Encyclopedia Iranica article I cited above? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
That article from Dawn does give figures, but as far as I can tell they represent the population in 21 districts where the Baloch form a majority rather than the whole province.
I am not ignoring the passage you quoted – my point is that the source doesn't say whether there are other Baloch people beyond those who speak Balochi and Brahui, or whether there are people who speak both Balochi and Brahui. We can't make assumptions about this (or combine information from different sources in a way that violates WP:SYNTH) – we should just report the figures that are given in reliable sources. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 21:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Please do not assume that "I know very well" where you brought that info. In case of WP:CALC where did you bring the individual numbers? Please point reliable sources! Rahman1212 (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. Harrison, Selig S. (1981), In Afghanistan's Shadow: Baluch Nationalism and Soviet Temptations, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, p. 184, ISBN 978-0-87003-029-1
  2. Shah, Agha Mir Yakub, ed. (1951), Baluchistan: Reports & Tables, Vol. 2 (PDF), Government of Pakistan Publications, p. 47
  3. Mubarak Zeb KKhan, Number of Balochi-speaking people in Balochistan falls, Dawn, 11 September 2017.
  4. Kiyya Baloch, Census Rekindles Old Controversies In Pakistan’s Restive Balochistan, Gandhara, 6 March 2017.
  5. Asadullah Raisani, Demographic Changes in Balochistan: The Baloch Identity, The Geopolitics, 12 January 2022.
  6. Harrison (1981), p. 181: "Bizenjo, however, said that even 40 percent is an inflated figure. He suggested 20 to 25 percent instead, though he observed bitterly that the number of Pushtuns is steadily increasing. Even before the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, he alleged, Islamabad had actively encouraged Pushtun immigration into Baluchistan. More recently, Bizenjo complained, Pushtun refugees from Afghanistan have been "flooding" the province, many of them wealthy landowners and traders who have immediately begun to compete for local economic and political power."

Discussion

Biased Map

Biased much? Part of J&K that is de facto controlled by Pakistan is shown as provinces of Pakistan. But, the part controlled by India is shown as disputed. 27.62.184.97 (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Map and table numbers for districts do not correspond

The numbers in the districts map do not all correspond to those in the table. For instance, number 11 in the map corresponds to number 12 Kech in the table.Redav (talk) 23:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

'Balochi' spelling variant

Is that actually attested, or where has it come from? I've removed it before, and it's been reinstated without any explanation. نعم البدل (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Balochi spelling mistake

The Balochi spelling for "Balochistan" is not right in this article. The actual spelling for "Balochistan" is the same as Urdu and Persian. See the Balochistan region's article as that has been attested. EnchantedEdits (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
YawerMehdi12345 (talk) 09:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The population of Balochistan is incorrect at present. it should be 14,894,402.

Source 1: https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/population/2023/Press%20Release.pdf Source 2: https://twitter.com/MSarwarGondal/status/1688519054976303105/photo/1

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I used this source for the exact number. M.Bitton (talk) 12:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Punjab, India which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:21, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

New religious and ethno-linguistic demographics

There’s new ethno-linguistic and religious data from the Pakistan bureau of statistics that I think should be added here Hardees123 (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Categories: