Jump to content

Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rahman1212 (talk | contribs) at 16:41, 5 June 2022 (→‎Demographics info: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Balochistan, Pakistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 April 2020

I want to edit the image skyline and add a image of the Nushki district a desert with camels 50.100.250.33 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Languages in Balochistan

According to Census 2017, 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.101.50.108.162 (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance needed

Moved from User talk:Abdulhaseebatd § Assistance needed

Hello Abdulhaseebatd I have recently noticed these 3 edits on Balochistan related articles [1][2] and [3] the user Wareon has been going around adding large amounts of information from 1 political scientist Rafi Sheikh while modifying existing edits and adding his own commentary such as "according to Pakistani narrative" he values Rafi Sheikh views but as soon as a political scientist like Pervez Iqbal adds his view he calls it the Pakistani narrative.

This diff [[4] in particular shows the agenda they hold they have added paragraph after paragraph of text from Rafis book I was wondering is the use of one source and adding allot of content from it fall under UNDUE wiki rule? Surely the counter view should be added since Balochistan is the main article page I think that content should be merged with History of Balochistan article for example Hyderabad article which is state which was forcibly annexed by India has very little on its annexation but Indian editors descend upon Balochistan with swathes of text to push a certain narrative should his opinion (Rafi Sheikh) be given such huge weight considering other views are minimized and called "Pakistani narratives" Please do help balance out the article as its clearly agenda driven editing. TruthUnknown1 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC) Struck sockpuppet's comments.[reply]

@TruthUnknown1: good catch, he's definitely pushing one sided narrative on different pages related to Balochistan, as you pointed out. I'm trying to get deep into it. Being known to the fact that user Wareon has history of edit warring (which was also reported on administrator notice board earlier), I'm also pinging more experienced editors, who might be interested to help and guide us in this matter.
@Mar4d:, @Saqib:, @Samee:, @Ngrewal1: please have a look on concern raised above, we newbies are looking forward to your suggestions and help. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdulhaseebatd: Another thing I noticed is that the source they are using also mentions this "Salman Rafi Sheikh largely concurs with Saiyid's assessment: multiple other Kalat sardars were preparing to secede to Pakistan and Yar Khan would have hardly any territory left, if he did not accede." So basically that one source he keeps quoting from is also saying the opposite to the narrative they are trying to spread other Kalat sardars were already acceding to Pakistan according to the source they use kind of contradicts everything but notice he only quotes portions of Salman Rafi Sheikhs book which suits their narrative. Funnily enough Salman Rafi Sheikh is Pakistani himself so should his view be considering a Pakistani narrative? But overall the edits are trying to paint out a one sided argument while other sources state that only Kalat showed resistance while other portions of Balochistan such as Las Bela and Makran acceded without much issue they are emphasizing Kalat and this one source to claim that the entirety of Balochistan was against it. Plus quoting so much from a single source is surely undue and non neutral. TruthUnknown1 (talk) 21:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also compare the difference in Hyderabad article hardly any mention of the Indian invasion which involved the massacres of thousands of Muslims by the Indian army when they forcibly annexed Hyderabad state into the Indian dominion just 3 or 4 sentences thats what you call a forced annexation while Balochistan article contains large paragraphs quoting mostly one mans opinion this double standards are clear and it needs to be restored to the version prior to Wareon agenda driven edit. TruthUnknown1 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TruthUnknown1:, I've removed all controversial info. And I don't see any bad in his edits, except for copy pasting, he just added info he has been taught/shown, it is also true for us as well. I'll assume his edits to be in good faith. But I do have one suspicion about you, how you can be so deep into Wikipedia, without a single edit outside userspace? And i suspect you used this 82.132.214.45 IP on 18th of September 2021 (and other IPs) for removing info in question, and you even tried to vandalized this article about Hyderabad. This act is more like a WP:SOCKPUPPETRY. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those "more experienced editors" surely know that the above sock is misrepresenting sources and falsifying.

But why you don't know that?

You need to read WP:DENY when dealing with such socks and read WP:ONLYREVERT and WP:STONEWALL when you make a revert with edit summary " edit is controversial, which should have been brought up by WP:CONSENSUS"[5].

The information is important for inclusion and there is no chance of a "Indian propaganda" since the Pakistani academic published it through a western publication.

The sock above is offended by the text "according to Pakistani narrative" when the cited source clearly says ""According to the official narrative of Pakistan, the referendum". But this sock is resorting to making false claims, edit warring, and sockpuppetry to censor the information. Wareon (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wareon: concerns he raised were genuine, you copy pasted that all controversial info cited by an author namely salman rafi and presented that as a universal view while painted info from other authors as Pakistani view, which clearly show your bias. You need to learn WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS, and come of India Pakistan rivalry. This is Wikipedia where we all apart from our backgrounds, try to add neutral point of view, not how we see/want to see world. And we all are supposed to not shy away from taking consensus on controversial matters. You seem not interested in taking consensus into account, which is really disappointing. I can re-revert your revisions, but I'm hopeful you'll do it by yourself, and will seek consensus on relevant talk page before adding any controversial info. Have a good day. Abdulhaseebatd (talk) 09:18, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Abdulhaseebatd: I am inclined to agree with you. It does appear that the additions here by Wareon are largely copy-pasted from The Genesis of Baloch Nationalism, with some quotes that seem rather aggressive (possibly biased) to me. In the course of digging through the sources I improved the inline citations a bit, but I do not wish to imply by those edits that the content should exist in its current state.
I would paraphrase and condense the heavy quotations, and describe other views as appropriate, with in-text attributions. I'm in a bit deeper than I intended – I only got drawn in when I reviewed a pending change. I'm no expert on the subject, and would defer to someone who knows more about the scholarship on Balochistan's history, and which views are accepted as mainstream.
Also, I think this discussion might belong at Talk:Balochistan, Pakistan. What's the usual procedure for {{Moved discussion to}}? – Anon423 (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Why you are pinging him on his own talk page? Wareon (talk)
And Abdulhaseebatd, there was no 'concern' let alone them being 'genuine'. I don't count false accusations and falsification as 'concern'. Now by saying that I "presented that as a universal view while painted info from other authors as Pakistani view, which clearly show your bias" you are also being similarly disruptive when the cited reliable source clearly says ""According to the official narrative of Pakistan, the referendum". You haven't disputed the veracity of the content other than saying "but I find it controversial" (see WP:IDONTLIKETHEM). Wareon (talk) 14:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for barging in; but I also share concerns about the type of material @Wareon: is adding and removing. The main thing I would like to put forward is that Wareon may be violating WP:NPOV by giving WP:UNDUE weight to certain viewpoints (specifically a book called "The Genesis of Baloch Nationalism: Politics and Ethnicity in Pakistan, 1947–1977" by Salman Rafi Sheikh), removing and/or tarnishing other sources, and the last seal, removing things reflecting badly on India (giving the impression that he may be an Indian nationalist). I was planning to do this conversation on Wareon's talk page, but it seems that this thread is more active. I learned of Wareon's actions due to a talk page message I received from TruthUnknown1 (he seems to be blocked as a sock but his accusations, nonetheless, are credible).
  1. An edit to Balochistan, Pakistan seems to be attempting to misguide users. The diff is here. Wareon replaced the words "according to Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema" with "according to the Pakistani narrative". However, nowhere in the source can the word "narrative" be found. I have tried variations and similar words like "Pakistani side" as well, to no avail. This is only one of his edits to the page which is definitely controversial and almost definitely in violation of WP:NPOV. The text was later removed with this edit.
  2. I have a strong mind to remove all the text added by Wareon with this edit as well (he duplicated it word for word here at Balochistan, Pakistan and at History of Balochistan as well with this edit). He seems to be violating WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:NPOV by adding large swaths of content from his preferred book only and attempting to support an anti-Pakistan viewpoint.
  3. Furthermore, moving beyond his anti-Pakistan sentiment, the confirmation that he is also a biased Indian nationalist can be found at this edit to Women in India. He removed the following text:
    Practises such as female infanticide, dowry, child marriage and the taboo on widow remarriage, which began in upper-caste Hindu society in Northern India, have had a long duration, proving difficult to root out, and in the instance of dowry have spread to all castes, classes, and even religions.
    His agenda ere seemed to be removing things which reflect badly on India, meaning that he committed another WP:NPOV violation. Furthermore, the sentence he removed had not 1, but 2 reliable sources, proving his ulterior motives. The edit summary for the revert was "actual last good version", obviously indicating POV issues in his mindset.
  4. Lastly, this edit cements my theory that Wareon is an anti-Pakistan editor and an Indian nationalist (probably a Modi supporter, judging by his WP:UNCIVIL comments here.
This isn't the first time this user has engaged in disruptive actions. I believe that something must be done about this user's disruptive editing. I would like other editors to collaborate on this. RealKnockout (talk) 13:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input.
I'd say however that point 1 is really part of point 2. The language "According to the official narrative of Pakistan" is found on page 80 of Salman Rafi Sheikh's The Genesis of Baloch Nationalism. The rest of the sentence seems to be sourced from Pakistan's Defence Policy. I have since that edit by Wareon inserted citations (my edit) restoring text-source integrity (which is its own issue apart from NPOV; intentional or not, WP:CUCKOO references are a serious issue), attributing each phrase to its book source. The POV-relevant language wasn't made up, but comes from a pro-independence book.
My attention has been focused on Balochistan, Pakistan, about which I'd like to do more reading to gauge the mainstream position, though I would still defer to editors more familiar. But 2, 3, and 4, do seem to establish this in a larger trend of bias, which I'm sad though unsurprised to see. – Anon423 (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting on my post. Yes, I do realize that points 1 and 2 of mine are largely similar. Thanks for adding citations, although I am still concerned about the UNDUE weight given to that book. What action do you believe should be taken? I think a warn should be enough, but if the user persists, stricter action may need to be taken. RealKnockout (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, undue weight is my concern too. Though I'm no expert, I'm slowly perusing some sources to get better acquainted with mainstream and minority views, which I would like to treat fairly in the article. I'm not terribly familiar with warnings and administrative procedures, so I'd defer to your judgement. Here, we agree on the bias, but I think we should get more eyes on it to conclusively establish consensus. – Anon423 (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • nowhere in the source can the word "narrative" be found" apparently, we have got another disruptive editor resorting to personal attacks but eager to misrepresent sources or showing his failure to understand the simple English. "according to Pakistani narrative" is supported by the cited source which clearly says ""According to the official narrative of Pakistan, the referendum".
  • Consider me out of this discussion if all you can do is falsify the source and still dream of a "warn should be enough, but if the user persists, stricter action may need to be taken," when that is precisely you engaging in outright disruptive editing. Wareon (talk) 02:19, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wareon: I am not making any personal attack, misrepresenting sources, and I can definitely understand English. The link you have posted returns the following error message:
No results found in this book for "According to the official narrative of Pakistan, the referendum"
Please double check your link. You may have mispasted or made a typo. Thanks! RealKnockout (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would repeat that the quote is supported by the source, just reading of the whole page is required. Wareon (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that "According to the official narrative of Pakistan, the referendum" is found in the cited source, and have accordingly added page numbers and quotes to citations to better establish sourcing to Salman Rafi Sheikh's The Genesis of Baloch Nationalism. However, I do believe that the book as a whole may be biased, and so we should be careful about giving mainstream and fringe views their due weight. @RealKnockout: The quote really is there, just after the heading "Referendum in (British) Balochistan)". This link might work better. – Anon423 (talk) 04:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Etymology of Balochistan, Pakistan" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Etymology of Balochistan, Pakistan. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 11#Etymology of Balochistan, Pakistan until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. — kashmīrī TALK 23:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics info and edit-warring IP

[Copied from User talk:185.39.64.129]

An IP has been repeatedly deleting the demographic information in the lead (like [6]) using various arguments.

It is clear that the demographic composition has changed from 2008 to 2017. But we need reliable WP:SECONDARY sources discussing it before it can be inserted in the lead. Census data is WP:PRIMARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics info

You have reverted my edit by claiming that my numbers are not true i.e. 35% of the population of balochistan consists of Baloch. So I am quoting from the 2017 census data:

total population of balochistan (2) = 12,335,129

baloch population in balochistan (7) = 4,377,825

percentage of baloch population in balochistan = 4,377,825 / 12,335,129 * 100 ≈ 35.4%

Also, these are the same numbers which are found in the language section of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahman1212 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rahman1212:, I came here aft reading your post @ WP:DRN, In my honest opinion WP:DRN stage is too early for this dispute. You need to give reasonable time for other users to react at article talk page. Ping them while writing your message so they can reply your post. If you are a new user, that what it seems, you can seek help @ Wikipedia:Teahouse.
  • I have not gone in great detail of this edit war but there seem to be some confusion between ethnicity and language, what is that confusion all about?
  • If there are multiple census with reliable sources available with you, then why don't you present details of demographic change in tabular form per census?
  • If two credible sources give different information in my honest opinion include both saying source A says this and Source B says this.
  • One thing usually ignored by established Wikipedians is WP:Routine calculation, If Rahman1212 source is credible and mathematics accurate there need not be any great difficulty in including his sourced information.
  • I would advice user:Rahman1212 to avoid deletion of existent sourced information until census wise comparative demographic change is presented.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 01:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- The page contained outdated information from 2008 census, which I tried to updated with data from 2017 census. But the Kautilya3 reverted my changes, and on top of that also added some fake data to that part (saying that Balochi and Brahvi is the same thing, and that there are Uzbeks or Turks living there).
- The source which I have attached contains the complete data (https://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/population/2017/tables/balochistan/Table11p.pdf). This is also the same data summarized in the language section.
- There are 2 credible sources 2008 and 2017 population census. Since on other pages there is only the latest census number are included so I did the same is my edit i.e replace 2008 numbers with 2017 numbers. On the other hand the current information written on the page has some points from 2008, while some points are just made up fake.
- I can of course wait to reach a consensus, and my sources are also very clear (official census data). While on the other hand the numbers currently being shown on the page are outdated (from 2008 census), and some parts straight up false. Rahman1212 (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also looked deeper into why the editor claims that Balochi and Brahvi are the same people, while they are a completely different languages and cultures. I found that this claim was invented by some baloch insurgency leaders to inflate their numbers (to show them as 60% instead of 35%). Rahman1212 (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 @Kashmiri requesting your inputs vis a vis @Rahman1212 apprehensions stated above Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 18:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Official census data is a WP:PRIMARY source. We need WP:SECONDARY sources that talk about it, especially in this case where there is apparently a drastic change in the demographic composition within a decade. We can't simply replace the 2008 data. It old data has to stay no matter what. The 2017 data can only be added, with a good explanation of what is happening. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are asking me for primary and secondary etc. but on the other hand what data do you have? You have just put there made up numbers mixed with 2008 data.
You will not decide whether both 2008 and 2017 is displayed here or just 2017. You are not an admin here. I will open dispute on that, and if admins decide that both can be put there then I am open to that too.
But your made up data will have to go regardless, because it not even 2008 data. Rahman1212 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RSPRIMARY: Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. That is the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly asked you what your primary and secondary sources are? I can not find the numbers you posted and hence consider them fake. Also, I will not compare my numbers against yours, because my numbers are official numbers, and yours are just made up. Rahman1212 (talk) 11:11, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging. Actually, it's perfectly OK to use primary sources on Wikipedia within the policy constraints – i.e., to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. I'm sure we can report both the 2008 and 2017 data sourced directly to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics. What puzzles me is the change between 2008 and 2017 in absence of large-scale migrations. If we discard the possibility of data manipulation for political purposes (not entirely unlikely in Pakistan), we'll owe it to the reader to explain the difference in methodologies, and for this we'll likely need a secondary source. — kashmīrī TALK 11:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The number 60% is made up by @Kautilya3. The real number according to previous census is 40%. I would not consider the change from 40% to 35% as "drastic". I guess the number 60% is made up by combining balochi and bravhi (40% and 20%), but in the official numbers their populations are 35% and 17.5% respectively. Rahman1212 (talk) 11:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ user:Rahman1212, you had directly approached WP:DRN stage, it is likely you missed some guidance @ WP:DR, read it again clear you doubts @ WP:Teahouse. Can ask oneself, whether point of view of others is not logical ? or is not suitable for own point of view? or is a condition of WP:I just don't like it? If not later two conditions then can rewrite your WP:DRN. WP:DRN is process to facilitates discussion as I am facilitating here. If that does not satisfy you then you can come back to the talk page and constitute an WP:RFC discussion. Pl. take note of the fact that admins do have some discretion but they do not take decisions on content conflicts on Wikipedia, so in a way, WP:RFC is the ultimate process for any content dispute. Hope this helps. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am coming to realize that @Kautilya3 is acting in malice. He has reverted my edits because of secondary sources (which are not needed), while at the same time putting up his text without any sources (either primary and secondary).
Also repeatedly asking him to prove is sources has led to no avail. Rahman1212 (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What "edits" are you talking about? You have made only one edit, to revert me and reinstate some rambling IP, who claims "the region is host to diverse populations" and cites a table of numbers. It is all WP:OR. The old content was perfectly well-sourced. You are gaslighting everybody over here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "a table of numbers" is what a census data from a official source looks like, something you don't have. Simply calling your content well-sourced is not gonna cut it, everyone calls their content will-sourced. You need to post your sources here which assert your claim that 60% of the population in balochi, and that there are uzbeks and turks living there. This is the fourth time I am asking you to share your primary and secondary sources. Rahman1212 (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bookku, the reason for rejecting those edits was explained by me in the section preceding this one, even before Rahman1212 appeared on this page. When he did appear, one of the first things he did was to delete that section, for reasons best known to him.
Even if the 2017 census is perfectly kosher, the reason for the drastic change in demographic proportions within a decade, still needs an explanation. The 2008 data cannot be simply thrown out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a professional editor and may have made a mistake by deleting something which I should not have! apologies for that. Rahman1212 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3 Asking for the fifth time, please show up from where did you bring up "60%" number? Unless you show up data, we will consider "60%" as false information and go by the official number i.e. 40%. And from 40% to 35% is not a "drastic" change. I am happy to discuss even that in case you think 40 to 35 is a "drastic" change. Rahman1212 (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice research and thanks for the links. The population of Balochistan is quite diverse out of which Baloch and Pashtuns make up around equal parts (35%), on top of that these 2 groups see each other with suspicion and it will be rare that any census will be fully accepted by both. 2017 census is in fact less ridiculed as compared to previous censuses e.g. 1998 census when Pashtuns altogether sought to boycott the census (and as a result underrepresented in 1998 and 2008 census).
In the recent census Baloch nationalists demanded to suspend census in Balochistan (also from your links), but the census was carried out in Balochistan regardless and the results of that census are now public and official.
Why Baloch nationalists wanted to suspend census (also from your links):
1. A large number of Baloch have migrated to other provinces of Pakistan due to the lawlessness and low economic prospects in Baloch majority areas. This results in under representation of Baloch population in Balochistan.
2. Presence of large number of Afghan refugees in Balochistan. Since these refugees are Pashtuns it will result in the over representation of the Pashtuns.
3. A lot of Pashtuns did not take part in 1998 census amid boycott calls and as a result they were under represented in 1998 and 2008. Since Pashtuns decided to fully take part in 2017 census this results in the restoration of Pashtun representation.
Now coming to our topic which is demographics of Balochistan (not Baloch). In that essence we will only count the Baloch living in Balochistan and disregard those Baloch who are now living in other provinces of Pakistan. The same goes for Pashtuns, we will count only those living in Balochistan (Afghani or Pakistani). As per this criteria Baloch and Pashtun make up equal parts (around 35%). Rahman1212 (talk) 16:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bookku@Kautilya3 Jump is Pashtun numbers can be explained by the 3rd point. Rahman1212 (talk) 16:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can't construct our own explanations. They have to come from the WP:RS.
As for the 60% figure, it is obtained by adding the Baloch speakers and Brahui speakers, as you know very well. But you have neglected to read the cited source, which says: As Brahui-speakers are also grouped under the Baloch ethnicity, they would form the majority of Balochistan.. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rahman1212
a) Census enumeration criteria seems to be more than six month's stay, is to avoid counting tourists and short term visitors; still remains problematic when includes long term mass migration. For example in Gulf states there are very large migrant populations which does not necessarily form part of their domicile.
b) There seem to be substantial interest among individuals, communities even enumerator itself to distort inputs at enumeration level itself; Seem to result in flawed results.
May be otherwise used by governmental agencies for not having any other choice for our encyclopedic purposes such census data remains to be primary source and needs to be backed up by credible secondary source.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most Afghan refugees are living in Pakistan for decades, so it is not a surprise if they are counted among Pashtuns. Although the official stance of the census authorities is that they tried their best to not include Afghans. Also, in our context it does not create any difference because we are discussing ethnic distributions and basically all of Afghan refugees in Balochistan are ethnic Pashtuns. Rahman1212 (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tone down what, exactly? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2017 census data linked above is for languages, not ethnicity, and the relation between the two in Balochistan isn't simple. While most Pashtuns speak Pashto, being Balochi doesn't necessarily entail speaking the language. There are groups that self-identify as Baloch, are accepted by such by other Baloch, and practice Baloch culture whilst being speakers of other languages, like Jadgali, Khetrani or – most noticeably, Brahui. The Brahuis are a subgroup of the Baloch: some of them speak mainly Brahui, some are bilingual in Balochi and Brahui, while others only speak Balochi. This appears to be the main reason for the stark mismatch between ethnicity and language counts. As for the apparent change in Balochi speakers between the 1998 and the 2017 censuses, this is largely an artefact of the census. One significant factor here is a seemingly small change to the census questionnaire. The multiple-choice language question provided a Brahui option in 2017 but not in 1998, when many Brahui speakers appear to have preferred ticking "Balochi" over the "Others" box (understandable given that many of them are fully bilingual). – Uanfala (talk) 11:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I have read Brahui and Balochi are 2 very different things. Brahui people are similar to the south Indian people, while Balochi is spoken by Kurdish migrants. Do you have any idea how they can be considered the same people? Rahman1212 (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really recommend reading the article Brahui people. Yes, the Bragui and Balochi languages belong to completely different families, but we're not talking about languages here, we're talking about ethnicity, and that happens to exist on a completely different dimension in this case. – Uanfala (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, is there any particular reason to have the lede zero in on the ethnicity percentages, given how difficult the question is and how unreliable the data? I'd rather the figures were mentioned only in the relevant subsection, with the lede then giving equal weight to the ethnic and language aspects. – Uanfala (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add that fake data in the lead, it was added by @Kautilya3 and his source is a sentence in some news article. I have tried to remove it and also tried to update it, but he reverts my changes. I am planning to DRN again to remove his changes. Rahman1212 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid personalising disputes

@ Rahman1212 & Kautilya3 suggesting to avoid personalising tiff in the jiff.

@ Rahman1212, by now you would have read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, there just second sentence is ".. Editors are expected to engage in good faith to resolve their disputes, and must not personalise disputes. ..".

@ Kautilya3 you are experienced editor you know the things

Happy 'healthy & constructive' debating

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 17:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balochistan,_Pakistan&oldid=1091667188"