Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 15:45, 20 June 2015 edit82.11.33.86 (talk) →Observations on POV Edits by 82.11.33.86 ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:09, 8 January 2025 edit undoClueBot III (talk \| contribs)Bots1,380,779 editsm Archiving 1 discussion to Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan/Archive 2. (BOT)
(440 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~~ ==		== Biased Map ==

	* 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 ==

	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.

	Suggested future changes:

	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.

	How these changes can be made in a way that will withstand assaults from whomever removes such content:

	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-->

	== Language image ==

	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)

	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)

	== Etymology ==

	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.

			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)
	: 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.

			== Map and table numbers for districts do not correspond ==
	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)

			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)
	==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)

	== ~~Wrong~~ ~~informaiton~~ ==		== '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)
	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)

			== 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 ] region's article as that has been attested. ] (]) 10:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
	EDIT: I am adding this proper number figure from this article since the other source is wrong and outdated.

			== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2023 ==
	http://tribune.com.pk/story/822571/law-and-order-issues-afghan-refugees-do-not-want-to-go-back-home/ <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			{{Edit extended-protected\|Balochistan, Pakistan\|answered=yes}}
	== POV edits by 82.11.33.86 ==
		⚫	] (]) 09:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

			The population of Balochistan is incorrect at present. it should be 14,894,402.
	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.—] <sup>] </sup> 05:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

			Source 1: https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/population/2023/Press%20Release.pdf
	:“Human rights abuses attributed to the security agencies” From the source ] (]) 07:05, 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 ==
	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)

			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)
	*'''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)

			== New religious and ethno-linguistic demographics ==
	=== Observations on POV Edits by 82.11.33.86 ===
	*'''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. —] <sup>] </sup> 19:11, 16 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)
	:::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.—] <sup>] </sup> 11:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

			== Katbar Balochi People ==
	:::: 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)

			The Katbar (Majhani:بلوچ ) is an ethnic Baloch tribe in the Balochistan province of Pakistan, belonging to the Majhani branch of the Balochi tribes. The tribe inhabits Katbar Shareef and Kacchi, and is bilingual in Persian and Balochi. ] (]) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (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? —] <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. —] <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. —] <sup>] </sup> 16:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
	{{outdent}} ] dear sir, care to join in the discussion before clicking the revert button :)?—] <sup>] </sup> 19:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
	::Self reverted. Will comment in detail later. Cheers. --]] • 19:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
	::And the member of Pakistan's army sill deletes content critical of the army he serves. Consensus is for this to be in article, stop deleting. ] (]) 15:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:09, 8 January 2025

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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:

Pakistan: Balochistan High‑importance

	Pakistan portal This 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Balochistan, Pakistan (assessed as Top-importance).

Central Asia Mid‑importance

	Asia portal Balochistan, 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

South Asia Mid‑importance

	This 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
Mid	This 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.

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)

Katbar Balochi People

The Katbar (Majhani:بلوچ ) is an ethnic Baloch tribe in the Balochistan province of Pakistan, belonging to the Majhani branch of the Balochi tribes. The tribe inhabits Katbar Shareef and Kacchi, and is bilingual in Persian and Balochi. Baloch Tribe (talk) 07:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: