Talk:Gilgit Agency

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

Overhauled and added to category[edit]

This article has been overhauled and included in the Historical regions of Pakistan series as an attempt to catalogue former states, provinces and territories of Pakistan. Green Giant 03:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see your point. You're right, the article has been refined, but it wasn't clear enough on the Gilgit Agency page that the Gilgit Agency is now a part of Northern Areas, there is no sentence on this page that refers to the article Northern Areas. (Although it's mentioned on the Northern Areas page.)
Otherwise, you're right, the two articles stand on their own. How about adding a conspicuous sentence on top of the Gilgit Agency article? I would say that the Northern Areas page is just fine the way it is.
And I saw a couple of articles referring to Gilgit Agency, and not to Northern Areas, in a way that created more confusion. Also, the Gilgit article refers not to Gilgit city, but "Gilgit region", not specifying whether it's about the district, or Gilgit agency... It also states, "Gilgit has an area of 14,680 mi² (38,021 km²).", it is not specified whether it's the area of district or Gilgit Agency. It needs refinement as well. Waqas.usman 00:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Strongly Oppose the merger. They are different and should exist in two separate articles. --Spasage 07:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, read my comments above, the Gilgit Agency article doesn't point it out conspicuously that Gil. Ag. is now part of Northern Areas. (It only mentions it down below) See my concluding statement above. Waqas.usman 14:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely inaccurate article[edit]

Gilgit Agency was a British administrative unit that existed from the 1870's until independence. It included administration of these territories, but was not a soveriegn entity. There is lots of interesting history that could be written about it - but none of it is here. Most of the "facts" in this article deal with pre and post British era history- and no a history of the actual "British agency". This article needs intensive care!Vontrotta (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I've done the best I can to make clear that the term Gilgit Agency was used to describe two different political and territorial units at different times. The post 1947 "Gilgit Agency" is adequately described in the Northern Areas article, but the British "Gilgit Agency" is very sparsely descibed here (the only "facts" that I incorporate were included in some other linked wiki articles.) To make this article really useful, it would be good if some sme could add some detail about the british period.Vontrotta (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gilgit Agency. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 23:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gilgit Agency. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:23, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gilgit Agency. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 14:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Gilgit Agency[edit]

AnM2002 what was the reason behind you reverting the Gilgit Agency page. The source of this content is in the book by [1] Major William Brown there is a link to the actual book at the bottom of the e page that I put in as a source. You could read the entire book there. The text from the Treaty of Lahore is already on Wikipedia. It clearly states the boundries. Johnleeds1 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnleeds1: be more specific, the source you provided in the reference clearly proves that it was violating WP:NPOV and WP:RS. If you think adding flawed opinion pieces from a 'retired Pakistani armyman' is not in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:5P then you need to take a break!! AnM2002 (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book is called "Gilgit Rebelion: The Major Who Mutinied Over Partition of India by William Brown." This is the book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gilgit-Rebellion-Major-Mutinied-Partition-ebook/dp/B00OZ3HYV6
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Gilgit-Rebellion-Major-Mutinied-Partition/dp/1473821878
William Alexander Brown MBE
I only posted that link because at the bottom of that page there is a link to the book and you could read the book your self. You could also get it from Amazon. It has a lot of information. The text of the Treaty of Lahore is already on Wikipedia. It clearly states the boundries. Article IV of Treaty of Lahore mentions the land between the Rivers Beas and Indus. Gilgit is on the River Gilgit not on the River Indus. River Gilgit is west of River Indus. Read the text of Treaty of Lahore and then look on the maps your self. Johnleeds1 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The book is a WP:PRIMARY source and cannot be used for anything on Wikipedia, given the strong WP:POV involved. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me also remind you that, as an editor of Wikipedia, you are expected to uphold WP:NPOV. Treating a "major that mutinied" as the ultimate bearer of truth means that you need to look at yourself and question what you are doing here. Back in the good old days of the empire, mutineers were hanged. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnleeds1: take some time off and go through Basics of citation on Wikipedia. You can't expect others to visit a 'biased opinion piece' and then find your supposed source there. AnM2002 (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a 'biased opinion piece'. If you read the text of the Treaty of Lahore it says hill countries, which are situated between the Rivers Beas and Indus:

:IV. The British Government having demanded from the Lahore State, as indemnification for the expenses of the war, in addition to the cession of territory described in Article 3, payment of one and half crore of Rupees, and the Lahore Government being unable to pay the whole of this sum at this time, or to give security satisfactory to the British Government for its eventual payment, the Maharajah cedes to the Honourable Company, in perpetual sovereignty, as equivalent for one crore of Rupees, all his forts, territories, rights and interests in the hill countries, which are situated between the Rivers Beas and Indus, including the Provinces of Cashmere and Hazarah.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilgit_Agency&oldid=1202292289"