Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan/Archive 1

Shina and kashmiri languages
It is absolutely wrong that there is no connection between languages spoken in Kashmir valley and Gilgit/Chilas region. In fact Kashmiri also called Kausher is a sister language of Shina. Both languages share upto 30% common everyday vocabulary. Shina and kashmiri/kausher together with swat kohistani language belong to Eastern subgroup of Dardic languages. Shins and kashmiris do originate from the same linguistic ancestors, this is proven with presence of shina speaking people in Gurez region within kashmir valley, some ethnic kausher/kashmiri tribes like "Lone" tribe in northern kashmir are often billingual in both kashmiri/kausher and Shina, the reason is quite simple Shins and Kausher/kashmiris are from the same roots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.69.21.94 (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Pakistan, Kashmir
Considering Northern Areas as part of pakistan occupied Kashmir is questionable as the area was first liberated by the people of the area themselves and volunterily joined Pakistan.

The above statement is untrue. The British decided to make it a bone of contention and one Major Brown of the British army without authority raised the Pakistani flag in the area just before the withdrawal of the british army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.1.52.48 (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the Indian Viewpoint and IMHO must be presented here for the sake of NPOV. -- Paddu 21:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Azad Kashmir / Pakistan-occupied Kashmir
India certainly does not refer to the Northern Areas as Azad Kashmir since that term means 'Free Kashmir' and would imply that India was occupying the rest of Kashmir (an implication that is obviously against the Indian government's policy). The usual term used by the Indian government and the media is PoK or Pakistan-occupied Kashmir to refer to all of Kashmir under Pakistani rule. That part of the article which incorrectly states that India uses the term 'Azad Kashmir' should be changed.

The whole article has a pro pakistan slant. It speaks of the UN resolution on plebiscite. But does not speak of teh pre-condition that Pakistan must withdraw from the Pakistan occuppied areas. It also does not mention the fact that now plebiscite is an impossiblity because teh areas have been extensively occuppied by Pakistanis from other areas making the Pakistanis a minority whereas India did not do that. It speaks of "annexation" etc. again rather slanted.
 * That thing was due to an [ apparently unintended edit]. This was cleaned up by [ this edit], but to maintain NPOV IMHO (see my previous comment above), I added back the statement that India calls it a part of PoK. -- Paddu 20:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Section - History
The following description presents only the pro-Pakistani point of view. --DuKot 21:27, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

''But the people of Gilgit-Baltistan regard themselves as being distinct from Kashmiris and many want to become the fifth province of Pakistan. And they oppose being included in Kashmir. Their opinion is that invasion of Mahrajas doesn't mean that this is a part of Kashmir, just like British invasion over the India in 19th century does not mean that India is a part of Britain.''


 * Actually, the view is that of the people there. The Pakistani govt. doesn't want to extend make them a province because they believe that would make the Indians believe that they have agreed to a defacto permanent border.  What do you propose be said instead then?  The people there go up within Pakistan and often work in Pakistani cities in other provinces as well.  You might as well call the views of someone in Karachi pro-Pakistani as that's all you'll hear.  Tombseye 23:14, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I oppose the proposed merger between this article and Gilgit Agency, because the Agency was an entity which existed until the 1970's and the Northern Areas were created by merging the Agency with Hunza and Nagar principalities. Green Giant 22:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 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 00:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Removed merge tags from both articles after adding Northern Areas link on top of Gilgit Agency Waqas.usman 03:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Northern Areas Districts - Overlay in Google Earth
For identifying towns, villages, peaks, lakes etc by districts, use the following placemarks alongwith the overlay map for district boundaries of Northern Areas: Northern Pakistan detailed placemarks in Google Earth

Open the above mentioned overlay map in Google Earth and it clearly shows what lies in which district (but this map is old, Astore district was carved out of Diamer District later on in 2004, works for all other boundaries). User:Waqas.usman (Talk) 02:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Article is becoming increasingly one-sided
This page needs to be checked for its neutrality as the article is increasignyl becoming one-sided. Idleguy in particular seems to be adding alot of this. All of the sources added are from Indian sources, and i know that the countries of Pakistan and India have a bitter enemity, so I can see why sources from one country would be derogatory towards the other. So, hence, I request using neutral sources For example, there is use of double-sources. The person added that The Hindu(an indian source) wuoted a Pakistani source The Dawn. "Though outwardly calm, the Northern Areas of Pakistan are simmering with a crisis that has all the ingredients of boiling over the rim" But I did a search on google, with the quote and it came up with nothing. I then emaied Dawn (www.dawn.com), and they said their records do not show anything with those quotes.

ALSO, I think Poltical substance of the Indian-Pakistan conflict should be kept out of this, and perhaps be put in the Kashmir article in wikipedia. I can sense that this is becomign a propaganda war. --Cranberryjuice10 19:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "The Herald" is a Pakistani publication. have you even read that? First you disputed its contents trying to sound rude in my talk page then when it was provided, you simply tag it as POV. True, rediff is an Indian website but The Hindu used a double source. I've emailed them myself to check which date they got the selected quote. Until I get that I can't comment on it. Idleguy 01:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I've added half a dozen sources - mainly Pakistani and an international one - and all of them still talk about the fact that there is violence and discontent in NA due to the lack of legal and political representation. I hope you read the sources before levelling allegations at me as if I'm making up things. --Idleguy 02:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

FANA vs Northern Areas
THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN DOES NOT CALL THIS REGION "FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED" SO DO NOT CHANGE IT TO WHAT YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE CALLED


 * Response, 12/20/07:


 * The government of Pakistan uses both a short-form name and a more formal long-form name to refer to this territory. NORTHERN AREAS is the short-form name and FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED NORTHERN AREAS is the long-form name. See the following sources:


 * Pakistan Embassy
 * Ministry of Education
 * Northern Areas Development Gateway
 * iEARN Australia
 * Yahoo News India
 * Daily Mail News
 * Daily Times
 * The Hindu
 * Irinnews.org/
 * PTV.Com
 * Encarta MSN
 * Individualland.com


 * For more sources, do a Google search on the name "federally administered northern areas" with the name in parentheses.


 * 164.214.1.54


 * I moved the above comments from the article to the talk page, note doing a Google search for "Northern Areas" site:.gov.pk gives 3,250 hits, doing a search for FANA gives 310 hits. Also searching for FEDERALLY ADMINISTERED Northern gives 35 hits. I reverted the article for this reason.


 * Pahari Sahib  06:58, 5 January 2008 (GMT)

protection?
If the page is protected, please say so at the top of the page. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir link
Please add a link to the Jammu and Kashmir article when first mentioned (right after the linked mention of the Pakistani-controlled part). 85.227.226.235 (talk) 09:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir
If the page on Jammu and Kashmir doesn't say in the intro that Jammu and Kashmir is disputed between Pakistan and India, then this page shouldnt' say that Northern Areas of Pakistan is disputed between Pakistan and India. Currently we have Jammu and Kashmir page showing that it is part of India without mentioning that Pakistan disputes its Indian control, but we have the Indian POV on the Northern Areas of Pakistan as well. Stop adding it again and again, otherwise I'll put a POV tag on this page. 76.100.10.26 (talk) 21:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * As that page says "The territory is disputed between Pakistan and India and it is referred to by Pakistan as Indian-occupied Kashmir. Conversely, India refers to Pakistan-administered Kashmir as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir." you can relax. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

this page will not include disputed tag as this tag is absent in articles like Ladakh and Jammu so you can relax my indian freind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.237.192 (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

District/ Divisons update
The table on districts and divisions needs updating. The updates can be picked from here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Districts_of_Pakistan#Districts_of_Northern_Areas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Momers (talk • contribs) 06:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Copy paste move
This article was copy and pasted to Northern Areas, according to WP:Move this shouldn't be done as it removes the edit history. I have copy pasted back (as the majority of edits are on this page- including talk). Pahari Sahib 22:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've requested a page history repair, and it's been done. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Requested move Aug 2008

 * The following discussion is an archived 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 Consensus for the move, and the hatenote takes care of an indirect disambiguation problem. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Following on from the above, I will request that the article is moved to Northern Areas. And perhaps the edit histories can be combined somehow. Pahari Sahib 22:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC) 70.55.85.40 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment if this is moved, a hatnote will need to be added:
 * Support no need for a DAB page at Northern Areas. A hatnote will do just fine. —   AjaxSmack   01:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A name merely Northern Areas is too vague. Many nations etc have northern areas. (I histmerged for the cut-&-paste move). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But none are actually called "Northern Areas" so the hatnote will take care of that. —  AjaxSmack   02:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But it should be rephrased: For similar names, see Northern (subnational entity). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a template for that? Like confused2 or something? 70.55.85.143 (talk) 11:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

title wrong
northern areas is part of the disputed territory (dispute bet pak. and ind.)..as per UN..not part of Pakistan per se..neither india nor pakistan are part of this. ..belongs to "princely state of jand k"..after that, the status is under dispute..Kashmircloud (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I too object to the title, the current title seems to imply that the Northern Areas are part of Jammu and Kashmir state and while the government of India and many Indians may believe this *should* be the case - it is *not* the case. Indian claims to the territory may or not be valid - but as it stands the territory is neither control or administered by India. Nor is part of India's Jammu and Kashmir state. Pahari Sahib  20:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


 * "(kashmir)" is ok in the sense that it is not (pakistan) or (india) ..but ideal wud b 2 say "erstwhile j and k kingdom" since kashmir valley is but a small part of the disputed kingdom..Kashmircloud (talk) 05:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Jammu and Kashmir is totally misleading and indians like yourself would obviously love to rename it wouldnt you. Kashmir valley srinager and jammu and brumalla are all disputed are you crazy its a whole massive chunk of indian occupied kashmir which is disputed get your facts correct freind 86.163.154.87 (talk) 13:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

this is a indian editor and his claims are pathetic i shall remove this silly jammu and kashmir claim of the title jammu and kashmir is occupied by indians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.132.156 (talk) 14:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC) tell me how to reverse this title as this wise guy indian kashmir cloud (probably not even kashmiri) has edited without consensus on the article and is vandalising several other articles with his pro india garbage86.153.132.156 (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

POK indian biased propaganda
if the indians persist in there reference less claims i shall begin to edit pages about indian occupied kashmir such as jammu and ladakh and srinagar dont start nothing there wont be nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.70.25 (talk) 15:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Be reasonable
Hi all, can you guys please take a deep breath and count backwards from 20 to 1? I think that will considerably help you in reducing your hatred towards each other. There's a guy, using BT connection from somewhere in the UK, who accuses me of being pro-Indian. My dear friend, (the IP editor, and pls don't think that Paki is a deregatory term as used in the UK. It merely means a person with a Pakistani origin in India), I am no blind Indian. But the kind of abuse that you and your fellow editors heap on others, will definitely force any self respecting Indian to become a staunch supporter of all her policies. This was exactly the case even with the Germans during Hitler's reign.

By the way, I DO NOT support moving this page to a title like Northern Areas (J&K). Hope, I have made myself clear. Shovon (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Hi all non BJP facist from India please remove your facist mind from wikipedia it doesnt belong here making pathetic articles with your indian chums Kashmir cloud and others and redirecting neutral pages such as azad kashmir and northern areas to your filthy POK page which is without a doubt the most un neutral page i have ever seen is just a another peice of evidence of your hypocrasy and pro indian mentality you can sweet talk all you want but i wont allow edits by editors who believe there nationalistic indian veiw (such as POK used only by INDIANS) should be included on wikipedia keep that to your school books kapish (no its not hanuman or anything related to monkeys) 86.158.177.243 (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... so what do you say about the all and sundry pathetic religio-political parties in your country? Simply speaking, you guys will never learn. That's why half of the present world is in the midst of some kind of violence with you guys on one side! Check my mainspace edits. You won't be able to point to a single one where I have taken the sides of Hindus or India in case of a dispute. But, guess, you guys think this to be a sign of weakness instead of upholding the policies. Your entire range of IPs is hading for a block. This much I can assure you. Shovon (talk) 18:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you mean when you say "so what do you say about the all and sundry pathetic religio-political parties in your country? Simply speaking, you guys will never learn. That's why half of the present world is in the midst of some kind of violence with you guys on one side" who are "you guys" please follow your own advice and "be reasonable". You started this section relatively reasonably (apart from the curious comment about Hitler and Germany at the end) Your argument with one editor has resulted in you making comments like this. Pahari Sahib  19:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sorry for generalizing the statement. Shovon (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm our political parties dont use pathetic kids of the poverty stricken streets of india and brainwash them with pro pakistani ideology and force them to edit over wikipedia(life story of shovon) thats why you biased editors like you worm your way into pakistani articles and vandalise them with kaali maata type garbage thats why indias religous groups are always oppressed christian sikhs muslims all have been fighting bjp nazis like yourself once atleast look at the news your country men burn churches 86.153.130.184 (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Try not to insult people no matter how bad they seem. You are going off topic and it detracts from the agreement you are trying to present. Pahari Sahib  19:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why the hell I am even responding to you. You will never learn. This is the last time within the next 30 days at least that I would write anything related to J&K. Btw, your politicians do not use poverty stricken kids to edit Wiki because they have a better use for them. They turn those kids in to suicide bombers. So much! Shovon (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

yes and your hindu facist bjp government trains your brave indian hindu army to rape women indian soldiers always seem to be first in south asian when it comes to raping in indian occupied kashmir want proof just type in kashmir in google whats the matter cant fight men? 86.163.155.56 (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

this shovon called me a paki now i say something to him and he has a sissy fit and then becomes ghandi after acting like hitler hes a worm unless he apologizes for calling me a paki this row wont stop kapish 86.163.155.56 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested move September 2008

 * The following discussion is an archived 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 no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

In line with naming conventions applied to other Pakistani provinces, e.g. North-West Frontier Province (and equally Federally Administered Tribal Areas), I propose that this article's title should be Federally Administered Northern Areas (presently a redirect to Northern Areas (Kashmir)). Apart from the reason already provided (i.e. consistency), I would add two more: __meco (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It would make the generally applied abbreviation FANA more easily understood.
 * 2) I find the current title somewhat oblique with the parenthesis (Kashmir) more obfuscating than helpful. Since this is part of a contested area, the title should be as neutral, descriptive and unambiguous as possible, even at the cost of being lengthy and officious sounding.

i oppose this 86.153.130.184 (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Meco and think it should be moved from the current title to Federally Administered Northern Areas, this is the official name. I moved the article to its current location as the previous was more vague. Can you explain your objections to this move? Pahari Sahib  19:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The "current title" mentioned above was Northern Areas (Kashmir), It has been moved since then back to its old title. I am now not sure whether it should be moved to "Federally Administered Northern Areas", see reasons above. Pahari Sahib  06:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

woops i got confused i thought it was being moved to that pathetic pro indian "POK" article carry on i have no objection sorry again 86.163.155.56 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As I have just implemented a WP:RM to move this page to Northern Areas please do not move it within the next six months without putting in a WP:RM. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am unfamiliar with that procedure, but I have no objections to going along with it. I have now tagged this talk page and noted the proposal at Requested moves. __meco (talk) 09:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Support less ambiguous name. 70.55.89.214 (talk) 06:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:UCN (use common names). "Northern Areas" is widely used even at the official level.  See Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas website, http://www.visitnorthernareas.gov.pk/, or http://www.tourism.gov.pk/northern_areas.html with a full list of admin units here including "NWFP" proving there is no general aversion to acronyms.  The current title is not ambiguous.  There is no other place called "Northern Areas." —   AjaxSmack   00:33, 15 September 2008 (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.

S3000
this user is putting in claims which tilt on the pro indian side which is unacceptale he accuses me of bias but he happily edits jammu and kashmir with the pakistan administered tag and removes indian administered sentence from northern areas S300 do you have any reason for this you claim Jammu is the proper name SO WHAT its still administered territory instead of going off to other users talk to me and sort this out86.162.67.217 (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Suitability of Pakistani Flag
Since the territory is still in dispute, how is it NPOV to have the flag of one country? If the local administration under the Pakistani federal government has a separate flag it could be inserted in the political section like the flag of the indian administered state of Jammu and Kashmir is in that article. Currently the flag and the info box details directly contradict each other.Andy anno (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

flag of the state of gilgit baltistan is the same as that of Pakistan--111.68.96.117 (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Pashto Language
Pashto is not spoken any where in the Northern Areas, thus it is inaccurate and may even be considered offensive to list it as a regional language for the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.184.92 (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Undue weight by Indian pov pushing vandals
This including the Azad Kashmir article have recently been infected by a rash of Indian pov vandal editors who have added vast amounts of info regarding the conflict in Kashmir while deleting it from the Indian occupied Kashmir page that page has no mention of any "competing territorial claims" or any mention that the state is administered by India while this article and Azad Kashmir article has been loaded with administered terms and Indian claims its written everywhere there’s even separate sections for these disputes such “Competing claim” these articles need to be revamped and be made equal to the Indian occupied Kashmir page which has only one line mentioning the dispute in the intro. Undue weight to Pakistani Kashmir is not acceptable considering that most of the pro freedom and anti Indian activities go on in Jammu and Kashmir and all the human rights abuses go on in IOK why isn’t this mentioned in that page why here? I will tell you why Indian editors recently have bombarded these two pages with there Pro Indian trashy propaganda the Indian occupied Kashmir page makes it out as that it is not even a disputed territory just a wimpy mention in the introduction will not suffice it needs whole paragraphs like the ones which have been forced upon the northern areas and Azad Kashmir articles by Indian pov pushers86.154.149.161 (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
move to Gilgit-Baltistan. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Northern Areas → Gilgit Baltistan &mdash; There has been much debate about this page's name, but now that the Pakistan government has given it a new name "Gilgit Baltistan". "Cabinet approves ‘Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order 2009’" 29 August 2009 I think that we should use it. This will remove alot of the ambiguity of other names, and is consistent with the history of the area. --Bejnar (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't really matter what any one government does, the real question is whether the new name is in widespread use among third party publications. That's how we remain neutral in these issues. Are recent news reports about the area using "Gilgit Baltistan"? Is, for example, the CIA almanac? Is the UN? — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 02:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Support I think it unlikely the CIA almanac would have caught on until its next edition is published. However, the new name does appear to be accepted in Pakistan's English language press and internet community, and even predates the Pakistani Government's decision :-
 * Talking to SANA here on Sunday, he said that Pakistan’s administrative control over Gilgit-Baltistan did not imply that they were slaves but they were only given more freedom and autonomy. from South Asian News Agency : Fazal Hails Decision on Gilgit-Baltistan Internal Autonomy
 * The constitutional head of new set up would be called governor and Qamaruz Zaman Kaira to be the first governor of Gilgit-Baltistan, the cabinet decided. from The News International : NAs to be called now Gilgit-Baltistan 29 August 2009
 * Under the order, Gilgit-Baltistan Assembly will formulate its own Rules of Procedures, while legislation on 61 subjects will be done by a council and an assembly in their respective jurisdictions. from Dawn : Autonomy Package for NAs Approved 30 August 2009
 * Ideological terrorism is being promoted in Gilgit-Baltistan and if the students of the region do not rise to defend the ideological boundaries of the region and defeat those who are hatching conspiracies against the nation then we will lose everything. from Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization : Gilgit Baltistan: Ideology Dissuaded 10 March 2009
 * Aga Khan Health Services, Pakistan, is collaborating with the Department of Health (Govt.) to establish a Medical College in Gilgit-Baltistan which will house 100 beds. from Ismaaili Mail : Establishment of Medical College in Gilgit-Baltistan 15 August 2009
 * “The so-called provincial like set up is fraudulent and blackmailing offers of the government which aimed to conceal the political atrocities and brutal colonial control on the people in the occupied region”. This was stated by Manzoor Hussain Parwana Chairman Gilgit Baltistan United Movement reacting over the "Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order 2009", recently announced by the government of Pakistan to Gilgit Baltistan. from Gilgit Baltistan United Movement : Gilgit Baltistan: Provincial like Set up Rejected 29 August 2009
 * Since partition of the Indian sub-continent, in 1947, and the coming into being of Pakistan the democratic and political freedom and the Human Rights situation in Gilgit-Baltistan is very bad and the population has been suffering. from J and K Insights : The Human Rights Problem in Gilgit-Baltistan 28 June 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinsmoke (talk • contribs) 11:12, August 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I figured that someone would focus in on my reference to the CIA factbook (LOL). The answer to that specific point is that we shouldn't be in a hurry here, we can wait to make a truly informed decision. Regardless of that though, after reading your reply and taking a brief survey of the existing references in the article, I'm leaning towards Weak Support. The use of "Gilgit" is far from universal, and I'd also like to point out that those who use it typically seem to leave off the "Baltistan" portion as well... However, barring any significant opposition, I'll go ahead and say OK. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 10:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Think you may be getting confused with Gilgit, the capital of Gilgit Baltistan there! Skinsmoke (talk) 15:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Has it yet become Gilgit Baltistan officially? At any rate, the current title is awful, so I'd mildly support any move that promises to have the article in a less ambiguous location than Northern Areas. john k (talk) 16:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hell, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if I were confused. I think that the residents of the area(s) are confused themselves! I don't really oppose doing just anything to bring about some clarity here, but this sort of seems like renaming for it's own sake here. If the name "Gilgit Baltistan" really is common, I think some editing of the article is in order beforehand, anyway. — V = I * R  (talk to Ω) 13:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've had a (very brief) look over the article, and the editing seems OK (I'm not saying I haven't missed something!). Gilgit and Baltistan on their own seem to be used in the correct historical or sub-regional context; someone appears to have jumped the gun a little and substituted Gilgit Baltistan for Northern Areas in the text when the whole region is referred to, but that was going to have to be done anyway if the move goes ahead.  Did you have anything specific in mind?  Bear in mind this is a little like Baden-Württemberg; an administrative region composed of two historical areas, where it is correct in historical or sub-regional terms to refer to simply Baden or Württemberg. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Suport current title is rather ambiguous. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 08:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Question Should this be hyphenated, like Baden-Württemberg? Most of those quotations seem to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Governor 2009
Until 9 Sept 2009, the info box listed the governor as "Mir Ghazanfar Ali Khan" citing the 26 November 2008 document http://www.unpo.org/content/view/8937/236/ and http://pamirtimes.wordpress.com/. On 9 September this was changed to "Qamar Uzaman Qaira" but the citation was left the same! "Qamar Uzaman Qaira" seems to be Qamar Zaman Kaira. I have removed all reference to a governor pending identification of a current reliable source. A Pamir Times news release on 10 Sept. said "Minister for Information and Broadcasting and Governor‑designate Gilgit‑Baltistan Qamar Zaman Kaira assured the people of Hunza that their grievances would be properly addressed with equal distribution of funds and development schemes, as per size of the population." A UNPO document dated 3 September 2009 indicated that "There shall be a governor of Gilgit Baltistan as proposed under Article -20 and shall be appointed by the President of Pakistan." --Bejnar (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

”

Area of Gilgit-Baltistan
The total in the area fo subdivisions of Gilgit-Baltistan is not correct it does not add up to the figure mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivazir (talk • contribs) 11:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Khajuna
I deleted the Khajuna as one of thE listed regional languages of Gilit-Baltistan as Khajuna is just another name foR Burushaski. Fred-Bolor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred-Bolor (talk • contribs) 22:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Flights
"The flying time was approximately 50 minutes,dand the flight was one of the most scenic flights in the world, as its route passed over the mountain Nanga Parbat, the peak of which was higher than the aircraft's cruising altitude."

If the flight passed over the mountain, and the mountain was higher than the aircraft's cruising altitude, no wonder the bloody aircraft crashed! Skinsmoke (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Military Presence
You might want to consider including these new facts in this article: China has sent approximately 10.000 Soldiers into the area, securing and speeding the process of building streets and railroad tracks to upgrade their trading routes to the arabian peninsula and everything surrounding and connected to it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/opinion/27iht-edharrison.html?_r=1

http://rethinkafghanistan.com/blog/2010/08/china-deploys-troops-in-pakistani-kashmir/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.246.233.75 (talk) 16:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Meerofgilgit, 13 November 2010
edit semi-protected

change the name of governor gilgit baltistan because she has died and new governor has been nominated

Meerofgilgit (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Salvio  Let's talk about it! 16:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

FANA (redirect)
The article doesn't explain why the acronym FANA redirects here. I'm adding it to the disambiguation page Fana (disambiguation) with the unhelpful notation FANA; see Gilgit-Baltistan, but I always find it frustrating when I'm redirected to a page and the introductory section doesn't tell me why. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rahimjohar, 26 January 2011
Syed Pir Karam Ali Shah is appointed new Governor for Gilgit-Baltistan http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=10133 http://geo.tv/1-26-2011/77668.htm

Rahimjohar (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Logan Talk Contributions 08:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rahimjohar, 26 January 2011
Syed Pir Karam Ali Shah is appointed new Governor for Gilgit-Baltistan Please amend the name of governor to Syed Pir Karam Ali Shah from (Dr. Shama Khalid) Ref: http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=10133 http://geo.tv/1-26-2011/77668.htm

Rahimjohar (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Logan Talk Contributions 08:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request
Please add "Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan both constitute an area known as Pakistan-administered Kashmir which is referred to in India as Pakistan-occupied Kashmir." to the beggining paragraph as Mar4d has done the same on the Jammu and Kashmir page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.84.14 (talk)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Bias
"The people of this remote region were liberated from the Dogra regime of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir on 1 November 1947 with the help of the Pakistani army and then became citizens of a self-liberated and very short-lived independent state (17 days only). The new state asked the government of Pakistan to provide it with necessary assistance with which to conduct its affairs, as it did not have the necessary administrative infrastructure of its own. The government of Pakistan accepted the request and sent Sardar Muhammad Alam Khan, an extra assistant commissioner from the NWFP, to Gilgit. Sardar Muhammad Alam Khan then took control of the territory's administration as its first appointed political agent." - The single source is a pakistani newspaper and it cannot be accepted as a neutral source. Please come up with a non-Indian, non-Pakistani source for this story.76.218.92.239 (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've kept part of the info, but clearly attributed it to the newspaper. You are correct that relying so heavily on a single source for such a claim is questionable. You're right that we need better, more independent sources for corroboration.  Qwyrxian (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Autonomous status and present-day Gilgit-Baltistan
Added the Wikipedia Internal link for the Gilgit-Baltistan United Movement The section containing Gilgit baltistan package also needs to show the reaction of various stakeholders and the reasoning for their stand on the package. The references which are from newspapers Dawn, Reuters and Dailytimes also provide further information for persons looking for a better idea on these topics. Mustihussain kindly do not remove this section.dBigXray 08:29, 6 October 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepeshraj1 (talk • contribs)
 * sorry, your latest edits on "kashmir conflict"-page shows, yet again, that you push your pov rather than sticking to wp:npov. what you are doing here on this article is a clear example of wp:coatrack. you are duplicating the content from the "kashmir conflict"-page here as it suits your agenda. wikipedia is all about collaboration...and in order to have collaboration you need your fellow editors trust. this is something you won't get by you pov-edits.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The content is valid and vital for the subsection. How can you call it POV when the citations are provided from Dawn and Dailytimes Both Pakistani News sites as well as Reuters (a neutral source).I have provided both citations to improve the neutrality of the editing and not a biased one sided POV that you are pushing here. In fact it appears that you are POV pushing and deliberately reverting and deleting the content about any criticism of Pakistani Stand on Gilgit-Baltistan. Besides you keep on removing the internal wiki links and valid references and citations, so that other editors are deprived of the references to cross-check the content. What is your problem with the internal wiki links ? besides i would request you to discuss on The mentioned topic rather than indulging in Personal attacks that serve no purpose.dBigXray 10:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)dBigXray 10:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * that you're a pov-pusher and a disruptive editor has been noted by other users as well. you have no consensus either here nor on the kashmir conflict page. i wonder why? another policy you always breach is wp:npov. i don't mind criticism of the so-called pakistani stand on gilgit-baltistan but the fact that you fail yet again to mention the main demand of gilgit-baltistanis to join pakistan (as reported by reuters, indian express and other reliable sources) shows your true biased colours. your littering of the whole section with cherry-picked content from another wiki-article is not acceptable. in addition, wp:npov requires that the view of the majority of gilgit-baltistanis, who want to join pakistan as reported by reliable sources, should be more prominent than the views of certain politicians. you violate not only wp:npov but also wp:undue. finally, the current version includes criticism, rendering your allegations nonsensical -- mustihussain (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

❌

Translation into Chinese Wikipedia
The 21:43, 14 December 2011‎ TopGun version of this article is translated into Chinese Wikipedia.--Wing (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

"Claimed districts"
User: Qwyrxian has removed two of the sources which I knew to be invalid; the last (http://jainbookdepot.com/servlet/jbgetbiblio?bno=007408) while not available online, is extremely unlikely to support any Pakistani claim on Kashmir as it was published in India. --Rvd4life (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Offline material has to be actually accessed to verify or challenge. In anycase... Pakistan claims the Indian controlled parts of Kashmir and this area would come under this section. There might be dispute on the region but India certainly wouldn't deny that Pakistan claims the area. The claim itself is not disputed or contentious. -- lTopGunl (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not debating the reliability of the sources, but the article Jammu and Kashmir does have a seperate section for "claimed districts" too for geographic purposes. Reciprocally, it makes sense that there be a section for claimed districts on the Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan articles. Mar4d (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but whether a seat for these districts is actually reserved and vacant in the Legislative areas of the respective regions is disputed. --Rvd4life (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to have reliable sources that verify exactly what it is that Pakistan claims. This is a claim that does not fall under the "common sense" provisions where we can forego references. I'm saying that it disputed, because we can't just take someone's word on what the government of Pakistan's official line of claim is. TopGun, can you please tell us exactly what the source says? If no one can verify what it says, and we have reason to doubt that it says what the line in the article says, then it should be removed, and we should probably remove the unverfied information as well. WP:SOURCEACCESS does not mean that when someone adds a print source we just have to automatically accept it without discussion; rather, it says that such sources are fine, but if their content is challenged, someone needs to say what the actual document says. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think we'll have to ask the IP that asked for this edit (I just answered the edit request by adding the districts here) . In anycase... all of Indian controlled Kashmir is claimed by Pakistan which is widely covered and even stated and referenced at Pakistan article. -- lTopGunl (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * News update: http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1695381&language=en http://www.jammu-kashmir.com/archives/archives2006/kashmir20061211d.html --Rvd4life (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Though there might be objections against that too, but how is that related to this (as the legal claim is that of GB and/or AJK and not the government of Pakistan). Infact your source actually supports the claims as AJK and GB are Kashmiris - the source says Kashmiris want to be a part of Pakistan. But then again, the claims are not related to that alone. Pakistan in anycase claims the territory as disputed. -- lTopGunl (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No one has shown actual text of this book. It seem like unprove claim to be deleted  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.98.197.34 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kashmiriness
A sentence in the lead read,

However, when the UN source mentions Gilgit-Baltistan, it treats it as separate from "Pakistan-administered Kashmir", which is used synonymously with Azad Kashmir. Here are the relevant excerpts:

Interestingly, the Indian source uses "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" to refer to the area administered by Pakistan and claimed by India as part of "Kashmir". (The definition used by the Indian source includes Gilgit Baltistan, although neither the Gilgit-Baltistanis nor the Pakistanis always accept this definition). The only instance of "occupied Kashmir" is in the title, suggesting to me a Tyson Homosexual-type automatic replacement.

This usage by both sources belies the claim that "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" is a neutral or international description, at least when it includes Gilgit-Baltistan as well as Azad Kashmir, because it uncritically accepts the Indian government's extremely expansive definition of "Kashmir". So I've changed the lead to indicate that the Indian government claims the place as part of its Jammu and Kashmir, without getting into the muddy waters of how "Kashmiri" this place is, because that question requires better sources in a dedicated article. Shrigley (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I followed you up until the third paragraph where you state:


 * "Interestingly, the Indian source uses "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" to refer to the area claimed by all of India as "Kashmir" (which includes Gilgit Baltistan...)".


 * What do you mean by "the area claimed by all of India as 'Kashmir'"? It sounds as if you are saying that India refers to all of what they consider to be "Kashmir" as "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". The source you linked doesn't seem to directly address this claim. It does state:


 * "...India's claims of the province (Gilgit-Baltistan), which Senger says is 'constitutionally part of J&K (Jammu and Kashmir), and under Pakistan's illegal occupation since 1947'.", which is consistent with my understanding of India's position.


 * Could you explain or clarify your statement in the third paragraph above for me?--Racerx11 (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The government may use "occupied" exclusively, but non-government pro-India sources, such as the quoted Indian news agency, may use "administered". For both such Indian-biased sources, "Pakistan administered/occupied Kashmir" includes Gilgit Baltistan, while for Pakistan, the United Nations and other international sources, "Pakistan administered Kashmir" does not necessarily include Gilgit Baltistan. My concern is that some articles on Wikipedia juxtapose the term "Pakistan-administered Kashmir" against "Pakistan-occupied Kashmir", using both to describe India's claims and promoting the former as a neutral/international term for Azad Kashmir-plus-Gilgit Baltistan, when the latter's inclusion within "Kashmir" is a contention directly connected to India's claims (which don't respect Pakistan's administrative separations since 1947). Shrigley (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I would agree with everything you just said. I guess I am just splittng hairs with a couple words in a particular sentence in your oringinal post that sound ambiguous. Your overall point is clear. What I was getting at is that a "part" of the region commonly known as "Kashmir" in India does, in fact, undisputedly belong to India proper, namely in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. So an Indian source would never refer to the entire region known as "Kashmir" as either "Pakistan adminstered Kashmir" or "Pakistan occupied Kashmir". These terms only refer to certain parts of "Kashmir". Again, a sentence in your orginal post seems to imply that the Indian source considers all of "Kashmir" as "Pakistan-administered Kashmir". Or maybe I'm just severely misreading it.--Racerx11 (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I never meant for my sentence to imply what you thought it did, and I edited it to try to make it clearer. Shrigley (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's better. Since our little discussion is now irrelevant, you have my permission to strike-through or delete my comments in this thread if for any reason you feel it is now confusing or distracting to any future users wishing to comment. Thanks. --Racerx11 (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I just took a look at this discussion, shouldn't these facts be reflected at GB, AJK and J&K articles (which all state as contradicted above) for NPOV? -- lTopGunl (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 09:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Whatever the case, the region is indisputably referred to by a lot of the Indian media as 'PoK'. The word 'Held Kashmir' seems to be used a lot more than 'IOK' by Pakistani media these days.
 * Believe it or not, India's administration of Kashmir is under two jurisdictions as well: Jammu and Kashmir state and the Siachen Glacier which is under direct rule of the Indian Army. --Rvd4life (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Jammu and Kashmir is mostly known in Pak as Indian occupied Kashmir or simply occupied Kashmir. About the last... that is not a separate jurisdiction actually... it just has military presence on both sides... anyway... this discussion is a moot. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 03:46, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
Should this article, and articles for other territories in Kashmir (Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir to the extent of my knowledge) contain a section on the disputed status of the territories? Ryan Vesey Review me!  15:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that this article adequately addresses the concerns of the Indian government. Personally, I think a disputed status section would be required for this article to be neutral. The following are sources provided by that prove that the status is disputed:Strategic Analysis Volume 34,  Issue 3, 2010 DOI:10.1080/09700161003658998 Asian Affairs: An American Review Volume 22, Issue 1, 1995 DOI:10.1080/00927678.1995.9933695 The Denning law journalStrategic Analysis. I do not endorse adding a statement like "This region is illegally occupied" but do think that it is inherently POV to avoid mentioning the disputed status of the region. Ryan Vesey Review me!  14:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Message for Mar4d. If you think a two sentence mention in the lead (which directly violates WP:LEAD) is adequate you are really missing something.  In addition, an adequate mention of the Kashmir conflict would be a section of roughly a paragraph with . Ryan Vesey  Review me!  14:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure...this has been discussed many times before, so in case you are not familiar with the topic, I can clarify. Gilgit-Baltistan is not the only disputed territory, the entire Kashmir region is disputed. The region consists of Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan, which are part of Pakistan, and the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which is administered by India. All articles have just about a sentence in their leads and the same standards apply here. There is no reason at all why a paragraph of the Kashmir conflict should be discussed in depth in this particular article. Doing so is a direct violation of WP:NPOV, and I believe, the precise reason why a user has been blocked recently.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I highly disagree. If a territory is disputed, then Wikipedia should write about the fact that the territory is disputed.  Sections should exist in each of the articles on the disputed status of those territories.  In any case, using just a sentence in the lead violates WP:LEAD because the lead is to summarize information presented in the article.  It is also not the reason why the user was blocked.  The user was blocked for stating that the region was "illegally occupied" which is POV.  Stating that it is disputed and giving information on the dispute in summary stile is not. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That is where the argument diverts however. There is not just one territory that's disputed, there's multiple. Questioning why this article lacks depth in that area while others also have just about the same coverage on the Kashmir conflict is what takes the biscuit. Either have sections in all of them, or have none. I have just one word, WP:DUE.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:11, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of the existence of the other articles and their POV as well, I am requesting that a section be created in each article. It doesn't need to be much more than a paragraph as long as it links to Kashmir Conflict using main. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That would be fine and I have no objections to that. The main point of contention was why only this article should have reference to the topic, but now that you've clarified it, I understand your point more clearly. Cheers,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, considering this has been disputed in the past and will be disputed in the future, I hope to get more comments through RfC anyways. I feel like a sandbox should be created somewhere to create the section for each article and the material should be added all at once, otherwise we run the risk of it getting added to one of the articles and not the others.  Do you have any preference for a sandbox location?  Is it within policy to create a sandbox Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan/Dispute or should it be created in someone's userspace. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The link I created is allowed per WP:SP which states "Temporary subpages in Talk namespace" are allowed. The subpage would be temporarily used, but would need to be retained indefinitely for attribution purposes. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  15:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Include Articles should be written for readers, not editors. Although frequent editors of this article and similiar articles are very cognizant of the Kashmir conflict, some readers may not be. To omit the information in this article would create a hole in the reader's understand of the area.  A paragraph on disputed regions should be included. 71.251.38.196 (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Include the information, although perhaps not in its own section. I wouldn't think there'd be that much to say that wouldn't already be covered in history. It'd probably fit a paragraph in a Politics/Government section. As it stands, the lead doesn't really need information on what Indian media calls the place. Just say it's claimed. CMD (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Include only if it is a neutral short summary with "main article" pointing to Kashmir conflict without any judgements and conclusions only stating the dispute. Still the appropriate article for this to have a summary is the Azad Kashmir article as that was the full part of Kashmir in conflict.. GB is only an administrative division separated from AJK. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:45, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Include Also with the fact that Pakistan invaded and currently they are an occupying force. The neutral academic sources I have provided show that is is an illegal occupation, and of course Pakistan has never formally annexed the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone with more experience in the region start drafting some statements at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan/Dispute? Ryan Vesey Review me!  01:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Have done a short draft. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Invaded & occupying" is something that India and Pakistan both call each other. It's not neutral to say that and I'll revert such a summary. The draft seems heavily biased after the last addition anyway. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is historic fact. The sources used are not biased, they are from western academic publishers. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * NPOV does not extend to sources, but it does to wikipedia. Sources can very well be non neutral and can be cherry picked. I'll not revert you on that draft again but if that comes to the article in that condition I'll revert as everyone in the RFC is for a neutral summary of the issue pointing to the main conflict article. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 14:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Were exactly in NPOV does it say historic facts from academic sources need be purged from an article because somebody does not like it? WP:NPOV actually says "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process." So all you need do is provide an academic source which says Pakistan did not invade and that they currently occupy the region. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's funny and I'll not go into a debate like that as it is common knowledge; that's the edit that got you a block. If two countries dispute a territory (which was previously owned by none), the neutral view is not calling one of them an occupying country. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The legal ruler of J&K signed his country over to India, after Pakistan invaded. It does not matter if either country dispute the legal status of the region, Pakistan invaded and never went home. So please provide your sources which state they did not invade nor do they currently occupy the region. If you do not then my proposal can go into this article per policy, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not the chronology. There was a rebellion first and the J&K ruler signed it off to prevent the state going to Pakistan, Pakistan attacked to help the rebellion as India moved it's army to accept the accession. This is becoming fork of the discussion at the 47 war talk page. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 20:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes it was. Per the sources used in the draft Please present your sources which say Pakistan did not invade. I am curious as to how they went into an independent nation to help prevent an uprising and then seemingly turned around to attack those they were meant to be saving. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And now we have Chipmunkdavis removing the content which just got a consensus perhaps he will grace us with his presence and explain himself. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The edit clearly was made with little care. You've placed 20th century history in front of a section called "Rock art and petroglyphs". The breaking of continuity should be obvious to anyone. Also, I see above TopGun disputing your edit. How you claim consensus for your comment is clear from this talkpage is beyond me. CMD (talk) 10:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TG being the only one to object when every other editor said include means there is a consensus. The article violates NPOV without the content, and I will restore it per policy. Insted of edit warring against the consensus you should have moved the section, not removed it. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a single other editor has supported your text. CMD (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, anyone commenting on the RFC was capable of following the link to the content. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A point which has absolutely no relevance to my statement. No-one commented on it, in support or opposition, except TopGun (who was in opposition). Taking their silence and claiming it as support is plain wrong at best, misrepresentation at worst. CMD (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Should the following text be added to the article to achieve a neutral and accurate historical perspective? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

On 22 October 1947 the Pakistani armed forces crossed the border in Jammu and Kashmir with the claim that they needed to suppress a rebellion on the southeast of the kingdom. Local tribal militias and the Pakistani forces moved to take Srinagar but on reaching Uri they encountered defensive forces. Hari Sing made a plea to India for assistance and signed the Instrument of Accession. The British government also took part in stopping the Pakistani forces from advancing. On January 20 1948 the UN passed a resolution which called for the withdrawal of all Pakistani forces from Jammu and Kashmir, however it has remained under the control of Pakistan since then. Pakistan claims the region should have automatically gone to Pakistan during partition as Jammu and Kashmir has a majority muslim population. India claims the region as Hari Sing seceded to India and that large areas of Jammu and Kashmir have Sikh, Hindu and Buddhists.

Comments on RFC

 * Include It is accurate historical fact. The article fails NPOV without any mention of this. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Meh. Before this or anything else can be added to the article, first the existing stuff in the article has to be cleaned up. This was surely one of the most chaotically structured history sections I've ever seen. Then we need to find a place where to insert any new stuff. CMD was absolutely right in saying that the way you thew it in was extremely poor editorship. When stuff has been cleaned up, we can add a paragraph or two about what happened in 1947. In doing so, it will be important to keep in mind that detail articles should not needlessly duplicate the content of their parent articles. The general history of how and why India and Pakistan came into conflict and why parts of Kashmir came under the control of either party is a matter for Kashmir conflict and other higher-level articles. Here, these general events do not need to be summarized with more than one sentence. In that sense, I don't see why we need "crossed the border in Jammu and Kashmir with the claim that they needed to suppress a rebellion" or "the UN passed a resolution..." etc. here. What this article needs is only what's really specific to this one geographical portion of the area, and that doesn't seem to be overly much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No, already discussed above. Only a neutral summary of the conflict should be added after being proposed here, with the main article link to Kashmir conflict. No need to have text about the POVs in a current administrative state article. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 13:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How is it not neutral? Darkness Shines (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * TopGun, can you propose an alternative? I find this to be a step in the right direction at a minimum.  Pakistan is in the region, the UN called for forces to withdraw, they are still there.  These are verifiable facts.  That being said, I don't know enough about this region to know for certain that it is neutral.  The UN resolution was in 1948.  Is that still the stance of the UN?  Has the UN's stance changed?  The fact of the matter is, the disputed status of this region should be mentioned in all three articles.  There seems to be no opposition to that fact.  Instead of debating the inclusion of this, editors should be collaborating to create a working neutral piece of information for each of the three articles.  Adding this information in just the article on Gilgit-Baltistan does in fact go against any consensus in the preceding RfC.  I know very little about the politics of India and Pakistan, so I apologize that I cannot assist more with the content creation of these facts.  I do know enough to understand that none of these articles adequately covers the disputed status of this region.  Just as an article on Taiwan cannot be written without reference to its disputed status, these should be written with that reference. Ryan Vesey 14:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not Ryan what I have written will do for all articles in the region, all one has to do is move the names around. Personally I think it needs to be expanded upon not cut down as FPaS seems to think. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryan: which three articles are you talking about? D.S.: the very fact that you think this text should go into three articles in identical form just goes to prove it's not good writing. Articles should not duplicate each other needlessly. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, DS: you put that "factually disputed" tag in (evidently in order to circumvent your 1RR, because you couldn't use the "POV" tag a second time), but what exactly is factually disputed in the article now? Saying that something is missing that you would like to insert is not the same thing as saying that what is now there is factually wrong. What is factually wrong? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (ec)Which shows your lack of knowledge in the area. I said all that needs be changed are the names of the areas. it is all part and parcel of the same thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You evidently didn't get my point. Please read again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Darkness, I don't know much about the region; however, I would assume the circumstances in each region are a little less superficial. Jammu and Kashmir certainly has a different history and needs different information than the Pakistan controlled areas.  The article should reference why Pakistan claims the region (it does claim the region correct?). Ryan Vesey 14:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The above section was an RfC I started. I specifically referenced Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir as articles that also needed a section on the disputed status.  I created a work area for all three at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan/Dispute.  In regards to the POV tag, I think it should remain if no headway is made on inclusion of a section or paragraph on the disputed status.  I added one previously and only didn't argue for its reinsertion because I felt like we were close to getting the neutrality issues fixed. Ryan Vesey 14:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryan, I still think we should concentrate material on the highest-level articles possible. It is a bit of a pity there doesn't currently seem to be a common top-level article for all Pakistan-administered parts of the Kashmir area together – if there was, that would clearly be the place for this stuff – but there's Kashmir conflict and multiple subarticles to that. Gilgit-Baltistan is only one part of a larger issue. If we have an article about an entity that is affected by or part of some larger situation, we don't re-hash all our coverage of the larger situation in each sub-article. We mention it, of course, and we link to it, but we don't expect treatment of it. In an article about some city that was destroyed in WWII, we mention the war in that article (obviously), but we don't rehash the whole story of why WWII started and how it ended. In an article about some settlement in the West Bank, we mention that the area is disputed, but we don't rehash the whole story of the Palestinian conflict in each. What really is important in this article here is not the story of how the India-Pakistan war started, or what this or that international body thinks about its outcome. Those are facts about the larger situation, to which we need to only give a pointer. What really matters here is, for instance, the story of what consequences the conflict has on the internal status of the territory within Pakistan, for its human rights situation, for its ties with territories beyond the border, etc. Things that are specific to this topic. That should indeed be expanded. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've got no objection to your statement. My problem is, the articles currently treat these regions as if there is no dispute at all.  The existence of a dispute isn't mentioned, the effect the dispute has had on economies isn't mentioned, the way the dispute affects the lives of the people in the region isn't mentioned.  All of those should exist.  You may be correct that Darkness' draft focuses a bit too strongly on the debate as a whole and not how it affects the region; however, I feel that this should have a mention of the existence of a dispute at a minimum.  Perhaps the second paragraph of "Autonomous status and present-day Gilgit–Baltistan" should contain a reference to India's claim after "Officially, Pakistan has rejected Gilgit–Baltistani calls for further integration on the grounds that it would prejudice its international obligations over the Kashmir dispute."  It is hard to create a plain insertion, because I feel that some rewriting will need to be done. Ryan Vesey 15:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't follow you when you say "the existence of a dispute isn't mentioned". It's right in the intro, and has been there all this time while we've been discussing it. Not very well worded of course, – but that's just par for the course for the whole article – but it's clearly there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I had mentioned above that the current mention violates WP:LEAD. The mention needs to be placed in the body of the article. Ryan Vesey 15:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Point taken. A well-written history section would of course briefly recapitulate the contents of the lead. But there, too, it should definitely have the character of a reference to a discussion that is essentially done elsewhere, not of a text that creates the appearance of a stand-alone discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've copy edited the history section in your last edit as it was creating some inconsistencies; fixed for chronology. It's in order now. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * As Discussed here and before, Kashmir conflict is the article to deal with the dispute and it influences. The state articles can simply state an acknowledgement of a dispute by just telling the current area in control etc which is relevant to the administrative context of the topic. If at all a little more detail is needed, it would be more appropriate at Azad Kashmir article which used to be the whole entity until 1970, with this one being an administrative improvement. It would be funny to have dispute related material in each village article of the GB or Azad Kashmir if we go with this precedent. Each article is to cover it's own scope. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 17:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the proposed text isn't very clear, as reading the upper section of the article (even together with the proposed text) the relationship between e.g. Jammu and Kashmir to Gilgit-Baltistan remains quite mysterious: first the lead states that J&K is a neighbouring region, then later we hear that G-B used to be part of J&K. This may be clear to persons familiar with the issues, but it doesn't seem so to casual readers. These basic legibility issues should be improved before going to the level of detail in the proposal. --Dailycare (talk) 20:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Darkness Shines, TopGun, can you please try to be more neutral. At least every month I am invited in this or that RfC, which is a small piece of global pan-Wikipedian battleground with DS's attempts to make everything anti-Pakistan and TG's attempt to make things pro-Pakistan. Ironically, both of you constantly refer to WP:NPOV to back your absolutely symmetric POVs. May be it is just enough? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ryen, per your request I have added Pakistan's claims to the text. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Dmitri, I have to refute what you have written here, I do not try to make everything anti-Pakistani, I admit quite freely to making everything historically accurate however.If you have any idea how often I have added historical facts to articles in this topic area all cited to academic publishers only to see it removed on the most spurious grounds you would probably be filing as many RFC's as I am forced to do. Bit thank you for your comments, in future I will file fewer RFC's and let history be rewritten. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't claim bad faith or misconduct on your (or TopGun's) account; I just ask you (as well as TopGan) to at least try to be more detached when engaging in dispute. You (together) have quite a thorough record of RfCs that allows to reliably predict the outcome of any given dispute. Just try to use this record to settle disputes in a way that would detract less editors from their normal course of action. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes Highly reliable sources have been provided, and this fact is on-topic. As Dmitrij said, its evident from TopGun's edits that he seems to just make everything pro-Pakistani, and sweep off anything which doesn't passes his criteria of a pro-Pakistani content. Any place which is illegally occupied by a state is worthy to have a comprehensive detail of the capture. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 12:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Do not comment on me, comment on the content. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 00:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No one is interested in commenting on you. I have just seconded Dmitrij. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 08:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 *  Any place which is illegally occupied by a state is worthy to have a comprehensive detail of the capture. This is just another clear instance of where you are exposing your WP:POV. Wikipedia seems to tolerate almost anything nowadays, sigh.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 13:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So do you mean that all the scholars are sicked with POV pushing like you? Rich. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 13:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Exclude. As Fut.Perf says, duplication (as opposed to summarization) of parent article material is ugly and unnecessary, as well as disproportionate to such a short article. Also, Ryan made a smart admission when he said that he "know[s] very little about the politics of India and Pakistan". Since he alluded to Taiwan, let me make an analogy. On some formal governmental level, there is a dispute between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China over control over "all of China", including Taiwan. However, decades of de facto separation have given rise to a different issue: the issue of an emerging separate Taiwanese identity from the country of "China", People's Republic or not. The Taiwanese case relates to Gilgit-Baltistan because by most reliable accounts of the facts on the ground, Baltistanis fear and resent domination by Kashmiris, encouraged Pakistan's half-hearted attempts to separate it from Kashmir, and desire further integration into Pakistan proper. The biggest obstacle to Baltistani self-determination (within Pakistan, obviously; since India has not given its J&K a referendum, fat chance they'll give G-B one) is in fact India's internationalization of the Kashmir issue, using an archaic and expansionist definition of "Kashmir" which ignores the contemporary desires of the inhabitants and all other state disputants. I only mention these issues because some participants have couched their support for the RfC language in moral terms; of Pakistan's supposed "illegal occupation", etc. Shrigley (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Link of GB Council
Please add "www.gbcouncil.com" under external links in the page. Also amend the line" order granted self-rule to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan, by creating, among other things, an elected Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly...... and Gilgit-Baltistan Council headed by the Prime Minister of Pakistan" ThanksGallians (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Integration
I guess maybe I'm just not understanding. The way I read that paragraph, it says that Gilgit-Baltistan was granted, effectively, self-rule in 2009. That seems to me to mean that it still is not "formally integrated into the Pakistani state and does not participate in Pakistan's constitutional political affairs". Could someone explain how it can be indpendent, self-ruled, and also be a part of the state? I fully admit that I may simply be confused here. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have added a ref which supports the article as it currently stands. Does the editor changing the content to "under Pakistani control" perhaps mention why he is doing that? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The line:
 * "'Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory under Pakistani control.'"
 * —sounds a lot more neutral and objectively accurate than
 * "'Gilgit–Baltistan is the northernmost administrative territory of Pakistan.'"
 * I genuinely don't feel such a basic change merits an edit war . DS you have got involved again. Britannica and other tertiary sources  refer to this region as "Pakistani-administered sector" or "under Pakistan's control". But to say that it's a ″territory of Pakistan″ when there is a long-standing international dispute over that very territory, is undue. Now, should we stretch this discourse to a level of dispute over this pretty clear-cut issue also?  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Like I have told Mar4d somewhere else,
 * World Bank (WB) even refused to provide loan for the construction of Diamir-Bhasha dam because of its disputed status. Let's desist from reeling off sources.
 * Even UN acknowledges that disputed status. </ol>
 * What's the problem? Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Also it's not a state of Pakistan, it's only controlled by Pakistan. Gilgit–Baltistan thus only a de facto province-like status ″without constitutionally being a province″. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse me of source misrepresentation again please. You are now on 3RR. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * DS, source misrepresentation is what you did, perhaps unknowingly. Here the source you presented says "Gilgit and Baltistan comprise the northernmost territory governed by Islamabad and an important element in struggle for Kashmir. New Delhi claims that the region belongs to India because it is part of Jammu and Kashmir." (emphasis is my own) Your source doesn't support your claim. P.S. Don't revert haphazardly check what you're reverting before committing. I placed some minor changes in the lead like adding an extra bracket to close it. Then, I added behind a line. You ought to check WP:1RR before pontificating on WP:3RR.  Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not misrepresent the source at all as is obvious from the quote. The lede says "northernmost administrative territory of Pakistan" the source says "Gilgit and Baltistan comprise the northernmost territory governed by Islamabad" Are you really trying to say that governed is different to administered? And it is obviously more neutral to say administered over "under Pakistani control" which is an obvious POV push. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Kindly, stop assuming things on my behalf. "territory of Pakistan", which not to mention incites a sense of inherent belonging to Pakistan, is not as objectively correct as "territory under Pakistani administration" (or we may use "control" instead of administration). Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 13:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "territory of Pakistan", which not to mention incites a sense of inherent belonging to Pakistan - but it does belong to Pakistan, it is part of the Pakistani federation. Just because it is not a province does not change anything. Not every subdivision has to be a province, many countries have federally administered territories that exist alongside states/provinces. Gilgit-Baltistan is not a province but an administrative territory of Pakistan . The Kashmir dispute is mentioned in a paragraph in the lead and mentioning it in the opening sentence is hardly neutral. Moreover, the Jammu and Kashmir has an inaccurate lead and currently starts of like Jammu and Kashmir is the northernmost state of India. Since you're so keen om arguing over this status quo, we can start with the J&K article first, I propose the following lead for that article: Jammu and Kashmir is the northernmost state under Indian control. Enforcing double standards on this article while an article on an internationally disputed territory (Jammu and Kashmir) fails to mention the same is blatant POV push.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 14:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Let us take the discussion to WP:NPOV/N and continue it there. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)