Jump to content

Talk:History of Balochistan/Archive 1

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


Disputed tag

[edit]

There was a disputed tag on the Balochistan page but most of the content of that page was identical to this page, suggesting a copy-and-paste job from one to the other. This article is one-dimensional, presenting a POV look at the conflict and covers only one part of the history of Balochistan. Definitely the tensions and conflict need to be covered but the article at the moment looks like it was copied from one of the Baloch nationalist websites in the external links. Green Giant 21:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Balochistan

[edit]

i think we should remove Indian tag from here beacuse It is history of Balochistan and there is no direct link between Balochistan and india .Please provide source else i will remove it. Khalidkhoso 05:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed & Done!

Bk2006 12:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial History

[edit]

Surely Balochistan has a history dating before 1948. Why is that absent? Hindostani 10:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any article about History of Balouchistan during Qajar dynasty or any article about Goldsmid Agreement and Britain-Iran Conflict about Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sistan during Qajar dynasty. (مهدی 22:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Islamic conquest of Baluchistan

[edit]

Baluchistan was the fisrt region of Pakistan or sub continent to be conqured by the Rashidun Caliphs, many few people know about it except for some good historians. From a nice source book i have composed an article of islamic conquest of Baluchistan, during the regin of 3 rashidun caliphs Umar, Uthman and Ali. and a brief account of withdrawal of islamic forces from baluchistan during mauwyiah's reign and reconquest of it during latter umayyad caliphs reign.

Mohammad Adil 05:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British era

[edit]

Atleast one thousand years of history is missing between 7th and 19th century. I am particularly interested in knowing when British troops marched into Balochistan andannexed it as part of the Raj in south Asia? I know Sindh and Punjab faced invasion in 1839 immediately after the death of Ranjit Singh. Did Balochistan too come under British occupation in 1839?CuteRobin (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Imperial Gazetteer of India - 1839 saw the first major action against Balochistan, the following year the Khan of Kalat was installed by the British. British power increased and culminated in 1877 when Quetta was permanently occupied - the year after a treaty was signed with the Khan. Pahari Sahib 01:11, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way its false that British given the name Balochistan, the name Balochistan was given by Arabs when they arrived to spread Islam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooth (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 September 2012‎

Emotive language

[edit]

Why is this bias - yet this is the right word? Pahari Sahib 01:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i have used that word from reliable source.if you have better word then we can use it,i think this edit war would not help us.Khalidkhoso (talk)
I came here from WP:3O. If the source used the word "forcefully" then the entire sentence should be quoted and cited appropriately. I have deleted the word "forcefully" temporarily while the original source can be checked. Another alternative might be to say, "In 1948, the year after the independence, it was annexed to Pakistan."
Also, the sentence "In 2005 there was another struggle to achieve these aims, in 2006, the Pakistan army killed Nawab Akbar Bugti, the man they blamed for the violence" seems ungrammatical to me. In order to decide whether the use of the word "violent" in that sentence is proper or not, it would be necessary to refer to the original source, and I don't see a citation.
69.140.152.55 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citations now added from the BBC and Government sources Pahari Sahib 15:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Non English sources we can add material from other languages, link I given before was Urdu BBC itself is most reliable source. I think word “annexed” is more suitable and I am agreed on it then using word “forcefully or formally” and I think word “violence” ,“separatist” are not neutral and are move POV,I think we should come with better words ,Beside Pahari_Sahib come up with source is not reliable it is "Pakistan Gov: site" ,so they would not be using better word for man they killed, Wikipedia is neutral so we should use NPOV and neutral source
Khalidkhoso (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Khalid,
You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of the government source, it was not prove that Bugti was behind the violence, but that the government blamed him for it. The para said that the government blamed Bugti for the violence, citing a government source in this context is not bias. I added two references for the events for Bugti's killing once from BBC News and one from the Government of Balochistan. Incidentally is "separatist" pov? or is "national liberation movement" pov? Also the BBC is largely an English language news organisation, it is better that you find an easily verifiable English sources rather than content that can more easily be verified in Urdu Wikipedia. I quote from Wikipedia:Verifiability
The BBC has extensive coverage of South Asia - so try there.
Pahari Sahib 19:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pahari Sahib,i think we both are agreed on this

. There many user who can verify urdu text source, we can invite neutrals editors to resolve this issue.

and one thing more you missed

i can write in original text(urdu),we can ask some else or neutrals editor to translate it for us. Khalidkhoso (talk) 09:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient History

[edit]

The information provided under the ancient history section doesn't go far back enough. The following paragraph was taken from another wikipedia article and would give a better view of the history of Balochistan.

The earliest evidence of occupation in Balochistan is dated to the Paleolithic, represented by hunting camps and lithic scatters (chipped and flaked stone tools). The earliest settled villages in Balochistan date to the ceramic Neolithic (c. 7000-6000 BCE), and included the site of Mehrgarh (located in the Kachi Plain, east of Quetta). These villages expanded in size during the subsequent Chalcolithic, while interaction was amplified. This involved the movement of finished goods and raw materials, including chank shell, Lapis lazuli, turquoise and ceramics. By 2500 BCE (the Bronze Age) Balochistan became part of the Harappan cultural orbit, providing key resources to the expansive settlements of the Indus river basin to the east. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.81.180 (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

False statement

[edit]

I have checked the article written by Gulf news on bugti's death and there is no mention of any words about Bugti's character. Who ever written this paragraph surely working for Musharraf or Pakistani intelligence services. Readers can check by themself.

In 2005 there was another struggle to achieve these aims, in 2006, the Pakistan army killed Nawab Akbar Bugti,[1] the man they blamed for the violence.[2] Although Bugti had been proclaimed an offender by former president Pervez Musharraf he has become a hero for separatists.However,he is accused of devouring federal funds for the development of the province,as well as gas royalties,and was also accused of operating unauthorized jails and dungeons in his territory.[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hooth (talk • contribs) 23:00, 17 September 2012‎

  1. ^ Lonely burial for Baloch leader - BBC News
  2. ^ Government of Balochistan 2005
  3. ^ Bugti's killing will haunt Musharraf, Gulf News.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Balochistan/Archive_1&oldid=1136796524"