From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

History section[edit]

The history section here should be put into the Balochistan (Pakistan) article because it is only speaking about that area. (preceding unsigned comment by Binsaleemz --Hottentot


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.


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 [1], 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[edit]

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


  1. ^ Habib, Irfan (July 1997), "The Formation of India: Notes on the History of an Idea", Social Scientist, 25 (7/8): 3–10, JSTOR 3517600