|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Balochistan article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Delete the page
- 2 Merge with other Balochistan Page
- 3 One article
- 4 Two Images
- 5 Opinionated article
- 6 History section
- 7 Strictly grammatical
- 8 Should be Rewritten
- 9 This article could use a rewrite
- 10 Proposed change
- 11 Summarizing
- 12 Fair use rationale for Image:ArjunaParataraja.jpg
- 13 Bertistan
- 14 "Herodotus in 650 BC described ..."
- 15 Requested move
- 16 Spelling
- 17 Merge to Balochistan
- 18 Army's Atrocities
- 19 Comments requested
- 20 Decline to temporary Page Protection
- 21 Paksol removing information
Delete the page
Merge with other Balochistan Page
I dont see why the history and complete demographics plus socio economic setup of Balochistan cannot be in one article ,there is no sense to divide it as most other articles on States and Provinces are detailed into one article and/or comprehensive enough.This article covers everything there is to know about Balochistan and thats what a reader must have and should have.--Sheikhu 04:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Also I have noticed that user:126.96.36.199 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)
"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 188.8.131.52 --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)
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)
This article could use a rewrite
This article could use a rewrite This article could use a rewrite 01:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
"Herodotus in 650 BC described ..."
Why must Wikipedia force a nationalist-inspired oddball spelling down our throats every single time? It hurts your credibility. It's Baluchistan. The only context in which the average person might have heard of the place is in "beast of Baluchistan", spelled thus. Are you going to try to make the genus "balochitherium"? You are annoying the hell out of I daresay a lot of us with this nonsense. Ask me why I bother, and I'll say I don't know.
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!
- 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!PakSol talk 16:02, 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. PakSol talk 16:19, 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? PakSol 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 184.108.40.206 (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. PakSol talk 00:19, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Should article have human rights atrocities in? resources are in edit I did.  More resource  220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Striking sock comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose The sources being cited are unreliable/blogs. The link from Amnesty website does not support the POV that is being pushed into the article and is being quoted just to provide credibility which anyone can see is lacking. The info from Dawn that is being quoted is being deliberately misrepresented and misinterpreted. This discussion has already taken place here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Balochistan#Army.27s_So_Called_Atrocities, but the IP is unable to improve its sources nor the quality of info. Since the past 48 hours, this is the third IP which have tried to insert "exactly" the same info repeatedly. It seem like as if a certain group is carrying out planned disruptive edits by using different IPs. Also, the reasons of reverts made by editors opposing this edit should be seen in the history of the article who have amply tried to explain this point over and again. PakSol 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. PakSol 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] 18.104.22.168 (talk) 12:34, 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." 22.214.171.124 (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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
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 PakSol talk 15:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Paksol removing information
- 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. —PakSol talk 17:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- RfC is not oVer, you need consensus to remove. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2015 (UTC)