Talk:Baloch people

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


Baloch today

This section is full of biasis and forced POV. This section needs to be redone! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Persian is an Ethnicity

Persian is an ethnicity! You cannot call the Baloch Persians because Baloch is an ethnicity as well. Iranian is a race and language group not "Persian." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaveh94 (talkcontribs) 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Baluchis speak a Persian dialect

First thing first, who said Baluchis are related to Kurds? If anything, they're related more to persians than any other Iranic group. Our language itself has words (70-60%) of Persian origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the last section because it is very inaccurate and some of the information has already been mentioned. The article is discussing the Baloch people and not any other race or about any other region, so stop adding these things. Just focus on Baloch when writing.

It would also be nice if some pictures are included.

balochi is not based on persian or any other language but is different is 5000 year old language and is not a dialect of any other language Zeeshan marri (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a cite from a reliable source for this ?---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 11:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism or near-vandalism

This page has been subjected to repeated insertions of material that has serious deficiencies. While the spelling, grammar, and formatting alone would make the inserted text unfit for inclusion in an encyclopedia, the material is non-neutral.

In this article and others, the same anonymous user appears to be repeatedly trying to promote a couple of websites: BalochVoice and BalochTawar. What action would the Wikipedia community recommend? 05:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note: The above signed comment was modified by; I have reverted it (just doing some RC patrol). — Knowledge Seeker দ (talk) 09:44, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits

I've been adding some depth to the article regarding the Baluch that was missing. Before changing or deleting things can we discuss it on this page? Thanks. Tombseye 12:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


The format and depth is looking much better, but I am puzzled as to where you got this from:

In Pakistani Balochistan they are currently outnumbered by Pashtuns........

Pashtuns being a majority in Pakistan Balochistan is wrong. Yes, there are a large number of Pashtun natives and refugees as well, but they are confined to the northeast and they still do not outnumber the Baloch. This is a myth without any statistical backing. So, I think it is only fair if you remove this portion. Here is a link that should not be included in the article, but should be used to remove this portion:'balochistan%20Population%20by%20Mother%20Tongue'

Note: I had some things written earlier and somebody removed what I wrote.

Well, the last census taken showed that there were more Pashtuns than Baluch, and they are a majority in Quetta for sure, in the province overall they are the largest group by a small margin followed by the Baluch themselves and then the Brahui and then various other smaller groups. I noted that in Bennett Jones' "Pakistan" (and he got his info. from various national surveys and estimates) that the demographic shift has been going on for years and eventually the Baluch will be outnumbered by a much larger margin due to a disparity in raw numbers and the higher birthrates of the Pashtuns. The chart you have includes the Baluch and Brahui together so of course they outnumber the Pashtuns, but if you split those numbers up it's a different story. At best, the Baluch barely might outnumber the Pashtuns or not. They are already on the verge of being outnumbered in Iran, if not already. The Baluch are a small group compared to their neighbors so this might simply be inevitable. Also, some great statistical data can be found in "The State, Religion, and Ethnic Politics: Afghanistan, Iran, and Pakistan" edited by Myron Weiner and Ali Banuazizi which also pointed to what I said and they used even more extensive data and sources. At any rate, I don't really feel like arguing about it as it doesn't make any difference to the article. As for "Arabic-speaking" Baluch, these are largely bilingual people working in the Persian Gulf as opposed to an actual number who claim Arabic as their mother tongue. Many people claim descent from Arabs without any evidence as it were. 20:33, 14 August 2005 (UTC) _______________________________________________________________________________________


The original author of this section neglected to list the fourth of the "four main languagues" mentioned, so I altered the text to reflect the list as shown.

The entire entry probably needs to be verified for accuracy, anyway. Shabbs


Balochs are a distinct ethnic group their relationship with Iranian peoples which is a linguistic term is only linguistic and their Iranian origin is only one of several hypotheses. The article is totally one-sided and promotes a strong pro-Iranian perspective and is totally anti-balochi.
Diyako Talk + 16:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Balochis ARE Iranian, so how can it be Anti-Balochi?! You don't make any sense. --Kash 00:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, privde evidence before suggesting these mis-informed ideas with your Anti-Iranian POV, --Kash 01:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The Origins of the Baloch

For each theory, we need at least one refference. Those who don't have any refference should be removed. If there isn't any credible refference for these theories, the whole section should be removed. Bidabadi 10:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Because there is no credible refference for these theories, I remove this section. However, in the history section, there is some useful information about their origin (and the source is Britannica). Bidabadi 13:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have Book and it is written by Russain Author .i think this will be good refrence.

Khalidkhoso 11:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


I have removed the picture of Ramzi Yousef since not only is his origin unclear, but it is extremely, extremely offensive to have a terrorist displayed in this article as an example of the Baloch people. Whoever included it should be ashamed of themselves. SouthernComfort 12:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


User:Diyako and other anti-Iranian users will attempt to attack this page. They are attacking anything that has to do w ith Iran promoting anti-Iranianism. 02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Language Section Removed

Many errors are found here. First, the language of the Baloch is Balochi. Jadgali and Brahui are spoken by other ethnic groups. Some Baloch may speak these two languages (along with several others) and second languages, but there needs to be sources. Also, many of these tribal names that were mentioned need to be sourced because I was unnable to find those listed. Imperial78

An Iranian people?

The very first paragraph of this article says the Baloch "are an Iranian people".

The next paragraph says "the Baloch are mistakenly considered an Iranian people."

Can someone fix this? I lack the expertise. Richlumaui 20:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

They're an Iranian people, I've fixed the contradiction. Khoikhoi 08:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this is a major sticking point for the Balochi nationalist movement(s); a quick look at mentioned above repeatedly uses the term "non-Persian". I think we're running into a collision between overlapping terms for ethnicity and geography. The sources cited here indicate that the Balochi did originate in a geographical area now largely contained by the borders of the present republic of Iran, and moved somewhat eastward, and that what might be called "Balochistan" now overlaps mostly with the geographic borders of Pakistan. So the question seems to be, can we word it so that the geographic origins are Iranian, without implying that the ethnic origins are Persian? UltraNurd 15:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the term "Iranian people"(s) doesn't mean they are Persian or necessarily originated from them --Rayis 18:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

that's true Persians themselves are a group of Iranian people as many others. generalizing whole Iranian people to Persians maybe is because of their success and power through history among other Iranian Peoples that made them be more familiar by some Westners. Zahedani Baloch.

hindu balochis?

are there hindu balochis as well? 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC) yes there are. I have my one friend and his family in Sindh(Ranipur), his name is Raj Loond baloch. Unlike in most of Pakistan, Hindu's have a better time in Balochistan as they are less persecuted. although forced conversions are a problem in all of Pakistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tribal languages stuff

While fixing up disambig links, this paragraph caught my eye:

The Mazari the largest Baloch tribe in Rajanpur speak Balochi while the Leghari the largest Baloch tribe in Dera Ghazi Khan and Rahim Yar Khan speak Seraiki. The Leghari in Sindh speak Sindhi. The Talpur, Jatoi, Gabol, Lashari, Chandio, Bozdar, and other Baloch tribes settled in Sindh speak both Sindhi and Balochi. Nutkani Baloch one of ruling baloch tribe in region, living in the Mongrotha and near by area of Taunsa Sharif and in nearby area of Dera Ghazi Khan speak Saraiki Language. Malghani is famous caste of blaoch tribe which is sub cast of rind tribe and is located in 3 provinces of pakistan i.e in balochistan area of dera allah yar and dera murad jamali and sind in jacob abad and thul nau and in punjab balochistan border of suleman ranges mainly speak seraiki sindhi and balochi.

Can someone confirm accuracy/validity of this? In particular that last sentence seems rather incoherent. -- Hongooi 17:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

An iranian people?

Balochis are from iran, Pakistan and Asfghanistan.I dont mind terms like "persian" but Iran is a modern-day state as are Pakistan and Afghanistan.-Vmrgrsergr 05:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Iran is a 3000 year old state (at least) unlike two other countries mentioned: [please study about facts then comment, thank you] Sasan 15:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus most Balochis hate Iranians and dont associate themselves with anything Persian or the name. Culturally Baloch want nothing to do with Persians.

The other two countries have been inhabited by people for plus 3000 years as well, they're names may have changed over time, but the fact is people have lived there since time immemorial!!

Please understand that "Iranian" here is only a linguistic (or at most cultural) term. Blaochs are Iranian as the Swedes are German. Anyway what has Balochs ever done for the world civilization to be so arrogant? At least association with the Iranian Civilization would give you some credit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC) does not meet WP:RS. It should be replaced or removed. --Ronz 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Are they a majority in Sindh, in Pakistan?

I find it hard to believe this: "The Baloch do not only live in Balochistan (Pakistan) but also are in majority in Sindh" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Evilbu (talkcontribs) 16:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

They live in south west Panjab Pakistan too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

History section needs rewrite

When searching for information about the Balochs being descended from Sumerians or Semites from Syria, I have discovered that these claims, in fact, the entire section on the History of the Baloch people is copied verbatim from a Geocities site called Well come to Balouch History page. The entire section was plagiarized from this site, and these exact words are also found on a few other personal web pages and forum posts. The part about their origins is also very confusing. In the info-box, the article claims that their closest relatives are "Kurds and other Iranic groups." The article then claims that they may be related to Brahui and that Brahui is "a language of unknown origins with a lot of Iranic (mainly Balochi) loanwords" when it is clearly called a Dravidian language in the Brahui article. The uncited claims and the vagueness in this section are so awful that it would be possible to add every single tag on WP:CTT except for "no english" (but only because there were no sources at all). I have decided to replace it with parts of the History of the Baloch people article (which is better). Perhaps someone who knows more about the Balouch can edit it. (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

In fact this section makes no sense at all. It's not even english. Should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User keeps putting Shia and making a mess

I keep reverting a Shia Pakistani user, he keeps falsifying the article with adding Shia to the intro.--AllahLovesYou (talk) 01:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Mostly incorrect information

People, this page contains most of the vandalized and incorrect information at the moment. The languages similar to Baluchi can be found in well contributed and authentic pages Iranian Languages and present settlement of Baluch Sistan and Baluchestan province and later spread towards present Balochistan (region) and other places. Their origins is also widely accepted from Mesopotamia which had many cultures and Kurdish was one of them, Kurdish culture is closest to Baluchi because of the similarities example language and Baluchi music and instruments are all of Mesopotamian/Persian origins, Example Sorna, Dohol. Baluch what so ever share no culture with Arab people except in some places where they later settled. Please have a look at the previous page which was changed by admin who is I think sponsored by people who want to put their point of view. Also the Baluchi culture is well documented by Pir Mohamad M. Zehi who has traveled to Sistan and Baluchestan province and spoken to Baluchi people. Sistan va Baluchestan is of great significance to Baluch people and holds the secret of Baluch origins and any Baluch would know what I am saying.

There are also record of Darius of Persia sending his army to fight Sakas towards to protect his northeast borders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talkcontribs) 02:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

one of the examples: Word "Wash" in Baluchi is "Washte" in Kurdish and the word "Rind" which is a Baluchi tribe in Kurdish it means "Beautiful". —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talkcontribs) 02:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by BalochMedia (talkcontribs) 01:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC) 

Revision of Previous article

Hello. There has been reviewing of the previous article which has resulted in the current article due to extensive inaccuracies and personal religious or ethnic point of views. Please confirm the authentication of the article through sources provided. However, please note that Wikipedia is not a place to promote personal religious or political views and article should be based on facts.

Thank you.BalochMedia (talk) 04:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Kasperone undid your edit. He calls it vandalism, which isn't fair, because it looks like you put a lot of work into your edit and it seems to contain lots of useful information. But you shouldn't try to delete and rewrite a whole article from the ground up all by yourself unless you are a pretty experienced editor. I'm not going to reinstate your version because it has lots of problems of its own (non-free images, unsourced statements bordering on POV, messy grammar). Yes, the original article contains some garbage, but maybe it doesn't need to be burned to the ground? Try adding to the current article instead of replacing it. Or put your version in a sandbox and get some other editors to help you improve it there first. (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I had put enormous time and effort in the quality of the article. The reason for massive edit was that Wikipedia today is first and major source of knowledge for people, and you see this article first when you type Baloch people in any search engine. Have a look at articles Pashtoon_people and Punjabi_people which are a majority around that region. The reason behind lack of healthy contribution to this article is that Baloch people are a minority and illiteracy rate amongst them is 80%, the lands they inhabit are also largely under war. One thing that does not make sense is that previously this article contained many inaccuracies, some as far as personal attack which is still there under History section, but there has not been anyone correcting that. This article needs a massive edit in order to put at least some quality. Thanks BalochMedia (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

New Article!

Hello. Please kindly do not just revert the article and Also little mistakes can be corrected as sign of contribution rather then completely reverting the article. I have also kept sections from previous article to not have conflict with long staying editors reverting my work. Being stayed longer on Wikipedia does not allow to undermine others. If you still think I may be wrong please post it here. Please read through the sources to confirm authentication.

Thanks BalochMedia (talk) 20:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


The last paragraph of the section titled "Baloch people today" strays from the topic. This article isn't about "all Pakistan's crimes against various other peoples"; it's supposed to be about the Baloch people. I am sympathetic to the inclusion of material about Pakistan's treatment of the Bengali people on Wikipedia, but it doesn't fit into this article. Please find or create a more logical article to move that paragraph to. AtticusX (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Image to use

Hello, recently I have been having conflict with another editor over the title image of the page Baloch people. I understand that the image needs reference but what I do not understand is that the previous article on the same people contained so much of unreferenced and bias information but there was no intervention for many years. And since that article was replaced there has not been much healthy contribution and instead when I try to do something about it, my work is simply deleted by saying it is unreferenced, while I have provided sources to all my contribution.

Now the current title image undermines the article and when I change it, it is reverted. I think this article needs some attention from outside. When looking at the issue please also consider the geography of the people this article is about and the challenges that they face. From my research these people are a minority in all their present geography, largely uneducated (which also means little or no knowledge of the internet) and are currently under war. In that case it becomes very hard for me to keep working on it.

You may also want to have a look at the articles of majority forming people living adjacent the Baloch people. For example, Pashtoon people, Punjabi people.

Thanks for your help. Usualphonexs (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

baloch are kurds

baloch are kurds pls edit.

greets —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of the Persian Gates - why here?

The Battle of the Persian Gates is a great story and deserves to be told - however, what the heck is it doing here when, as stated in the caption to Persiangatesmap.gif, Iranian Baluchestan is over 800 km away! I would not include a map of the Battle of New York in an article about Montreal; nor a map of Paris in an article about Marseilles.DavisGL (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

big question ?

baloch people are related to hz. hamzah (rd) the uncle of the prophet muhmmad sallallahu alayhi wasallam ? Wikipadia not gave a perfect answer about it. Some line said that they are iranian and travelled us to the alexzander the great time line.and some line said that the mix of hz.hamza (rd)and kurds.if the baloch are iranian so they are never related to the hazarat hamza (rd).gave a perfect refrance please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

big question 2

when we click on to the any tribe like bugti,rind,mari etc so the wikipedia show a relation of baluch an amir hamza (rd). And in baloch origine and history section the wiki shows baloch are iranian group and as i said as above if the baloch are iranian so they never releted with hz hamza (rd). please solve and then make a currection in hestory and origion. (I am also a rindi baloch from gujarat and related to mir chakar khan via a king of the radhanpur family. This family are came india with baber.and lget a very respectable job in mughal army as sipah salar,amir of group of army,senapati,etc but than gone against the emprero akabar for its wrost religon deen-e-ilahi.then leave empreror akbar army and came in gujarat in radhanpur(in that time gujarat not in muhal kingdom)and chellenge muhal army to fight but we do not accept deen e ilahi and we also fought with the prince salim aginst the emreror akabar.and the famous fight is between prince salim and emreror akabar is not for the anarkali it is a false talse.this fight is for the empreror akabar's deen e great work of mujedded alfesani (rh) and at last akabar leave destroy the deen e ilahi) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

baloch people

baloch culture waheed sajan badini, says about baloch culture baloch people like simple life example montanse and simple thinker.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

This article is a joke

With forced POV's and hardly any reputable sources to back up it up. One part of this article claims Balochi's coming in from different areas in the 9th century and were mentioned by Arabs. Since when did Arabs mention Balochi's in the 9th century if the word first appears in the 10th century in the shahnameh by Ferdxowsi? A lot stuff on this article is exaggerated mostly by Balochi's themselves and and as well there is an irrelevant map showing baloch tribes in the time of alexander the great. This is wrong because there were no Balochi people back in Baluchistan in that long ago! This article needs serious clean up! Akmal94 (talk) 06:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2015

The first time the Baloch appear in the Shahnameh is where the kōč-o-balōč are mentioned as warriors in the army of Siavash, who was preparing for a campaign against the Turanian Shah Afrasiab. The second attestation concerns the presence of kōč-o-balōč in the army of Key Khosrow – also fighting against the Turanians. But the clearer attestation of the Baloch is in the section dedicated to Khosrau I, a historically existing king, fighting the Baloch who are described as staging a revolt against him. Khosrau launches a campaign to punish them; afterwards he turns to Gilan to suppress the rebellion of the Dailamites.[1] (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 21:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Boyajian, Vahe S. "The Baloch According to Ferdowsi". Fravahr. Retrieved 1 May 2015.

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2015

The following paragraph should be added in the History section, after the second parapgraph ("However, based on an analysis of the lingistic connections...occurred over several centuries."):

The first time the Baloch appear in the Shahnameh is where the kōč-o-balōč are mentioned as warriors in the army of Siavash, who was preparing for a campaign against the Turanian Shah Afrasiab. The second attestation concerns the presence of kōč-o-balōč in the army of Key Khosrow – also fighting against the Turanians. But the clearer attestation of the Baloch is in the section dedicated to Khosrau I, a historically existing king, fighting the Baloch who are described as staging a revolt against him. Khosrau launches a campaign to punish them; afterwards he turns to Gilan to suppress the rebellion of the Dailamites.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


  1. ^ Boyajian, Vahe S. "The Baloch According to Ferdowsi". Fravahr. Retrieved 1 May 2015.
 Done I went ahead and added this, but, as a disclaimer, I am not very familiar with this topic so this might need to be reviewed by someone who is. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, the IP might want to have a look at the article History of the Baloch people and improve that if they can. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 18:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Not done. Or to be more precise, undone by me. Even the reference given by the IP (a book that can be downloaded as a PDF, as I did) says that the kings named in Shahnameh in connection with the early mentions of the Baloch are mythical, and not historical persons, and myths don't belong in the history section of any article. Thomas.W talk 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
to Thomas.W : please read carefully the article. The two first kings are mythical (legendary, more precisely), but the third, -- Khosrau I -- is real. Furthermore, Shahnamh, as the work of Herodotus mix legends with real history. Can you discard Herodotus because he associates myths with history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
No, but I can disregard the parts that have been proven to be myths. As I did now with Shahnameh. Thomas.W talk 19:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
However, the first sentence of the same History section begins with "According to Balochi myths". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
In that case a good cleanup of the article is needed, to weed out the myths. But it's not an excuse for adding even more myths.. Thomas.W talk 19:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ngram for "Balochs"

The plural demonym "Balochs" is more common to be used for these people per Ngram. And it is more WP:CONCISE. Per WP:ETHNICGROUP#Ethnic groups, "Balochs" is the optimal title for this page. Khestwol (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You'll have British English-speakers smirking: it's similar enough to a common expletive to make it look like a hoax article lifted from a popular low-grade 1960s comedy movie. But seriously...looking at Google books searches I think Balochis is more common than Balochs in the WP:RS. WP:COMMONAME. DeCausa (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
DeCausa, "Balochis" is another option that I didn't think about before. But to me, "Balochs" is alright, and common enough. It seems to be more WP:CONCISE, too Khestwol (talk) 12:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
The main reason why this article was moved from "Baloch people" was because "Balochs" fulfills the preference about conciseness after all. Khestwol (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Balochis does seem to have twice the returns as Balochs on Google books - and per WP:COMMONNAME the overiding policy requirement is to have the most common name. But I don't have any strong views and will leave it at that. DeCausa (talk) 12:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Ok thank you DeCausa. Khestwol (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
However, the most WP:COMMONNAME seems to be "Baluchis" per Google Ngram. It is common by a far bigger margin. I can favor a move to "Baluchis" if anyone wants. Khestwol (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
DeCausa, do you want to move this page to "Baluchis"? I am now in favor of the spelling "Baluchis" per Google Ngram. Khestwol (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that's probably right - but then there's several related articles that use "baloch" as the stem Balochistan, History of the Baloch people, Balochi music, Balochi cuisine, Baloch diaspora, Balochi language, etc although there is already Baluch rug. Adopting the "u" could result in a WP:CONSISTENCY problem. DeCausa (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

─────────────────────────DeCausa, consistency won't be a problem after all the moves. We can move most articles which use the spelling "Baloch" within their titles. We can for example move "Balochi language" to "Baluchi language" per Google Ngram. We can also use the spelling "Baluchistan" for the "Baluch" region. I guess that now, only one article can stay that uses the spelling "Baloch" within its title: Balochistan, Pakistan. Because only for that province the spelling "Balochistan" seems more common. It seems that even for the Pakistani province, the spelling "Baluchistan" is more common. Google Books for "Baluchistan" AND "Pakistan" gets "About 267,000 results". Compare to only "About 83,500 results" for "Balochistan" AND "Pakistan". Therefore Balochistan, Pakistan can be also moved to Baluchistan, Pakistan per Wikipedia guidelines. Khestwol (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

What about List of Baloch tribes? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Jeraphine Gryphon, of course List of Baloch tribes can be moved to List of Baluch tribes. Per the guideline at WP:COMMONNAME, we on Wikipedia will start referring to the ethnic group as "Baluch" in singularand "Baluchis" in plural. Khestwol (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Baloch people and Iranian ????

Baluch people are not Iranian people, its lie, I am Baluch but never Iranian, just Baluch.-- (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Iranian in this context doesn't meant "from Iran". – Uanfala (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 September 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Baloch peopleBaluchis – Per WP:COMMONNAME. As per this discussion above, as well as this discussion. According to Google Ngram, the plural ethnonym "Baluchis" is more common, not only than the current title "Baloch people", but even than the singular term "Baloch". Plus, "Baluchis" being plural is totally unambiguous, so I see no problem with moving to "Baluchis", as per WP:ETHNICGROUP. Other ethnic group articles also use plural ethnonyms as titles (without adding "people") when they are available and unambiguous, for example Swedes, Pashtuns, Tajiks, Koreans, etc. Khestwol (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support as nom. Khestwol (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – The proper term is either Balochs or Baluchs, not "Baluchis". RGloucester 23:12, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment: English language sources most commonly refer to the ethnic group as "Baluchis". In Google Books search, "Baluchis" gets about 1,340 results, but "Balochs" gets about 596 results, "Baluchs" gets about 464 results, "Balochis" gets about 735 results, "Baluch people" gets about 353 results, and "Baloch people" gets about 513 results. So very clearly, the WP:COMMONNAME is "Baluchis". Khestwol (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above by RGloucester; coming from a local user, "Baluchis" is not really a (linguistically) correct term. Instead, the proper term is "Baloch" (or "Baluch") and that term is usually used in both the singular and plural sense. So it would be better if the title is moved to Baloch, as that is how the Baloch refer to themselves, and it would not be problematic as it would be clearly distinguished from "Balochi", which only refers to the language in Balochistan. Also, it is preferable that the spelling of the title be "Baloch" instead of "Baluch" since the former is more common than the latter (which is outdated). The Pakistani province of Balochistan is spelt with an "o" officially rather than a "u". And if we consider internet search results, Google shows 10.8 million results for "Baloch" compared to only 470,000 results for "Baluch", and 5.85 million results for "Balochistan" compared to only 719,000 results for "Baluchistan". Mar4d (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mar4d. Move to Baloch instead, the modern term is Baloch not Baluch, and Baluchis is technically wrong. Faizan (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The above opposes are not based on policy. We don't go by "proper term", "(linguistically) corect term" or whether it is "technically wrong". We go by WP:COMMONNAME, and, to date, only Khestwol has adduced evidence as to what that is. DeCausa (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I should have added that Mar4d's searches aren't relevant: they are of cognates not the actual words in issue, and, in any event, a bare google search is inferior to a google books' search because of the likelihod of a much higher non-RS content. DeCausa (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
  • @DeCausa: If we go by WP:COMMONNAME, you are incorrect, and it is also apparent that Khestwol has probably misinterpreted the search results. Books shows around 1,540 results for "Baloch" compared to 1,480 for "Baluch". Scholar turns up 22,000 uses of "Baloch" compared to around 12,300 for "Baluch". These are with quotation marks; searching without those would of course multiply the results and 'Baloch' has far more usage. By the way, I don't think Google hits are the only way to ascertain term usage. If we follow the widely accepted convention, Balochistan is officially spelt with 'o' instead of 'u'(Government of Balochistan). WP:ETHNICGROUP tells us to use the most common term as the article name. "Baluch" is lesser common. Also, most notable Baloch personalities use the former in their surnames, eg. Abdul Malik Baloch, Abdul Qadir Baloch, Allah Nazar Baloch, Sanam Baloch, Habib Jalib Baloch and others. Mar4d (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
No, that's incorrect. Firstly, "Baluch" isn't what's proposed. So your comparators aren't relevant. As far as I can see Khestwol's post remains the best assessment of WP:COMMONNAME in this thread. Secondly, "if we follow widely accepted convention": yes, for COMMONNAME we're trying to ascertain what is "widely accepted" by RS, hence the use of google searches. But " officially spelt with": no, as expressly stated in COMMONNAME, what the "official" position is, is a different matter and is not relevant. That sentence contradicts itself. Thirdly, WP:ETHNICGROUP tells us the same thing as COMMONNAME, so that doesn't add anything new. Fourthly, usage by particular individuals doesn't have much of a bearing on COMMONNAME. DeCausa (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You cited WP:COMMONNAME, so I showed which variation of the spelling has more uses, which "Baluch" doesn't (as you supported the latter). So I deduce we have an agreement that the title which meets WP:COMMONNAME shall be retained. As for the plural, I've already mentioned above that "Balochis" (or "Baluchis") is incorrect so the article cannot be moved to that. You don't refer to the Baloch as 'Balochs' or 'Balochis' in plural, it is just Baloch; just as English people aren't called "Englishs". Just because some sources use 'Balochis' incorrectly, it doesn't make the term correct. The WP:COMMONNAME argument would also be a faux in this case, as WP:COMMONNAME doesn't apply to a fake term. Mar4d (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You're missing the point. There is no such thing as a "fake term" for the purposes of COMMONNAME provided it is used by RS, and clearly Baluchis is used. You are making reference to words whuch aren't actually proposed, but are cognates of those that are. I've yet to see an answer to Khestwol's google book searches, but I'll keep this page watchlisted in case someone addresses the point. DeCausa (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
You refuse to understand the point. Clearly, you haven't proven that Baluchis meets WP:COMMONTERM. I've also proven you incorrect on the Google Book searches, in addition to the usage below and other examples. You haven't substantiated any references to support your argument. Since this is digressing into unreasonable wikilawyering, I'm going to leave it at that. Mar4d (talk) 20:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That's fine with me. I'll keep watch in case anyone comes up with a policy-based response to Khestwol's post. DeCausa (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Here's a helpful snippet from Dawn newspaper explaining the confusion between "Baloch" and "Balochi": Baloch & Balochi (quote: However, a mistake was observed in the report which, I think, is the result of not knowing the difference between the words Baloch and Balochi.. The first formula is based on the region where one derives his identity and thus refers to it. For this ‘i or ies’ is added. For instance, the people of Punjab, Sindh and Gilgit are identified as Punjabi, Sindhi, and Gilgiti. The second formula is based on genealogy and the people are identified through their ancestral or founding names. Pakhtun/Pashtun and Baloch come in this category.. To address them as Pakhtuni and Balochi is incorrect because they are not regions. The common misconception observed is calling the Baloch people as Balochi. To correct it: Balochi is the language) Mar4d (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I was clued in to this discussion as I left this page in my watchlist after just two minor edits to the page. I'll refrain from specific polling, as I bring with me no specific knowledge about transliteration of Perso-Arabic script, Balochi phonology, or pronunciation in Pakistani English (not to say any of that is specifically relevant in deciding what to name the article, rather just some of the complicating factors necessitating this conversation in the first place). However, I was curious about the Ngram results Khestwol linked in the original nomination, and noticed that the unsmoothed/raw data show that (1) "Baluchis" hasn't consistently been the most-used term since the early 20th century and (2) very recent references show no clear preference for either "Baloch" and "Baluch". A huge jump in the use of "Baluch" in the early 80s, coincident with the USSR's intervention in Afghanistan, effects the shape of the trend pretty significantly if you smooth to anything greater than 10 years. See What does "smoothing" mean? in the Ngram FAQ at the bottom of the page. Cheers, Peloneoustc 00:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Proposal for the deletion of all the galleries of personalities from the articles about ethnic groups

Seemingly there is a significant number of commentators which support the general removal of infobox collages. I think there is a great opportunity to get a general agreement on this matter. It is clear that it has to be a broad consensus, which must involve as many editors as possible, otherwise there is a big risk for this decision to be challenged in the near future. I opened a Request for comment process, hoping that more people will adhere to this proposal. Please comment here. TravisRade (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not an RfC and it doesn't follow the RfC process. It's just a collection of opinions and has no authority. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The RfC was opened correctly. please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups#Proposal_for_the_deletion_of_all_the_galleries_of_personalities_from_the_infoboxes_of_articles_about_ethnic_groups. Dkfldlksdjaskd (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Baloch Language and Balochistan

Baloch people speaks balochi only and Brahui is the second language spoken in the tribes of Baluchistan. Balochistan was never a part of Pakistan and Iran it was a Independent Land from centuries.

Mhblooshi (talk) 15:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Baloch and Baluchistan never been a part of Iran and Pakistan. Balochi Language is branch of indo Iranian language but Baloch Origin and culture is totally different from the Persian and Paki people. Mhblooshi (talk) 15:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge: Baloch tribes and Baloch people

There was once a page titled List of Baloch tribes, which has since been moved and renamed as "Baloch tribes", a plausible merge candidate. Would it be viable and worthwhile to merge the Baloch tribes content to this article? Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose I think there's enough scholarship to support separate articles. Curro2 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support There isn't very much scholarship at all. Most of the content is/was unsourced or poorly, and the same applies to the numerous related articles, eg: Baloch music. - Sitush (talk) 03:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The 1881 census was removed because...? I'm not sure I understand the standard you are going by for citation reliability. Curro2 (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per points 1 and 2 of WP:NOPAGE. Judging solely by the current state and poor sourcing of both articles, the properly sourced material from each article should be combined to make a single article. If both articles could be expanded with good sources, there might be reason to keep them separate. But as they stand now, merge.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 18:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per point 3 of WP:MERGEREASON. Going on the current state of the two articles, there simply isn't enough RS content, nor a discernible rationale, for two short articles to exist as stand-alones. As noted by other editors, there are further articles (such as History of the Baloch people) only serving to dissipate the subject matter even further. Once/if reliably sourced content demands splits, they can easily be discussed and implemented. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2016

AliBaloch11 (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC) The population of baloch is so much But It is totally wrong on the wikepedia

Please state UNAMBIGUOUSLY your suggested changes. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 16:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 17:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baloch people. 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:

  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 20:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


Burfat is one of the best tribe in Sindh Pakistan. And very brave people of "Burfat" tribe. Sardar Malik Asad Sikander Khan burfat is the head of Burfat tribe. This tribe live in the border of Sindh Balochistan and in the Khirthar mountain. Many years ago the Burfat's win fight against mengals and take the area of NAI BARAN. Kohustan's most powerfull cast is burfat. There are many branches of this cast: Hamalani Hasanai Lalani Mochija Shehna And many others. Ali Hassan Burfat (talk) 05:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Infinite Recursion

Clicking on the "Main article: History of the Baloch people" link under the "History" section just takes you back to the top of the article, because "History of the Baloch people" redirects to "Baloch People." Either the link should be removed or someone should make a separate history page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Baloch people. 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:

  • Added archive;wap2 to;wap2
  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).


☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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) 20:22, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Baloch people

Magsi tribe is major tribe of jhal magsi district, Nawab Zulfiqar Ali Magsi is current Nawab and head of Magsi tribe, Bhutani, admani, heesbani, shanbani are major grouos of magsi tribe Shoaib168 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2017

The articles is inaccurate, lacking and of low quality. "The Baloch and balochistan" by naseer dashti is a book of questionable authenticity. The page used to be horrible but it had few good things going for it that were removed too sadly. It is lacking in pictures too. It used to have some useful ones but they were removed. Like "A traditional Balochi dress worn by a teenage girl.", "Some jewellery traditional to Baluch women.", "View of a beach in Makran region.", "Iranian languages family tree" among other pictures. There is a lack of reliable information in regarding of communities, culture, language, history, religion, homeland, gallery and more. Put a picture of Dost Mohammad Baloch and talk about him. Talk about the Khans of Kalat. Talk about the Baluch participation with Afghans in their wars against the Persians and the Sikh. Like the Hotak conquest of Persia or the third battle of Panipat. Talk about the Talpur dynasty (Kurds are allowed to have the Ayyubids on their page). About the Baluch and the Omani aid against the Portuguese in Zanzibar. Talk about the Baluch states, clans and tribes. Talk about the Baluch and the Steppe nomads/invaders, Persians, British, Arabs Pakistan, Sindhis, Punjabis, Afghans, Pashtuns and so on. Talk about the Baluchi language. About Baluch culture. The tribal heritage. The music and the local instruments like Benju, Suroz or the Saz. Talk about the food like Kaak, Sajji, Dampukht and so much more. Talk about Hena. Talk about the The traditions and celebrations like the Eids and Nowruz. Say how the Baluch speak both Baluchi and Brahui. Talk about the Baluch and poetry. The Baluch Sagas. About Mir Chakar Rind or Hani and Sheh Mureed. Talk about the folk. Talk about the clothes (The ones in the article right now are not Baluch clothes). Talk about the Baluch code of honor. Talk about Baluch traditional dances. Talk about traditional sports like Buzkashi, horse racing, Ji or chauk. Talk about how Baluch founded Kolachi which became later on Karachi. talk about the tribal heritage. Talk about the Baluch migration waves. Talk about Baluchistan. Talk about the migrations and the history behind them. Baluch in Oman, UAE, Persia, Punjab, Sindh, Turkmenistan and East Africa. Put pictures this time, useful ones please. Discuss the origin in a more acadamic manner. Put a section for genetics. Put a gallery. Why do the Kurds have such well made page and the Baluch don't? I know what I typed is not well done but it is because I fear it will be all for nothing so I am not putting effort into it. I would have done it my self but I am not an established user so I can't edit. Please improve the page. (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for this overall sketch of what the article should contain. You're welcome to propose any specific additions you would like to be made to it. And if you create an account, then after a couple of days and at least 10 edits to other pages, you'd be able to make these additions yourself. – Uanfala 18:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baloch people. 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:

  • Added archive to

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

☑Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 06:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Baluch or Balouch

Shouldn't the title of the last photo on the page state Baluch man (instead of Balouch)?

Jan Vlug (talk) 07:19, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Changed it to "Baloch", which is the spelling that the Baloch themselves prefer. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Tribes in Pakistan

Uanfala, I agree with the sentiments expressed by SheriffIsInTown. Ideally, we need to have here, the names of the tribes populating Balochistan, and the regions they inhabit. Instead of blanking the whole section, we can keep the information that seems ok, and tag the section as "incomplete" so that some kind soul might come by to fill it in.

The information is pretty hard to find. So we would need some really diligent editors knowledgeable about the topic, which might take years to happen. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Of course we need an overview of the tribes and their areas! But the fragmented hodgepodge we've got doesn't bring us anywhere near that. The article is better if it doesn't list the tribes than if it lists a small and arbitrary selection. Anyway, if you or other editors are happy with this text, then I'm leaving it for you to work on and look after. – Uanfala (talk) 09:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
And as for the information being hard to find: that's definitely the case for who the current tribal leaders are (I thought there was agreement this doesn't belong here?), but that's not the case for the distribution of the tribes: there's a good overview in pretty much the first place one would look online. – Uanfala (talk) 10:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2018

2003:E0:672C:A29A:D4C4:23A:B59B:5E98 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Notable Baloch people

Theroadislong if you go into the wikipedia page of all those people which I wrote under the notable baloch people section, you can check yourself that they all are from Baloch ethnicity. I don't think they need any additional reference when those figures have their own page on wikipedia. And moreover, those all pages also mention that they are from baloch ethnicity. Alibaloshi12 (talk) 12:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok I've added it back, but I still think it requires referencing. Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I will add references to support it. Alibaloshi12 (talk) 13:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I think you should have to put all baloch tribes information and also mention the names of these tribes as per their locality. Balochistan...Sindh...Punjab.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

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:

  • Flag of Balochistan.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Baloch Population in India

India has a significant population of Baloch people inhabiting multiple regions for centuries. Please provide a credible source of information to include this subject in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aspenheitz (talkcontribs) 21:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Weird sentence under the History section

>>According to Professor Baloch, the climate of Balochistan was very cold and the region was inhabitable during the winter so the Baloch people migrated in waves and settled in Sindh and Punjab.[25]<<

Does this sentence make sense? If the region was very cold, was it hard to inhabit? And was this then a reason for them to migrate?

This sentence right now doesn't make sense to me. There seems to be some sort of contrast that doesn't work.

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Baloch people"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA