Talk:1988 Gilgit massacre

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1988 Gilgit Massacre. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20140605060046/http://urdutahzeeb.net/articles/blog1.php?p=15659&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1 to http://urdutahzeeb.net/articles/blog1.php?p=15659&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources for Osama Bin Laden's involvement
I've noticed that all of the sources claiming Osama Bin Laden was involved come from one Journalist, B. Raman. Searching for more sources on google brought up a few more articles, but yet again all were by B. Raman. Is there any evidence of his involvement outside the claims of B. Raman? Or is there any credible evidence presented by B. Raman? In all the articles he only briefly mentions that OBL was involved. Fredepd (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @ I ran a quick Google search and am also having trouble finding sources that are not linked to B. Raman either. (BTW, B. Raman wassnt a journalist, he was in fact a founder of India's spy agency, the Research and Analysis Wing. Indian news sites commemorated his death, with an article in The Hindu referring to him as "A perfect spy")


 * I thought I had found a 2009 book edited by K. Warikoo that may have offered another source for the claim, but it turns out B Raman also wrote the chapter in that book. See below for more issues regarding the reliablity of B Raman. Willard84 (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * When several other sources like consider him reliable enough to be mentioned then we should too. You can never expect an official report on this matter either way. Excelse (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * We are looking for any corroborating source. The one you quoted even included Raman's name right after the allegation. The information presented by Raman is not supported by other sources, nor does Raman even expand on his theory. Even a quick google search for this alleged "Karakoram State" yields precious little.Willard84 (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Gilgit Massacre 1988
This was posted at another page in this diff; I have moved it here Jytdog (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet User:Towns Hill on December 31 2016 added a large section about OBL's involvement in the Gilgit Massacre 1988. He extensively plagiarized material, copying entire paragraphs word-for-word. As User:Fredepd correctly noted on the talk page for the Gilgit Massacre Talk:Gilgit Massacre 1988, all allegations about OBL's involvement stems from a single source, B. Raman, who was a founder of India's spy agency, the Research and Analysis Wing. India's prestigious The Hindu newspaper called him "A perfect spy" at the time of his death.

There are no sources that can corroborate this accusation. I thought I had found a 2009 book edited by K. Warikoo that may have offered another source for the claim, but it turns out B Raman also wrote the chapter in that book. See below for more issues regarding the reliablity of B Raman.

As noted on the talk page from that site:

In his Outlook India piece, B. Raman states:

" Faced with a revolt by the Shias of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), under occupation by the Pakistan Army, for a separate Shia State called the Karakoram State"

I can find absolutely no references to this alleged revolt aside from works which directly quote B Raman's work. I can't even find any information about this "Karakoram State" that does stem from this intelligence officer.

I found a 2009 book "Himalayan Frontiers of India: Historical, Geo-Political and Strategic Perspectives" which I thought might be a corroborating source, yet it turns out that the section was again written by B Raman. In it he states that Shias agitated for a separate autonomous state, but nothing about a revolt (which he mentioned in his 2003 article). The author's tone is also highly biased with weasel wording, which isn't unexpected given the fact that he was a former Indian government official

I also found a Self-Published book The General and Jihad: Pakistan Under Musharraf which mentions this issue, but it offers no source for its claims. Further, it states the revolt was suppressed by General Musharraf (not Zia ul Haq), and that the Shias were demanding an independent state, which is another claim I cant find support for elsewhere. Again, it is a self published book. It was written by "Wilson John," and published by "Wilson John", so it's not entirely surprising that the author confused Musharraf for Zia, and embellished Raman's claim to state that the Shias were not just agitating for an autonomous state, but instead for an independent state.

Can anyone else find information regarding this that doesnt quote B Raman/Outlook India as a source? Preferably a source written prior to Raman's 2003 article so we can be sure the source didnt indirectly quote Raman. If no one can find a reliable source for these serious allegations, the entire Gilgit Massacre section should be erased.

Willard84 (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if you'll note, another user, Excelse, himself blocked as a sock puppet in Nov 2015 and somehow back on WIkipedia, has been restoring the poorly written Gilgit Massacre page, and has even restored large pieces of plagiarized material. Willard84 (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Willard84 The above contribution doesn't belong on this page, which is just to discuss the content of the help page Help:Edit summary. I was going to move it to Talk:1988 Gilgit Massacre, but I think you are here referring to some other article that has a section on that massacre. Please move your contribution to the talk page of that article Noyster (talk),  08:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of B. Raman as a source
B. Raman was a founder of India's Research and Analysis Wing, which immediately throws his reliability as a source into question. The Hindu called him "A perfect spy" as well, which doesnt help his credibility as a scholarly source. Anyway, in his Outlook India piece, B. Raman states:

" Faced with a revolt by the Shias of the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), under occupation by the Pakistan Army, for a separate Shia State called the Karakoram State"

I can find absolutely no references to this alleged revolt aside from works which directly quote B Raman's work. I can't even find any information about this "Karakoram State" that does stem from this intelligence officer.

I found a 2009 book "Himalayan Frontiers of India: Historical, Geo-Political and Strategic Perspectives" which I thought might be a corroborating source, yet it turns out that the section was again written by B Raman. In it he states that Shias agitated for a separate autonomous state, but nothing about a revolt (which he mentioned in his 2003 article). The author's tone is also highly biased with weasel wording, which isn't unexpected given the fact that he was a former Indian government official

I also found a Self-Published book The General and Jihad: Pakistan Under Musharraf which mentions this issue, but it offers no source for its claims. Further, it states the revolt was suppressed by General Musharraf (not Zia ul Haq), and that the Shias were demanding an independent state, which is another claim I cant find support for elsewhere. Again, it is a self published book. It was written by "Wilson John," and published by "Wilson John", so it's not entirely surprising that the author confused Musharraf for Zia, and embellished Raman's claim to state that the Shias were not just agitating for an autonomous state, but instead for an independent state.

Can anyone else find information regarding this that doesnt quote B Raman/Outlook India as a source? Preferably a source written prior to Raman's 2003 article so we can be sure the source didnt indirectly quote Raman. Willard84 (talk) 07:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * This information that you are unnecessarily removing comes way before Raman, and what about ? None of them cite Raman. You should now self-revert since your demand has been fulfilled. Excelse (talk)


 * This is absolutely NOT the information we are looking for.
 * Your first source actually does cite Raman


 * Your second source mentions OBL in passing when making a completely different point - this isn't an article about OBL's involvement in Gilgit at all. She also gives NO SOURCES at all, so you can't say that Raman was not cited, unless you say Emily Hunt is a primary source who witness the events herself. So this doesn't count. You have to show that her source was someone other than Raman, not that she merely did not mention Raman. For all you know, her "silent" source is Raman. And it appears this is most likely given how his name seems to always creep up in sources that give citations.


 * Your third source also shows no source for this claim. So again, same issue as above. There is no citation, no reference, nothing. Not to anyone. But most likely is also citing B Raman since no one else seems to be making this OBL claim without referencing Raman. What also interesting is that this source (published April 2017, after the info was added to this page) uses the same language noted on the Wikipedia article. Laden and his "hordes," suggesting that the author may have plagiarized from Wikipedia. Which may explain why he gave no citation. And speaking of credibility, the eBook's description is given as "This book gives the involvement of Pakistan in spreading Terrorism across South Asia." The wording is poor, and reveals the authors intention to slander Pakistan.


 * Your last source last article actually does cite Raman SEVERAL times too. What's even odder is that you totally didnt notice is that the author even discounted B.Raman's credibility by calling him "controversial", and also takes Raman's claims with a grain of salt by adding the phrase "even alleges". Alleges. Not "according to."


 * The fact that 2 of your 4 examples actually do cite Raman (one of which actually discounts his credibility), while the other 2 offer no sources at all, shows how this theory really does come back to Raman. No one else seems to make this allegation independently - they all appear to reflect what Raman wrote.
 * On the other hand, we have several citations regarding the Gilgit Massacre which make no mention of OBL at all. Don't you think that OBL would be mentioned if he were involved?


 * 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (and this is from SATP, not exactly pro-Pakistan), 8.


 * There are literally dozens of books that go into great detail about OBL's life. Authors have examined his life in and out. Why can you not find a single reputable one that mentions Gilgit Massacre? Do you think his alleged involvement in the massacre of hundreds of Shias after being personally shuttled in by the Pakistani Army slipped their attention? His dealings with the Pakistani Army in the 1980s is quite well-documented, to the point that we even know which high-ranking officials he met as part of the CIA-Pakistan funded Afghan war. Do you not think this information about the Pak Army shuttling him in to kill hundreds of its own civilians would have been posted all over the world after his capture in Abbottabad? It seems like a pretty important piece of information, yet no one seems to be making this claim other than the "controversial" Raman. Even Christine Fair, who has written a book on the ill-dealings of the Pakistani Army doesn't ever make this claim, yet such a claim would immediately bolster her stance against the Pak Army.
 * Willard84 (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It cites Raman as source for "Harkat ul-Mujahideen", not Osama. You first asked if there are sources that doesn't cite Raman as source for this information, I gave you, and you also asked if they date before Raman 2004, I gave that too. Yes some sources will not mention Osama, but that doesn't means that he was not involved. Excelse (talk) 11:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Then please show us the citation that was used for the Osama comment, because Ramen's name has been cited a few times in the book, and you're posting to a book that only offers snippets for public view. The 2003 date was for the Outlook article, though actually the allegation may have arisen before that. And see below for why it seems very unlikely that so many authors would mention the massacre, and even the involvement of other generals, but seem to neglect of the most important figure in the world of modern jihadist terror, Osama bin Laden. 2 of your four  sources don't even offer a citation, but only mention bin Laden's alleged involvement in passing. Note that the topic of their articles is not Osama bin Laden's involvement in the massacre, so they are not scholarly sources that have delved into the issue: they are clearly citing someone else but did not offer the reference. And as noted above, your fourth citation mention Ramen several times and even discounted his credibility as a source by calling him controversial.Willard84 (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The fact that B. Raman was associated with RAW doesn't matter particularly, once he has been cited in peer-reviewed sources. How else can we get information about secretive military dictatorships if not via the spying agencies of other countries?

However, the whole article is overemphasizing the Bin Laden connection. The Pakistani Army is the main culprit. Both Zia ul-Haq and Musharraf are involved. Here are some decent sources: Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. Fair point about his credibility not being affected by the organization which he works for, but if you notice here, hes also been referred to as "controversial" by a source which cited him - though controversy of course doesn't mean unreliable. A major issue, though, is that no experts seem to corroborate this major accusation, which is also why I find his credibility regarding this particular accusation to be less than stellar.
 * There's also Raman's allegation that the massacre was in response to a revolt by Shias who were agitating for creation of "Karakoram State," which is a theoretical state I can find very very little evidence for. There is a separatist party called Balawaristan Front, though one of the sources here states that this party was formed in response to the Gilgit Massacre, not before it. I also can't find any evidence that the Shia were actually rebelling against the Pakistani state either. So it's another claim of Raman that doesn't seem to bear much weight, despite it being the basis for his theory.
 * What he says is a major accusation, and it seems unthinkable that experts can't corroborate this information. Maybe there is a unknown author publishing an unknown book who makes similar claims, but dozens of experts have written about OBLs life, yet they don't mention this. Even Christine fair, who has written a book about what she terms the brutal and dishonorable Pakistani army, does not make this accusation, but does talk about the role of the army in killing of even individual journalists.  She's considered an expert regarding the Pakistani arm, and I think that if the Gilgit massacre accusations are credible, then she certainly would not have neglected to mention that Osama bin Laden was shuttled in by the army for this massacre. It would have given her hypothesis a major boost. That's just one example, but the point is that experts don't seem to mention OBL in Gilgit.
 * One would think that given the dozens and dozens of books about bin Laden's life that delve into extreme detail, that at least some of those dozens of books written would have mentioned this incident in which he allegedly was transported from Afghanistan to Pakistan by the Pakistan army with the sole intent of massacring hundreds Shias. I don't deny that Sunni extremists were brought in by the army, and you'll see that I did not erase any sort of references to that, the issue is whether Osama bin Laden himself was personally involved in the massacre as alleged.


 * It appears you're right about both generals being involved. However, the fact that it's easy to find scholarly sources mentioning Musharraf's presence, but not OBLs, kind of helps prove my point. The books that you listed right above are good sources regarding the massacre, but  none of them makes mention of Osama bin Laden, but do discuss Musharraf - an arguably less significant character than OBL in the world of scholarly research. While the topic of 2 of those books is about Pakistani generals (not OBL), if there are several sources mentioning the involvement of Musharraf,  then it seems logical and reasonable to expect that far more sources would mention Osama bin Laden. He, after all, is far more important than Musharraf in the world of scholarly research.  In fact, as the other User:Fredepd correctly pointed out up above initially, even Ramans on allegations don't seem to offer very much detail at all. Key facts such as date of arrival, mode of transport, date of departure, what his role was, who he worked with are all missing. So it's an allegation that doesn't even have much depth.


 * As I noted above, all the allegations of bin Laden's involvement in the area appear to stem from a single source, B Raman (who again, doesn't even offer much detail himself). And since the article was very heavily focused on this allegation, I cleaned it up and placed the allegations in their own appropriate section. I didn't completely discount them, even though it seems this allegation cant be corroborated by a reliable source. The two examples that the other user gave up above that do not actually mention Raman (the other two references actually do) are not scholarly works into the massacre, OBL, or Pak Army. One of the mentions the accusation in passing for a completely different point about Zarqawi. The other also gives no citation, and uses language strangely similar to this article which may indicate plagiarism. it's clear that neither of these two articles had intended to go into any sort of depth about OBLs activities in the area, so don't stand alone by themselves as scholarly works into the subject.
 * The other issue at hand is what the motivation behind the massacre was. United States Institute of peace citation that I give mentions that the massacre happened in response to a rumor about massacres of Sunni residents, rather than in response to a supposed Shia rebellion agitating for the creation of "Karakoram State."  Excelse restored the version that states in the infobox that the main motivation was "the extermination of shias."  This is yet another allegation that I can find absolutely no reference to. Even the citations that Excelse offered above make no reference to this genocidal motivation. From what has been written about the trigger, it appears that the rumor played a role, and that this triggered the generals to send in armed tribesmen. Maybe there's another source which says something different, but the sole intention to simply kill for no reason other than to exterminate Shias does not seem to be supported by evidence elsewhere. I'm not even sure if Ramen himself made that accusation, because it was uncited. I'm not saying that the United States Institute of peace is the be all and end all, but still, no other sources mention genocidal intent.
 * I think that Ramans allegations deserve their own section on this page, but that we should not misportray his allegations as undisputed fact he himself doesn't seem to even offer any details regarding bin Laden's presence. Like you said, the entire article seems to be a written around Ramen's accusations, and i think this is quite inappropriate.

Willard84 (talk) 14:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think Raman's views should be covered somewhere in the body, and all mention of Raman and bin Laden should be removed from the lead. The lead should more properly cover the Gilgit unrest, the massacre and their details. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Mentions of Osama have now been removed from the lead as per consensus here. Excelse (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Extensive plagiarism
Sockpuppet User:Towns Hill on 31 December 2016 extensively plagiarized from his/her source:

The user wrote: ''When Shias in Gilgit celebrated Eid al-Fitr, a group of extremist Sunnis, still fasting because their religious leaders had not announced the sighting of the moon, attacked them. This led to violent clashes between Sunnis and Shias. After a brief calm of nearly four days, the Pakistani military regime allegedly used certain militants along with local Sunnis to ‘teach a lesson’ to Shias, which led to hundreds of Shias and Sunnis being killed.''

This is absolutely identical to the source provided: "When Shias in Gilgit celebrated Eidul Fitr, a group of extremist Sunnis, still fasting because their religious leaders had not announced the sighting of the moon, attacked them. This led to violent clashes between the two sects. In 1988, after a brief calm of nearly four days, the military regime allegedly used certain militants along with local Sunnis to ‘teach a lesson’ to Shias, which led to hundreds of Shias and Sunnis being killed"

He also wrote in the same December 31 edit: "Pakistan`s first major Shia-Sunni riots erupted in 1983 in Karachi during the Shia holiday of Muharram, leaving at least 60 people dead. More Muharram disturbances followed over the next three years, spreading to Lahore and the Baluchistan region and leaving hundreds more dead. In July 1986, Sunnis and Shias, many of them armed with locally made automatic weapons, clashed in the northwestern town of Parachinar, where at least 200 died"

which is almost identical to:

"Pakistan`s first major Shiite-Sunni riots erupted in 1983 in Karachi during the Shiite holiday of Muharram; at least 60 people were killed. More Muharram disturbances followed over the next three years, spreading to Lahore and the Baluchistan region and leaving hundreds more dead. Last July, Sunnis and Shiites, many of them armed with locally made automatic weapons, clashed in the northwestern town of Parachinar, where at least 200 died," directly plagiarized from the Chicago Tribune source.

Not cool. Plagiarized information is not tolerated on WIkipedia, and should be deleted/redone.Willard84 (talk) 06:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I had rewritten it already, you can rewrite too but don't remove. Excelse (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The issue isn't that you had just reworded plagiarized information. The issue is also as above. not just me, but the user above also notes that all these allegations source from B. Raman. This page isn't just to promote the theories of an Indian agent for Research and Analysis Wing. That isn't just me calling him a RAW agent, he literally was one of the founders of it. I didnt erase Raman's allegations, but they are not supported (or even elaborated upon) by any other sources. Raman has been a contributing author in several books, so even for example the 2009 book I noted above isn't actually a corroborating source.Willard84 (talk) 05:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You removed it from lead and you are attempting to marginalize this information. I gave you a source from Routledge which has also mentioned it, there is no need to attribute it to Raman if several source back the sentence. If you don't self-revert I will have to report you, because you just came from an edit warring block and your editing is disruptive. Excelse (talk) 05:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The very reason I even included any section at all on Raman is because his allegations were mentioned in a single other source. That one source doesn't mean he's right, and nor is it a corroborating source. And this whole article isn't meant to be the allegations of a single writer.Willard84 (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

BRD
@Excelse: Please tell me, what are your concerns regarding the page I wrote? Why are you intent on making this entire page about what a single source said, and restoring a page written by a confirmed sock puppet? You yourself appear to have been banned as a sock puppet.Willard84 (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC) @Excelse: Here are several sources mentioning the massacre. Note how none seem to mention that OBL was involved (which is obviously an explosive allegation): 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 (and this is SATP, not exactly pro-Pakistan, 8.

Are you really under the impression that if Osama Bin Laden himself were involved, that more sources other than just B. Raman would not have made note of this? Willard84 (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * That was years ago, unlike you who has been blocked 3 times in just 40 days. You don't even know what BRD is, you had to wait for consensus before reverting to your POV version again. You don't even know how to keep discussion on same section or even page. Excelse (talk) 06:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Its interesting that you can't account for the fact almost all citations regarding the massacre make no mention of the presence of OBL. And its even more interesting that you can't find a single citation from one of the dozens of books written about OBL's life that mentions Gilgit Massacre. Do you think the dozens of authors who have written about his life somehow forgot to mention that he was personally involved in the massacre of hundreds of Shias after personally being shuttled in by the Pakistani Army? This claim appears to be absolutely bogus.Willard84 (talk) 06:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Osama Bin Laden?
The only reference to Osama bin Laden being involved is a claim by the Indian intelligence officer B Raman. This specific claim was recycled by this individual a number of times over the years. It is highly unlikely he was involved for a variety of reasons DaveGalaxy (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Some sources and quotes here:









There are also plenty of sources that mention the presence of Pashtuns [who are connected to Bin Laden's organisations]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 1. This book does not have a bibliography, is not a reputable source, and was most likely copied from Wikipedia.
 * 2. Cites B Raman
 * 3. Does not allege Osama's involvement in the 1988 Gilgit massacre
 * 4. Does not allege Osama's involvement in the 1988 Gilgit massacre
 * 5. Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the Global Nuclear Weapons Conspiracy cites this article by B. Raman http://web.archive.org/web/20070127195242/http://www.saag.org/papers5/paper484.html Fredepd (talk) 00:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Tidying up article
I've removed the emotive language, broad claims that have no evidence (Shia demands for independent status, ) and added in some more references from other viewpoints.

Was it a revolt?
attempt to change the "revolt" in the lead sentence to "dispute". Other than the cited reference, here are some more:











So, I am afraid "revolt" cannot be removed. I will add some more content to the Background to make it clear. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the extra sources. I'm happy to leave the word revolt for the moment, although it's still unclear from the sources how well organised the action by the Shias was, and whether there were demanding a new state.  However, in simply reverting to the previous edit you've also removed some new sources, areas where the English was improved, and restated the non-neutral language. There are also one line in the reverted version that is directed copied from a third party source.

In the light of this, I've made some other edits


 * Summary - I've removed the emotive word 'ruthlessly' and removed one of two uses of suppress. I've added in a sentence on the result of the massacre and added in some extra references.


 * Background - I've tightened up the use of English and added some context


 * Conflict - In the first paragraph, I've rearranged the explanation of end of Ramadan to make it clearer the cause of the trigger clearer. I've acknowledged the source of the quote that includes 'a number of militants along with local Sunnis to ‘teach a lesson’ to Shias'. I've added a citation needed template to the clause about the demands for a Shia state. I've also removed the non neutral language about Osama bin Laden, and made it clear that this is one person's opinion and not received fact (as already discussed in the talk pages)

Xcia0069 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * First of all, my apologies. I hadn't notice that a copy-edit template had been added recently, which explains your participation here. I have no problem with language improvements. In fact, I thank you for working on it.
 * I have added some sources and quotes for the Osama bin Laden's involvement in the immediately preceding section. I don't think it is cut-and-dried. These kinds of things can never be known for certain. But it is not correct to say that it is one person's opinion. Anyway, I can take care of this. You don't need to worry. Thank you once again for your efforts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You might have toned down with whitewashing but still your edits at least to the "conflict" section were undue. Satp.org is not a reliable source and your edits involved removal of reliably sourced content and replacing them with poor sources. You are also wrong with making "it clear that this is one person's opinion and not received fact (as already discussed in the talk pages)", because at the same time it was also made clear that independent scholars also value that "one person's opinion" and present it as a fact since he did enough research behind it. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 11:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Remove copy edit template
Following the excellent recent edits by user:Filmergirl96 and others, I have removed the copy edit required template Xcia0069 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Failed verification
This article needs a lot of work on the neutrality front, including unsourced additions and claims made to the lead regarding the religious demographics. Is there also a reason why the infobox mentions 400–900 casualties, which is then contradicted within the article claiming "150 to 400 people were killed"? There is a daylight's worth of difference between both reported figures. Consider putting ranges for the figure.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Where is the POV now? You already removed it the claims about demographics. The article mentions '700' figure, not just '150-400'. "The first sectarian massacre in which at least 700 people were killed in 1 August 1988 was kicked off by the election defeat of Sunni candidate Sunbal Shah..." Santosh L (talk) 07:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Shia majority?
According to the 1941 census, the Gilgit tehsil (the same as the present day Gilgit District) had 11274 Shias out of 22495 total population, which amounts to 50%.

, what is the basis for your claim of Shia majority? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear and : Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Kautilya3, please do not restore the uncited material in question regarding the demographics as you did here without providing reliable, secondary sources. I will have no option otherwise but to tag the page as I did previously. Please consult WP:BURDEN; as the reinstating user, the burden also falls on you to demonstrate verifiability of the material you are restoring. Kind regards,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 11:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think this counts as a REDFLAG because the general drift of the footnote seems valid even though the details aren't. Anyway, I will let it be for now., I am disappointed with your lack of WP:ENGAGEMENT. If you don't come and defend your edits at the talk pages, all your edits will be considered suspect and duly reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I have come to the realization that my sources fall into the WP:QUESTIONABLE category as they seem to lack scholarly oversight and exaggerate the population percentage to push a pro-India POV (not promoting anti-India rhetoric or adopting an anti-India stance myself when I say that, just pointing out the fact that sources coming from a party involved in the concerned territorial conflict cannot be entirely reliable – and in this case they were not). The sources I found were all pointing at a Shia-majority with a greatly exaggerated percentage (usually around 80%, which is well above the 50% plurality). I will promptly revert any edits by me that affirmed in their nature that Gilgit-Baltistan had a Shia-majority population (although I believe that they have been reverted already). ➤ Zᴇᴇx.ʀɪᴄᴇ ✪ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 01:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know which sources you were looking at. So I can't comment on whether they had pro-India POV. More basically, it could just be lack of knowledge or information, especially if they are newspapers. There are many "Gilgits", the town, the district, the Division, the Gilgit Agency and the entire Gilgit-Baltistan. Each of them has a different demographic. There are also many kind of "Shia". So we need to check that we are reporting the right statistic appropriate to the topic.
 * In any case, thanks for responding. It is only by engaging that you will be able to tell what is contentious and what is mundane, so that you don't mix them up in your edits. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)