Talk:Balochistan/Archive 1

One article
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.--Sheikhu 04:33, 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.--Usmanreddy 04:56, 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 Pegship 00:20, 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. DigiBullet 14:46, 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 Giant 05:15, 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. --Khoikhoi 05:25, 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. Riobranden 10:33, 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). --Khoikhoi 20:28, 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.


 * To remove this ambiguity, I will eliminate the matching sections with History of Baluchistan from this page and move the remaining content to a Balochistan region page with a link from this page. This page should become a disambiguation page on the lines of Punjab, Macedonia and Georgia. Green Giant 21:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, good job. I agree. --Khoikhoi 02:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This article could use a rewrite
This article could use a rewrite This article could use a rewrite 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ArjunaParataraja.jpg
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 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.

BetacommandBot 10:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Opinionated article
"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 by 70.24.237.16 --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)

Bertistan
Incorrect old maps have Balochistan labeled as "Bertistan". Bertistan should redirect here. For an example, see --189.33.15.103 (talk) 22:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Herodotus in 650 BC described ..."
Herodotus lived over 150 years later, so how can he have described anything in 650 BC? Floris V (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 result of the move request was: page moved to Balochistan.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 13:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Balochistan (region) → — - why do we need the parentheses, when a simpler name will be easier to type and search for? Green Giant (talk) 04:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC) Support per nom. warrior 4321   21:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Or alternatively, just Balochistan, which would involve moving the disambiguation page back to Balochistan (disambiguation).  The hatnotes already redirect to other uses.  Skinsmoke (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Support proposal by Skinsmoke. Green Giant (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.

Merge with other Balochistan Page
Why have a separate page for a place that has never existed ? --Gbh123 (talk) 00:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete the page
this page talks about a mythical area that have never existed... --Ambelland (talk) 01:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Balochistan
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").  kashmiri 17:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not understand you, you are already in the article of Balochistan, the article of administrative province of Pakistan is Balochistan, Pakistan! Do you want to merge the Etymology and Early History to Balochistan, Pakistan.  Faizan   -  Let's talk!  

Decline to temporary Page Protection
Hi, this is with reference to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Balochistan. Where does the good-faith leave us after the following discussions and explanations given to all 3 x IPs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bangladesh_Liberation_War#What.27s_up_with_the_recent_IP_Edits.3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balochistan#Army.27s_So_Called_Atrocities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balochistan#Comments_requested

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  Pak Sol   talk 15:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Army's Atrocities
I have added another source from amnesty who are reliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.41.162 (talk) 15:54, 12 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!  Pak Sol  talk 16:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Source days credible investigation carried out — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.41.162 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Show me where? But then first, get a reliable source. The talk page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balochistan#Opinionated_article already says UNPO is NOT a reliable source. We cant go in circle over something which already has been discussed.  Pak Sol   talk 16:19, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Amnesty is reliable source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.41.162 (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure is, but does the website proves your POV? Or is it just your own interpretation and thus the POV-pushing?  Pak Sol   talk 18:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Read source also another here http://www.dawn.com/news/681889/balochistan-at-point-of-no-return-mengal-tells-nawaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.41.162 (talk) 18:37, 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.
 * None of the sources you have been pushing say anything near to what you are trying to include in your edits. This amounts to disruptive editing and any further edits as vandalism.  Pak Sol   talk 00:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

You called me vandal and admin said I no, so stop accusing wiki will not let me post quotes here? 82.11.33.86 (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.  Pak Sol   talk 12:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone in Pak amy has no right to remove informations on atrocities by you amy. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Paksol do not edit the words of others 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Paksol removing information
It has been in article since long, you need consensus to remove. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 16:52, 14 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.
 * You have been warned of Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but still dont understand a basic concept. —  Pak Sol  talk 17:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * RfC is not oVer, you need consensus to remove. 82.11.33.86 (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.—  Pak Sol  talk 18:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments requested
Should article have human rights atrocities in? resources are in edit I did. More resource 82.11.33.86 (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)  Striking sock comments. -- lTopGunl (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments

 * 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.  Pak Sol   talk 12:30, 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.   Pak Sol   talk 12:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No blogs [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. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/28/pakistan-military-campaign-balochistan-hrw] 82.11.33.86 (talk) 12:34, 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? :)  Pak Sol   talk 12:40, 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)


 * Oppose Already have articles on the Balochistan conflict and Human rights violations in Balochistan. This is an article on the geographic region. It doesn't meet the scope, and it is also highly WP:POV and WP:UNDUE to place that material in the article lead which the editor is doing. If we take other examples, we don't have the Kashmir article going into detail about Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir or the Punjab article discussing the Khalistan movement.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Irrelevant article. Starting this RfC while you are edit-warring in Balochistan, Pakistan is pointless. Faizan (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose we already have articles on the Balochistan conflict and Human rights violations in Balochistan. This is an article on the geographic region and province profile only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.186.146.225 (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes
Last edits by BoogaLouie hurting NPOV and WP Coattrack. Rashidzaman786 (talk) 07:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.  (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I also feel same issues with this as pointed out. Before concensus i am retoring pre dispute version. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you mind pointing out the parts that are off-topic or not neutral?  (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Bump.  (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * until you can answer EdwardH question I'm going to restore my edits. --BoogaLouie (talk) 18:45, 29 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)


 * the above discussion does not apply as it relates to adding content on human rights violations in Balochistan, not the Balochistan conflict. There is no overlap between the content added by 82.11.33.86 above and that by BoogaLouie. Also, can you please point out the parts added that were off-topic or not neutral, so that we can get it into a form that acceptable.   (talk) 12:25, 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)
 * Naturally I agree. Thank you Cyphoidbomb, --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:15, 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)


 * 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.  (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (see below)
 * "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?
 * Why did you delete information about population? --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 Balochistan region is administratively divided among three countries, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. The Pakistani portion of Balochistan is the largest and its capital is the city of Quetta. Other major cities in Balochistan, Pakistan, include Gwadar, Turbat, Khuzdar, Sibi and Kalat. 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.

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, and the Registan Desert in southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces. The governors of Nimruz provinces in Afghanistan belong to the Baloch ethnic group.


 * Governance and political disputes (BoogaLouie version removed 7/30/2015)

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. In Iran there are about two million ethnic Baloch 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, and the Registan Desert in southern Helmand and Kandahar provinces. The governors of Nimruz provinces in Afghanistan belong to the Baloch ethnic group.

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. Historically, "drivers" of the conflict are reported to include "tribal divisions", the Baloch-Pashtun ethnic divisions, "marginalization by Punjabi interests", and "economic oppression". In Iran, separatist fighting has reportedly not gained as much ground as the conflict in Pakistan, but has grown and become more sectarian since 2012, with the majority-Sunni Baloch showing a greater degree of Salafist and anti-Shia ideology in their fight against the Shia-Islamist Iranian government.

Dispute resolution
Since we have been unable to come to consensus, we must move on to the next stage of dispute resolution. I will lodge a dispute resolution request immediately. (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Done; see .  (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks --BoogaLouie (talk) 13:37, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I had a talk page disscussion over balouchistan Pakistan where my position was oposite from User Cyphoidbomb. All ended with a concensus but now with out being relevant to a dispute (between me and User Jasimkhanum 10 on maintaning pre dispute version of article), Cyphoidbomb started persanol revenge game. 1. He misrepresented me on ANI read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FEdit_warring&type=revision&diff=675320060&oldid=675310006 2. He deleted pre dispute version of Khyber Pakhtunkha and took Jasimkhanum 10 side and voilated WP principle that in case of dispute a pre dispute version will be maintaned. Zmaghndstakun (talk) 03:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red herring. Stay on topic. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * (I hadn't noticed that User talk:Rashidzaman786 was blocked for sockpuppetry yesterday, August 11.) --BoogaLouie (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The dispute resolution attempt has ended in failure. Following the advice in WP:DDE, any continued disruption may be referred to the Administrators' Incident noticeboard. (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Undue Category
Ref:this. IP is adding wrong category over and again without gving any edit summary. Need to be checked.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 08:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not a category. It is a "See also" entry. What is wrong with it? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly reasonable to add a link to this article. SmartSE (talk) 12:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. Nothing wrong, the article exists legitimately on Wikipedia and certainly can be linked to. Re-adding. — kashmiri  TALK  13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * My only argument was about the linkage: Balochistan is different from Balochistan, Pakistan. Whereas the latter can surely have Human rights violations in Balochistan in its "see also", I doubt the former can too as it's a different topic area. Going by your definition Kashmir should also have Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir in it's "see also".— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 02:12, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You should avoid arguments like "Article y doesn't mention this, so article x shouldn't either". Bharatiya  29  06:04, 17 May 2016 (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".— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 09:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Human rights violations in Balochistan can certainly cover all of Balochistan. Perhaps it already does. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, Kashmir should also have Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir in it's "see also", right?— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 09:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Kashmir already has Human rights abuses in Kashmir, which covers both J&K and PoK. In case human right abuses are reported in Sistan and Baluchestan Province, then they can be mentioned in Human rights violations in Balochistan. As Kautilya has already said, they scope of the concerned article is not limited to Pak province, but rather the entire region. The frequency of human rights violations might be less in the Iranian province, but that doesn't permit you to limit the scope of the article. Bharatiya  29  11:02, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

First, your usage of PoK instead of Pak administered Kashmir confirms that have a POV and a bias. Second, what are you talking about? Both Sistan and Baluchestan Province and Balochistan have a different scope then that of Balochistan, Pakistan. Sistan and Baluchestan Province concerns the 31st province of Iran, NOT Pakistan's so how can you fit in Human rights violations in Balochistan - the Province of Pakistan to that article? Similarly, Balochistan concerns the geographical region that spreads across Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran, and i not limited to Pakistan alone and thus the large scope, but then again how can you fit in Human rights violations in Balochistan - the Province of Pakistan to this article too?? Having a large scope does not mean that you can fit in everything that have the minutest of the relation to it. You are just compering mangoes with oranges here.— Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡ </b> ʞlɐʇ 12:09, 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. Bharatiya  29  15:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , 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.
 * Also pinging the protecting Admin for opinion, please.—  Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡   ʞlɐʇ 17:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but no opinion; my involvement was limited to fulfilling the protection request. Widr (talk) 19:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

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}"!!—  Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 18:10, 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)


 * 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; ). 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.  Sh eri ff  |  ☎ 911  | 18:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, it seems like he is mixing up the two.—  Trip Wire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 21:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Clean-up
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, 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. So, the idea that Balochistan means the land of Baloch falls in the folk etymology category. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

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 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.

Keep up the good work. Thanks. -- Kayly (talk) 05:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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/1410447 182.180.61.170 (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Baloch
Baloch 223.123.105.180 (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)