Talk:History of Gilgit-Baltistan

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on History of Gilgit-Baltistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100503170923/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/gilgitbaltistan-package-termed-an-eyewash-089 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/national/gilgitbaltistan-package-termed-an-eyewash-089
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090912040340/http://www.dawn.com:80/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-gilgit-baltistan-autonomy-qs-01 to http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/news/pakistan/04-gilgit-baltistan-autonomy-qs-01

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Editing Restrictions
The following restriction is placed on this article and all others in the India-Pakistan topic area, broadly construed, as a result of this arbitration enforcement request:


 * An ethnicity claim restriction Any attempt to bring the purported or deduced or imagined ethnic or nationality identities of any users will lead to an immediate block. This includes an editor's own stated ethnic identity or nationality. Wikipedia uses reliable sources and the weighting of those sources to decide what to include, what not to include, and how the content should be stated in an article. Please stick to arguments based on those factors.


 * A socking accusation restriction Any edit made by an IP or new editor alleging socking or meatpuppetry may be freely reverted and any accusations ignored on article or user talk pages. SPI is the only place for such allegations.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 12:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of Gilgit-Baltistan. 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/20110810083914/http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~u71/kara/intro.html to http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~u71/kara/intro.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927113508/http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~u71/kara/kat.html to http://www.rzuser.uni-heidelberg.de/~u71/kara/kat.html

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) 17:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits
TripWire removed a large amount of content citing irrelevant essays. If he really believes that the long standing content is "cherrypicking" then he should also clarify what other side said. Capitals00 (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * But you remained shut over removal of 'large amount' of content done by Kautilya3, , . Pure case of WP:POV pushing: Let me be clear about what you did by reverting me; you want to include Ershad Mahmud's criticism of Pakistani government but remove the same author's mention of considerations of Government's constraints?? Classic cherrypicking and WP:NPOV.— Trip Wire ________ʞlɐʇ 08:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed large amount of content recently copied from Gilgit-Baltistan, which is UNDUE for a history article.
 * Anybody interested in history should be ashamed of the fact that this page is essentially blank. There is nothing here between 5000-year old petroglyphs and the British Raj.
 * No explanations or criticisms are necessary here. Just the facts. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Most history articles dealing with the Indian subcontinent end with the independence from the British Raj. That is when we deem the 'history', i.e., the past, to have ended and the present to have begun. So, padding up this essentially blank article with more and more of the 'present' is inexplicable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to first explain why you removed facts sourced to Ershad rather than labelling it as 'opinion' at your whim, whilst at the same time restoring the "self-serving" opinions of retired Indian army commentators and journalists. This is inexplicable cherry-picking of content on your part, as TripWire noted. It is blatant WP:POV pushing to keep the perspective which you agree with, whilst erasing the other sources. And then you have audacity to say "deletion of sourced content" in your edit summary. Few neutral observers will see this as neutral, and many will identify this as nationalist bias.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 12:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

You are always welcome to ask me for explanations for any edit that I do (if something over and above what I write in the edit summaries should become necessary). But please spare me usual jingoistic remarks like "POV pushing" etc. If I am indeed POV pushing, you are welcome to take me to ANI or ARE at any time. You have a free pass. It is mostly my content that you have copied from Gilgit-Baltistan. I don't think it was a great edit. This content really belongs in that article, and should be summarised here if necessary, not copied verbatim. Pakistan practised "postcolonial colonialism" in Gilgit-Baltistan according to Martin Sokefeld. Read that, and summarise it if you wish. Not Ershad Mahmud, who is clearly an insider in the Pakistani policy circles. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * My first delete is obvious because you have copied a passage saying "Gilgit's population did not favour..." without noticing a similar passage already existing. One of it had to go.
 * I removed Ershad Mahmud's explanations because they are an obvious attempt to defend the Government of Pakistan's decisions, which don't stand up to scrutiny. Let me pick them apart:
 * Inaccessible from AJK. How does that matter? There were certainly road links via Pakistani territory, and there was never any ban on them travelling through Pakistan.
 * In favour of joining Pakistan. So was AJK by popular assumption. How does that motivate separating the two regions?
 * Remoteness of Gilgit-Baltistan. What does remoteness have to do with FCR? Both Baltistan and Gilgit were part of wazarats in the princely state, and they had perfectly well-functioning administrations.
 * Pakistan itself was deficient in democratic norms and principles. There might be some truth to that, but Pakistan did have political governments when the FCR was imposed (Liaquat Ali Khan, Khwaja Nazimuddin, Mohammad Ali Bogra etc.) There were legislative assemblies in NWFP and Punjab, and there was a national constituent assembly.
 * Lack of public pressure. Are you kidding? There was a nationalistic provisional government, which was dismissed by the Political Agent. There was jang-e Azadi. There were uprisings that were suppressed by the military. When Gilgit Scouts refused to fire on people, Pakistan called out Frontier Constabulary.
 * I removed this explanation too for obvious reasons. The court says give them equal rights and Mahmud says, oh no, there are "sectarian divisions" and "historical connection to Kashmir dispute". What do any of them have to do with "euqal rights"?
 * Do you want me to do an WP:RfC to determine if this POV content should be retained? Tell me. I will have no greater pleasure than doing that. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are engaging in WP:SYNTH again as usual (like elsewhere), and citing your personal opinions of WP:RS which hold no water. Since you have so deeply inundated this section with your personal opinion, let me tell you there is no way we can maintain WP:NPOV on this article so long as partial Indian sources (military, journalists, unnamed "insiders") are quoted and your removal of all other sources (which disagree with your opinion) continues. This can be taken to WP:DRN. Your dismissal of Mahmud as an 'insider' lacks basis, and speaks a lot so far as the WP:UNDUE inclusion of Sahni, International Crisis Group, Alok Bansal, Priyanka Singh and the unnamed commentator is concerned. It is simple cherry-picking if you are not prepared to accept reliable sources, and not permitted by Wikipedia policy.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Now, you are side-tracking. You have challenged me on the deletions that I did, and I have explained why I deleted them. I have only deleted opinions, of an author working for a Jamaat-funded organisation, writing in its in-house publication with God knows what kind of editorial review it has. So, let me say it again. I have deleted opinions, not facts. They are his opinions on why the Government of Pakistan implemented colonialism in Gilgit-Baltistan. I have also given you a scholarly source that squarely contradicts these one-sided Pakistani perspectives.
 * Likewise, I am challenging you and whoever wants to delete content to explain why they deleted them. If you think the sources are no good, take them to WP:RSN. If you have other sources that contradict what they say, bring them on. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Kautilya3 the WP:ONUS of supporting the relevance of the contentious content from Indian sources, deleted by TripWire is on you.


 * And Sokefeld nowhere denies Mahmud's explanations of the Pakistani government. Read him again and don't put words in his mouth. So that argument does not hold.


 * As far as Mahmud himself is concerned he has published scholarly articles in a variety of peer reviewed journal articles. Your unsubstantiated claim that he works for a Jamaat funded organisation is a red herring, because the Jamaat is not the Pakistani government or state. Even so, casting WP:ASPERSIONS on their editorial board will do you no favours, because you have no evidence and your views on the Jamaat are well known and should you be dragged off to WP:RSN I will surely bring up those diffs to show the WP:COI.


 * The sources you are pushing, however, are blatantly linked to the Indian state. Alok Bansal (former Indian army member) and Priyanka Singh who works for an Indian government funded institute. They suffer from not being WP:INDEPENDENT. You were given a warning recently about WP:TE. And this continued behaviour is another add-on to the list I am afraid!--NadirAli نادر علی (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Counting frivolous warnings won't help you. Why should it matter whether the sources cited are Indians? Where in WP:RS does it state that Indian sources are unreliable? You are walking on a very thin ice by showing your personal sentiments about nationalities to sources and making clearly false accusations. Don't forget you were sitebanned and recently warned on ARE for this same disruption. Capitals00 (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The political status of Gilgit-Baltistan
Information from the following Wikipedia articles provides the rationale for changing the description of both Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir from an "administrative territory" to a "dependent territory." The Wikipedia definition of "dependent territory" would seem to fit the political status of Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir perfectly. The Islamabad Capital Territory could be described as an "administrative territory" since it is an administrative subdivision of Pakistan, but, clearly, Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir are officially not such subdivisions and, therefore, should not be described as "administrative territories."

from the Wikipedia article "Gilgit-Baltistan":

"While administratively controlled by Pakistan since the First Kashmir War, Gilgit-Baltistan has never been formally integrated into the Pakistani state and does not participate in Pakistan's constitutional political affairs."

from the Wikipedia article "Azad Kashmir":

"Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) is nominally a self-governing state, but ever since the 1949 ceasefire between Indian and Pakistani forces, Pakistan has exercised control over the state without actually incorporating it into Pakistan."

from the Wikipedia article "Dependent territory":

"A dependent territory, dependent area, or dependency is a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a sovereign state, yet remains politically outside the controlling state's integral area.[citation needed] A dependent territory is commonly distinguished from a country subdivision by being considered not to be a constituent part of a sovereign state. An administrative subdivision, instead, is understood to be a division of a state proper."

So is there a consensus on changing the description of Gilgit-Baltistan in this article from an "administrative territory" to a "dependent territory."? Atelerixia (talk) 05:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)