Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Portals?

As we seem to have the beginning of an edit war brewing how about we all have a cup of tea and discuss it first? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I am ready for it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Ready for what? Please stop wasting everyone's time on nonsensical POV edits. Mar4d (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Kindly stop your nonsense. I see no reason why India portal tag can't have a place in this article. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Who cares what you think? Restore your WP:POV again, I'll revert you straight away. Mar4d (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Mar4d.Is wiki your home property?,So you can do whatever you want.Why are you afraid of discussion.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 16:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Enough with the tendentious and nonsensical editing of Mar4d. All of his reasoning is one-sided and extremely biased. He is obsessed with the idea that GB is Pakistan's very own patrimony.

@DS: "Lets take it to the talk page please guys" is not a reason for reversal. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 04:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: Guys, there is an WP:NPOV/N discussion on whether or not the Gilgit-Baltistan's lead is neutral. We need more comment on the lead. Some are saying that the territory belongs to Pakistan regardless of what UN or India thinks. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I never edit this article but coincidentally looked here.I have seen a little bit of aggression from Mard4 which is not a noble gesture from an established editor.I am too ready for discussion here.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 06:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Enough with the tendentious and nonsensical editing of Mar4d. All of his reasoning is one-sided and extremely biased. He is obsessed with the idea that GB is Pakistan's very own patrimony. - Okay, so a nationalist editor adds in strong WP:UNDUE Indian POV into an article on a region that isn't administered by India in the first place, and I'm the one who's being called "tedentious" for reverting the POV!!?? Wow. Just wow. I shall mention this strong impartiality and POV of Mrt on the discussion at NPOVN. Mar4d (talk) 14:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added a link to Portal:Pakistan in the 'see also' section of Jammu and Kashmir temporarily for neutrality. This is not a one-way street and Indian editors would be mistaken to think that. We'll continue any further discussion at NPOVN. Mar4d (talk) 14:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nationalist? What is wrong with you? I am the one who went out on a limb to be neutral on J&K but you on the other-hand dispute that a similar change is needed in Gilgit Baltistan article if we are to be neutral. BTW, I don't flaunt an Indian flag or any other flag for that matter on my user page. So let's cut the crap about nationalism. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Full protection

While I have edited content on this article in the past, I am not WP:INVOLVED in the current dispute about portals. I have absolutely no opinion whatsoever on whether or not the Indian portal should appear here. But y'all need to stop edit warring about it. Use whatever dispute resolution process you need to try to figure this out, but the back and forth is disruptive. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Mar4d's edits

The article currently refers to "Gilgit–Baltistan" as ″territory of Pakistan″, not ″Disputed territory of Pakistan″, not ″territory under Pakistani control″, not ″Pakistan-administered territory″ just ″territory of Pakistan″ (notwithstanding the colossal international dispute it has been between India and Pakistan and what a redundant lump of diplomatic fiasco it has been at the UN) and when I asked others to change it to ″Pakistan-administered territory″ or something similar since that is objectively more neutral, Mar4d aggressively argued that since Gilgit Baltistan is indeed a territory of Pakistan it need not be changed. I took it to WP:NPOV/N and same thing with Mar4d even though I got some support, Mar4d with his usual obfuscatory chicanery contended that Indian POV need not be mentioned in the first line, it just does not deserve a mention simply because it's only India who is arguing it.

But amazingly enough when, to avoid the much hyped "double-standard" (touted everywhere by none other than Mar4d himself), I changed the language for Jammu and Kashmir from "the Indian-administered state" to "state of India" (following the same rationale as what was given to me about Gilgit-Baltistan) he cleverly tries to argue that I need to seek a consensus and uses that as a pretext to edit war.

Frankly speaking this boils my blood, albeit I, for one, am not surprised at all, I know him for too long. What in the hell is going on? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 15:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes,Jammu annd Kashmir is an integral part of India not only because we think it but according to UN(neutral body).The truth is that Pakistan occupied others parts of Kashmir with the help of China.Anyhow,it is obligatory to monitor Mar4d contribution's from now because it is clearly visible that he is very sensitive related to Kashmir issue's articles.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 18:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Please monitor if you like, but beware of WP:WIKIHOUND. I am now 99% certain that he is very sensitive towards anything remotely related to Pakistan. He often takes advantage of 1 on 1 edit warring. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My approach towards any editor is not attacking but only defensive.Yeah,Softer words are better option.---zeeyanwiki ^discutez 07:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right Britannica refers to it as :"Jammu and Kashmir, state of India" however it mentioned the dispute. But Britannica refers to Gilgit or Baltistan as "Pakistani-administered sector of the Kashmir region," [2], [3]. Furthermore, according to the resolution passed by the UN on the state of Jammu & Kashmir on August 13 1948, Pakistan was to vacate its troops from the whole of the state.

Having said that, do you have a reliable source which vindicates your claim that "Jammu annd Kashmir is an integral part of India..according to UN(neutral body)"? Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh shut it please, I have had enough of your constant blabbering every now and then. "Indian-administered" was added before Jammu and Kashmir because the same wording is used on the Jammu and Kashmir article where it is referred to as a "state of India" and the Azad Kashmir and Gilgit-Baltistan regions are called "Pakistan-administered" regions there. The same wording here is in uniformity with that. However, since you are so insistent on getting things done your way, I shall apply the same change at Jammu and Kashmir. I am also going to remove the word "administrative" in the opening sentence to ensure equal-handedness. As for Zeeyanwiki's comments, they are wrong on so many counts and full of so many glaring inaccuracies/fallacies that I am not even going to bother to reply. If you want a platform to push your nationalist views, find a site other than Wikipedia. Mar4d (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No you shut it Mar4d! I mean it.

You have edited jammu and Kashmir, happy now?
About your edit here: It is administrative territory of Pakistan, period. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Cut the crap. First you manage to remove the term 'administered' before Jammu and Kashmir (which is effectively an Indian-administered territory) in this article, which I've reached a compromise on, and then you want the same word to be applied before Gilgit-Baltistan and Azad Kashmir regions. What are you up to? Mar4d (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No you cut the crap and you tell me what are you up to? Why are you again edit warring? Wasn't it you who argued that Gilgit-Baltistan is an administrative territory of Pakistan and that we don't need, in fact, should not balance the first line with Indian POV on the issue? But now you are taking it further by trying to omit the fact that it's an administrative territory.

Well, now that I think of it, it is as meaningless a change as the line it replaces. You go ahead I won't edit it further, I won't argue Jammu and Kashmir with you here. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Folks, the next person who says "cut the crap", "shut it" or similar personally directed remark will be blocked. I suggest you cooperatively work toward text on this article as well as the Jammu and Kashmir article that will accurately reflect the actual and disputed statuses of those two entities. Suggest wording, suggest alternative wording, try an RfC if you can't agree. --regentspark (comment) 13:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Will User:Atelerix explain why he keeps changing a cited version of this article to an uncited one? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi User:Atelerix. I've reverted your edits as it's not clear to me how they're improving the article. I'd like to hear your side as well. Could you give us a sketch here as to what you're trying to do? Thanks! Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that Atelerix is blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. I did try initiating a discussion on the user's talk page, to no avail. If the user comes back from the block and starts reverting again, I believe we should just ask for another block, as we simply need this user to discuss why they keep removing sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

POK and IOK

[Copied from User talk:Kautilya3]

Do you agree that all Indian administered Kashmir be called IOK and Pakistan administered Kashmir as POK ? Delljvc (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Delljvc: No, "occupied" is a loaded term. We tend to say "administered" on Wikipedia. Wherever the term "occupied" occurs on our pages, it needs to be replaced by "administered". However, if we are citing a source and the source uses the term "occupied", we can't substitute that with something else. I noticed that you were replacing the titles of the newspaper articles to be different from what they were. We don't do that. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Delljvc and Kautilya3, editors have gone over this repeatedly. Either add the POV terms of all sides in all articles or not add at all in any of them and use neutral terms like 'administered' or controlled (if in context). You can see the consensus here (editors from all sides participated) Talk:Azad Kashmir/Archives/2012/December. Hopefully this will end the moot discussion. Simply put PoK / IoK as a terminology or claims in Kashmir dispute and refrain from adding them (esp to the lede) of the three territory articles. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: Exactly. You will see from this diff that that is what my version was doing. On the other hand, the version you have reinstated [4] has all of Delljvc's POV. So, can you self-revert? Kautilya3 (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: By the way, Gilgit-Baltistan is not included as part of "Pakistan" in the Pakistan constitution. So, calling it a "territory of Pakistan" is POV. I changed it to "territory of Pakistan-administered Kashmir", which should not have an objection from anybody. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It was already linked to Pakistani "administrative" territories. What you were saying was already there. Maybe you missed it. Saying it again and again in the same sentence doesn't make sense but I wont oppose you if you want to re-add just that (but is it really needed?). My main reason for the revert was all the other additions of PoK that you added. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@TopGun: I am afraid I am not getting through to you. I am copying this discussion to the article page, which is where it belongs, and asking for WP:DRN. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Delljvc: @TopGun: This issue is now referred to DRN. Please see [5].

Hey.. I just realized I was reading the diffs through the highlighted markup only and after seeing some new editors recently reverting PoK in other articles, I didn't notice that the word PoK was in the citation's title and not in the content. I would have self reverted, had I noticed earlier; instead I was debating of not including PoK it in the content and sticking to neutrality with 'administered' as discussed numerous times. And I just saw where I was wrong after reading another editor's comment on my talkpage. I guess I've been a bit out of touch with the wiki markup. If it's just that you oppose, I guess there's no dispute. But if you also want to include the title citation refers in the content, I would oppose that (hopefully that's not the case and it was just a mess up from myside). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Misunderstandings happen! Perhaps, you can add a note on the WP:DRN referral that you agree with the changes and they can close the issue.

@TopGun: The only change I have made is to change "territory of Pakistan" in the lead to "territory of Pakistan-administered Kashmir". This change is because AJK and GB are not listed as part of "Pakistan" in the Pakistan constitution, whereas a "territory" of a country is normally understood to be its part. I could also settle for "administered territory of Pakistan" if that sounds more neutral to you. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with using administered (if you see I am actually favouring it). What I was saying was it is being referred to in the same sentence twice. The last suggest seems more sensible imo according to my previous comments, I wouldn't really oppose the current version too though it's a bit less elegant. For the PoK edits, I guess it was fixation from another dispute at AJK. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2015

Instead of using the term "Azad Kashmir" the term that should be used is "Pakistan Administered Kashmir" or "Pakistan Occupied Kashmir". As Kashmir was always a part of India, only during the partition of India in 1947 the Pakistanis had sent in state sponsored terrorists to illegally occupy Kashmir.

59.178.211.28 (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Consensus has been reached on the use of Azad Kashmir throughout the English Wikipedia - please see the archives on Talk:Azad Kashmir - and we strive for a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Azad Kashmir is an official name. We have to use official names. We can use term "Pakistan administered state of Azad Kashmir", same applies to Jammu and Kashmir.--Human3015 talk • 16:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No Human3015, I agree with Arjayay 115.186.146.225 (talk) 05:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Your edits are breaking Wiki syntax and removing sources and breaking up actual sentences in order to put the material the way you want to see it. You also insist on referring to the Twelver Shi'a as "Shia", which may be used in the original broken English of the quote but is offensive to Ismailis, who are also Shi'a Muslims. Ogress _smash! 17:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

oh sorry for using shia. It should be twelver in distict breakup to be added. For governor name following is gov of gilgit baltistan official site reference. http://www.gilgitbaltistan.gov.pk/Governer.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.80.128 (talk) 05:10, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you keep changing it back? Why do you keep changing cited information to wrong numbers? Do not add information without cites. Do not change information that is from cites to incorrect numbers. Ogress _smash! 19:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Case of WP:OR

I have analysed the source "Schofield, Victoria (2000). Kashmir in Conflict: India, Pakistan, and the Unending War. I.B. Tauris. pp. 180–181" and found that there is a case of WP:OR.This book is about Kashmir and the author said many things about kashmir which is being referred to Gilgit Baltistan.Infact she has said very little about Gilgit Baltistan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitch Hicking Across Sahara (talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

If any statements in the article are not in the source you can tag them with {{notinsouce}} or {{failed-verification}}. - Kautilya3 (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Total area

Total sum of Area in Administrative_divisions is 72,496, but if I sum area of each district, total is 80,915. Same is the case with population. Spasage (talk) 10:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gilgit-Baltistan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• 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.

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

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Consistent sectorial edit war.

Consistent sectorial edit war. This section belongs to religions NOT sects. Even if it belongs to sects there is no systematic census data to support claims of fighting sectarian parties. Wikipedia is not a sectarian battle ground.

Although few editors provided few refrences but none meets WP RS. Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.161.99 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, then stop edit-warring, it's only you who is edit-warring. Sects are a part of religion and they have their own encyclopedic value. The content in the article which you are trying to change is supported by reliable sources. There is a scholarly source and there is a PILDAT source in there. I am not sure what is your interpretation of reliable sources. Both sources present in that section are reliable, published sources. This is an encyclopedia and sectarian demographic data is encyclopedic so please do not make Wikipedia a battleground. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

:: Sorry sir I don't have enough time to waste on meaningless sectarian war. Well its not me if you see the history since 2009 this page has 40% edits focused on sects. It started with shia sunni student organizations issue. Several times this page got protection due to sectorial fanatics. If we compare this page with other similar articles then we can clearly see that 99.9% administrative divisions of any country of the world never discuss sects. They all contain a religion section. Scholarly source you quoted and PILDAT source never tell us about how they counted each and every person in the state? Clearly there is no indication of systematic census. So anyone can question Reliability of these sources

The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. The policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.161.99 (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear IP, This article is under pending-changes protection. As a reviewer for pending changes, I have rejected your edit because it was modifying sourced content without an adequate explanation. Since you have reinstated your edit, I will leave it to another reviewer to look at it, but it is unlikely to be approved. To make a proper edit, you need to justify why the sourced wording needs to be changed and, if it is a judgement issue, you need achieve consensus (i.e., all the involved editors of this page must agree), before you can make the edit again. All the best! - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@39.32.161.99: Well, i don't have time to waste as well and you are engaging in meaningless discussion and i will like to discourage you from wasting your time. As explained by me to another editor in recent past that Wikipedia cannot succumb to people fighting sectarian wars and it would not do so to you as well if you continued to do so. We cannot ban or censor certain valuable content just because some editors are fighting but we can ban the fighting editors. This same logic was given to me from another editor who got blocked as a sock-puppet of LangaugeXpert so please stop giving phony reasons to block some content that you do not like from Wikipedia. Gilgit-Baltistan have unique sectarian demographics within Pakistan compared to other regions, that is why it warrants mentioning. As you have seen that it is the only Shia majority area within Pakistan, this is unique and when it's verified by reliable sources then we cannot block this information from Wikipedia as the main purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform readers and by taking this information out, we will not be doing our job to inform readers properly about this subject. When the data is supported by reliable sources then we do not question as to whether it came from systematic census or not. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

::::Kautilya3 While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, BUT this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content [6] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.32.161.99 (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@39.32.161.99: Care to explain, how is unsourced data that you are trying to put in verifiable and sourced data added by me is not? Also, you might want to explain how the data you are trying to enter is consensus data and mine is not? Please do not make joke of Wikipedia policies? See, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

39.32.161.99 your edit are also not souced properly. SheriffIsInTown Karakaoom highway lead to china. You put new edit so IP is right The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Why you deleting correct name. I added a section beelow 2 disscuss it. 肥料 6:31 11/03/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 肥料 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

See, Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus", you cannot block content just because there is no consensus. You are removing perfectly sourced content. This is an attempt to stop people from improving the article under the umbrella of WP:CONSENSUS and also an attempt to remove content which some editors do not like such as content about sectarian demographics of Gilgit-Baltistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

::: No no SheriffIsInTown none of summary demanded consensus. The problem is contradiction in info box and summary statements. This made it disputed. You just recently added all this. it got disputed so onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. 肥料 (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant personal attack

SheriffIsInTown I saw your profile page and find this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown#/media/File:Greatesiranmap.gif You are some shia extremist dreaming to include Gilgit Baltistan and Xinjiang in a shia state of GREATER IRAN. this clearly raise questions on your neutrality on disputed content. 肥料 (talk) 10:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Well, i have been accused of many things before but there cannot be a more disgusting allegation that this. If you open your eyes and carefully look at my user page, you will see all of the pages to which i contributed listed with a corresponding image except some for which i could not find a corresponding image. That image is corresponding to Greater Iran page. As to your consensus demands, yes there is content being changed by you for which there was already a consensus through edits and as a matter of fact there is no consensus for your changes. You cannot solely claim that there is no consensus, you need to highlight the policies which those edits are violating. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC) It took me some time but here is the proof that i am not some Shia extremist who is trying to bunch up the Shia figures, you can clearly see in that diff that i reverted the Shia figures which were increased by another editor and were not according to the sources. Here, it's a different case, here you are removing sourced information which shows Shia figures more than Sunni so you will counter the same opposition. This is the matter of integrity of this encyclopedia. If we succumbed to people like yourself, this encyclopedia will never improve. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Having now looked at the sources to the extent I have access, they seem to support the information given. What is the apparent contradiction? CMD (talk) 15:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: The IP seems to claim that since there have been previous fighting over sectarian figures so i should not improve the page with the sources, he is basically starting the fighting using an excuse of a previous fighting. User:肥料 seems to come here all of a sudden and reverted my edit which had sectarian percentages coupling them with some Xinjiang's name related changes. Both of them are claiming that since there was no consensus for these changes so the article and overall encyclopedia should not be improved with sourced information without a prior permission from the IP and User:肥料 that whether there is a consensus or not. Contradictory to that, they are making their unsourced changes and the changes which directly conflict with WP:COMMONNAME without any consensus. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant personal attack

::: Having now looked at this chaos. Was'nt my first sentence 100% correct. I would like to repeat; Consistent sectorial edit war. Question being A Answers being Z. @肥料: your blame for greater Iran had also a second evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SheriffIsInTown#Codes_of_conduct . I mean it is so disgusting to see an Ismaili shia promoting his sect on Wikipedia. similarly few extremist sunni shia noor bakhshis have made this page a edit war room. If we compare this page with other similar articles then we can clearly see that 99.9% administrative divisions of any country of the world never discuss sects. They all contain a religion section (not a sectometer) and that's it. In this case no official census or systematic method is referred to make contrasting estimates. Shia ranging 70%-65%-42%-39% in varying sources. Still if some one asks us to accept this as reliable then RIP Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality reliability sourcing sound judgement consensus and so on & on. 39.32.191.98 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Yes, i edited that page yesterday after finding the source on Ismaili'ism being branch of Shia Islam and as i have added other pages to which i contributed, i added that one as well to my page, many editors do that and i will continue to do so. If you see that page (Ismaili'ism) had refimprove tag on it. Before you go and look for more evidence of my Iranian connection, I tell you myself that you will find Ahvaz on my userpage as well which you can claim that I want to make future capital of my Shia Kingdom which you have envisioned for me. Also, check the history of 2015 Mina stampede, you will find me sometimes aligning with Saudi point of view and sometimes with Iranian point of view, depending on who was right at the time. I also have improved Harchandrai Vishandas by adding the source as him being former mayor of Karachi who contributed much to Karachi's well being. Many Pakistanis will not like it and will accuse me of being Hindu nationalist in disguise of a Muslim who wants to make Karachi part of India. I see it coming very soon and i have been accused of Pakistani nationalist, Punjabi nationalist who wants to harm Indian, Bangladeshi and Afghan interests. I have been blamed for being a Muslim POV and have been banned from contributing to page Muhammad (صلی الله علیہ و آلہ و سلم) and it has been always the reason where editors did not find the sourced information to their liking or when their unsourced POV was removed by me and this is the same case here. I don't know, why I am wasting my time with someone who is going to be blocked soon based on his past edit history. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

My two cents. The IP wants to contest the inclusion of the sectarian information in the article. The reason he opposes seems to be that it leads to edit wars. There might be some problems with sourcing because precise census figures are not available.

• On the first reason, the likelihood of edit wars is definitely not a criterion in deciding whether to include information. If edit wars occur, we have other means of controlling them. Content is only decided based upon what we regard as the best and most useful information to provide to the reader.
• On the issue of sourcing, I admit that there is a problem if census figures are not available. But Sheriff added his chart using reliable sources, and I haven't seen anybody contest the sources except you. But you haven't really contested them because you haven't said what is wrong with them.
• The majority of your argument is really about the wisdom of providing sectarian information. This is again not a criterion for Wikipedia. We don't claim to know what is social good and try to promote it. We are not an advocacy group, or social workers or anything of that sort. We only aim to provide reliable information. If I search for "Gilgit Shia" on Google Books [7], there are tons of reliable sources. So, apparently this information is worth mentioning and worth discussing.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

:::::: Kautilya33 your point of view was appreciable. I would request not to be singled out, objections are raised by crowds since 2008-09 and will be raised, page protections, talk page fights and so on. SheriffIsInTown apologies for me also joining Greater Iran allegations. No one denies shias are there in gilgit. Ignore every thing just concentrate on single point that Is there reliable method mentioned in any source that how they guessed exact percentages of a community which has a family system where father is sunni mother is shia son marries ismiali and doughter marries noor bakhshis. Ethnic fights occur where area has mix population. See the history of violence and curfews in the region. so the point which is essence of discussion is 75%-65%-42%-38% Is the range of estimates for shias in contrasting estimates. Still I am now retaining your sect table and other 90% summary showing parts where different ethnic groups live. But I am adding true picture with sources that how mixed areas have series of ethnic violence and curfews. I hope it will be ok with all. 39.32.191.98 (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Kautilya3:@SheriffIsInTown: @Chipmunkdavis: @肥料: Check the contradiction Sentence number 1= Gilgit-Baltistan is the only Shia majority area in Sunni majority Pakistan Sentence number 2 People belonging to Shia sect of Islam are in majority in Skardu district, while Diamir and Astore have Sunni majority, Ghanche have Noorbakhshi and Ghizar have Ismaili majority Gilgit and Hunza Nagar districts have a population belonging to a mix of all these sects.

I mean its between two options 1. Shia are majority in the whole region Vs 2. Shia are majority in parts of region. I think second option is supported by all references in this section so only this should be retained. 39.32.191.98 (talk) 06:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If editors could place in this discussion clearly 1) the name of the citation 2) the quote from the citation that is relevant to the discussion here, that would make things much clearer for everyone. I have limited access to the books being used. I am however able to access the Pildat pdf:

• Pildat pdf:
  • "Around 75% of the region's population follows some form of Shia Islam, almost an exact reversal of the norm in the rest of Pakistan. This makes the Northern Areas the only Shia majority political unit in Sunni-dominated Pakistn25. There are four sects in Gilgit-Baltistan; Shia, Noorbakhshi26 and Isamili communities believe in the offices of Imamat, according to them, runs after the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) through Ali and his male successors. Whereas Sunnis believe in the office of the Khilafat and according to them Abu Bakar, Umar, Usman and Ali were the Caliphs after the death of Muhammad (PBUH).

From this the author seems to include Isamilis and Noorbakhshis as Shia for the overall count, but differ them from (presumably mainstream) Shia for all the more detailed analysis. CMD (talk) 08:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC) :@Kautilya3:@SheriffIsInTown: @Chipmunkdavis: @肥料: Now here is catch 22. See the section below the common name discussion. Common name shia is used only for shia Twelver's. So by applying wiki common name policy it is disruptive to put 75% shias (Same Piladat also reports 68% - another contradiction) and then showing if all districts of gilgit Baltistan are shia majority will be MISLEADING because same Pildat reports district wise sectarian percentages which confirm option 2 (Shia are majority only in parts of region). Even if we include Ismialis and Noor bakhshis as Shia (Regardless of the fact that Ismailis and noor bakhshi have totally different worship places and prayers timing and a lot of differences with shia Twelver's). 39.32.191.98 (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Nearly dozen independent sources also claim Gilgit Baltistan as sunni majority. 1. https://www.msu.edu/user/hillrr/161lec24_files/image009.jpg 2. http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/blogs/uploads/2013/06/Sunni-Shia-Map-PEW.jpg 3. http://www.geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Sunni_Shia_Map.jpg 4. http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1884362/thumbs/o-SUNNI-SHIA-570.jpg 5. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-M8lz6OENGxU/T0WzRmJQvNI/AAAAAAAAADE/lLuFm1zDUVA/s1600/Sunni-Shia%2BMap.jpg 6. http://ldysinger.stjohnsem.edu/@themes/islam/conquest_maps/Shia-Sunni_map_2014.JPG 7. http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/Islam-by-country-smooth.png 8. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ws4xNh6cmfw/T1pExzBIwiI/AAAAAAAAAMs/DFJVfOlmv5w/s1600/nasr-shiamap_400px.png 9. http://www.oprev.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/LegalSystems.png . N

Now clearly this shia claim is neither supported by Independent sources nor by a systematic or official census. It was just a perception crated by few shia scholors. If some one will try to restore this I will report to administrators of Wikipedia. 39.32.191.98 (talk) 10:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@39.32.191.98: very good work. Already their sources were contradictory. Salutes for exposing. 肥料 (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

When things get contentious, we should stick to scholarly sources as far as possible. Many of your sources are blogs and advocacy sites. Please avoid them. This scholarly source says that the Zia-ul-Haq's Islamisation drive turned into a Sunnification drive in Gilgit-Baltistan. There was an effort to create a Sunni majority, and the Shia-Sunni rivalries have become endemic ever since. - Kautilya3 (talk) 11:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

References

:::: Kautilya3 it sounds funny that every thing from others is non scholarly, advocatory or blog or not reliable. You may think Statistics division of Pakistan should be replaced with whom you consider only scholars. The source you showed us may be a propagator anti China Pakistan economic corridor/ anti Muslim / anti pakistan scholarly work. 肥料 (talk) 11:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 even this scholarly source first mention Shiekh 2009 source for shia majority statement. Later on it says on page 88 It is difficult to identify a majority group based on language or ethnic affiliation for governance purposes.

You would benefit from reading WP:RS from the beginning to the end. The IP seems to have a good understanding of it. "Language or ethnic affiliation" makes no reference to Shia-Sunni distinctions. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

::::::: Kautilya3 Definition of ethnic is a sub group of population (Including religious) [8]. Nine sources of IP are not reliable and your single (claimed as scholarly source) with contradictions page 87 against page 88 is reliable. You want me to accept it???? 肥料 14:47 12/03/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 肥料 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, we want you to accept it and leave this page alone. You are being WP:POINTY, by fighting and disrupting, you are trying to prove your point that what you said was right. If you haven't noticed there is already consensus against you. There are three experienced editors explaining WP:RS and content from the reliable scholarly sources to you, there is one additional editor who have reverted you. So, it's four against one and really honestly that one would not count as well very soon. Two reliable sources say Shias are in majority so your blogs written by people like yourself wouldn't take precedence over scholarly sources. You are wasting your time and everyone else's. Even if you go to RFC, you are going to lose on these same points. Mark my words. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
• @Chipmunkdavis: It's supported by reliable scholarly sources that Ismailis are a sub-sect of Shia and that source is there in the article if it's not removed already by opposing editors so regular Shia plus sub-sect Shias are over 50% and other scholarly sources use the word majority as well and we as editors are in no way in a position to interpret the sources. If they say majority, we say majority. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 16:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Naming

Arguments of banned socks

Xinjiang complete name is Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Chipmunkdavis and SheriffIsInTown what are your objections to correction of name ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 肥料 (talk • contribs) 04:27, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Chipmunkdavis you quoted 'doesn't help an understanding of Gilgit-Baltistan'. Both regions are autonomous. I think that helps to understand political background. 肥料 07:25, 11/03/2016 There's no reason for us to use the official names for things when the common name suffices to convey the message. I am unaware of any connections between Xinjiang's administrative status and Gilgit-Baltistan's. CMD (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC) by that way kommon name of gilgit Baltistan is Northern areas of Pakistan as Xinjiang was long standing kommon name. 08:17, 11/03/2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 肥料 (talk • contribs) 06:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC) @肥料: You are wrong about everything here, we use common name so stop changing to long form name or official name of Xinjiang and Gilgit-Baltistan's common name is not Northern Areas, the new common name is established after the change of name and the name was changed to Gilgit-Baltistan. See WP:COMMONNAME if you are not clear. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC) @SheriffIsInTown: Similarli Xinjiang name had been changed to Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. You accepted my point. 肥料 (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2016 (UTC) No it's not, see Xinjiang, articles are titled after common name, you might want to fight your battle there. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 09:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC) Yes. I see WP:COMMONNAME. ok I am done. Still I feel Both regions are autonomous. I think that helps to understand political background. 肥料 (talk) 09:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC) We don't describe the political background of each other administrative region mentioned in this article, but provide wikilinks to those articles where they are discussed. This article is not meant to discuss the political background of Xinjiang if it does not affect Gilgit-Baltistan. You have not provided a reason why it does. CMD (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Habit of skiping Talk page

off-topic

I raise my objection to Habit of skipping Talk page by some (I wont name) editors 肥料 (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC) and un necessary warnings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 肥料 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 11 March 2016 (UTC) If you want to say something to me, the place to do is my User talk page. In any case, my role here is that of a pending-changes reviewer. It is not my role to resolve content disputes. I am collapsing this section because it is off-topic. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Real power

@Anchan Balti:, This edit is not supported by the source provided, which says that the Governor is all-powerful. If you want to say that the federal ministry has the real power, you need to find a supporting source for it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Governor is power full — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltistani478 (talk • contribs) 05:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC) block-evading sockpuppet

Chief Minister Hafiz is more power full — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baltistani478 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Federal Ministry has the real power. Here is the source from Dawn News. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anchan Balti (talk • contribs)

I don't see where the source talks about Federal Ministry. Further, it appears to be a letter to the editor. Not a WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Check it out here. Real Power still rests with Federal Ministry of kashmir Affairs as The GB Council now comprised 15 members, six of whom were elected from the GB Legislative Assembly while the rest were elected members from Pakistani assemblies. The prime minister of Pakistan is the council chairman which is not elected by GB people, while the minister of Kashmir Affairs was the deputy chairman. Meetings of this body were to be mostly held in Islamabad Pakistan's capital not in Gilgit Baltistan.

The GB Council was to serve as the upper house of parliament; legislation pertaining to tourism, minerals, forests, as well as water and power all others rested with the Council. In unveiling the new laws, PM Gilani had used the word “autonomy” for GB, but in truth, GB is still a disputed territory. While legislative power of electted Gilgit Baltistan Legislative assembly is limited to 61 subjects.sources Anchan Balti

In unveiling the new laws, PM Gilani had used the word “autonomy” for GB, but in truth, GB is still a disputed territory.

I think you have done more than 3 reverts for the day. You need to stop now and continue the discussion here.

Your post above was quite incoherent. Please edit it so that it is clear.

Which source is saying that the real power rests with the Federal Ministry? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Anchan Balti What is your response to the question above? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Unconditional offer

@Saladin1987: In this edit, you have added information sourced to newspaper opinion columns. As per WP:NEWSORG, material sourced to newspaper opinion columns cannot be reported as fact. It can only be stated as the authors' opinion, assuming those authors are notable. Moreover, historical information has to be sourced from scholarly sources, as per WP:HISTRS.

The original material in the article is sourced to peer-reviewed journal articles, the main one being that of Yaqoob Khan Bangash himself. Here is what he says in the paper:

What is certain from the creation of this government and the meeting the previous night is that the native officers were not all out in Pakistan’s favour and wanted to control Gilgit themselves—at least for the near future. (p.132)

The meeting the previous night is even more definitive:

Brown’s personal diary tells us that Captain Hassan stepped up and said: ‘We know of course that you are loyal to Pakistan, all Britishers are, but it is not our intention to join Pakistan. We intend to set up an independent Islamic State called the United States of Gilgit, and although we shall keep the friendliest relations with Pakistan we shall in no way owe allegiance to that dominion.’ However, after Brown intimated to them that he had already informed Peshawar of the coup and that an independent Gilgit would almost certainly invite an attack by the Indian army, the resolve of the gathered dissipated for the time being.

What is clear to me from the article is that Major Brown and the Pakistan's Political Agent intimidated the locals and coerced them to join Pakistan. There was no "unconditional offer."

I am reverting your edit. In future, please discuss the issues on the talk page when an edit is reverted, instead of edit-warring. You should also make it a practice to give full citations to your sources, not plain URLs. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 01:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

These are sourced materials. We are from that region. you being an indian are taught that pakistan forcefully included us but thats not the truth, i have already notified the admin about this issue until he comes back with a reply, the edit needs to remain the same. Thnakyou. i havent removed anything but we gbians know our history, what your sources say is nothin, you click on the sources and it redirects back to the same page. Even UNPO website uses the same word unconditional attachment to pakistan. Have a look at this link as well.

Many other credible sources mention that we invited pakistan to take over not the other way around.

Please refer to these sources . I would appreciate if Thomas.W also involves himself in this discussion. Thankyou.Saladin1987 04:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

References

Dear Saladin, these comments are no good:

• you being an indian are taught that pakistan forcefully included us - You have no idea what I have been taught, and I never said anything based on what I might have been taught. Please refrain from making nationalistic comments such as these.
• we gbians know our history - That is called WP:OR and it is prohibited. If you know your history, then you need to produce WP:RS that document that history. And, history has to be documented by historians, not by newspaper opinions.
• what your sources say is nothin - I am afraid that is not acceptable. On Wikipedia, content is based WP:RS. You cannot reject it based on your own opinion. If the paper is not available to you for viewing, then you can try requesting access at the WP:Wikipedia Library. But WP:PAYWALL tells you that you cannot reject sources based on whether you can access them. I have given relevant quotes from the source above.
• The sources [1], [2] and [5] that you have provided are newspaper opinions. The last one even says: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of CourtingTheLaw.com or any organization with which he might be associated. The UNPO web site is merely reproducing a newspaper opinion column. It is not a WP:RS.

I will check the sources [3] and [4], and comment on them in a minute. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

• The source [3], a journal article by Martin Sokefeld is titled Anthropology of Gilgit-Baltistan: Introduction and it gives a brief historical overview. The relevant lines from the article are:

When a few days later the news of accession to India reached Gilgit, the Gilgit Scouts arrested the governor on 1st of November, and declared the “Islamic Republic of Gilgit” which lasted for sixteen days. During this time the request for accession with Pakistan was sent to the Government in Karachi.

The source is not saying who sent the "request," but we know from Bangash that it was sent by Major Brown without the knowledge of the locals. And, the locals did not agree with it, as explained by Bangash. So, this source adds nothing new.

• The source [4], written by Omar Farooq Zain is titled A Socio-Political Study of Gilgit Baltistan Province and (presumably) published in Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences. The relevant lines from the article are:

The revolution was a joint struggle of the patriotic officers of Gilgit scouts, the Muslim officers group of 6J&K Infantry Battalion and the local inhabitants of different ethnic identities. However, at the time of cease-fire on 1st January 1949, every person of Northern Area had become Pakistani. In November 1947, Government of Pakistan appointed a political agent in response to the invitation by the provisional government setup in Gilgit after the successful revolution.

The article claims that the people had become "Pakistani," but doesn't state how. It is not even clear what it means for them to have become "Pakistani." It is essentially the author's opinion. Based on what we know from Bangash, Pakistan had taken over the administration, and that itself might be regarded as the people becoming "Pakistani." This statement is not specific enough or precise enough to warrant any revision in the content of our article. Note that the article does not say that there was any "unconditional offer." So this doesn't support your content at all. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, the sources are fine, it's your interpretation of them that is wrong. What bothers me is that UNPO become RS when it pushes your POV on Balochistan, but it becomes unreliable when it doesnt support your POV.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 20:48, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This was not an article or report published by UNPO. It is a newspaper opinion column reproduced on the UNPO web site. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Just like the Asian Human Rights Commission which reproduced an appeal/petition and you thought it appropriate to push it as an RS/encyclopedic content?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 23:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, no. That is an official announcement and appeal by the AHRC, signed by the AHRC and carrying an AHRC document id. It is not a reproduction of anything. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

No sir. It is not an official document. The AHRC defines itself as a "non-governmental body" on its website, so there's nothing official about it. At best, it is an opinion by a set of individuals who are supposed to air opinions of random, unknown individuals - opinions, that you are already so against. In both cases, there is nothing RS or encyclopedic about it, hence cant be quoted at WP. Going by your definition, the 100s of appeals raised of Facebook Causes and other numerous Petition websites should also make it to WP. Doing this will change the entire makeup of WP, and you really dont want to do it. There are 100s of appeals that say GW Bush should be jailed, another 100 that say Obama be brought in ICJ for killing Osama and violating Pakistani ar space, another 100s that say US should be charged for using its drone program. Now, if you consider that to be RS and encyclopedic then I really cant help you.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ^ʞlɐʇ 11:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 October 2016

Kindly change the line mentioned below. It borders Azad Kashmir to the south, the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to the west, the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan to the north, Xinjiang, China, to the east and northeast and Jammu and Kashmir to the southeast

Please change it to two sentences as given below. It borders Azad Kashmir to the south, the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to the west, the Wakhan Corridor of Afghanistan to the north and Xinjiang, China, to the east and northeast. To the southeast, it is separated from the Indian-administered state of Jammu and Kashmir by the Line of Control, the de facto border between India and Pakistan. 2405:204:D28C:6CC7:3823:49A8:C34C:A935 (talk) 12:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 05:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Claims by India and Pakistan

The article asserts that Gilgit-Baltistan (GB) is "the northernmost administrative territory of Pakistan."

I decline to reveal my nationality here. However, I request for a fair and balanced view taking into account both sides. Both Pakistan's newspapers and India's do not seem to assert a sense of full ownership over the region. India claims ownership and so does Pakistan. Without going into details, there have been disputes, wars and UN ceasefire between the two countries. This UN site provides some details on this.

With the background in mind, I propose changes to present both views - links taken from Indian, Pakistani and third-party sites. Welcome to refine.

Gilgit-Baltistan (Urdu: گلگت بلتستان), formerly known as the Northern Areas, is a northern semi-autonomous region administered by Pakistan and claimed by India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnitin (talk • contribs)

• The Indian claim merits a mention, though not in the very first sentence of the lead, as proposed by you, since that would give it undue weight, but in a separate paragraph at the very end of the lead, like the mention of the Spanish claim to Gibraltar in that article. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
• I oppose any mention of the Kashmir dispute anywhere except Kashmir conflict. We can't do anything in this article different from what we do to all other parts of Jammu and Kashmir. We can cover it as part of history, but nothing else. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20090215045454/http://www.dawn.com/2006/03/23/nat2.htm to http://www.dawn.com/2006/03/23/nat2.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrative territory of Pakistan

@Mar4d: This misleading terminology, for which I might have been partly responsible a few years ago, is not correct. GB's status is indeed quite ambiguous. Here are a couple of sources:

• Until today, however, the (now) Northern Areas have never been a legal part of that country. It is just “under the administration of the Government of Pakistan.”
• having been part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir before the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, Gilgit-Baltistan was (and still is) under Pakistani control and administration, yet it was not a constitutional part of the country and lacked any representation in the Pakistani political set up.
• According to the Constitution of Pakistan, the Northern Areas are neither part of Pakistan nor of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK). In 1949, the Government of AJK handed over the administrative control of these areas to Pakistan on an interim basis that has gradually assumed permanence.

The sources are quite explicit that it is not a territory of Pakistan. It is only administered by Pakistan.

I have already said in another discussion above that I do not want to deal with any Kashmir Conflict issues on this page. But this is really about Pakistan's internal politics, which should be accurately represented. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: You mentioned you do not want to deal with Kashmir conflict issues, yet this is what your edit did. Your explanation of the constitutional status is redundant. One could argue that Jammu and Kashmir is unlike other Indian states given it has an autonomous status via Article 370, which other states don't have. The Kashmir conflict should be able to deal with these complexities. Now regarding Pakistan, it is a federation and under this setup, administrative territories like FATA, Azad Kashmir or Gilgit-Baltistan are de facto part of that federal system. As you mentioned Pakistan's internal politics, Gilgit-Baltistan as a matter of fact is considered a de facto fifth province, and there are certain provisions being made to that effect. Nevertheless, I have slightly amended the lead and changed the word "of" to "in" which better reflects the ground reality. Mar4d (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, I think we have to agree to disagree, i.e., I don't believe this is a Kashmir conflict issue. But that doesn't matter.

For the main point, please feel free to produce RS that demonstrate that it is a de facto part of Pakistan, and how they square between the de jure and de facto status. If there are two views, we still need to discuss it. We can't promote one view as if it is a settled fact.

I think you are wrong about equating the status of FATA with that of AJK and GB. For example, here is census of 1998, which includes FATA but not AJK and GB. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• @Kautilya3: I don't believe this is a Kashmir conflict issue - but it is. Pakistan claims all of Kashmir as disputed, and the final constitutional status of the Pakistani parts of Kashmir are linked to the resolution of Kashmir dispute. As regards your third point, the 2017 Pakistan Census includes AJK and GB [9]. And on the main point, some extracts for your reference:

“ Zia leveraged the martial law to further integrate the Northern Areas into Pakistan. The region was declared “Martial Law Zone E” (the four provinces of Pakistan being zones A-D). In 1982 Zia stated that the Northern Areas were part of Pakistan and not disputed territories... On the other hand, the atlas of the Survey of Pakistan does not show GB (“Northern Areas”) as a territory distinct from Pakistan.. Today the official terminology identifies GB not a de jure but a de facto part of Pakistan. This is also reflected in the citizenship status of the inhabitants of the GB. While the inhabitants of AJK are still considered state subjects of J&K... this status has been discontinued in GB. In May 1999, however, the Supreme Court of Pakistan gave the verdict that the people of GB should also be considered de jure citizens of Pakistan. In September 2009, the GoP introduced a new reform package the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and Self-Governance Order. Like several previous reform packages this one gave few new competencies to government institutions of GB. The region was officially renamed again as Gilgit-Baltistan... a Gilgit-Baltistan Legislative Assembly with very limited legislative powers was established. The designation of the administrative institutions now closely resembles the nomenclature of Pakistani provinces. While AJK formally possesses most of the government institutions of a state, GB now formally has the institutions of a Pakistani province. ”

The above is in regard to your question about it being an administrative territory in/of Pakistan. It is not an external territory or outside Pakistan really, as you want to imply. I'm not even sure why we are debating this; and it is a rather unproductive dispute raised on your part, given your knowledge and extensive past editing on Kashmir conflict pages. Mar4d (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

References

• @XavierGreen: I am sympathetic to your stance, but merely edit-warring will achieve nothing. There is prior discussion here that you should pay attention to. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Pursuant to the Pakistani constitution, Gigit Baltistan and Kashmir are not actually part of Pakistan, the Pakistani supreme court and government acknowledge this as well. The official Pakistani position is that they are self-governing areas which are pending unification with Pakistan once the Indian controlled areas of Kashmir are liberated. There are extensive citations regarding this on the list of sovereign states archives page and on the Azad Kashmir talk page archives. Indeed the lead of this very article mentions that it is not dejure a part of pakistan under Pakistani law, as such the article should be consistent to reflect that.XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Please read the Martin Sokefeld quote given above and see if you can bring stronger sources that contradict it. The argument is not whether Gilgit-Baltistan is "self-governing" or not (whatever that means), but whether it can be stated as being "part of Pakistan". The Constitution of Pakistan is only one data point. It does not settle the issue for Wikipedia. We go by what the WP:RS say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Map

Based on this article, shouldn't map of India be modified at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction?

I think, you can use the image that's present on this page: India. — Tyler Durden (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done by Majora's Incarnation. Huon (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)